Posts by djeggnog

posted

137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@Pika_Chu:
Do you know that other Christian denominations interpret things mentioned in Daniel and Revelation the same way? Does that mean THEY have holy spirit?
Yes.
@the pharmer:
I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: We know that there are things that we do not know accurately and that in time we will come to know those things that we currently do not know at present accurately.
But you are presently in the position in which I once used to be, in my not knowing what things we currently do know now with accuracy. Now everyone has to begin somewhere, but JWN is not the place to be attempting to learn what things the Bible teaches. Here on JWN, you can learn how folks that were formerly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses now feel about the people that continue to be associated with Jehovah's organization. Many of the folks here have no problem with the Bible per se, or so they say, but their "problem" pretty much has to do with the fact that so many imperfect people have for whatever reason been drawn to Jehovah's organization, people displaying self-righteous attitudes as if they were perfect whom they are especially glad that they never have to see them again ever in life.
Remember, these unresolved issues have bearing on everything else you write....
That* would just be your opinion, @the pharmer, would it not? What you believe to be unresolved issues may be unresolved for you, but not for everyone; certainly not for me, so while I'm not about to posit an argument as to how what things I have written in this thread are not a source for any anxiety or frustration you might have in how I have addressed your concerns, I believe I more than adequately answered the question you initially raised as the OP:
(@the pharmer:)
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
(@djeggnog:)
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.
Also, I appreciate all the effort you put into providing information within your posts, but honestly, all I’m concerned about at this point is the active ingredient – i.e. if you put in too many inactive ingredients, the pill becomes too large to swallow.
Perhaps it would be wise not to even try to swallow any of the things I've said here in this thread, but find a local Kingdom Hall and ask anyone that you feel comfortable approaching if they would be willing to devote some of their time toward responding to your questions, whatever they may be. Give them the same questions you asked me here on JWN and any other questions you might have, and see how your questions are then answered, see if the pill you are given is a bit easier for you to swallow. Some people do not like swallowing pills at all, and perhaps you may learn that you are one of those people!
As this is an international forum, and everything I post here will eventually be googled and perhaps taken out of the original context of each of my post, my responses are quite deliberate in that I do not wish to say anything that I believe could (and would!) be misconstrued as if I had said something that I did not intend to say. You have the approach that you wish to take, but Jehovah's Witnesses have our own approach that we take in helping folks to understand the Bible and God's purposes. I suggest you pursue your inquiries using the channel that our God has providentially set up to provide such assistance by your approaching one of Jehovah's Witnesses personally, or by your sending a letter to one of our branch offices such as in the US, to 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483, USA; or, if you are in Great Britain, to The Ridgeway, London NW7 1RN, England; or, if you are in Canada, to Post Office Box 4100, Georgetown, ON L7G 4YG, Canada; or, if you are in Mexico, Apartado Postal 895, 06002 Mexico DF. In the alternative, you may use the following link to fill out the online form --
http://tinyurl.com/dhaa4
-- and we will send someone to your home at which time you may make whatever inquiries you wish.
@djeggnog
_____
*"That" instead of "What."
34
Just saw with MY OWN eyes the JWs have THEIR OWN Bible!
by FollowedMyHeart in
1. watchtower
2. bible
first, i wouldn't have seen this w/o simon's jwn, publishingcult's bible humor thread, sweetbabycheezits' non stamp collector link, and non stamp collector.

i've always heard this, but this is the first time i've actually seen it for myself!.

jephthah and his daughter.
djeggnog

@wyorobert:
Wow, I can't wait for someone to respond to djeggnog.
Well, you didn't wait; you responded, and I thought your response to be an honest one.
I don't know where everyone finds the time to read all of these posts in such great detail, but it is fun to be a bystander and watch from time to time.
If you read my posts, @wyorobert, you'll notice that I will have read the entire thread, even if it should take me a couple of days to do so, so that I understand the topic (actually, the gripe) before I post a response to some of those posting to it. When you have time, you should read more of my posts.
I enjoyed reading djeggnog's information, but could live without some of the arrogance.
My response is an educated one; that you read arrogance from it is of concern to me. When anyone speaks from knowledge, is it arrogance on his or her part that they might say things that you never knew or heard, but which you can verify for yourself in order to ensure that what you read is based on accurate knowledge as we might perceive such knowledge to be in 2011 and not obsolete knowledge based on what we believed to be true 20 years ago (like back in 1991).
For example, how many of Jehovah's Witnesses do you think still believe that Jesus gave two keys to the apostle Peter, rather than three keys? Before 1979, Jehovah's Witnesses understood and taught that there were two keys and in the book, Holy Spirit-The Force Behind the Coming New Order, published in 1976, emphasized two keys, but in 1979, some three years later, an adjustment was made in the article "'The Keys of the Kingdom' and the 'Great Crowd'" published in the Watchtower dated October 1, 1979, so that Jehovah's Witnesses then came to realize and began teaching that there were really three keys, which fact was prominently made in the book "United in Worship of the Only True God," published in 1983. But there are many of Jehovah's Witnesses that in 2011 will tell you that there were only two keys, omitting the Samaritans as we formerly did before 1979.
Speaking here of the Samaritan people at that time, I'm going to expand this example by perhaps reminding you that the Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:6-26 had thought herself to have accurate knowledge of the things that the Jewish nation believed, thinking as she struck up a spiritual discussion about true worship with a Jew that didn't seem to possess the same prejudice against talking to someone of a different race, she not knowing at the time that this Jew was the Christ, that true worship could be measured by where it was one worshipped, in the mountain at Gerizim, the place where the Samaritans worshipped, or in Jerusalem where the Jews worshipped.
Not only did this Samaritan woman strut her limited spiritual knowledge in boasting to Jesus about Mt. Gerizim, which had been viewed by the Samaritan nation as "the holy mountain of God," she went on to boast in the common forefather of both Jews and Samaritans, Jacob, and even asserted that Jesus and the Jewish nation to which he belonged weren't greater than Jacob. Of course, Jesus could have straightaway told the woman that Mt. Gerizim wasn't Mt. Ebal, but he didn't do this, because he realized at once that he was talking to a woman whose knowledge of God was partial, distorted, incomplete, only based on the first five books of the Bible, when God had revealed so much more about Himself since the Torah was written, so what little bit that she knew about true worship in the five books that she knew about would have been unacceptable to God, because the god that his woman worshiped actually did not exist, because there was no such God with just that little information that she knew about God being in evidence.
In the first century AD, the Jews had the Greek Septuagint Bible, which contained not just those five books of Moses, but what we today reckon as 39 books in which God had progressively provided more accurate knowledge about Himself to the Jews than this woman had, which is why Jesus could say to the woman, 'You Samaritans worship what you do not know,' and then in contrast say, 'We Jews worship what we know,' we worship a God that is known to us, the Truth, "because salvation originates with the Jews." Jesus went on to tell the woman tactfully that the hour was coming when it would neither be in this mountain, Mt. Gerizim (which it wasn't at that time!), nor in the temple at Jerusalem (which it was at that time), where the true worshippers of God would worship Him, but that from that the hour had come for all true worshippers of God would worship Him in spirit and truth, for God is looking for suchlike ones to worship Him with spirit and truth.
Today, many Jehovah's Witnesses, even those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses, will claim, like this Samaritan woman, that their God is Jehovah. They will claim as did this woman that their God to be the God of the Bible, Jehovah. Ask the Samaritan who she recognized as her God, and she would say, "Jehovah," because this is the God that Moses talked about in the Torah, but anyone having an incomplete knowledge of Jehovah, as had this Samaritan woman and like many Jehovah's Witnesses today with an incomplete knowledge of Jehovah that talk about "two keys" instead of three keys is not a true worshipper of God. Their religion is just like this woman's religion, based on an incomplete knowledge of God, not based on accurate knowledge, so that they, like this Samaritan, are really, in effect, worshipping another god, a god that is totally unknown to them and to the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses whose understanding of the Scriptures has been progressively adjusted from the moment that they became Jehovah's Witnesses until now.
