Posts by Larsinger58

39

i would love to debate

by new hope and happiness in

i would love to be able to debate some of the issues on this site.. this is the first site i have debated on.. i would like to debate with credibility.. i think i debate on only what i feel secure about, and that is a good start.

.

but on this thread i would appreciate some tips on how to constrctively debate on a thread..

Larsinger58

I know I'll get flack for this, but it is pertinent. Let me give you two examples of why I'm not impressed with "scholars"

CARL OLOF JONSSON: This man wrote "Gentile Times Reconsidered" which is a brilliantly written work covering lots of detailed artifacts from ancient history. Plus he's very likeable and just as charming as can be once you get to interact with him. But my first experience with him was when he posted a rebuttal to an article I wrote about ancient eclipses and I pointed out that the "SK400" was a phony document because it mentioned "Year 9" of Kambyses. Kambyses didn't reign for 9 years. COJ wrote that I was lying about this reference. He posted this as an expert in the field. Only later when he was posting in an XJW discussion board did I confront him about this and he apologized and admitted that, indeed, there was a "Year 9" reference in this text. But if he was such an expert, he should have either known about the "year 9" reference or looked it up when I claimed it was there. Why would he post that I was lying about the "year 9" reference without looking it up? So as an "expert" he not only didn't know about it, but also didn't check it out? I find that inexcusable. Then only when confronted about it directly did he admit that he was wrong. But I'm thinking I'm just a researcher and an amateur, why do I have to correct experts in the field?

HERMANN HUNGER: Herman Hunger is like an incon in the field of archaeoastronomy. He and Abraham Sachs translated most of the astronomical texts we have available. But in line 18 of the VAT4956 he put "the moon" instead of "Venus" was below the "bright star at the end of the Lion's foot." The text itself was broken off, so that left it up to the translator to fill this in. All Hunger had to do to fill in the blank was to look at the astronomy for that date and see that it was a reference to Venus. Insread, he put "the moon" there! Now he translated the entire text so he knew how all the plenets moved and would have been aware of the movement of Venus and the Moon. Further in two previous lines, he noted the Moon had long moved out of Virgo and was in LIBRA and SCORPIO, respectively. How could he think the "moon" had somehow backtracked and was now back in Virgo? The moon was in Virgo on the 5th per Line 14. Point being, though, after contacting him, he readily admitted his "error" claiming he didn't know why he inserted the moon there. So llike COJ, he did admit to his mistake or misrepresentation when confronted.

So how impressed am I with these "scholars" and "experts"? Not very! Once you double-check their work, you find they make errors as well. But some of the "errors" look like dishonesty to some.

Now these examples are not just me having my own dogmatic opinion and disagreeing with the experts. These are two examples of where the scholars/experts have admitted to their error and been corrected. Now I respect scholarship. But I'm upset I'm the one who has to go behind them to clean up their errors! It's annoying! Scholars have agendas like everybody else -- like the WTS!

39

i would love to debate

by new hope and happiness in

i would love to be able to debate some of the issues on this site.. this is the first site i have debated on.. i would like to debate with credibility.. i think i debate on only what i feel secure about, and that is a good start.

.

but on this thread i would appreciate some tips on how to constrctively debate on a thread..

Larsinger58

TD:

Gary,

If you were unable to compose a simple three word sentence in ancient Greek, would you debate an esoteric point of translation with someone holding a doctorate in linguistics? That has actually happened on this forum.

LARS/GARY:

ROFL! Nobody has called me "Gary" in a long time. But, of course, if it is applicable, I will debate points. Not in word meaning but in USAGE. That's because language is not all black and white. Language is colorful and subjective. Idiomatic expressoins occur that require us to apply USAGE in the context of what others would understand and not the actual meaning of a word.

For instance, Jesus said that it was more difficult for a rich man to get into the kingdom than for a "camel" to get through the eye of a needle. Now, was Jesus referring to the dromedary, a literal large animal getting through the eye of a needle, or was "camel" a term the locals understood to refer to something else? In the context of sewing, sometimes the thread bunches up behind the eye of the needle. When you pull out the few strands that got through, you have something that looks like a camel. That is a long neck followed by a big body. So likely when the thread bunched up behind the needle like that, they were colloquially called "camels" because that's what they looked like, little camels.

So, considering that Jesus liked to use common illustrations in the every-day life of individuals to make his point, you have to ask whether or not a literal camel would ever be used in sewing? The answer is: NO. On the other hand, could Jesus' point be made if a "camel" was a lump in the thread? Sure. So why wasn't Jesus talking about a lump in the thread versus a literal camel? A translator has little input here because the answer lies in USAGE.

