Posts by JosephAlward

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

I've presented two arguments about the problems with Matthew's genealogy. One argument is the simplified one for the Jehovah's Witnesses on this site who typically have very little understanding of the Bible (no offense intended, ex-JWs). The more advanced argument is on my web site; it is somewhat different than the one I've presented in this forum. In that argument I show evidence that Matthew left out four names, not three. The latter argument offers more evidence, and is more powerful, but somewhat harder to follow.

What Pom is doing is quite typical for inerrantists who cannot respond to a skeptical challenge. They introduce red herrings* in an attempt to shift the focus to small and irrelevant issues in the hope that this will relieve them of the obligation of resolving the contradiction.

This forum knows full well that if Pom had a response to my challenge that would NOT result in a cascade of ridicule, he would be extremely quick to present it. It is clear that Pom cannot explain why Matthew is justified in leaving out the three kings in the his genealogy. All he has been able to offer in his defense is this:

One fact is VERY clear, 3 were PURPOSELY removed exactly in the middle of the middle of 3 sets of generations

Well, duh. That's exactly what I've suggested happened. Matthew may have deliberately removed those three names in order to make his readers think that there was something special about the man he was promoting as the long-awaited messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. If Matthew had not PURPOSELY removed those three kings, he would not have had a divine pattern to show his readers.

Thus, Pom has offered no defense. He thinks that by pointing to what he perceives as inadequacies of my arguments--but which are really just irrelevant side issues--he doesn't have to explain why he thinks Matthew was justified in "purposefully" removing the three names. Who does Pom think he's fooling? There's only ONE person being fooled, in my opinion, and it's Pom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
* A "red herring" is a smelly fish escapers often dragged across the trail to throw the tracking dogs off their scent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

Dino writes,

You see, the WT could NEVER say that their machinations were really just a "tactic to defeat the purple beast". They have ALWAYS said that Jehovah would do so.

I'd like to see where the Watchtower said that; if that's true, then I would concede that point to you. Will you quote the words, and give the publication?

I don't know nearly as much about the organization as you do, but I thought that the door-knocking activity was intended to save souls. If the Watchtower did not leave Jehovah to the saving himself, but instead did it through its publishers, then I find it hard to understand why it would not be appropriate for the governing body to save souls by fighting against the purple beast. Please show me where the Watchtower teaches that it should not take direct action against the United Nations, or where it shows that the purple beast is solely the responsibility of Jehovah. Is there anything like that in writing? If not, I would wonder where your opinion comes from. As I said, I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just looking for the evidence that you are correct. Can you provide it?

Why do you think that the WT slid quietly out the back door of the UN? Why not just describe the scenario to the flock through the pages of the Watchtower and Awake using the same reasoning you just put forth? Because there would be a mass exodus for the exit.

I'm guessing that the WT gave up its affiliation because they were unaware of all of the conditions under which they were granted status as an NGO. Why haven't they yet described what happened? Again, I would guess that they WILL describe it if and when it becomes a problem in many of the kingdom halls throughout the world. I think the notion that there would be a "mass exodus" is just wishful thinking.

What I'm seeing as a totally objective observer is overzealousness on the part of sincere former believers who have been hurt by the Watchtower, and who would love to see it destroyed, or at least torn down and rebuilt. If that's the way I see it, I doubt that the faithful JW will be any less charitable.

Having read your posts, I realize that you think that lying chicanery and duplicity is okay if the situation warrants it. No wonder you cannot see their hypocrisy if you think as "custodians of the worldwide organization they have an obligation to do whatever it takes to advance its interests." I dont view things that way. And that my friend is why we are at an impasse.

Well, for goodness sakes, Dino, of course "lying chicanery and duplicity" are appropriate tools in the fight against the great Satan. If a satan exists, is it wrong to lie to it? Surely you don't think the answer to this question is No, Dino, do you?

If you dont take the time to study the harm done by this cult, you dont care about me.

