Posts by Disillusioned JW

17

Watchtower Says Their Writings Are Part of the Bible and Are Essential For Salvation

by Sea Breeze in

hard to believe, but it's true:watchtower december 15, 2008, pg.

28 – “our coming to know "the truth‟ - the entire body of christian teachings that has become part of the bible - and adhering to it are essential for our salvation”.this is the same position of the roman catholic church.

one of the pope’s titles is the vicar of christ.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I am saying that that which became part of the Bible as Christian teachings is the entire NT. Before there were any Christians the Bible (the Holy Scriptures) consisted solely of the OT (the Hebrew Scriptures and translations of it, such as the Greek Septuagint). Nothing in your quote of the WT indicates the WT was talking about writings composed after the last apostle died. Many modern day English speaking Jews literally call their holy scriptures book "the Bible", even though it does it contain the NT. They believe that the word "Bible" does not exclusively mean the Christian Bible (NT with the OT). I know that because I have personally meant some such non-Christian Jews who when talking to me call their Holy Scriptures book "the Bible" and one of them is a current friend of mine. I also have seen a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) which on the title page (and/or cover) says the word "Bible"! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_English_Bible_translations which says in part the following.

"Hebrew Bible English translations are English translations of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) according to the Masoretic Text,[1] in the traditional division and order of Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. Most Jewish translations appear in bilingual editions (Hebrew–English)."

Note that the page also says there is a Jewish non-Christian book called the "Jewish Family Bible" and that there is a also a translation of the Hebrew Bible, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Old-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions uses the term "Hebrew Bible" in referring to only the OT when it says the following. "The Hebrew Bible is often known among Jews as TaNaKh, an acronym derived from the names of its three divisions: Torah (Instruction, or Law, also called the Pentateuch), Neviʾim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings)."

An ecumenical study Bible (intended for use by Jews of Judaism, Protestant Christians, Catholic Christians, and Orthodox Christians) called The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (at least in their Augmented Third Edition) on the bottom of its scriptures pages for the OT say "HEBREW BIBLE" and on the bottom of their NT pages say "NEW TESTAMENT". "The Editors' Preface" of that book says the following. "We have referred to the first portion of the text as "the Hebrew Bible," since it is the collection preserved by the Jewish community and that is how Jews regard it ...."

17

Watchtower Says Their Writings Are Part of the Bible and Are Essential For Salvation

by Sea Breeze in

hard to believe, but it's true:watchtower december 15, 2008, pg.

28 – “our coming to know "the truth‟ - the entire body of christian teachings that has become part of the bible - and adhering to it are essential for our salvation”.this is the same position of the roman catholic church.

one of the pope’s titles is the vicar of christ.

Disillusioned JW

The WT's use of the phrase "The Truth" is also used with the meaning of the following: 'the correct understanding of the Bible' teachings of truth' (which they equate with their religion) and the Bible's teachings of truth (which they equate with their religion). I think the WT was very clearly using it in those senses when they said "Our coming to know "the truth‟ - the entire body of Christian teachings that has become part of the Bible ...".

Listener I sincerely meant exact what I said in my earlier post. I believed in the JW religion for most of my life (and I was a ministerial servant for many years and I even gave some Sunday public talks). What I wrote is the way I would have interpreted as a JW the WT's words and it is also how I now as an ex-JW interpret those words as. I never ever believed that the WT taught that their literature (other than their translations of the Bible) is a part of the Bible, but rather that they claim their literature correctly explains the Bible.

What do you mean by saying that I changed the wording? Do you mean by me saying "those teachings which are in the NT" instead of "Christian teachings that has become part of the Bible"? I think of the NT as being the exclusively Christian part of the Bible and I think of the OT as being the non-Christian Jewish part of the Bible (and that Christians also accept the OT as part of the Christian Bible). The WT's NWT calls the OT the "Hebrew Scriptures" and it calls the NT the "Christian Greek Scriptures". Before the 1st century CE (and thus before the Christian era began) the entire Bible was the OT - the NT hadn't been written yet! The Apostle Paul when saying in one of his letters "the holy scriptures" he meant the OT Bible, since most of the NT (including the four gospel accounts) had not even been written yet! As a result, by the wording of "Christian teachings that has become part of the Bible", that which is clearly meant by the WT (at least according to my understanding) are the books and letters written by Christians which comprise the NT!

76

Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

by Sea Breeze in

here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

.

Disillusioned JW

Earlier today I was flipping through some of the pages of the Byington Bible to see if there were any outstandingly insightful wordings in it which would cause me to choose to keep that Bible instead of selling it. When I read John 16:28 in the Bible I found such wording and I was stunned, for such wording seem to me to support the idea of the gospel of John (that is, the gospel which is attributed to John) claiming Jesus literally "came out of the Father" and that thus Jesus is God in the sense of being a part of God the Father. Such a view gives us valuable context to interpreting John 1:1, John 20:28, and a number of other verses in the gospel which is attributed to John.

