what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
From the link Doug gave:
The principles of higher criticism are based on reason rather than revelation and are also speculative by nature.
Reason
Speculation
If you are simply left with a maybe, a what if, no matter how iron-clad the argument looks, you simply can't be 100%.
Then again, that seems like a preferable option to the leap of faith required to believe the Bible as inspired by God.
i sometimes wonder how things would have been if adam and eve had procreated before eating from the tree of knowledge, and the ramifications of such.. if any children didnt also eat of the tree, would we now have two groups of humans on earth, one perfect and living forever, and us.. would god have split the two classes of human, putting eden on another planet or dimension or such?.
does this indicate that its all deliberate, that god knew satans plan so let the play unfold before letting adam and eve know each other?.
or does it just mean that satan was allready corrupted and wanted to get his deed done at the very beggining to ensuer he had everyone?.
You make a good point, Black Sheep. To begin, if I had a smoking-hot woman materialize out of nowhere, and it was declared she was my spouse, I wouldn't exactly spend my time naming the animals. I would get down to business!
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
As you know, Daniel is written in two different languages, which poses interesting questions.
No, I didn't know, and you're opening up a whole new field of investigation for me. Thanks.
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
We know this because they use the name YHWH before it was revealed to Moses.
How do you figure? If Moses' narrative (let's assume he was real) uses YWHW before it was revealed, in the narrative, that doesn't necessarily discredit his authorship. Seeing as how he would have written the events after they happened, (obviously) he had license to reference the name. What Moses wouldn't have license to do, or rather what would discredit his authorship, would be if in the narrative he quotes himself using the divine name before it was revealed to him.
Do you have a reference for that? I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of such a thing. When you are educated by the Society, you read the book "All Scripture is Inspired", and that's generally all you'll ever look at (at least that goes for me).
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:version>14.00</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
Another thing about Earth is that 98% of species are now extinct. That contradicts this verse:
(Psalm 104:24-31) . . .How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. 25 As for this sea so great and wide, There there are moving things without number, Living creatures, small as well as great. 26 There the ships go; As for Le·vi′a·than, him you have formed to play about in it. 27 All of them—for you they keep waiting To give [them] their food in its season. 28 What you give them they pick up. You open your hand—they get satisfied with good things. 29 If you conceal your face, they get disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. 30 If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new. 31 The glory of Jehovah will prove to be to time indefinite
Why the double standard? Jehovah feeds animals with his own hands, but doesn't bother about their extinction. Yikes!
had a meeting with elders today.
got wasted at a party with worldly friends to take my mind off things.
anyone else use drink as a coping mechanism?.
Escapism is not a way to deal with your problems.
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
Doug, can you give an example of a highly disputed text or section, which would fall under "literary criticism"? Would, say, the creation story with A&E fall under narrative, and therefore be subject to scrutiny as such?
i never loved the beatles.
i especially didn't care all that much for john lennon.. bob dylan, i never got his appeal!.
any songs that just didn't do anything for you?.
The Beatles, for the life of me I don't understand how their so called legacy is determined.
They had a huge following. They personified successful hippie. They are said to have influenced modern pop/rock.... (how, I've nooo clue, as regards the rock)
Musically, I really don't get them. I really don't. What is appealing about them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
I might rather burn alive then rot in prison all my life and getting raped by bubba. Do you think it's humane to lock people up like dogs and at the tax payers expense in a recession where our country debt is astronomical?
Hmmm..... so instead of a better alternative to either of these, I should just be happyfied to get cooked, or get bonked by bubba (racial slur, btw)?
I think you've deflected and failed to address the point. You asked "Here's a question: was burning anyone at the stake for any reason ever the right thing to do?" (past tense)
As a capital punishment, as a form of execution, NO. The only reason any government would/did use such a method is/was to induce fear and avoid a challenge to said government, and that, IMO, is not the right thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
Here's a question: was burning anyone at the stake for any reason ever the right thing to do?
Not alive, no. It's no different with the Romans and their twisted manners for execution. There was nothing humane about that. Now, as far as executions go, we know there were, and somtimes are, pressing reasons for those, but the manner of executions as barbaric is unacceptable.
The only thing I will say about the purpose for using those methods was to instill great fear in any individual that dared oppose/challenge authority. I suppose that in the crudest way, it got the point across.