Same with when Jesus accused the Pharisees of straining out the gnat from their wine but gulping down the "camel." Now. Was "camel" a local reference to the local camelfly which is what we call a huge "horsefly"? Or was it to the dromedary? Point being, how likely would it be that a camel would end up in your wine glass versus a camelfly? Was Jesus thus saying they strained out the tiny little gnat but gulped down the huge camelfly, or was he saying they gulped down a 4-legged dromedary that somehow got into their wineglass? The answer is obvious to me, but this is not a matter of linguistics, but interpretation.

Fact is, the meaning of words don't always give us the correct interpretation. If I said, "That woman had on a BAD dress last night!" most would understand that I was giving a compliment. But if you looked up the word, "bad" it would seem I was being critical. Whether I meant something positive or negative would depend on how I used the word and the context. I could say: "That woman had on a bad dress last night. It was the best out of anybodys!" or I could say, "That woman had on a bad dress last night. It didn't fit."

So scholarship only goes so far. Other things have to do with interpretation and that sometimes requires knowledge of the culture and local circumstances to understand correctly.

Anyway, I'm not impressed with scholars -- trust me.

14

Need a quote about society answering questions

by zound in

sorry to post so many topics lately.

trying to get some info for a project.. i'm after some quotes from watchtower that brag how the watchtower society answers any questions jw's have and how christondom don't (or it doesn't have to have the christendom part in it).

any help appreciated.

Larsinger58

Just in passing, when I want the WTS to read something, to make sure they do, I always send a "copy" to the local congregation. That's to assure it will get the attention it is supposed to. Otherwise, I think someone screens everything and just dumps "aposstate" materials in the trash or send it back "unread." They also will suggest that you contact the local elders and try to work out answers through them first before writing the Society. Of course, that way, they can control you better.

Of course, the WTS will know if you're legitimately asking a question or lecturing to them about some false teaching you think they have.

Now what I used to do to get a message out to the witnesses was to write the WTS a letter bringing up some topic, pretending to be concerned about correcting some false teaching. Then I'd send a copy of that letter to every congregation in the United States! It takes about $300 in stamps I think to send a copy to every Kingdom Hall. You can use the library and get a list of all the Kingdom Halls in every state and a program will arrange the name and address in a label form. So all you have to do is cut out the addresses and glue them on to an envelope. Just as a bit of trivia, about 1/3 of the letters will come back because I guess a lot of Kingdom Halls are in rural areas and they use a P.O. Box for the mail and not the address of the actual building.

Anyway, I was a bit devious. If you send something to the PO then he'll likely just chuck it as "apostate material" after he gets into it a bit. So what I'd so is send a copy to "Attn: Literature servant." The person opening the mail for the literature department likely thinks it relates to some book order or something. Plus usually there is a ministerial servant in that position a lot of times. So he will open the letter addressed to the WTS. He'll be distracted since the letter is directed to the Governing Body and the Writing Commitee, thus this is not something that appears to be trying to be hid from the headquarters. Your target group, of course, are the local elders. They are responsible for screening things and making decisions about apostate materials, etc. But if you send it to the literature department, then he won't know what to do with it and so will show it to some other elders. By the time they figure out it's apostate information, even though a letter addressed to the WTS of which they are just getting a copy, it will be to late; they will have been infected with the concepts of the letter. The other advantage is that even though they realize this is likely apostate material, they have to report it to the headquarters just so that headquarters know that there is apostate male being sent to the local congregations.

But, of course, I really wasn't asking a question to get information, but to point out an error. For instance, in the parable of the vinewyard workers, ALL the workers get the penny so all go to heaven. The WTS identifies themselves as the 11th-hour workers who are murmured against by the earlier 1st-hour workers, who they say is Christendom. So I'd write a letter not contradicting this but asking, "If the WTS is the 11th-hour workers, and the 1st-hour workers are Christendom who murmur against them. Then who are the third through the 9th-hour workers who also get the penny?" Of course, I know full well they don't have an answer. Plus even though the 1st-hour workers murmur against the 11th-hour workers, Christ still gives them their penny that they have earned--they just don't get anything extra as they expected.

Anyway, as noted, usually they have a good answer for most questions. If it is something they get stuck on, they figure you're borderline apostate and they may not respond at all or sick the local elders on you.

122

Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God?

by cantleave in

"without god in your life, you cannot have a moral compass",,,, please explain to me why you think that should be so?

.

Larsinger58

This is a catch-22 question. That's because the Bible says that God places a conscience in every man. So I think a more specific question is whether or not "religion" or belief in an organized religion is necessary for morality?

I loved debating with atheists on this point. Atheists will be the first to say they have a good moral compass without belief in God. BUT... that tends to prove there must be a God because God put that moral compass in all men. Not as much right from wrong as love thy neighbor, do no harm, help thy neighbor, etc.

39

i would love to debate

by new hope and happiness in

i would love to be able to debate some of the issues on this site.. this is the first site i have debated on.. i would like to debate with credibility.. i think i debate on only what i feel secure about, and that is a good start.

