Posts by garyneal

15

do you know someone who is disfellowshipped or not active who still talks of "truth" and is still judgemental ?

by looloo in

i have only known one , who talked more about the "wicked system" and satan and how immoral worldlys are etc than the jws i knew who were still "in" and he ended up abusing my daughter !

still never gone back 14 years after being disfellowshipped , some local dubs take that to mean jehovah didnt want him back till his abusive past (as a jw ) had been found out !

do you know someone very hypocritical ?.

garyneal

do you know someone who is disfellowshipped or not active who still talks of "truth" and is still judgemental ?

You mean someone other than the e-watchman?

24

Fighting the Cult of the Watchtower Good or Bad? Does it Give Your Life Some Meaning?

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

ever since i left this mind control cult i have continued to offer resistance in what ever ways i thought good at the time.. but i'm faced with the question: is it good or bad idea?

or how far should i go and to what lengths should i go in my efforts to fight this cult?.

i think being a jw for 29 years has defined a large chunk of my life and to just try to forget about it may be a big mistake.

As I have learned more and more about it, I too have wondered if I felt some sort of calling to be a kind of counter-cultist. Frankly, I think it would be a waste of time and very harmful to my relationship with my spouse if I went on some sort of a crusade against the cults (namely the Jehovah's Witnesses). However, I do feel at least, obligated to share what I know with others when appropriate.

23

John 9:38 in NWT renders it as formerly blind man "did obeisance" to Jesus. Other translations state he,"worshiped Jesus". Who's right?

by miseryloveselders in

this is the story regarding the man blind from birth, whom jesus healed.

the verses in question go in context, ............... .

(john 9:35-41)35 jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and, on finding him, he said: are you putting faith in the son of man?

garyneal

Marking.

Yeah, good points on a man and an angel denying worship (er, obeisance) while Jesus readily accepts it. Guess he is that super-angel, I mean what else can He be if He is greater than a man or an angel but is also 'a god?'

7

"People Don't Join Religions for the Doctrine"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

"people don't join religions for the doctrine.

this and other interesting observations by randy watters, in a new post at free minds.

a sample is below.. .

garyneal

I agree that most people do not join religions for doctrines and sadly most don't even care about what the Bible really says and instead just rely on preachers and teachers for all of their beliefs.

To most people who go to church it is about meeting people, socializing, singing songs, or just the connection of family. I'd be lying if I were to say that I do not go to church for these things too. However, my wife and I had a conversation about my going to church as we were discussing John 20:28. She asked me if I trusted what my pastor said and if so why I don't go to him for Bible guidance. I said that sometimes I do seek his input, but I also pray, read the Bible, meditate on what I read, seek others opinions if I am still struggling, and trust that God will reveal the answers I seek. After being exposed to errorneous teachings in an Independent Fundamental Baptist church I find that I don't go to people first to help me understand the Bible, people help but I seek wisdom from God.

I guess she was expecting me to treat the church the way she treats the Watchtower Society.

71

How I know what I know...

by AGuest in

jw
friends

to the household of god, israel, those who go with... and those who are considering perhaps going with... may you all have peace!.

from time to time i have confessed here that the things i share are not mine, that i don't know any of these things on my own, but that they are given to me by my lord, the holy one of israel, jaheshua mischajah, who is the son and christ of the most holy one of israel, jah of armies.

i want to share with you an experience that might help you grasp just what i mean.. a little over a year ago i was contacted by someone who professes to be of the body of christ, but who was still in the wtbts organization.

garyneal

the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, who is the Son and Christ of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies.

How do you pronounce, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH? Everytime I read you grand introduction to him it reads kind of like, "herrrrrrrrrre's Johnny!" or "herrrrrrrrre's God!" like in that movie Oh God starring George Burns. Everytime I read the name JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH and try to pronounce it, I give up and end up pronouncing it to myself as ja-heh-shoo-a meh-shoo-meh-shoo-a.

Outlaw, since you cut to the actual message that Shelby is saying without the shakesperian flavoring, you and Shelby remind me of the black and white police officers on Sanford and Son where the white one speak gobbledigook and the black one translates it to jive.