In my telling you this, @wyorobert, do you think this educated response to be the height of arrogance on my part? If this is what you believe, then I have no choice, but to accept this as being your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to hold onto it, but when I spoke in my previous post about the vow that Jephthah made, this vow serves as an example to all Jehovah's Witnesses of a man of faith that took his vow to Jehovah seriously, whereas there are former Jehovah's Witnesses today that made a vow in dedicating themselves to serve God faithfully for the rest of their lives only to have become forgetful as they are no longer doing this, even though Jehovah fully expects them to keep the vow of dedication that they made to Him when they were baptized. I didn't say these things in arrogance, but with the confidence I have as a minister of God.
Jephthah could have reneged on his vow and say that he spoke in haste, for Jephthah had no thought that his daughter, his only one, would be the one coming out of the house after he had returned from his win against the Ammonites, but the victory over the Ammonites in exchange for whoever it was that came out of the house to meet him was the vow that Jephthah had made, and he kept it in contrast with what so many Jehovah's Witnesses, who have left our ranks and not kept their vow of dedication. They should come back to Jehovah, keep their vow, while there is yet time for them to do so.
When I also spoke in my previous post about Greek grammar, all of that was really irrelevant, for if one doesn't respect the parts of the Bible that tell us that we need to take in accurate knowledge of Jehovah, "the only true God," and Jesus, then arguing that John 1:1 may mean that Jesus is God or arguing that John 8:58 may mean that Jesus is the "I AM," serves only as an excuse to not keep one's vow to Jehovah. Even if you should believe that Jesus is God, how can anyone desirous of pleasing God teach others to this effect when Jehovah's Witnesses are commanded to "speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10)?
All Christians are commanded, regardless of what opinions we might have, to "speak truth ... with his neighbor, because we are members belonging to one another." (Ephesians 4:25) We should not want to 'abuse our authority in the good news' by our not declaring the good news that we learned from the Bible by teaching what things we want to teach without our progressively having received the remaining 27 books of our 66-book Bible canon that comprise the truth about God as to which we ought to be teaching others, because even if what we preach is against our will, there is still a reward laid up for us as long as we obediently do the work and without cost. If we are not teaching accordingly, we are really abusing our authority in the good news because the necessity to share what we have learned with others is laid upon each one of us that hears the good news, and we know so much more today than did Paul back during the first century AD, whose knowledge he admitted was only partial, incomplete, and while our knowledge of God today is not yet complete, we are persuaded that our knowledge of God will become progressively complete "for that which is partial will be done away with" as the end of this system of things draws ever nearer. (1 Corinthians 9:16-18; 13:9, 10)
You can parse words and phrases until it just gets silly and the arguments never really end.
Do you truly believe I posited one or more silly arguments? If so, which argument(s) did you find to be a silly parsing of words and phrases, @wyorobert?
If you become really sure of yourself and draw a different conclusion about the meaning of one or two words, you can become a really rich lawyer or start your own religion.
This is true, but the good news of God isn't about obtaining riches in this world or starting a new religion in competition with this good news of the kingdom, so what really would be the point?
@djeggnog
34
Just saw with MY OWN eyes the JWs have THEIR OWN Bible!
by FollowedMyHeart in
1. watchtower
2. bible
first, i wouldn't have seen this w/o simon's jwn, publishingcult's bible humor thread, sweetbabycheezits' non stamp collector link, and non stamp collector.

i've always heard this, but this is the first time i've actually seen it for myself!.

jephthah and his daughter.
djeggnog

@jonathan dough:
Whereas the great majority of Bibles interpret John 1:1 as "...the Word was God," the New World Translation claims the "Word was a god," thereby denying the deity of Christ.... Christ's identifying himself as the I AM and deity is changed to "I have been" at John 8:58.
How exactly does rendering John 1:1c ("... the Word was a god") deny Jesus' deity?
@WontLeave:
"I am" is not a title or a name, it's just the way the KJV translated a Greek phrase in one of its many attempts to establish the Trinitarian doctrine of the Church of England. This is why Trinitarians love the KJV; because it was "translated" by rabid Trinitarians. Of all the evidence presented for the Trinity doctrine, this one is far and away the most ridiculous and stupid.... Trinitarian doctrine being shoehorned into John 8:58 is a gross violation of the original meaning. The idea that Jesus was trying to identify himself as "the I Am", as if there is such a thing is preposterous and just plain silly....
The TEV form of John 8:58 strays from normal English usage.... [I]t puts the subject after the predicate, which is not the normal word order of English sentences, and it mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction.... - Truth in Translation, by Jason [BeDuhn]
Professor Jason D. BeDuhn, a Greek scholar and associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, posted the following regarding @jonathan dough's objection to the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c (slightly edited):
The Greek phrase is "theos en ho logos," which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our "the," it does not have an [indefinite] article, like our "a" or "an." If a noun is definite, it has the definite article "ho." If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, "ho logos" is "the word." If it was written simply "logos," without the definite article "ho," we would have to translate it as "a word."
So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog." Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": "ho theos." Even a monotheistic Christian, who [believes] there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god."
(There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is "theou," you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on.
By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a "be"-verb sentence: "x" is "y"), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: "The car is a Volkswagen."
In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase.
"The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word.
As to the point you make regarding the NWT's rendering of John 8:58, I concur, @WontLeave, and so would Dr. BeDuhn as well. At John 8:58, Jesus was merely responding to the question that urged his response regarding his age when compared to Abraham's. (John 8:56) Jesus had just told the Pharisees, "Abraham ... rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day," for he put faith in God's promise to make Abraham "a great nation ... and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves" "by means of your seed." (Genesis 12:2, 3; 22:18) This is what Jesus meant and it is apparent that @jonathan dough doesn't appreciate at all what Jesus was really saying at John 8:58.
@palmtree67:
This is a perfect example of why I love this forum. No JW does this kind of research, because they are not allowed to look at outside sources. Or even THINK for themselves.
I suppose I would have to know what you mean when you used the word "research" in your post. Do you have any clue as to the extent of the "research" that was done by @FollowedMyHeart? It is apparent to me that you didn't take care to read with care what it was @FollowedMyHeart actually wrote, but I have three (3) clues as to the kind of research that was done. First, there was at least a video involved in the "kind of research" that @FollowedMyHeart produced by Non Stamp Collector (NSC):
I watched Non Stamp Collector's Jephthah video and it didn't go according to the story, so I thought.
Second, @FollowedMyHeart tells us how she went on to read the comments about this video:
I checked the comments on the video expecting to see others complain that he had gotten it wrong. What I found was NSC stating that he had done research etc.
Lastly, @FollowedMyHeart tells us what her conclusions were after she had reviewed the rendering of Judges 11:35 and Judges 11:40 in the NWT with four (4) other Bible translations, the NIV, NASB, NLT and NKJB:
In verse 35, ostracizing is added. Ostracizing is something very different from troubling, devastating, or bringing disaster upon! It is obviously added to help change the story.
Which story is then carried out in verse 40 by saying the the young women would go to give commendation to his daughter. She wasn't dead at all! NO HUMAN SACRIFICE HERE!!!! That, however, is VERY different from commemorating or lamenting her, which makes it obvious that the story states that Jephthah did, in fact, offer his daughter as a BURNT OFFERING!
So now I understand that in order to thank Jah of Armies for His help in killing the Ammonites, Jephthah killed and burnt his daughter!
The mention of "a burnt offering" at Judges 11:31 ("the one coming out, who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Am'mon, must also become Jehovah's, and I must offer that one up as a burnt offering") is clearly just a figure of speech, for we Judges 11:39, 40, says that "And it came to be a regulation in Israel: From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jeph´thah the Gil´e·ad·ite, four days in the year," which means that not only was Jephthah's daughter not offered up as a human sacrifice, "a burnt offering," but that her willingness to accept the vow made by her father to devote herself to Jehovah's service was commemorated "from year to year ... four days in the year," which "regulation" would not have been a "year to year" event had Jephthah's daughter been dead, offered up as a burnt sacrifice! Jehovah didn't permit Abraham to offer up his only-begotten son to prove his faith, and neither would He permit Jephthah to offer up his only-begotten daughter in keeping with what he had vowed to Jehovah. Jehovah is not less than a man that He would be so stupid as to believe that what Jephthah had vowed to Him wasn't just a figure of speech!
