Posts by debator

NWT 1 cor 13: 4 Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

Hi freydo

Yes the 10 commandments have lasted plus the few hundred added to them but as Christians we live by them but are no longer under them.

Romans 6:15-16 (New International Version)

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? The law was there to highlight Jesus so now we are under "grace" but the principle of still not sinning is there because sinning still leads to death but it is understood that Jesus covers us by his perfect sacrifice where our imperfection falls short.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

Hi Joey Jo

The Coptic is a different language to English but is nevertheless very clear on John 1:1c being "a god" within it's gramatical parameters.

Scriptorial accuracy has been lost because of theological pressure on this one.

There are plenty of biased trinitarian Scholars with a vested interest in supporing the mistranslation of John 1:1c. Most truly neutral scholars of real calibar recognise it as "a god" now.

It cannot be emphasised too much how pivital to trinitarian doctrine 1:1c is after the removal of the additions to 1 john 5:7 after they were found to be false.

With that kind of theological pressure cognitive dissonance really kicks in.

Tell me honestly if it didn't have to be this important would you translate it "a god"? In other places they have no problem using and indefinite "a" when the pressure is off.

Acts 28:66 But they were expecting he was going to swell up with inflammation or suddenly drop dead. After they waited for a long while and beheld nothing hurtful happen to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

Pertaining to Paul and this is not even "theos" but the definite "theon".

Thank you for reading my reply and honestly looking at the issue.

36

586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....

by bigmouth in

jw
friends

since moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.

(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).

he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.

debator

Hi Bigmouth

It’s not as if all secular evidence contradicts 607 – because it doesn't. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus argued that Jerusalem was empty for 70 years. He also lists the reigns of the Babylonian Kings – a list which curiously contradicts the Cannon of Ptolemy — for reasons that remain unknown.

Interestingly, not all experts support 587. At least one, Rolf Furuli of Oslo University, writes:

“The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein [hereafter, P&D] has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539...”

“ A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal years of Babylonian and Persian kings intercalary months were added, reveals that 51 percent of the "evidence" used by P&D has no real value, in this author’s judgement . A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings that contradict P&D’s scheme , which was based on first and last tablet dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of P&D should be radically revised....”

“As of present I have reviewed data from about 7.000 business tablets from the New Babylonian Empire. There are so many tablets that are anomalous (from the point of view of the traditional chronology), that the whole scheme of P&D breaks down; each king seems to have ruled longer than P&D says .”

As we can see, at least some experts will support the Bible’s viewpoint against the traditional 587 date.

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/appendix.html#sectionb

25

Richard Dawkins and Me,

by cyberjesus in

jw
friends

last night i went to caltech to listen to mr dawkins.

what a most pleasant man to listen.

intelligent, assertive, witty, funny.

debator

Is Richard Dawkins becoming the spiritual head of the Athiesm Movement?

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

Hi Freydo

It is actually from 1 cor 11 but it is a difficult call for shepherds. Like I said especially as the context would show that women have already been given a natural head covering for this purpose.

1 Corinthians 11:15 (New International Version)

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

hi freydo

another list.

1/ ten commandments? huh! this is a jewsih covenant issue?

2/ they use the torah but it is a shadow of it's future fulfillment in Jesus coming as messiah. So are you a jew?

3/ We do not use the ancient hebrew version of YHWH but no one does! It is a lost language no one speaks anymore. So we use the English version of YHWH. The bible is written in 3 different languages Jehovah has no problem with transliterated names from one language to another. Notable in his own son who has 3 versions of his name in the bible none of which we use now. We use "J-esus" the English version of the original hebrew too.

4/ There are 3 different versions of Jesus's name in the bible all written under inspiration from God his father: yeshua, yahoshuah, iesous (hebrew, aramaic, greek) which of these is correct and which did God falsely inspire if only one can be correct?

5/ Head covering was something that Paul used in that cultural time but it isn't something we needed to keep doing. Our shepherdss can bring in reasonable changes if circumstances allow outside of bible absolutes, they have that authority with daily issues to do with the administration of the congregation.

