Posts by hooberus

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture. The writer of Matthew is just trying to force a prophecy in the story where there is none. He is trying to emphasize the point that Jesus was born of a virgin, not that he is called Immanuel. As was brought out before, even this interpretation is based on a flawed translation of the word 'virgin'. This has already been discussed in this thread:

While I did not quote your complete paragraph (this is not necessary when quoting someone), the three sentences which I quoted accurately represent your basic beliefs.

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

You then said the following and accused me of being "intellectually dishonest."

hooberus,

I like how you selectively cut and paste my quotes. You have proven to be an intellectually dishonest apologist. I recall from that thread that you could not back up your assertion that I was wrong. I stand by my statement - Jesus is not called Immanuel in the NT by his contemporaries. The book of Matthew was written years after the alleged events. You have never provided any evidence that Jesus' contemporaries called him Immanuel. Here is the thread for all to see:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44945&page=2&site=3

Here is my quote from that thread which you never rebutted:

The writer of Matthew did not directly call Jesus Immanuel. He juxtaposed the alleged prophecy against the account of Jesus' birth and let the reader make the inference, as you are clearly doing.
The problem is that even if the writer of Matthew did directly call Jesus Immanuel, it is immaterial because he provides absolutely no evidence that his contemporaries did (the 'they' in the scriptures). Remember, Matthew was written well after Jesus' death, so even if the writer of this book called Jesus Immanuel, it means nothing.

With the full context, Tower Man can make his own mind up over who is objective and who is not.

rem

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:20:6

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:21:46

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

rem, here is your complete post from which I quoted from:

Hooberus,
Read the scripture again:
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture. The writer of Matthew is just trying to force a prophecy in the story where there is none. He is trying to emphasize the point that Jesus was born of a virgin, not that he is called Immanuel. As was brought out before, even this interpretation is based on a flawed translation of the word 'virgin'. This has already been discussed in this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44171&site=3&page=2
If you would like to go into any one of these alleged prophecies in detail then please provide your evidence and we can discuss it. Let's do one at a time, though.
rem

I then posted this part of it here on this topic:
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:12:35

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:16:13

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

StinkyPantz said:

This primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests. This week I got into two interesting conversations that I will admit that I was ill prepared for. One was with a JW friend of mine who wanted to know why I thought JW's were wrong. The other was with another friend of mine who considers herself Christian and wanted to know why I questioned the Bible. Well, I was wanting to know from other agnostics and athiests what specific parts of the Bible do you think proves it's falsehood? I want to be able to show her specific points from the Bible that just can't be right. My mind of course went blank while talking to her and I wanted to make a list for future reference. For example, I told her that the Ark's dimensions couldn't hold all of the millions of species of animals plus their food. Any other ideas?

StinkyPantz, you would probably have more success getting your friend out of the JWs if you concentrate on disproving the WT Society than on trying to disprove the Bible. The issues of faith in a religious organization vs, faith in the Bible are two separate things. Your argument "the Ark's dimensions couldn't hold all of the millions of species of animals plus their food" is based on faulty asssumptions. Why don't you perform more of an investigtion before you discount the scriptures, especially since your eternal destiny is important.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:33:20

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:36:28

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

Alan F, I know that you don't believe in the Bible or a young earth. What do you believe then?

Do you believe in the whole evolutionary theory? I mean are you a F.A.R.M. Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals? I don't think I've seen what you believe in other than an old earth.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:16:54

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

hooberus

Tower man, rem is hardly one to go to for an objective view of messianic prophecies. rem posted the following verses with these comments.
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture.

28

Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander in

okay, another discussion with the brother.

he did mention i was a bad influence, but, feh, he still talks and listens a little, so i'm not too worried.. i've got him whittled down to - "if nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws.".

this is kind of a hard one to beat, as, in the end, what the society says is generally quite good and positive.

hooberus

Here is another important issue for your brother: Lets assume that the WT is right and that mankind does not have a separate soul. Hense according to WT doctrine man is essentially only a body. So that when a person dies all that is left is the dead body. The WT teaches that the original body will remain in the grave forever and will never be resurrected!! So it is a hopeless religion!!