The NIV translates the Hebrew word _akar_ at Judges 11:35 as "devastated," while the NLT use "brought disaster," while both the NASB and NKJV decide to use "trouble" here. My question is, do you even know why the word "ostracize," used in the NWT, is more appropriate? One meaning of the word "ostracize" is to shun someone, but another meaning of the word "ostracize" is to "expel from a community or group," "to drive out," "to oust" or "to dismiss," and, in this case, because 'the one coming out of the doors of his house to meet him upon his return from his fighting against the Ammonites' happened to be Jeththah's own daughter, it turned out that she was the one that Jephthah was "ostracizing," the one that it turned out he was ousting, driving out, dismissing from his household in accord with his vow to Jehovah. A similar Hebrew word _garash_ is used by Abraham's wife, Sarah, at Genesis 21:10, when she decided that Hagar's son, Ishmael, who was also Abraham's wife, wasn't going to become an heir with Isaac. (Genesis 21:10)
I'm pretty sure that like most Jehovah's Witnesses, born-ins or not, @FollowedMyHeart didn't do any real research, and that she based her conclusions on her own understanding of the Scriptures (Proverbs 3:5), and on her own understanding of the meaning of the English-language words she read in these five Bible translations, words that she really didn't understand. Most Jehovah's Witnesses, born-ins or not, tend to think of Hagar as being the Egyptian woman that became Sarah's maidservant by whom Abraham's first child, Ishmael, was born.
It comes as a surprise to many Jehovah's Witnesses, born-in or not, to learn that Hagar, although her status had changed so that she became Abraham's secondary wife, remained Sarah's slave girl (Genesis 16:9), because they don't really think of a concubine as being a wife, nor have they, for the 20, 30, 40, 50 years that they have been Jehovah's Witnesses, born-ins or not, done more than half-read the Bible and half-read our publications that point out what Genesis 16:3 clearly states: That Sarah, Abraham's beloved wife, gave Hagar to "her husband as his wife," and that later both she and Ishmael were summarily ostracized, ousted, driven out, dismissed from Abraham's household.
Do some real research into the meaning of the Hebrew words _akar_ used at Judges 11:35 and _garash_ used at Genesis 21:10. Leah's concubine Zilpah to whom sons #7 and #8, Gad and Asher, respectively, were born, and Rachel's concubine Bilhah to whom sons #5 and #6, Dan and Naphtali, respectively, were born, were both, as were Leah and Rachel, also Jacob's wives, all four of them. Otherwise it would have to be said that these four children of Jacob's would instead have been "sons of fornication" and the Jews would have been sons "born of fornication." (Hosea 2:4; John 8:41)
Perhaps I'm only pretending to be providing scholarly information, @FollowedMyHeart. Why not do some real research and prove than I am just making things up here.
I would at least give heed though to @WontLeave's post. If the extent of your knowledge is based upon someone else's research, something you may have read in WTS publications, and a knowledge of the US English lexicon, then your research will be incomplete since all English-language Bible translators have made decisions in their translations as to which English language words they will use to translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text, and research will more than adequately reveal this fact to you.
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog
@jgnat:
Are you keeping up with your studies? This week's study article identifies these creative "days" to be epochs. (WT February 15, 2011, p. 8, pp. 10.)
If you've been reading this thread -- really, reading it -- you would realize that I have been saying what Jehovah's Witnesses have been teaching they have been teaching for many years unbeknownst to many active Jehovah's Witnesses and to those, like yourself, who are no longer active Jehovah's Witnesses, as might be made clear were you to do a cursory search of some of our publications. You are free to believe that our mention of each of the creative days as epochs is some new idea recently introduced in our literature, but I just picked out blurbs from three articles that appeared in the Awake! magazine as far back as 39 years ago where specific mention is made of these creative days being "epochs":
- 2004
Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression "day" is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands of years. "Where Can You Find Answers?" (Awake! June 22, 2004, p. 11)
- 1982
He was impressed when we showed him that the creative days were epochs, and that the order of appearance of life as given in Genesis agreed with the order science postulates. He was also intrigued to see that Genesis 1:1 shows that the physical universe existed before the creative days began. We have since called on him again. "When This Issue Went to School" (Awake! April 22, 1982, p. 17)
- 1972
In the Bible’s first book (Genesis, chapter one) the creation is recounted. It is presented in a simple and straightforward manner. During great creative epochs (called "days" in the account) various life-forms were created. "Why Must Even Youths Die?" (Awake! June 8, 1972, p. 6)
Just these three articles alone, @jgnat, serve to underscore the point that I have been making here in this thread, namely, that while Jehovah's Witnesses are involved in a work that involves teaching others what things the Bible says, we are not all of us "paying constant attention to ourselves and to our teaching," as we ought to be doing. While becoming proficient in what we teach and how we teach does take time to achieve, "if we do not tire out," we are convinced that 'by doing these things, we will save both ourselves and those who listen to us.' (1 Timothy 4:16; Galatians 6:9)
You asked me whether I have been 'keeping up with my studies,' and I would have to answer your question with a "yes," because I've done this, but it is not enough for me to just 'keep up' with what we might be currently studying as a body of Christians, with what material we might be currently studying as a congregation. Those who have made it their endeavor to just 'keep up' are no longer with us, are no longer Jehovah's Witnesses, or they are fading fast, because they don't appreciate that because we are a teaching organization -- not some religious club where people gather to share anecdotal tales or to tell interesting or humorous stories, but an organization with a mandate to preach the word and teaching everything we were commanded to teach others -- we need to study the things we are learning from the Bible; we must make a study of these things and do more than just "keep up." As the apostle Paul exhorted us, we must 'ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, that our advancement may be manifest to all persons.' (1 Timothy 4:15)
Note that I say these things not for your benefit, because I do not believe for an instant that I would ever be able to reason with you, persuade you, convince you that in your standing in opposition to me and Jehovah's Witnesses you are really fighting against God because you simply cannot afford to believe this, and I'm not trying to reason, persuade, convince you that this is what you are doing.
But let me say this: First, that the god that you're serving is not stronger than Jehovah, the true God, who is my God, and, second, that I have said all these things that I have said here for the benefit of those lurking this thread, for with these I might be able to reason, persuade and convince that the work that we have been commissioned to do is not a joke, and that we are not joking around here, that Jehovah's Witnesses have taken their mandate to preach the word seriously as God has given proof in our hearts that we are fit to be entrusted as Christian men and as Christian women with the good news of God's kingdom, and so it is to them -- the lurkers -- that I really speak; although you might imagine otherwise, @jgnat, it is not to you that I speak, not really. (2 Timothy 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:4)
Those that deviate from the truth do not respect the mandate to preach the word, which is ok; these "deviators" do not have to respect it, and we will eventually disfellowship them from our midst, for this mandate is a serious work that cannot be entrusted to those lacking appreciation, those having no genuine love for their neighbors, those driven by curiosity to join us for a time, and ultimately driven by selfishness to seek our demise as if they could actually thrust away from Jehovah's Witnesses all of the good promises that God has given mankind.
You have "deviated from the truth," which was your choice to make, and I have absolutely no right to judge you for the choice you made and so do not judge you at all, but the "solid foundation of God" continues to stand, and I believe hope still remains for the lurkers, so it is really to the lurkers I speak. (2 Timothy 2:16-19)
djeggnog, if you do not attempt to reach out and come to an understanding with the inquirer,
You quoted 1 Corinthians 13:1 in your post, even as Satan quoted Psalm 91:11, 12, to Jesus (at Matthew 4:6), but I am no more impressed by your taking it upon yourself to use the word of God in positing an argument about me 'coming to an understanding' with you as to your point of view than was Jesus in coming to an understanding with Satan as to his point of view. What's wrong with you?
As for your refusal to engage me any further, I understand. I don't play chess with my son any more for the same reason.
Are you blind? Really, how well do you know the game of chess? How many moves do you look ahead? Can you not see in advance what's coming? Maybe your son is a lousy chess player, I don't know, but you cannot measure a man or a woman by how well he or she plays a game. Is life as trivial to you as a game? Life is not a game. I have posted several messages in response to yours in this one thread alone, so how can you assert that I have refused to engage you "any further"? Let's roll this back:
@jgnat wrote:
How can there be a meeting of minds if we aren't even speaking the same language?