6/ pervert Justice? not sure what you even mean there? you need to be more explicit?

7/ yes they do!

8/ No they goto original texts Compare this to 1700 years of trinitarian doctrine changing scripture quite openly aka 1 john 5:7 additions done in the 15th century among many many others.

9/ Obedience to Jehovah is our absolute but he does require us to obey shepherds (but they are still accountable for their overseership!)

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

10/ unproven slander.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

Fernando

1/ Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2/ unsubstantiated opinion. James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. The bible recognises religion and people were meant to become Christians.

3/ Mostly unsubstantiated opinion on religion, I think confusing divisions with religion.

Acts 26:28-29 (New International Version)

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

29 Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

4/ Only someone that hasn't read the bible can write the "Good News" in one sentence. Since the "Good News" encompasses Man's whole salvation and our Future hope in God's kingdom. The bible itself refers to many different aspects of the "Good News" BTW we fully recognise Jesus's Role as high Priest and the full meaning of this. Hmm you do not seem that knowledgeable of our teachings. It is trinity that struggles with his priesthood between God and men also his mediatorship between God and men as both roles Put Jesus in the middle and so clearly not God himself.

5/ You mean the "Good news" of God's kingdom that leads to man's salvation? first refered to in Genesis with the "seed" promise? oops I think I have to go in a corner and go insane! seriously! you are just waxing lyrical on your opinion with little evidence.

6/ We use no idols in our worship quite the contrary we rejected the "Cross" idol in all churches that people worship kiss and bow down too. Having men in shepherding positions making decisions for the whole is biblical as well as something you would have to condemn all Christianity for including the apostles.

Acts 1:20-21 (New International Version)

20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' [a] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.' [b] 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

7/ We fully accept Jesus's mediatorship of the covenant that involves the 144,000. What we don't do is turn something Jesus instituted as a remembrance of him and his sacrifice and turn it into a canabalistic salvation ceremony from false understanding of Scripture.

Luke 22:19 (New International Version)

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

8/ Where is your scriptural back-up for this position? a scattered flock is not a natural position to get spirituality uplifted from. Gathered together as a unified flock with shepherds whether you call it religion/church/congregation/organisation/people is a natural state for Jehovah's people. It feels like you are trying to recreate the word "Religion" and put some huge problem you have personally on it and then denounce it.

9/ I think you seem to be just flaying an authoritive structure here but this is simply not biblical.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

10/ You seem to be an anti-authority person this is not unusual but it simply isn't biblical. shepherds/ positions of authority/ having to make the hard decisions for the whole flock is a biblical theme. How can the 144,000 become kings and priests in the kingdom if they have not first trianed for the job on earth as shepherds?

Matthew 24:45-47 (New International Version)

45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put IN CHARGE of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 I tell you the truth, he will put him IN CHARGE of all his possessions.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (New International Version)

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." [a]

Leadership is not a evil sin but a biblical requirement.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Shepherds in leadership roles can I acknowledge be a great force for good or evil and they will be held accountable for this but to just reject them is simply not an option for Christians.

Leaders are not meant to be passive fools either allowing the flock to run amuck. They have to feed/support/rebuke/judge/keep clean the flock and ours do all that.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

debator

Hi wobble

We can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article ( p ) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” ( nnahrm ): p.noute , “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article ( ou ; just “ u ” following the vowel “ e ”): ne.u.noute , “was a god.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25496486/Translating-Sahidic-Coptic-John-1-1

This is really quite clear and Scholars agree.

Your second point is irrelevent for 2 reasons. Firstly because the greek copies supports the Coptic by not using the definite article thus we have 2 sources for this particular deeply important Doctrinal point that "a god" is the correct rendition. 2 v 0 is a very solid position.

And secondly saying the current greek scripture translations are not original copies is a fair point and something I agree with since I think we would find "Jehovah/YHWH" in the originals but this is not recognised by most as a valid point (Note how much of a hard time witnesses are given on it with only one scholars support).