I don't know why you think I haven't taken the time to study the harm done to you and others by the Watchtower. In fact, I've been diligently reading the threads in this forum, as well as listening to the tapes and watching the video, and reading the articles on Randy's web site since October 10, when I first found out about his site. I'm been virtually mesmerized by the horrifying stories of mind control, shunning, and destruction of families that have been caused by the organization. I'm on your side, Dino, 100%.

What is your motive in posting here?

I hate the idea of anyone basing their lives, or indeed, any of their actions, on untruths, as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian fundamentalists do, and I'm nearly as much against anyone basing their actions on incorrect subjective perceptions, that is, untruths. In this particular case, I'm posting because I think you and others may have made more of this UN problem then is really there.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

I'm still not satisfied, not by a long shot, but perhaps it's because my threshold for outrage is much higher than that of the ex-Jehovah's Witnesses.

If the standard for hypocrisy by the Watchtower as it relates to the United Nations is that they be proven guilty of "associating" itself with them, then you've proven your case, and you need not debate further this issue with me.

However, I see nothing wrong with what the Watchtower did. I'll repeat what I wrote before:

Now, what I'm looking for is some indication that some member or members of the Watchtower governing body secretly embraced the mission of the United Nations, but continued to teach that it was the purple beast. That would be the smoking gun. If you cannot find it, you really have nothing more than evidence of stupidity at worse, carelessness at best, and that's certainly nothing new for the Watchtower, is it?
It seems to me that the Watchtower just wanted to avail itself of the vast resources of the UN, perhaps all the better to empower itself to fight against it; that type of thing is done all of the time. Jesus did it when he used the priests' temple to speak against them, for example. If the Watchtower governing body had NOT done what they did, they rightfully could be accused of not properly defending the society against its enemies.

Is it wrong for the governing body to associate itself in this way with the purple beast, while denying this right to individual members? I would say, No, because as custodians of the worldwide Watchtower organization, they have an obligation to do whatever it takes to advance its interests. If that means lying to the UN in order to gain access to resources, that should be perfectly fine; how could Jehovah object to such a tactic to defeat the purple beast? At the same time, however, it would seem foolhardy to allow individual JWs to decide on their own to engage in such practices; where would you draw the line?

If the Watchtower made a mistake, it was in not making public what it was doing.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

What follows below is an adaptation of the article, “Matthew’s False Prophetic Pattern,” which I wrote in 1998; it should make clearer exactly why Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus is wrong, and why he may have deliberately faked it.

..................................................................

Because creation lasted six days and god rested on the seventh, the number “seven” is perhaps the most sacred in the Old Testament. Likewise, multiples of seven are part of what Old Testament writers regarded as a “divine arithmetic.” Thus, one speaks of a “week” of days, or a “week” of years (seven years). The prophet Daniel, for example, predicted that there would be a period of seventy weeks (490 years) from the end of the Babylonian exile until the coming of the messiah (Daniel 9:24-27). Randel Helms, author of Gospel Fictions (Prometheus Books, page 46-47), explains why Matthew at 1:1-17 lists three groups of fourteen descendents stretching from Abraham to Jesus:

Fourteen equals two "weeks" of generations, and three two week periods (14 +14+14) equal six 'weeks' of pre-Christian generations in the royal line of Israel; thus, with Jesus begins the seventh, the 'sabbath' week of Jewish monarchical history--the kingdom, restored under Christ.

As we shall see below, Matthew, apparently in a misguided belief that Jesus' genealogy should contain a prophetic numerical pattern based on divine "weeks," forced the second group to have two weeks (fourteen) of names by simply omitting three names. Before I show Matthew’s list at 1:1-16, I’ll show a partial list of descendents from 1 Chronicles 3:9-15. Three of the names are underlined; I will refer to these later.