@dgeggnog wrote:
I accept the fact that you and I do not speak the same language. Let's not pretend that we ever could.
@jgnat wrote:
djeggnog, in your extensive education, it might be useful to take an introductory course in logic.
@dgeggnog wrote:
As the apostle Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 2:2, was the case for him, I, too, have "decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him impaled," but thank you very much for the "refresher" on logic....
I really have nothing else to say to you. You want to pick an argument with me, but I have no interest in arguing with you about anything at all, @jgnat. Again, I will not pretend that you and I speak, or will ever speak, the same language, and as someone that believes in the exercise of one's own free will, I'm ok with you being you.
In this thread, you were picking an argument with me about, what was it, logic? Evidently you didn't think it to be audacious on your part to be suggesting to me that I should "take an introductory course," because you said this to maybe get a rise out of me? I don't know, but I'm not here to argue with anyone. I joined this thread to discuss the topic started by the OP. The following is what @the pharmer wrote in his initial post:
I wanted my JW friend's perspective on something, so I asked them this question:
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
I would note that the OP doesn't ask a thing about logic or the symbols that might be used, or anything at all about speaking the same language as someone else. But you were the one to introduce these things into this thread. I have nothing more to say to you about these things. You want to pick an argument with me, but I have no interest whatsoever in arguing with you about anything. I have not refused to engage you or to engage you"any further." I just do not wish to argue with you. A chess player should think several moves ahead in preparation for what's coming or for what might come in order to increase his or her tactical advantage against his or her opponent so that by the end game the superior development of his or her pieces (and pawns) on the chessboard lead to a collapse of the defenses as well as a weakening of the offense brought against him or her by the opponent and an eventual win in the offing, which is something you would know or ought to know.
I play this game and my wife is a superior chess player and maybe you are, too; frankly, I like to play her when she's sleepy because a win is a win even if your opponent is hardly conscious for she should have said "No" when I say "let's play a game," if she wasn't ready to play. It is typically hard for me to throw her game into a topspin, and obtaining a win against her is an extraordinary undertaking, so in six straight games, maybe I've won one of them. I believe I have a much better chance if someone other than she should be the one moving the pieces on the other side of the board (but I'm not telling her this).
See, I've engaged you here as well with regard to your reference to chess, but I don't want to talk to you about any of these things. I'd rather use you to talk to the lurkers that are reading this thread, my posts and your posts, which is what I am doing at this very moment. When I walk into a coffee shop where an apostate or two is present, I don't ignore what they say either: I engage them, too, not for their sake, but for the sake of those sitting nearby listening to the discussion being had, those sipping their coffee, tapping the keys on their notebooks or whatever they're doing, lurking the things being said, because no matter what it is that they might decide that want to discuss with me, I will always seek to turn the discussion into a blessing for those listening to it as I 'catch the wise in the their own cunning' as did God, who made Balaam fear to alter God's message in any way, so that they might gain plaudits for themselves, which is what you and others do here on JWN.
Now sometimes I'm successful in this and sometimes I'm not, but let me say again so that there is no misunderstanding: I'm not here to argue with you, nor with anyone else here.
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@The Finger:
So considering this statement of yours am I to conclude bearing in mind that JW still teach the end is very close that the creative days are still believed to be about 7000 years in length?
As long as Jehovah's Witnesses teach others how we arrive at this 7,000-year creative day (actually 7,000+ years), combining the number of years that human beings have been alive on earth with the 1,000-year Millennial Reign of Christ, that should convey to them the same thing that I've conveyed to you here, that although Jehovah's Witnesses do not know the number of years that comprise each of God's creative days, we presume, that is to say, we have determined without scriptural verification, that we have deduced that they each creative day is at least 7,000 years in length considering the fact that mankind has been in existence for some 6,036 years now.
You could have given me an answer on the previous thread and we could have moved on.
I understand that you think this to be the case, but this is not the case, for what I did in quoting from your post to make a limited point in this thread and then responding to your post was no more right than your posting a question to me regarding this very same point here in someone else's thread, which is what I meant when I referred to our hijacking it.
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@The Finger:
Thank you for responding on a different thread to my question.
I would normally have responded to your post on @Mr. Falcon's thread (about the water canopy), but you were really hijacking his thread with your question, and so I had hoped that by using what you said in that thread to make a point in this thread, you would eventually discover and read my response.
I feel maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.
Ok.
I have no idea how long the creative days were. The Witnesses taught me they were 7000 years long. Now it seems they don't believe this anymore. They also claim that we are living very close to the end of this system of things and that Christ's reign of a thousand years will follow immediately after then the 7th creative day will end when Jesus hands back everything to his father. Am I wrong?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not officially teach that the seven creative days are 7,000 years in length. We have speculated as to their length and have given our reasons for so concluding in our literature, but at no time should anyone have concluded what you evidently concluded since we just do not know how long these creative days were. It is important when teaching others what you believe that you explain on which your beliefs are based, because without having been provided such, as clearly occurred in your case -- and I'm sure that you are not alone! -- you were persuaded to believe this to have been what we officially teach.
The Bible supports our concluding that the seventh creative day has continued uninterrupted into our own day, so with the 1,000-year Judgment Day yet ahead of us after mankind has been walking upon the earth for more than 6,000 years now, it could be -- but we do not know -- that the seventh creative day is, as of the year 2011, some 7,036 years in length (6,036 + 1,000) if Armageddon should arrive this year, and so it might well be the case that ten years from now, in the year 2021, this number will be revised to 7,046 years in length should Armageddon arrive in that year.
Whatever year it is that Judgment Day begins, we might reasonably conclude that each creative day was 7,036 years or 7,047 years in length, as the case may be, as we human beings reckon time, but what we do know to be true is that the end of this system of things is near, and our faith is that we need to 'prove ourselves ready, because at an hour that we do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.' (Matthew 24:44)
Now you did say something about Jesus 'handing back everything to his father," but here's the "skinny" about that:
First Corinthians 15:28 states:
But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
Notice that in this verse the apostle Paul states that the time would come when the Son would subject himself" to Jehovah so "that God may be all things to everyone." When did the apostle say that Jesus' handing over of "the kingdom to his God and Father" would occur? The answer to this question is found a few verses back at 1 Corinthians 15:24-26:
Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.
So "the end" to which Paul refers at 1 Corinthians 15:28 is not the end of this system of things, as you imagined, but refers to the end of the 1,000-year Judgment Day, for at this time not only will "all enemies" be put under Jesus' feet, "all things will have been subjected to ... the Son," but even death itself will "be brought to nothing," which is the purpose for which the kingdom serves, namely, "that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:21)
It is only at this time -- when the 1,000-year Judgment Day had ended -- that Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father" and then goes on to "subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him," subjects himself to Jehovah God, so "that God may be all things to everyone."
I hardly know no better way to answer his question that to quote Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
[And yet] JW have preached for so many years that it would come within the lifetime of one generation of people who were alive and old enough to see the events of 1914. Maybe they didnt read that scripture.
Jehovah's Witnesses have speculated many things, but what some of them have failed in this regard is to explain that our belief that the end would come within the lifetime of a generation of people -- and, yes, there have been many ideas suggested as to what constitutes "this generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 -- was based upon what we understood at the time the word "generation" to mean. Jesus did say that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows ... only the Father," but we are all anxious to see the end of this system of things, so that many Jehovah's Witnesses have failed to explain that this conclusion is based on how we interpreted Jesus' words, to point out to folks that while we cannot be 100% certain what Jesus' meant by "this generation," we do believe Jesus when he said that "this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."
Since it isn't possible for Jehovah's Witnesses to know the "day and hour" when the end of this system of things will come, then it should be obvious that no one should have been teaching this without providing a clear explanation of that on which our belief in this regard are based. But it is clear that Jehovah's Witnesses had no desire to mislead anyone, but were misled themselves by those that tended to skip the explanation that our belief was and will be speculative until we become 100% certain what Jesus meant by "this generation."
(I trust that we are done with the hijacking of @the pharmer's thread now.)
