Posts by Marvin Shilmer

13

Official WTBTS JW Chat Room

by Corvin in

jw
friends

didn't the official wt site once have a chat room for jw's?.

i stumbled onto it a few years ago, but can't remember if it was the official site or not.

i remember trying to access the chat room but they wanted my congregation name and location along with my po's name and all my other personal information, so i bagged it .

Marvin Shilmer

?I mean how many places will let 19 year olds opperate billions of dollars of machinery with the capability of killings 1000s of people every day and only pay um a few 100 bucks a month.?

The US military, for one.

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

scholar writes:

Marvin Shilmer & hilary_step

Both of you should re-read the challenge to WT critics by me posted on Channel C. In fact, I requested such critics to respond to 3 specific subjects:

1. Date for Adam's creation?

2. List of reigns for the Divided Monarchy?

3. Dates for birth, ministry and death of our Lord.?

Thus far, No one responded by supplying an alternative chronology despite the fact that there were many responses including those from Carl Jonsson which continues. So, I have not lied and in fact I had made a similar challenge on this board which to this DAY remains unanswered!!!

Here is a channel-c web address to one of your challenges: http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9481

You challenged the belief that WTS chronology is false or inaccurate. Since you apparently have the memory of my dear 98-year-old demented uncle, your challenge was successfully taken up,

Here:

http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9484

You replied here:

http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9489

Your reply, and what was left of your initial challenge, was decimated here:

http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9493

You lied when you claim,

…when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate….

Marvin Shilmer

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

scholar writes:

So we have two first hand accounts for the identity of the NWT Committee,.What are these accounts? Please provide a transcript of such testimony or at least supply more meaningful information than a list of names as supplied by Franz in his COC.

When the question is who were the members of the NWT committee then, short of acknowledgement in the NWT itself, there is no more meaningful data than firsthand witnesses providing a list of those names, which is what both men provided. It is precisely the absence of publishing these names in the NWT that the need for witnesses arises in order to know with any degree of certainty who they were, and the Bible teaches Christians to accept the word of undisputed witnesses, especially when we know those witnesses were in a position to know what they are talking about.

1. Are you Christian? Yes or no.

2. Do you accept the biblical tenet of the testimony of two firsthand and undisputed witnesses firmly establishing a matter or do you reject this biblical tenet? Yes or no.

3. Do you believe the WTS should teach elders to demand the same level of corroboration you apparently demand before they accept the word of multiple undisputed witnesses interviewed in non-public hearings? Yes or no?

4. Do you believe congregation publishers should demand the same level of corroboration you apparently demand before accepting the word of elders that undisputed witnesses in non-public hearings have firmly established a matter? Yes or no?

Marvin Shilmer

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

Scholar

[edited] and Ray gave firsthand accounts. What more do you want a witness to do?! When you ask a witness to rape ?Do you know who the rapist was?? and they answer ?Yes. It was Barry.,? would you deny their firsthand account until they gave evidence that they saw what they saw! How absurd!

The Bible says to accept the word of two witnesses. There are two witnesses with firsthand accounts. Apparently you do not accept this biblical tenet. How convenient for you.

Marvin Shilmer

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

?when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate?.

Indeed! As HS insists, scholar?s statement is an unmitigated lie!

Here?s a short exchange that cuts right to the point:

http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9472

Marvin Shilmer

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

I do accept biblical standards and heartily embrace the two-three witness burden of proof concept. So, what, where, who are your witnesses to the identity of the Committe.

A long time ago a brother named Norm Swif told me and who made up the NWT committee. He worked on the original NWT alongside the NWT committee. He knew each member personally.

More recently ex-governing body member Ray Franz provided the same names as making up the NWT committee.

I asked the WTS if these men made up the NWT committee. The WTS declined confirmation. When asked if they denied these men made up the original NWT committee the WTS also declined comment.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

There are NO witnesses to the identity of the NWT only claims by some people who claim to know because these claimed to have worked on the NWT project.

There are plenty of persons who know the identity of the NWT committee. But only a few of them have divulged this information.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

No doubt there were many people involved in the NWT project from proofreaders, secretaries, priinters etc but such proximity does not endorse, substantiate, prove the identity of the scholars on the comittee otherwise it would not have been possible for a gaurantee of anonymity by the publishing agency namely the WTS of Pennsylvannia.

Everyone knowing who made up the NWT committee, including the members of that committee, are witnesses to who was on that committee.

The WTS has not guaranteed anonymity of the NWT committee. The NWT committee requested the WTS keep their names anonymous and therefore the WTS will not confirm or deny who these members are. But this is not a guarantee that the names of members of the NWT will remain anonymous! It is only a promise that the WTS will not divulge this information. Whether individuals who know the members of this committee divulge this information is between those individuals and members of the NWT committee. Some individuals positioned to know these members have spoken, and their testimony has not been denied by the WTS.

As you apparently believe, when two witnesses testify to the same end then the Bible says the matter is firmly established, unless there is evidential denial.

There are two witnesses to the membership of the NWT committee. There is no evidential denial to this testimony.

Marvin Shilmer

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

Marvin Shilmer

scholar writes:

Until there is substantive evidence the names of the committee remain unknown and unknowable.