1 David
2 Solomon
3 Rehoboam
4 Abijah
5 Asa
6 Jehoshaphat
7 Jehoram
8 Ahaziah
9 Joash
10 Amaziah
11 Uzziah
12 Jotham
13 Ahaz
14 Hezekiah
15 Manasseh
16 Amon
17 Josiah
(1 Chronicles 3:9-15)

Now, here is Matthew’s fake list; note the absence of the names underlined above:

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac…the father of [skip ahead to David…]
1 David
2 Solomon
3 Rehoboam
4 Abijah
5 Asa
6 Jehoshaphat
7 Jehoram
…………(missing Ahaziah)
…………(missing Joash)
…………(missing Amaziah)
8 Uzziah
9 Jotham
10 Ahaz
11 Hezekiah
12 Manasseh
13 Amon
14 Josiah
Jeconiah…at the time of the exile to Babylon
Thus there were fourteen generations in all….from David to the exile to Babylon.. (Matthew 1:1-17)

The Old Testament shows that from David until the carrying away into Babylon are seventeen generations, not fourteen. The three names underlined in the 1 Chronicles genealogy seem to have been deliberately snipped out to fit the imagined or hoped-for prophecy pattern. Apologists sometimes argue that Matthew did what apologists mistakenly and hopefully think was “common” in those days—omitting descendents who were “unimportant.” However, even if this practice was common (it wasn’t), it is not as if these men were not important; all three of them were kings, and all three were in the line of descendency to the son of God—if you can believe Matthew. How could these three not be important?

We will perhaps never know whether Matthew deliberately omitted the three names from his genealogy, or whether the sources upon which he based his writings were incomplete or corrupted. Either way, it is evident that there were not fourteen generations from David to the time of the exile into Babylon; there were seventeen.

Once again, we see that the Bible is in error.

By the way, the problem with Matthew’s list is more severe than what is described here, but I’ve chosen to simplify the argument so that apologists might better be able to focus their attention on one problem at a time. Experience teaches that apologists seize every opportunity to obfuscate when they find they’re unable to harmonize a Bible difficulty, and the more complicated the skeptic’s argument is, the more hiding places there are for the Bible believer. A full exposition of the problem is found at the URL listed below:

* http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

Pom writes,

The Azariah in 1 Chronicles and the Uzziah in Matthew ARE THE SAME GUY

I never said that they were not the same. More than two years ago I wrote the article, "Matthew's False Prophetic Pattern," in which I make it clear that Azariah, Uzziah (NIV), and Osias (KJV) are different names for the same person. That article is at the URL

* http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html

I didn't wish to make the argument in my initial post any longer than it needed to be in order to challenge the apologist to explain away the apparent error, so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover. My argument is not in the slightest weaker just because Matthew only left out three descendents, not four.

I predict that Pom will now try to argue that it was standard practice for gospel writers to jump over generations that weren't important, but he will do so at the risk of being roundly ridiculed, becase all of the men in that genealogy were in the line of descendency from David to Jesus. Surely all of those men were important, were they not? Furthermore, one of the omitted men--Ahaziah--was a KING. Not important enough to be on Matthew's list? That's ridiculous.

Well, if that's not the tired old apologetic that Pom trots out to the race, it will no doubt be equally as amusing.

By the way, the article listed above describes more problems than the ones I've listed with Matthew's genealogy, and explains why Matthew may have deliberately left names off the list in order to fulfill what he thought was a divine pattern.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

23

Breaking Through Cognitive Dissonance?

by indireneed in

jw
friends

i've been thinking alot lately about how my life sucks.

i guess everyone is entitled to disliking their life a little, but the holiday is really starting to get me down.

that's strange becaue it used to be my favorite time of the year!

JosephAlward

Did you know that there is no such thing as being "saved," and that the concept of original sin is based on a fairy tale, and that nobody ever died on a cross for me, or you?

If there were such a thing as being "saved," what do you think happens to people who are saved? Where do they go, what goes on there, and who told you so?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

What do you mean, "the Watchtower advertized for the UN with its articles"?

Which articles are these, and what is in them? If you're saying that the Watchtower said things favorable to the UN, then that would certainly seem to be contrary to their own teachings, but certainly not hypocritical; it would merely by stupid. Furthermore, such articles would certainly not have been concealed from the six millions. No problem there, except the writers of the articles would seem not even to understand WT theology.