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@the pharmer:
The above highlighted points, along with the following two conflicting statements of yours which I pointed out earlier, remain to be reconciled....
I'm perfectly ok with this. Recall that in your initial post, you wrote the following:
I wanted my JW friend's perspective on something, so I asked them this question:
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
You may recall that my reply to your question began this way:
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.
What is true today may not be true tomorrow, and to be more precise, what I mean by this is that what we might have viewed yesterday as being true we may not view as being true any longer today, or something might happen tomorrow that changes our view of the truth today. One day someone may be pointing out to someone today that none of their children have ever had a serious illness and then, when H1N1 comes on the scene, it turns out that what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Your might be speaking to someone about what you were told about this person's kids being always in fine health and your conclusion as to what you were told wasn't necessarily an incorrect one yesterday, but today one of these children got sick due to H1N1. Yesterday what you said was true, but today, the truth you believed to be true is no longer true.
One last point I want to make here so that there can be no mistake about what I am saying here about the conclusions -- right or wrong -- that one might draw from the things one reads in the Bible. First, there is a passage of scripture -- Genesis 11:26 -- that states the following:
And Te´rah lived on for seventy years, after which he became father to A´bram, Na´hor and Ha´ran.
From reading this verse alone, you might conclude that Terah was 70 years old when he gave birth to his sons, Abram (Abraham), Nahor and Haran, which would be the correct conclusion to reach, but some, like Yose ben Halafta (a Jewish rabbi that wrote "Seder 'Olam Rabba," which chronicles creation to the second Roman-Jewish war [132-136 AD), have read Genesis 11:26 and wrongly concluded that Terah was 70 years old when the patriarch Abraham (Abram) was born.
However, if one were to also read and consider what Genesis 11:32 --
And the days of Te´rah came to be two hundred and five years. Then Te´rah died in Ha´ran.
-- and Genesis 12:4 --
At that A´bram went just as Jehovah had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And A´bram was seventy-five years old when he went out from Ha´ran.
-- say, then you would realize that Terah had to have been 130 years old when Abraham was born, for were we to do the math, we would deduce that if Abraham was 75 years old when Terah died at the age of 205, then this would mean that he (Terah) had to have been 130 years old when Abraham was born. Does this mean that Rabbi ben Halafta was incorrect in calculating Abraham to have been some 60 years older than he actually was when Abraham's father died? Since Genesis 12:4 clearly states that Abraham was 75 years old when Terah died, I'd have to say, "Yes, the rabbi was."
Second, consider the scripture at John 3:16, which states the following:
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
This verse indicates that "God loved the world," but which "world" does God actually love? When you read this verse, do you conclude that Jesus was referring to everyone in the world? Actually reading John 12:46, 47, you might notice how Jesus uses "world" in two (2) different ways:
I have come as a light into the world, in order that everyone putting faith in me may not remain in the darkness. But if anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I came, not to judge the world, but to save the world.
First, Jesus refers to the world as a whole, and says that he didn't come to judge "the world" that hears, but doesn't keep his sayings. Then, Jesus goes on to refer to a second "world" that is "putting faith" in him, saying that he had come to save "the world," those that do not wish to "remain in the darkness" in which is the first "world." It is concerning this second world that Jesus states what he does in a prayer to his heavenly Father at John 17:20-23:
I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth ..., in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me.
God loved this second world that believed He had sent forth His son, Jesus, the "world" that had gained knowledge and who He loved just as He loved Jesus, but not the first world. Note that at John 17:25, 26, Jesus states about this first world, that it "has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these [this second world] have come to know that you sent me forth. And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.
The above scriptural conclusions that I've provided here are the ones reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the conclusion that you might draw upon your reading of the above-cited scriptural texts might differ from what I have concluded as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusions you reach are incorrect if it should turn out that I have reached different conclusions than you have reached upon reading the above-cited scriptural texts, for, let's face it, my conclusions could be totally wrong. However, I would not be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if I held a viewpoint that differed from that which is officially being held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and this is why anyone that hold a scriptural viewpoint that differs from the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses and teaches others to this effect can no longer be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: We know that there are things that we do not know accurately and that in time we will come to know those things that we currently do not know at present accurately. The teaching with respect to "the generation that will not pass away" is just one of our teachings -- which as you may know is still in flux -- that we will eventually comprehend as more and more Bible students -- which is what Jehovah's Witnesses are -- give consideration to what it was Jesus meant at Matthew 24:34, with the help of God's holy spirit.
Our faith, @the pharmer, isn't based upon our having acquired an accurate knowledge of all things, but it is based upon our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as "the Savior of the world." (1 John 4:14) We truly believe that "there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." (Acts 4:12)
@jgnat:
How can there be a meeting of minds if we aren't even speaking the same language?
I accept the fact that you and I do not speak the same language. Let's not pretend that we ever could.
djeggnog, in your extensive education, it might be useful to take an introductory course in logic.
As the apostle Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 2:2, was the case for him, I, too, have "decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him impaled," but thank you very much for the "refresher" on logic. Let me repeat for you my usual saw to illustrate what truth is regarding what almost five years ago was considered to be a planet, Pluto:
Pluto = Planet ? February 18, 1930 ? August 23, 2006
-- even as --
@jgnat is pursuing sanctification ? @djeggnog is pursuing sanctification
-- might be a false statement.
Now it's possible that the above logic symbols will not display correctly, so in order to avoid editing this post, I've substituted them both spelled out and parenthesized below:
Pluto (equals) Planet (double arrow left and right) February 18, 1930 (greater than or equal) August 23, 2006
-- even as --
@the pharmer is pursuing sanctification (Logical And) @djeggnog is pursuing sanctification
-- might be a false statement.
I really have nothing else to say to you. You want to pick an argument with me, but I have no interest in arguing with you about anything at all, @jgnat. Again, I will not pretend that you and I speak, or will ever speak, the same language, and as someone that believes in the exercise of one's own free will, I'm ok with you being you.
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@the pharmer wrote:
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
@djeggnog wrote:
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect. Before the early 1960s, Jehovah's Witnesses had taken the view that the "higher powers" (KJV) or "superior authorities" (NWT) to which the apostle Paul refers at Romans 13:1 were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. However, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society were deluged with so many letters during this time period from Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world that were unable to follow the reasoning that led some to such a conclusion, but they continued to speak in agreement on this point as they awaited the settling of this question.
@the pharmer wrote:
So the objective information you give in your first three sentences is:
· I can be correct about a scripture apart from the WT (i.e. independently), even to the point of being contraryto the WT.
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· The WT can be incorrect about a scripture.
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· JWs across the world were unable to follow WT reasoning on a WT incorrect view of scriptures (due to its incorrectness).
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· These same JWs knowingly held fast to an incorrect view.
(This seems unreasonable)
Ok.
· As regards the incorrect view, these JWs spoke that view to others as a correct view.
(This seems unreasonable and just plain wrong)
Ok.
djeggnog wrote:
The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?
@the pharmer wrote:
I would like to answer that. I believe, as I’m in relatively in the beginning stages of examining things, I am as sincere as I possibly could be. I want to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as possible. I would like to think that if you or anyone else (including myself) were able to show me how a certain belief is not true, that I would not hold fast to that incorrect view. And I certainly hope I wouldn’t speak about the incorrect view as being true regardless of the reason – that seems blatantly wrong. It would go completely against my conscience to live that way.
Jehovah's Witnesses are as aware as was the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:9-12) that we do not know all things, but "at present ... know partially," and we really won't know all things until Jesus' rule has begun. I'm sure that some in our ranks do not appreciate this fact and that many in our ranks are prone to speak with a degree of certainty as if they are privy to knowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have, and all such persons that speak with such cocky assuredness about things that cannot be proved scripturally are typically given correction when possible so that they might not speak with an affirmative air about things that are speculatory in nature, that is, things that might be logical or reasonable to conclude based on what things Scripture does say, but things that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to explain when speaking to others are purely matters of speculation only.
Jehovah's Witnesses trust that we are being used by God to gather people of all sorts together in order to bring them into an accurate knowledge of the truth -- not a complete knowledge of it, but enough knowledge of it that they might know that their expectations for the future will be realized, especially upon their seeing that a true Christian brotherhood actually exists on this side of Armageddon -- which means that they must realize, as do we, that from time to time adjustments must be made to our viewpoint whenever it becomes necessary to abandon something that we may have formerly believed to be true.