I'm really surprised at those on the forum that enjoy reading her ideas, it seems as though their past dealing with the WT hasn't really taught them anything about accepting a person claims for being God's spokes person, and should be examined with the utmost skepticism, or they might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Frankie,

I did ask her if she was concerned about who she was really talking to when she says that ja-heh-shoo-a meh-shoo-meh-shoo-a talks to her. I was concerned that she may be speaking like Sylvia Brown who claims to have a spirit friend that guides her. She said that this was not the case.

Our Adversary, Satan, DOES "keep transforming himself into an angel of light," though...

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this that sometimes it is really hard to tell if the spirits or inspired expressions really did originate with God. Shelby, I am surprised that you would say that the Bible is not the word of God. What exactly then is our measuring stick in assuring that the 'spirits' did indeed come from God? You suggest that Joseph Smith was contacted by a demon and the pharisee frequently said to Jesus (er, ja-heh-shoo-a meh-shoo-meh-shoo-a) that He had a demon in Him. Aside from love, the only other measuring stick we have is the Bible which is how we determine that Jesus speaks truth and Joseph Smith speaks falsehoods. If the Bible cannot be trusted to be God's word then that whole foundation is gone.

41

John 20:28 response to Garyneal

by Blue Grass in

(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).

(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).

everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.

garyneal

That's just flat out wrong, I would explain why but I don't think with just 2 years of "University Level" Greek you would understand.

Wow, just flat out dismiss Laolaia's understanding. Quite rude if you ask me. Perhaps you can enlighten us on your educational level in the Greek language. If memory serves me correctly, Fred Franz did not have that much more in terms of qualifications than Laolaia and yet he was the chief translator of a version of the Bible trusted by 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses.

Regarding your last paragraph, all I have to say is:

What a blanket generalization of all of us who don't readily agree with what you are saying.

When people on this thread were accusing you of being a Jehovah's Witness, I tried not to jump to that conclusion and instead consider the information you present as to whether or not it is indeed correct. I even tried to prove you right by going over the enactments of the event in my mind. I was picturing Jesus appearing and Thomas happily exclaiming, "My Lord and My God!" just as you stated he did to even see if it was even plausible. I spent about 3 hours last night poking around the Internet looking for information about John 20:28 and how to interpret the event based on the grammar in the Greek.

I don't believe the WTS is wrong about everything, in fact, they get a lot of things right. However, when they do get some things wrong, rather than admit it they throw around "new light," invoke the "we're not perfect" excuse, and even go as far as blame their followers (read 1975).

You guys still need somebody to tell you what to believe because you still don't have ability to think for yourselves.

Wrong. If this were true I would be a diehard fundamentalist as I use to attend a fundamentalist church where the pastor was constantly telling the people how true his church was as opposed to other churches. I would also be calling the KJV Bible "the word of God" as these people believe that this is the only translation that is accurate.

I would continue this discussion with you but it's clear it will be a waste of my time.

I'm sorry you feel this way. You did indeed get me thinking on this and I would like to know more about the Greek language but right now I am too busy with my life to pursue it. Therefore, I have no choice but to rely on others who did take the time to learn it and base my decisions on that.

If you really want to learn truth stop with the man made tradition and churches and stick to the scriptures because right you guys don't have a clue.

While it is true that a lot of what I know did come from preachers and teachers I have had in the past I have been doing nothing but reasoning on the scriptures alone for the past 5 to 6 months. You sound like my wife in a sense that she thinks that everything I know about the witnesses comes from you guys and that I have done zero real (read WT approved) research on them in spite of my spending the last six years doing off an on "Bible studies" with them.

I've been reading passages of the Bible using many different English language translations and consulting the interlinears where there is confusion to determine as best as possible what the Bible really says concerning some of the WT teachings as well as teachings from the pastors of my past and present.

16

TEST YOUR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE: Watchtower Origns: a Saga begins

by Terry in

[if !mso]> <mce:style><!

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#vml);} [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:donotoptimizeforbrowser /> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif] .

garyneal

Thanks Terry,

If ever anyone needed proof of this being a fale religion based on false teachings, this is it.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a CULT.