Now, what I'm looking for is some indication that some member or members of the Watchtower governing body secretly embraced the mission of the United Nations, but continued to teach that it was the purple beast. That would be the smoking gun. If you cannot find it, you really have nothing more than evidence of stupidity at worse, carelessness at best, and that's certainly nothing new for the Watchtower, is it?

It seems to me that the Watchtower just wanted to avail itself of the vast resources of the UN, perhaps all the better to empower itself to fight against it; that type of thing is done all of the time. Jesus did it when he used the priests' temple to speak against them, for example. If the Watchtower governing body had NOT done what they did, they rightfully could be accused of not properly defending the society against its enemies.

Even IF the signers of the agreement DID know that its wording seemed to suggest that the Watchtower embraced the idealogies of the UN, what's wrong with lying for Jehovah, especially when the lies are to folks who are no better than birdseed? It should be all right for the governing body to go to such extremes if it's in the best interest of the six million, should it not?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

The 1 Chronicles author lists the descendents of David; some of these, in order, are Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh (1 Chronicles 3:10-13 NIV)

The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts Uzziah, who he says is Jehoram’s son. (Matthew 1:8-10 NIV)

Thus, at least one of these two authors is wrong, and the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

I have a suggestion, then a comment.

First, I think the abstract can be improved if the syntax were altered; when I first read the sentence below, I thought that I would find an example of hypocrisy in that issue:

Yet, the leadership is sending the Witnesses to every home to preach about the wrongfulness of religious hypocrisy found in a November 15, 2001 Watchtower magazine.

Would it not be better if the sentence were changed to read,

Yet, the leadership is sending the Witnesses to every home with a Watchtower magazine (November 15, 2001) which preaches about the wrongfulness of religious hypocrisy.

Now, putting that point aside, I'd like to comment on this UN business. I've never been a JW, so perhaps I'm not as sensitive to the UN connection as others might be. What has always bothered me about the furor over this issue its plausibility. Some critics of the Watchtower claim that it knew that it was getting into bed with the purple beast, and hid this fact from the membership.

This seems very unlikely to me. Isn't what actually happened is that the Watchtower believed that it was merely making use of the resources available to the enemy; doesn't everyone, everywhere, in all conflicts, try to do exactly the same thing, if the opportunity presents itself? The Watchtower likely didn't realize that the papers some of its officials signed made it look like they embraced the ideals of the United Nations. Sure, they look foolish for having overlooked the fine print--if that's what it was, or for just being too lazy to learn the conditions under which organizations could use the UN's resources, but that's not the same as being hypocritical.

Unless someone can make a strong case for deliberate hypocrisy, I think all ex-JW's everywhere are ill-served by injudicious accusations. I don't believe the Watchtower was being hypocritical, and I'm not a JW, so I imagine faithful JWs will not believe it, either.

Ex-JWs can actually do harm to their cause through overzealous prosecution of their case; they will be accused of lying, and that may not be too far from the truth, unfortunately, if they continue to imply that the Watchtower accepted the UNs goals as their own. That's my opinion.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

23

Breaking Through Cognitive Dissonance?

by indireneed in

jw
friends

i've been thinking alot lately about how my life sucks.

i guess everyone is entitled to disliking their life a little, but the holiday is really starting to get me down.

that's strange becaue it used to be my favorite time of the year!

JosephAlward

To the extent that the beliefs of JWs are based on the Bible being the word of God, then to that extent should one be able to shake their faith by pointing out obvious Bible errors.

Most of the members of this forum haven't spent any time over at Bible Research, where those of us who are interested in the origin of the Bible and its apparent errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies spend time arguing such matters. More than enough information needed to inflict cognitive dissonance will be found in that forum.

In addition, dozens of articles relating to errancy are found at the web site in the signature line below. One of my favorite is the one which clearly shows that the editors of the Genesis stories collected two conflicting flood stories from two different traditions, and to make it seem that there was just one story being told, the editors wove together the two stories, taking a paragraph or two from one, then from the other, an so on. If one looks closely, one can see the joints; if the process is reversed, there results two complete--but different--flood stories.

The explanation of how to unravel the two stories is found at

* http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html