In the example I provided in my post on which you commented, I sought to point out what the understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses was "before the early 1960s" regarding "the 'higher powers' (KJV) or 'superior authorities' (NWT)" at Romans 13:1 just to make the point that even if some among our ranks did not believe it correct to conclude that the reference to the "higher powers" or to the "superior authorities" was to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, we would teach others not what our own viewpoint was, but what the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses was in this regard, while letting the person know that because we are not infallible, we cannot be certain that what we believed to be true by consensus at that time had no application to the governmental authorities.
Thus no one interested in the resolution of this doctrinal issue in the early 1960s was at all surprised to learn that a doctrinal adjustment, indicating that these "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were the governmental authorities, who are "placed in their relative positions by God" (Romans 13:1), had been made by consensus. If Jehovah's Witnesses were to take the approach that each one can have his or her own opinion and teach to this effect, then we would have a situation that exists among Catholics, for example, believing that anyone divorced cannot remarry until the death of their former spouse or the Church annuls the former marriage, even if children should have issued from the former marriage and even if the former spouse has remarried, none of which things are scriptural btw, but are based on (Catholic) canon law, and the obvious result of each Catholic believing that they can disregard the teachings of the Church -- even though these teachings of the Church are wholly unscriptural and based solely on canon law -- is that they attend church services together, but are not united in worship in either what they believe or teach others.
Recently @The Finger indicated (in another thread) that he believed each creative day to be 7,000 years in length, saying the following:
I didn't understand what you mean, may be you could elaborate on this. I had always understood that the creative days are the same length. (As days are the same length)
Even if some of Jehovah's Witnesses were to believe, as in this example, that each of the seven creative days (in Genesis) were 7,000 years in length, this would not make it true that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that each of these creative days are 7,000 years in length, and anyone in our ranks that teaches others to this effect without explaining that this is one of those things that we had logically deduced or found to be reasonable to conclude based on what things Scripture does say, but, again, Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have explained to these few that believed due to their believing something on which Jehovah's Witnesses were teaching on the basis of doctrine and not on the basis of scientific fact as to the 7,000-year day that one was not the other.
We are persuaded that it is impossible for the earth to be less than 50,000 years old based on the flood waters having had an impact on the artifacts unearthed since the global deluge, for, from at least 1981, we have being persuaded that the earth is much older than just 49,000 years. There is a real danger in some holding fast to beliefs that have been abandoned by Jehovah's Witnesses and teaching these, which "is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things heard by us, that we may never drift away." That is why we are always urging others to "make sure of all things" and to only "hold fast to what is fine." (Hebrews 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Further to all of this, @TheFinger also wrote:
The WT [publications] showed Adam's creation to be 4026 and stated that this was the year the 7th creative day started. They also stated when the half way, the morning of the seventh creative day, was reached some 3500 years later (I think I mentioned this to you before) Which would make a 7000 year creative day. The WT has taught that the end and the thousand year reign of Christ would take place before the close of the 7th creative day.
I hardly know of a single example of folks not paying "more than the usual attention to the things heard" than this particular example. Like the Jews, that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke in John's gospel (at John 4:6-26) also believed in the Torah, and she thought you knew who Jehovah was, but her knowledge of God was incomplete, partial, even distorted, for her knowledge of God was based solely on the first five books of the Bible that Moses wrote when God had made known so much more known about Himself since those five books, which made her worship of Jehovah God unacceptable, which is what Jesus was telling her when he told her, "You worship what you do not know."
@The Finger mentioned how his father had frequently given a public talk regarding Bible chronology that "didn't sound like speculation more like evidence" to him, so there's probably no better example. What is true is that Jehovah's Witnesses have been able to calculate the number of years that mankind has been on the earth, which has no effect whatsoever on the age of the earth which geologists believe to be some 4.5682 billion years old (and the universe some 13.7 billion years), none of which facts are in conflict with the Bible at all.
While many Jehovah's Witnesses continue to believe and dogmatically teach a 7,000-year creative day and a 49,000-year creative week, this is not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and should not be what any of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2011 are teaching others. We must pay attention to the things heard by us and abandon what former doctrinal beliefs we may have had to embrace the truth as it becomes apparent to us. If we disagree with something that we are taught, we should make sure whenever it is that we are teaching others what we believe that we do not teach others according to what things we believe to be true as well, for unity of purpose requires that Jehovah's Witnesses "speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10) and teach the same things. If anyone should have a different view, it's ok to share this different viewpoint with one's own family members as long as they are informed that this is one's own viewpoint and not what Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach, for it is our endeavor to "keep from becoming causes for stumbling ... to the congregation of God." (1 Corinthians 10:32)
To one of the questions that he asked me toward the end of his post, @The Finger wrote:
Are you suggesting we may have thousands of years to go until the end (Armageddon)?
I hardly know no better way to answer his question that to quote Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
I don't know that you would be any different than many folks that either were and still are Jehovah's Witnesses, who did "not hold fast to [the] incorrect view. " This isn't about speaking any "incorrect view as being true," but not stumbling others by teaching your own views which are not being officially taught by Jehovah's Witnesses without telling whoever it is you are telling these things what you are doing. It may go completely against your conscience to believe one thing and teach another, but no one ought to be asking you to do anything against your own conscience.
The point is not to claim to be teaching what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching while teaching something else altogether than what Jehovah's Witnesses are officially teaching others. This last is the very definition of apostasy.
@djeggnog
137
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?
djeggnog

@the pharmer:
I wanted my JW friend's perspective on something, so I asked them this question:
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect. Before the early 1960s, Jehovah's Witnesses had taken the view that the "higher powers" (KJV) or "superior authorities" (NWT) to which the apostle Paul refers at Romans 13:1 were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. However, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society were deluged with so many letters during this time period from Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world that were unable to follow the reasoning that led some to such a conclusion, but they continued to speak in agreement on this point as they awaited the settling of this question.
It was finally settled when the part of the verse at Romans 13:1 -- "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God" -- indicated that the higher authorities/superior authorities could not possibly be God since these "authorities" were made to stand in their relative positions by God. The only point I am making here is that there are too many things that Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten wrong over the years and it is because there are not 10 or 20, or 1,000 or 2,000, but many thousands of people -- and not all of them Jehovah's Witnesses -- that desire to understand God's word and they are the ones seeking answers from anyone that reads the Bible, and not just from Jehovah's Witnesses or Roman Catholics or one of the Protestant denominations. The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?
I'm going to tell you something that you might not be persuaded to believe at this moment, but what is amazing about Jehovah's Witnesses is that many of the folks that have for years been searching for the truth have flocked to us, have studied the Bible with us, have attended many of our meetings and have decided to remain with us by becoming dedicating disciples of Jesus Christ and symbolizing the dedication of themselves to God by means of water baptism.
But not all of those doing so necessarily remain with us for all time, for some of these might leave us for a time because of feeling uncomfortable over the issue of blood transfusions or political affiliations or military service or even homosexuality, and no one that becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses is obliged to remain such, nor is it impermissible for those that leave our ranks for a time to return to us.
People have to be responsible for working out their own salvation, for no human has the capacity to save anyone, not even himself (or herself). The point I wish to make in response to your question, @the pharmer, is that time will tell whose opinion is the correct one. It's not a big deal if you should find it unsettling to not think of God as being a trinity, especially is this is what you learned God to be; many people came to understand God to be three Persons and yet one God from their youth, and until they are convinced from the Bible to the opinion held by Jehovah's Witnesses that God is not triune, but is a Spirit that resides in the invisible heaven in a different dimension than ours, even as His Son, Jesus, is a Spirit as well, the active force of God, His holy spirit, being that which God uses to accomplish His will and purposes often personified, but not having a personality like a person at all.
If you were to read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes my view as one of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the meaning of this same passage, in my mind you have a mistaken view that needs to be adjusted to the Scriptures, but you are the only one that could prove to yourself from the Scriptures whether or not you have a mistaken viewpoint. God is not going to suddenly declare me right and you wrong, but God's spirit is the One that will reveal the truth and it does so progressively. (Did you notice how I just personified the holy spirit by calling it "the One"?)
