Posts by Curtains

23

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

In 1972 the Watchtower acknowledged that Acts 20:20 does not apply to door to door preaching. Hence, Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making the page 56 footnote used the following quote from Doctor Robertson, showing that kai kat' oikous was used to indicate preaching to existing Christians such as Aquila and Priscilla.

"...and from house to house (kai kat' oikous). By (according to) houses. It is worth noting that this greatest of preachers preached from house to house and did not make his visits merely social calls. He was doing kingdom business all the while as in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Cor. 16:19)."

Only seven years later, in 1979, the Watchtower went back to using Acts 20:20 to indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses must preach door to door.

23

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

Curtains

Did Jehovahs witnesses get their ideas from Youngs translation? I've looked in my KIT and Young seems to have added in an extra word every (in every house) which does not appear in other translations and it does not seem to appear in the KIT either.

edit: unless Young is carrying over every from the beginning of the sentence i.e. every day... I don't know much about koine greek grammar but if this is true then he is the most accurate and adds to the ambiguity because then Acts 5:42 would read "Both every day ... and in every house"

Terry trust you to put a spanner in the works

175

Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?

by nicolaou in

.

what's the point of jesus if adam & eve did not 'fall' and condemn us all to sin?.

Curtains

I think Jesus Christ really excels if we take his teachings and example to mean how Tammy interpets it. In this interpretation we can then see Jesus as being way ahead of the game in that he actually set people free. Much very advanced philosophical thinking from the period did not. (edit: okay advanced philosophical thinking to me anyway)

edit: this is true even if we take an atheistic perspective on Jesus Christ

12

Jehovah's Witnesses: not even wrong?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

in school we had a goofy teacher who used to make fun of some of the wrong answers we would give.

if they were really bad his ultimate put down would be to say that our answer was "not even wrong".

little did i know at the time this is actually a technical term coined by a theoretical physicist for a statement that is not susceptible to falsification, we just took it to mean that our answer was very wrong indeed.. the more i move away from the jw mindset the more i find myself disagreeing, not only with the answers jws give on various issues, but the questions themselves that frame the debate.

Curtains

But why should a future earth be our focus anyway? Why not instead address how we can make this world a better place for each other here and now? The problem lies not so much with the answer as with the question itself.

I think this is a key point slimboyfat and have to admit that it is linked to the JW mindset. We teach an extreme form of detachment from the world and this detachment leads to a completely different set of values regarding life and death that can be very harmful and at odds with reality.

23

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

Curtains

thank you all. lots to think about.

I generally search this site re questions about scriptures that are going to come up in the meetings but was late doing my prep and late getting ready for the meeting, then found I had a five min gap because others were not ready and was able to find that amazing thread from the past.

lol at Ray Ranz

Fred has a lot to answer for - he was the brains

yes ding I agree that the going from house to house refers to homes that were used for spiritual activties.

23

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

Curtains

found something here

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/130327/1/Acts-5-42-from-house-to-house-OR-in-private-homes

off to my meeting - bye

23

Acts 5:42??

by Curtains in

has this verse been explained on this site?

many translations say "from house to house".

is this correct?

Curtains

has this verse been explained on this site? Many translations say "from house to house". Is this correct? The KIT says "in the temple and according to house"

20

An argument against atheism: It's hopeless

by simon17 in

i hear this critique against atheism a lot.

that its simply a hopeless way to live one's life.

believers give this argument, not passionately, but almost desicively, as if clearly a outlook they don't want for life is a wrong outlook.. is there anything you can do to reason with such ones?

Curtains

JuanMiguel - excellent points in post 92

Regarding post 91 - I agree that name calling is unnecessary and insulting so it is important to consider how we disagree when we want argue our points. Apart from that, I have sometimes found myself agreeing with those who find themselves approaching the edge of the sentiments expressed below. I can also be very blunt when I want to attack an argument. To clarify - where do you stand regarding people being blunt on here when they want to disagree with an argument?

Ecclesiastes 3

A Time for Everything

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

10

What is the difference? What is the distinction? PLENTY!!

by Terry in

what is the difference between these two renderings:.

1. all men are sportsmen; vigorous, skillful and capable of achieving substantial goals.. compared to this version.

2.all men (who) are sportsmen (are) vigorous, skillful and capable of achieving substantial goals.. .

Curtains

Terry if 2tim 3:16&17 wanted to say this

It is saying, in effect, "in cases where scripture has been breathed by God (inspired) THOSE PARTICULAR scriptures are useful for blah blah blah."

it might use the genitive case or it might use a participle. As 2 tim 3:16&17 uses neither and it uses the nominative case for both noun and adjective it does mean

All scripture is inspired of God...

Youngs translation is being over literal here as it is a convention (ellipse) of greek to leave out words that are understood to be there from the case used.

I'm saying this because I have trod this path too - however my opinion is open to question