Remain dead in Paradise Earth Forever!

CASKETS

The WT teaches that Jehovah finds some dirt somewhere and forms a new body (which never existed before!). Jehovah then creates this new body to look like your brother before he died. This new body then takes your brothers place and lives forever in paradise earth while your brothers original body remains in the grave forever!!!!! There is no connection between the original person that died and the new person/body which takes their place!!!!

The Bible on the other hand teaches the resurrection of the original body that died (albeit restored to perfection) see Isaiah 26:19.

Edited by - hooberus on 31 January 2003 17:42:12

Edited by - hooberus on 31 January 2003 17:42:57

28

Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander in

okay, another discussion with the brother.

he did mention i was a bad influence, but, feh, he still talks and listens a little, so i'm not too worried.. i've got him whittled down to - "if nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws.".

this is kind of a hard one to beat, as, in the end, what the society says is generally quite good and positive.

hooberus

However, appendix 1A of the Interlinear Translation claims to show a number of partial Greek manuscripts that contain the form YHWH (in original Hebrew, no less). I'm EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of the validity of those 'partials', and am curious if anyone has any other thoughts on them?

I don't have the Wt interlinear but I believe that these are Greek manuscripts of the Septuagent. The Septuagent is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. No one doubts that Gods name is YHWH or that the tetragrammaton is found 7,000 times in the Old Testament. However this is not the issue. The issue is what religion were the New Testament Christians and the fact remains that the divine name is no where to be found in its full form in any of the "Christian Greek Scriptures"(New Testament). The Watchtowers pictures of the divine name in the Septuagent is simply an attempt to confuse the issue.

The Watchtower also likes to confuse the issue by showing relatively modern (1385ad to present) Hebrew translations of the Christain Greek Scriptures which include the divine name(the "J" documents). However the original Greek manuscripts from which these are translated do not contain the divine name anywhere (the traslators of these "Hebrew New Testaments" added it with no manuscript support.)

28

Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander in

okay, another discussion with the brother.

he did mention i was a bad influence, but, feh, he still talks and listens a little, so i'm not too worried.. i've got him whittled down to - "if nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws.".

this is kind of a hard one to beat, as, in the end, what the society says is generally quite good and positive.

hooberus

While the Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts contain the divine name YHWH approx. 7,000 times, the New testament Greek manuscripts do not contain it at all!
Out of over 6,000 extant New Testament Greek manuscripts There has not been found a single New Tesament Greek manuscript containing the divine name in its full form YHWH. The Watchtower admitts this in their Bible encyclopedias.
Even the Watchtowers Greek interlinear does not have the divine name in its full form anywhere in the New Testament.
The Watchtower Proclaimers book (early chapter) and Bible encyclopedias (under the supheading "name") state that Jesus's disciples alredy knew Gods name from the Old Testament and that Jesus making his fathers name known meant that he made known the "person" such as making manifest his nature and attributes.
Since the Watchtower Society claims that the Bible manuscripts have been passed down to us accurately and the Bible is well preserved they should not at the same time claim that the name YHWH was ever a part of the original manuscripts.
Therefore the New Testament Christians could not have been "Jehovahs Witnesses"

28

Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander in

okay, another discussion with the brother.

he did mention i was a bad influence, but, feh, he still talks and listens a little, so i'm not too worried.. i've got him whittled down to - "if nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws.".

this is kind of a hard one to beat, as, in the end, what the society says is generally quite good and positive.

hooberus

I did get him to crack out his Interlinear for a brief verification that god's name (as the witnesses would have it) never actually occurred in it. That was good for a shocker.

This is a good place to go with him.

There are 7 whole NT books in the NWT that do not contain the name Jehovah even once.
The kingdom interlinear does not show Jehovah to be in the New Testament.
The Watchtower's Bible encyclopedia (Insight) admits that the tettragrammaton has not been found in even one of the thousands NT Greek manuscripts (there are approx: 6,000 extant manuscripts).

So how could the New Teastament Christians have been "Jehovah" Witnesses?

Edited by - hooberus on 31 January 2003 12:46:37