I thought this would have been an easy question for my friend to answer, but for whatever reason, two weeks have passed and it still remains unanswered (not even acknowledged).
Perhaps your friend wants to be careful that he responds to your question in such a way that he or she doesn't stumble you by his or her answer to it; I don't know.
Can I get some feedback from some of you (realizing many of you are xJW) as to whether or not this would be an easy question to answer as a JW?
The question you ask would be a relatively easy question for most Jehovah's Witnesses to answer, but not everyone that currently is one of Jehovah's Witnesses nor those here on JWN that are currently in fade or who have for whatever reason left our ranks have reached the degree of maturity that many have reached in order to answer such a question, they being for the most part tied to Watchtower publications as a crutch, they been folks that have never really learned how to use the Bible to answer Bible-related questions.
Jesus' ministry, for example, lasted 3-1/2 years, and yet were some of these to be asked in what year -- 29 AD, 30 AD, 31 AD, 32 AD or 33 AD -- did a particular event discussed in one of the gospels occur, they would be unable to answer or to prove their answer scripturally. And if they cannot handle four gospel accounts about Jesus' life, they certainly cannot scripturally handle questions about the destruction of Jerusalem, when the appointed times of the nations, the "seven times" about which the prophet Daniel spoke at Daniel 4:25, began. For example, they do not yet understand the difference between Nebuchadnezzar's accession year after his victory of Pharaoh Necho in 625 BC, the same year that Nebuchdnezzar's father (Nebopolassar) dies, nor do they comprehend what the meaning of his regnal year, let alone how 607 BC would be calculated as being his 18th regnal year.
The Bible speaks of Jewish servitude began during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year, which was in 618 BC, and how during his 23rd regnal year some of Jew were captured by Nebuchadnezzar's bodyguard (Nebuzaradan) from Egypt, which would have been in 602 BC, but they couldn't really explain this to anyone using just the Bible. Many might know that the Nabonidus Chronicle is a rock of some sort, but they do not know the significance of it as it relates to the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC.
Consequently, when folks assert 587 BC, instead of year 607 BC as the date when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, they cannot prove them wrong scripturally. Remember I said earlier that God's spirit is the One that will reveal the truth and that it will do so progressively? I did not mean to suggest that all Jehovah's Witnesses have all of them come to acquire an accurate knowledge of Scripture; this is not the case. Nor am I suggesting that everyone that becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses can actually use the Bible books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel to prove what things that have committed to memory from one of our publications. This doesn't make them bad people, but they cannot know the truth by memorizing what they read in our publications alone, but they must read and study the Bible.
Now what I am talking to you about here is maturity, not about the maturity of someone that associates with Jehovah's Witnesses for a time, and then leaves us for a while to pursue their own ideas on the truth, only to return to us later, but the maturity of those that join our ranks and never leave us because they recognize that they have found the truth. This happens more than you might realize, but the fact is that this does happen a lot, and this is why I am not unduly critical to JWN members that have different opinions than I do about the Bible, and are presently haters of God.
You see, there are many lurkers here that are reading my posts and so they are in a position to benefit from what things I say here in reply to the many (immature) gripes they read here as many of my responses are lampooned or criticized by these dreadful "haters." My hope is that some of these here will return to us some day before it is too late for them to do so.
I really don't mean it to be a deep question; take it for what it is asking.
I like your question. I hope that you will feel free to ask follow questions.
@djeggnog
116
Water Canopy? Huh?
by Mr. Falcon in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
*** w80 11/15 p. 23 par.

4 jehovah of armies to the rescue!

the fact that today we do not have a vast water canopy suspended high up in space and all around our globe and thus blocking direct sunlight, moonlight and starlight is because jehovah saw what was going on down here upon his terrestrial footstool and took action.
djeggnog

@bohm wrote:
Is there any scientific evidence that the world at one time was rain-less, enclosed in a "water canopy"? not at all.
@djeggnog wrote:
So do you, therefore, think it reasonable to conclude that there was no water canopy in the expanse above the earth because no scientific evidence exists to support what the Bible says?
@bohm wrote:
its a completely retarded idea which is why they have stopped putting it into print....
@djeggnog wrote:
I would say that it is your conclusion here that is "retarded." Everything about the global deluge is based on the Bible, even if there is no scientific support for the water canopy that existed in that antediluvian world. There is, however, evidence of the global deluge, but the OP didn't ask about the existence of such.
@bohm wrote:
right. so now you have an idea with no scientific support which require magic to work as well as a rejection of numerous fundamental results in various fields of science -- it could hardly get any worse.
Not an idea; what I know is based upon what the Bible teaches as to the water canopy as its contents were responsible for the destruction of the ancient world in which Noah and those of his family survived the global deluge caused by the emptying out of that "watery deep." The same power that brought the water canopy into existence is the same power that emptied that canopy, and this supernatural power belonged to God. No magic trick or sleight of hand could have accomplished such a feat. Whereas many of the ideas said at the time to have been scientific in nature have been urged by scientists upon human beings over many centuries have had to later be abandoned by them, there is nothing to which you could point in the Bible that has ever required revision. Not everyone has faith in what things the Bible teaches, so the fact that you and many others here on JWN find in easy to discount the evidentiary things put forth in the Bible in favor of science isn't surprising, considering that the Bible does so indicate. (2 Thessalonians 3:2)
what is the C14 date of an object from the time of the flood?
What possible difference would it make what the carbon-14 date is for any particular object that you might have had in mind when you asked me this question -- I did notice btw that you were vague in your question by your deciding not to name any object -- when those flood waters would make using it to determine the age of an object an unreliable method of reckoning its age since carbon-14 dating is based upon the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay has been stable? Please read this question again to make sure you understand it so that you do not ask me another foolish question as if the 5,568 years that constitutes the half-life of carbon-14 has been scientifically proven to be true.
Do you realize that because our planet's magnetic field had doubled in strength to what it was 5,568 years ago and is now decreasing in strength that it isn't possible to assume the rate at which cosmic rays were bombarding the earth? More radiocarbon is produced when more cosmic rays reach us, which is what occurs when earth's magnetic field becomes weaker in strength. You may not know this, but this is yet another assumption on which carbon-14 dating relies and is why it doesn't matter how old it reckons an object to be.
Did you not think of this before asking me this question or did you just decide that you would doggedly ask me this question anyway thinking a professor (even one no longer employed as such) wouldn't know or be able to answer it? I know that you've read many of my posts in the past, @bohm, so you have to know that I am in possession of both scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge, and I really want to assume that you're not a stupid person. It's clear to me because you brought it up that you really don't know enough about the assumptions on which carbon-14 dating is based to be here challenging me on the science; let it go. This thread is about the water canopy, and if you don't want to believe that such ever existed, that's ok.
how do you explain the correspondence of dendrochronology, C14 and ice core samples?
Why do you now, after arguing about carbon-14 dating, bring up the technology that uses the relative radiocarbon date and tree ring count to come up with the absolute date of an object? Bone artifacts excavated here on the North American continent that had once been reckoned as being some 30,000 years old, were back in 1986 determined by archaeologists to have been only 3,000 years old. Why would you be here bringing up dendrochronology, carbon-14 dating or ice core samples if you really had an understanding of this subject?
Was the water canopy in orbit or sustained by a [continuous] miracle?
The earth orbits around the sun in approximately 365.25 days, so it would stand to reason that if the water canopy would have been in orbit around the sun as well. Whether you think the orbitting of our planet around the sun to be miraculous or not, I think it to be nothing short of miraculous that everything that exists in the physical universe in which we live, including things like magnetism and gravity, all work in the way they do without any need for man to have to try to find a way to tweak things to make the scientific principles on which these operations are based work properly.
what was the kinds on the ark?