.

but on this thread i would appreciate some tips on how to constrctively debate on a thread..

Larsinger58

Understand who you're debating with. There's something quixotic when a layman attempts to debate someone with formal credentials in their field. That's happened on this forum a few times.

Don't concern yourself with "formal credentials" since my experience is that those with formal credentials are often dishonest and likely flaunt their credentials to give wieght to their lies. The CIA employs the brightest of all minds so they can be masters at deception. The CIA is the biggest lying machine in the world - BUT, that's not to say we are not happy about that. We want them to lie and lie well to deceive our enemies, right?

The most critical thing you likely will ever learn from someone with "credentials in the field" is what they are trying to cover up.

13

Mistranslated Scriptures

by Crazyguy in

i'm looking for help with a list of scriptures that the jw's mistranslated.

i'm thinking this may help to wake some one up.

i can think of rev 1:9 rev.5:10 and in luke were they changed the wording to say covenant from appoint or bestow, but that all i know so far.

Larsinger58

John 19:14 is mistranslated universally. John 19:14 references the specific time of Jesus' final trial before he is executed. It notes the time of the trial is at noon, the "sixth hour." But elsewhere the gospels note that after his impalement at the sixth hour it gets dark. So you have a conflict if you date Jesus' trial on the day of preparation and his death on the day of preparation. The trial needs to be one day before this.

But when you look at the actual Greek, the Greek term de paraskeue (BUT preparation) appears at John 19:14 but not elsewhere in regards to the day of preparation and Jesus' death. So when de/but is used before a time or division of the day, it actually means before. So John 19:14 really should say "It was just before preparation..." rather than "It was preparation..." But this is a common mistranslation because of lack of understanding the subtlety of how the Jews referenced different times of day. I did a video on this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl9_EwtSxak

Jesus' trial at noon occurs before is impalement; the darkness at noon follows his impalement, so the trial must occur the day before his death. The Greek syntax reflects this, but koine Greek scholars have missed this for some reason.

14

Need a quote about society answering questions

by zound in

sorry to post so many topics lately.

trying to get some info for a project.. i'm after some quotes from watchtower that brag how the watchtower society answers any questions jw's have and how christondom don't (or it doesn't have to have the christendom part in it).

any help appreciated.

Larsinger58

You can write the WTS directly if you want to and they will answer you, sometimes; it depends.

I found a technical error in a Watchtower study article once and pointed that out to the WTS. I received a letter back telling me to "correct my personal copy" of the Watchtower. There was no public retraction of the error.

Once I wrote the WTS criticizing them for not addressing an issue, but I was incorrect. They quickly wrote me back and showed me what I had missed; so I owed them an apology. The letter ws rather "formal." In most cases, a copy of their letter to you goes to the local congregation, so that the local congregation knows what is going on and basically so they can keep an eye on you. Most people who dare to write the Society are always considered potential "apostates."

But, on issues of their errors when I've written, I get no response. So they are glad to shut you down when they can, but otherwise, they ignore you. The basic rule is that they will be glad to answer your questions if you're considered a "person of interest", but once you become a potential "apostate" they feel they don't have to respond to you.

At one point, I know the WTS did engage in debates, but I'm pretty sure that policy is reversed now. They don't like publicity.

In general, though, witnesses are delighted anyone gives them enough attention to ask a Bible question and they are delighted to try and answer that question for you, but none of that involves them knowing anything personally. Often they will look up the topic on the WT CD and simply give you a copy of what the WTS says on the topic -- it doesn't have to make sense or agree with the Bible.

39

i would love to debate

by new hope and happiness in

i would love to be able to debate some of the issues on this site.. this is the first site i have debated on.. i would like to debate with credibility.. i think i debate on only what i feel secure about, and that is a good start.

.

but on this thread i would appreciate some tips on how to constrctively debate on a thread..

Larsinger58

This is a fun place if you like the sound of your own voice. This site is like a mirror image of the WTS -- pepole talk and talk and talk and never learn anything for the most part. I'm not sure if they are just not interested or incapable. But if you're an XJW, it's nice company.

WELCOME

7

Serena Williams

by speargrass55 in

with the french open and all i decided to look up serena and found some photos of she and a number of boyfriends - some of them in poses not proper for witnesses.

just want to ask if she's still a witness.

or is her leash longer because she's a high profile witness?.

Larsinger58

I read they talk about their religion and are open about their lives in a new documentary.

52

Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.

by Emery in

in his upcomming book, "how jesus became god" bart ehrman has a new view on how paul viewed jesus.

since i am a huge bart ehrman fan i am a member of his blog site, http://ehrmanblog.org link to direct blog entry: http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel-for-members/.

there he made a recent blog entry where he argues that paul viewed jesus to be an angel according to galations 4:14. .

Larsinger58

Thanks.