John 16:28 according to the Byington Bible (The Bible in Living English) seems to be saying that Jesus claimed he literally "came out of" God, and thus conveying that Jesus is a part of Yahweh God. Furthermore, verses 29- 30 say that Jesus' apostles said that Jesus was speaking then plainly instead of speaking figuratively, thus supporting such a literal interpretation of literally having come of the Father's very being. Around the 1st century (and of some Christians for at least a century or two later) there was the view that Jesus was an effluence from YHWH God and also the view that Jesus was begotten of the Father in the sense of literally coming out of the Father's being. Such views naturally lead to the idea of Jesus thus also being YHWH God and might be the view that Paul had in mind when wrote in Romans 10:9-13 about confessing Jesus as Kyrios/Lord [possibly meaning YHWH] and calling on name of Jesus in the sense of calling on "the name of Lord" [possibly meaning YHWH].

In John 16:28 the Byington Bible says Jesus said "I came out of the Father" and "have come into the world" and that Jesus was "leaving the world" and "going to the Father's presence. That translation gives much more of parallelism and symmetry of ideas that do most other Bible translations which don't use the phrasing of "came out of" or "came forth from" (and instead say "came from" which is less specific in meaning). The NKJV says "came forth from" and a dictionary I have says the archaic expression of "forth from" means "out of".

Even John 16:28 in the interlinear reading of the WT's 1985 Kingdom Interlinear says "I came out of the Father" (though despite such the 1984 NWT says "came out from" instead of "came out of".

John 16:28 in the 1901 ASV and the 1898 ARV (and the 1885 RV) say "I came out from the Father ...".

See also John 13:3 in the above mentioned Bible translations regarding the phrase "came out from".

However, note the following. In John 16:28 the Greek text in the Emphatic Diaglott does not have exactly the same wording as the Greek text complied by Westcott and Hort (the Greek text in the Kingdom Interlinear). The interlinear English translation in the Diaglott at John 16:28 says "out from" instead of "out of" and the Greek word there translated "out from" is different than the Greek word in the Kingdom Interlinear which has the interlinear translation of "out of". As a result, the translation differences in the various Bibles pertaining to the above could be due to those Bibles using different Greek texts.

76

Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

by Sea Breeze in

here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

.

Disillusioned JW

TTWSYF I know you disagree and I understand why. When I read Acts 5:3-4 I see as a possible interpretation of it that which you state. I even think that your interpretation of it might have a higher probability of being the writer's intended interpretation. But, I decided to present an alternative view. Note that I did say the interpretation (the alternative view) which I presented in my earlier post is the correct one (though it is the one which WT literature taught me while I was a JW), for I used the word "might" as a qualifier expressing my uncertainty.

17

Watchtower Says Their Writings Are Part of the Bible and Are Essential For Salvation

by Sea Breeze in

hard to believe, but it's true:watchtower december 15, 2008, pg.

28 – “our coming to know "the truth‟ - the entire body of christian teachings that has become part of the bible - and adhering to it are essential for our salvation”.this is the same position of the roman catholic church.

one of the pope’s titles is the vicar of christ.

Disillusioned JW

The quote from the WT is not at all saying what the title of your topic thread says. By the word "Bible" it simply means the books of the Protestant Bible; the WT is not including their writings (other than of course their translations of the Bible) as part of the Bible. By "the entire body of Christian teachings" the WT means those teachings which are in the NT. I strongly think you are reading into the WT quote that which you want to see in the Wt literature, out of a desire to find evidence against the WT.

76

Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

by Sea Breeze in

here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my prior post where I said "instead of saying it belongs to God" I should have said "instead of saying it is God".

76

Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

by Sea Breeze in

here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

.

Disillusioned JW

Acts 5:3-4 in saying that when one is lying to the Holy Spirit that one is also lying to God, it might not be conveying that the Holy Spirit is God, but instead that the Holy Spirit is a representative/intermediary of God. Hypothetically speaking, if God and angels exist, then if one lies to an angel (when the angel is acting as a messenger/representative of God) than lying to the angel might also amount to lying to God, since the presence of the angel would be acting as a means to communicate the person's words to God.

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 might not be saying that the Holy Spirit is God.the phrase of "Lord is the Spirit" might instead be saying that YWH/Jehovah is a spirit being, the great spirit. The phrase of "Spirit of the Lord" might be saying that the holy spirit (or Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost) belongs to God and comes from God, instead of saying it belongs to God. I believe such is the view of the WT and that view is the most reasonable interpretation to me of the what the scripture passage is saying in regards to the identity of the Spirit in the passage. [See the verses in the 1984 NWT, as well as John 4:24 and Isaiah 61:1 in the 1984 NWT.

9

When Did the Watchtower Introduce the "Generation of 1914" Teaching?

by Ding in

i'm looking for help to track down the development of the "generation" doctrine, starting with when the wt first specifically tied the end to the generation of 1914.. russell taught that 1914 would be the end of this system of things.

when that failed, rutherford started touting 1925.. no need to talk about generations then; it was just specific dates.. when did they first tie the end in to a "generation of 1914" time frame?.

i also know that they changed the meaning of generation several times.. first, a person had to have been at least 15 in order to have seen the events of 1914 with understanding of what was happening.. i think they lowered that to 10 and then finally it was anyone who was alive in 1914.. of course, now the generation overlaps.. does anyone know someone where all these wt teachings are set out chronologically (preferably with citations to the literature)?.

Disillusioned JW

The page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine might be of some interest to you .

76

Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

by Sea Breeze in

here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

.

Disillusioned JW

Thanks Wonderment for your stating your interpretations; they clarify matters.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

jhine, what would it take, if anything, for you to give up belief in a personal God and in all alleged spirit beings, and to become a scientific naturalist?