There are many that have espoused the impossibility of Noah's having gathered some 30,000 to 40,000 animals of all kinds, both those of the "domesticatable" variety (e.g., horses, sheep, goats, camels) and of the "non-domesticatable" wild animal variety (e.g., lions, tigers and bears, oh, my!), and directing them to walk in lock-step, two-by-two, into one of the compartments, or "rooms," contained in that three-story ark, the dimensions of which were, according to Scripture (Genesis 6:15), 300 cubits long (437 ft. 6 in., 133.5 m.), 50 cubits wide (72 ft. 11 in., 22.3 m.) and 30 cubits high (43 ft. 9 in., 13.4 m.), in order to preserve them alive over the year that the ark was going to be their home. (Genesis 6:14-16)
People say that if there was a flood, it was local in nature, and if Noah boarded any animals onto the ark, they had to all of them have been of the domesticated variety alone, for the rest of the animal kingdom unaffected by such a local flood would not have been in any real danger of extinction. Some have even suggested that seven days wasn't really enough time to corral a male and female of each kind of animal and board them all, believing it to be absurd that Noah could have taken enough food into the ark to feed themselves and all of these animals.
They believe that feeding so many animals and carting away the lion dung, the giraffe dung, the raccoon dung, the porcupine dung, the crocodile and alligator dung, all of the bird dung from the various birds, the deer and the antelope dung, the bear dung, and dog and cat dung, the pig dung, the cow dung and the bull dung, and all the other dung, in addition to the human excrement, that would have been manufactured over the year that Noah and his family would have been aboard that ark would have been a tremendous chore that would surely have overtaxed eight people.
Scripture indicates (at Genesis 1:24) that God made 'cattle, creeping things, and the beasts of the earth after their kind,' just as He made plants and vegetation after their kind, so out of an estimated 1,300,000 species, 60% of which being of the insect variety, Noah didn’t really need to make accommodation for as many pairs of animals as some might imagine, considering inbreeding among the different "kinds" of animals. Scripture also indicates (at Genesis 7:2, 3) that Noah was commanded not just to take pairs of unclean animals, but sevens of clean animals and birds, so not all of these sevens would survive the global deluge since Noah would be offering sacrifices for the duration of their "voyage" of deliverance.
You asked me here about the kinds that were on the ark, but Scripture is silent on this, but I have faith that Noah was told to bring flying creatures, domestic animals and all moving animals of the ground into the ark "according to their kinds." (Genesis 6:19, 20) If Noah didn't bring the various "kinds" into the ark, the wide variety of animals that exist today would not exist, since their existence is the result of Noah's obedience, and God's desire that these various animal "kinds" be preserved through the flood along with Noah and his family.
But one thing that often escapes the notice of many of the people that have actually taken the time to read Genesis account with respect to his building of the ark is that Noah dealt with gathering what food would be needed for a year, while God handled the animals, male and female, that would "come unto [Noah]" (Genesis 6:20). God did something similar when he "brought [the animals] unto Adam to see what he would call them." (Genesis 2:19)
Also, what is hard for me to understand is why anyone should think that Noah would have had to concern himself with bringing more food than would be required to feed his family for a year. What with manna being at least one means we can know from reading the Bible that Jehovah could easily have provided to Noah as a provision to keep His family alive, I'm sure that foodstuffs weren't a real issue.
It seems to me that Noah would also have gathered sufficient food to accommodate the diet of the various animal kinds that would be on the ark, but only enough to last for about seven days' time, for once God closed the door to the ark, God could have quelled all dissent among the animal kingdom to their feeling a bit cooped up by putting them all into a state of hibernation for an extended period of time (like a year). Recall that God did this something similar when he "caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept." (Genesis 2:21)
Now if God demonstrated the ability to put a man to sleep for awhile (and we have absolutely no idea how long the "operation" involving his taking a rib from Adam’s body and forming Eve took, perhaps it took as long as nine months or a year to complete it), why couldn't God have "caused a deep sleep to fall" upon the animals in the ark? If God needed Noah to bring some of the seeds necessary to grow fruit trees and certain plant life, Scripture is silent on this, but if it was necessary, obviously Noah would have brought these seeds aboard the ark to preserve them as well, in view of the fact that flora and fauna exists today not just in New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, Australia and Palestine, but in other places as well, such as in the mountain of Kenya, Malaysia, Tahiti and Brazil.
God asked Noah to build an ark, and Noah obediently did so, so I do not think that he would have balked at being asked to bring a few seeds into the ark as well. It does seem to me though that an ecological balance does exist in nature for some reason; of course, I could be wrong. It does occur to me though as I speak of the ecology that possibly one of the proofs that God removed the curse that had been upon the ground until after the Flood (Genesis 3:17) is the very existence of flora and fauna, and the rainbow that appears in the cloud after a rain (Genesis 9:11-17) is another proof that serves as a visible reminder of God's promise to mankind, a sign that He would never again bring judgment against the earth by water again, and that there had once existed a water canopy from which those flood waters originated; at least, the very existence of the rainbow as a sign is consistent with there having been a global deluge and gives credence to it having occurred. Likewise, I believe the idea that a water canopy once existed to be just as plausible.
The "tradeoff" though is the extremes in temperatures we now experience on earth in certain regions of the earth since the Flood, due to the emptying of the water canopy ("the waters which were above the firmament"--Genesis 1:7) that destroyed that antediluvian world ("the windows of heaven were opened"--Genesis 7:11), in exchange for the tropical climate that formerly existed when that canopy was in place. Whatever sanitation issues that one might imagine would have arisen during the year could have been managed by the eight people aboard the ark since the animals would have not have been a problem for anyone should it turn out to be the case that these animals passed the year that they spent in the ark in a state of deep slumber.
While Scripture is silent as to many of the details that many find perplexing regarding the ark, the point that should not be overlooked by Christians is that it is due to Noah's faith in building the ark during that 120-year period of judgment upon an ancient world that we are alive today, and are able to consider the significance of the salvation it represents, for that ark -- a massive three-deck structure the length of three football fields and then some, the tangible demonstration of Noah's faith, which led to his salvation and the salvation of seven other souls -- has become a symbol of our faith in Jesus, as we die as to sin when we are momentarily buried under the waters of baptism and become alive as to righteousness upon our coming up out of those waters. (1 Peter 3:20, 21)
@kurtbethel:
Hmmm.....for all the "new light" allegedly shining into the minds of the FDS,
The OP (@Mr. Falcon) ostensibly asks folks to opine whether there is scientific evidence to support what "the WTBS claims" as to there having existed before the flood a "rain-less" world that had been "enclosed in a 'water canopy,'" believing that such would not have been likely due to his belief that a water canopy would "go against the whole water-cycle" thing. When someone phrases a question that way the OP did in this thread, it was clear to me that he was anti-Bible and that he was seeking the comments of others that were anti-Bible, too, and he embraced all of their anti-Bible comments while treating my comment with disdain, which I suspect is because I happen to support what Jehovah's Witnesses have taught for decades now. Because you decided to post an "anti-FDS" comment in this thread pertaining to "all the 'new light' allegedly shining into the minds of the FDS," it seems clear to me that the OP would embrace your comment as well, even though you mention nothing about the water canopy. You refer instead to "phrenology, pyramidology and medical quackery:
They have still not gotten far removed from phrenology, pyramidology and medical quackery. This pseudoscience serves an important purpose. It sifts out people who are not gullible, because when they hear this nonsense they turn and distance themselves from it. That leave a core of people who will easily swallow any rubbish they cook up and serve as a "nourishing spiritual banquet".
For all of the talk of "new light," the discussion about the water canopy isn't new at all and Jehovah's Witnesses teach to the effect that a water canopy once existed above the earth because the Bible describes such. Your mention of "phrenology, pyramidology and medical quakery" indicates a strong anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias since not one of these things were raised by the OP or by anyone else that posted their respective opinions to this thread. You could have started a thread of your own, than to bring what really is a rant to someone else's thread, but you elected to hijack @Mr. Falcon's thread. Ok.
I am one of the few people that posted to this thread for the purpose of clarifying what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach about this water canopy, not so much for the benefit of the OP, but for the benefit of the lurkers that peruse these threads on JWN, and really do not know themselves what Jehovah's Witnesses believe in this regard or the scriptural basis for what we teach others as to the water canopy. I believe I have satisfactorily done this, but I really wish you would have started your own thread for your comment seems to me to be completely out of place.
@djeggnog