41

John 20:28 response to Garyneal

by Blue Grass in

(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).

(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).

everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.

garyneal

Well, I think I've about had it with this subject but to be fair I did as much as I could researching what I can for hours. Now I am going to stop and call it quits. In my research, the only supporting documents that support your position in every sense came from Jehovah's Witnesses but I will admit that I may have missed something. Islamics also support the position of Thomas being astonished but I did not see where they went as far as you did concerning the proper Greek grammar, at least not in any of the web pages that I've read.

Now these may be helpful for those interested in pursuing this further:

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn20_28.htm
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/MS.2.Index.htm

The second link mentions John 13:13 where Jesus is being called 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' the nominative being used in both cases as confirmed here when compared to John 20:28 in here. Now I know practically nothing about Greek but I did at least check here and saw that this verse was considered to be Nominative of Appelation.

Of course the problem with researching anything on the web is ensuring that the sources are at least reputible but I think I did enough on this (and then some). Here is the bottom line:

I believe truth is simple.
- Therefore, if I have to jump through a bunch of loops or perform a bunch of mental gymnastics to prove something true, it is doubtful that it is true.
- This is similar to how Scholar and other WT apologist attempt to prove 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem true in spite of the amount of evidence supporting 586/7 BCE.

I appreciate your pointing out these things concerning this verse out to me as this is something I have never considered. This thread, I am sure, will certainly be useful for anyone who is interested (or cares) about this stuff but I am afraid that there is still reasonable doubt on my part. Especially considering what others have said in response to you. Still though, I will keep your assertions in mind and if I should ever acquire new understanding (to use a JW phrase) on the Greek that makes your assertions true then I will accept them.

On a side note: I suppose Terry would find this thread very amusing as he points out in this thread that "There are no original copies of THE BIBLE anywhere in existence." Yet, here we are going back and forth concerning what was being said in Bible when we don't know for certain if this verse was written this way in the original manuscript.

Thanks to everyone who posted. I especially want to thank Leolaia for her input as it appears that she is the only one who studied Greek.

31

Frustrated with JW Bible study!

by ElizabethTravers in

i am new 2 this forum.. i have been meeting up with 2 jw ladies on a weekly basis.

it has all been "polite".

today we covered a bit of the trinity.. i had read rhodes book on reasoning from the scriptures with jw's, but i found almost all my arguments that i used, in terms of every bible verse we went through (or i attempted to go through with them) went pear shape!

garyneal

Quillsky,

That's not saying much for their loyalty towards their worship "...in spirit and in truth." I mean, they criticize the people in Christendom's churches for attending solely for the benefit of socializing and here they are guilty of the same thing.

My wife believes that the information that has caused me to reject them as having "da troof" came from apostate opposers like you all who leave "da troof" simply because you want to lead immoral lives or go do something Jehovah does not approve of like celebrate a Holiday. In other words, you guys are out because you just want to do your own thing and I am just believing your statements about the WT without checking things out for myself.

41

John 20:28 response to Garyneal

by Blue Grass in

(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).

(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).

everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.

garyneal

I was poking around the Internet on some commentary on John 20:28 and I was going to post what was relevant, but right now it is late and I am tired so I will post it later.

I don't get on here as often as I use to so this would explain the less frequent replies. For right now, there are some comments I would like to make.

Unlike Greek, the endings of nouns in English don't change depending on the case nor does the definite article. With that said it would be impossible to translate this verse in such a way that conveys the original meaning. It has nothing to do with translators being lazy or dishonest, it's the incapability of the Greek and English language that conceals the meaning of this verse.

So if I am understanding this properly, there is no way to accurately translate the meaning of this verse into English. Yet, here we are using English to do just that. Why wouldn't the translators at least try to make the attempt so there would at least not be any confusion?

Now, I am not naive, I understand that most translations differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree. I also know that there are dynamic and literal translations of the Bible. I was not trying to imply that the scholars were being dishonest when I stated the possibility of a translator inferring his or her own doctrines in the translation. I just meant that in the case of the dynamic translations, the words of the scriptures aren't translated one to one and the potential of the Bible translators inferring their doctrinal teachings is great.