Last time I checked the Bible stated that matters vouched for by two or more were considered firmly established. I believe the WTS teaches JWs to believe accordingly. Since we have more than two witnesses to who was on the NWT committee then I fail to see your point. That is if you accept biblical standards.

When JW elders hear judicial cases the WTS teaches them to accept as valid the testimony of two or three witnesses unless there is denial and supporting evidence. To your knowledge has the WTS ever denied the testimony of witnesses stating who was on the NWT committee? If not then what is your defense that NWT committee members are unknowable? Your assertion sounds like poppycock to me. You do accept the Bible, don?t you?

Marvin Shilmer

11

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 12

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 12

the wts writes:

"abel never ate flesh with its blood, which is its soul or life.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Toreador

You write:

"The use of snares has been quite common throughout history and I am sure it was a common means of killing animals in bible times. Most of the time the animal would have died because of being strangled as the trap was set so as to catch the animal around the neck and tighten."

Hunters and merchants used, and still use, strangulation to kill animals. Hunters would use snare traps and merchants would strangle their animals with snaring devises. Merchants would sometimes club their animals before strangling them. The advantages of strangulation for a merchant were several. Customers that did not want the task of killing the animal could let the merchant do it and be assured of the freshest flesh. Strangulation was also safer than other methods and less mess. To this very day in third-world countries you will find strangled flesh sold in markets.

When it comes to Wrench's premise that "things strangled" included more than animals dead for whatever reason (i.e., that it included animals that died of themselves as is the case at Deut. 14:21) he forgets one fundamental fact based on WTS teachings. Namely that dead flesh is not "animal" anymore -- it is "dust." Why, and what is the relevancy of this?

The WTS teaches that as man did so too animals "came to be a living soul." Because of this the WTS teaches that a man is a soul, and that an animal is a soul. What happens to the man (or animal) at death? The WTS teaches that at death a man (or animal) ceases to exist. If at death an animal ceases to exist then it is impossible to eat a dead animal. Based on this teaching we can therefore eat a dead animal's flesh, but not a dead animal. This is because at death the animal ceases to exist with its flesh returning to dust. If this teaching is correct then there was no reason for God to address already dead animals to Noah because in God's eye the dead animal is no longer an animal but rather it is dirt. Since God said that Adam was to expand his garden home then to use dirt to further life is God-ordained. Using/eating the flesh of dead animals would be consistent with this ordination. But what about making food from dust/dirt by intentionally killing animals? That is, killing an animal and using the flesh ("dust") as food?

After the flood of Noah this question God addressed to humankind by means of the Noachian Decree. The Noachian Decree tells us if we kill an animal to use its flesh as food then God prohibits us from eating the blood of the animal. But what about the blood of animals that died of themselves and therefore did not require killing to turn into dirt? Based on the WTS' teaching that an animal (or man) ceases to exist at death and becomes dust then there is no soul to relieve the animal of and therefore no animal! There is but "dust." Noah did not need permission to make food from dust. By divine ordination Noah should have made use of dust to make food. This is why the Noachian Decree addresses making food from killing. Making food from dust/dirt was already answered and permitted. Noah did not need permission to make food from animals that had died of themselves and therefore did not exist and therefore did not require killing.

Saying apologists like Wrench have their work cut out is a gross understatement!

Marvin Shilmer

11

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 12

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 12

the wts writes:

"abel never ate flesh with its blood, which is its soul or life.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Effe

You write:

"How do we know this is true? Does "things strangled" is limited to strangulation by humans? Because other people say (i.e. Wrench) that "things strangled" can also refer to animals that died of themselves by drowing, strangulation because of vegetation or somethings like that. Where can we find for certain that "things strangled" means strangulation by a human? Beacuse if that's not the case then what does Paul mean and what are the implications for the notion that the Apostolic Decree is based on the Noachian Law? This is the only thing that can pose a discrepancy in the explanation, imho."

Serious refutations of the WTS' doctrinal position on blood do not depend on "things strangled" meaning "things strangled by humans." This meaning is a strawman constructed by Wrench.

So what does "things strangled" mean? Various commentators offer various interpretations of this. Wrench has offered citations from commentaries he believes support his view. But, as explained in my comments at CARM, not all his cited sources support this view. John Wesley's comments happen to agree with my view when he says "things strangled" refers to "from whatever had been killed, without pouring out the blood." (See: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=ac&chapter=15#Ac15_20 )

One problem with Bible commentaries (the same is true of most other commentaries too!) is they inevitably base conclusions on inductive interpretations rather than deductive argumentation. Sound deductive conclusions are verifiably true whereas sound inductive interpretations have degrees of probability. Also, when the question is one with premature death hanging in the balance what is more prudent, 1) forming sound deductive conclusion from what the Bible actually says, or 2) forming conclusions based on what someone else says the Bible says? If Wrench wants to decide his beliefs based on something less than sound deductive argumentation of what the Bible actually says and instead accept what commentators say the Bible says then he must be willing to accept all of what those commentators say. Is he willing to do that? Or is he simply picking and choosing what happens to fit his fancy?

What are the facts?

1. The Noachian Decree was issued to all humankind and has not been rescinded.
2. The Mosaic Law was issued to Jews only and has been rescinded
3. The Noachian Decree forbade eating animals while alive. (I.e. Noah had to kill a live animal to use it as food.)
4. The Noachian Decree forbade eating the blood of animals killed for food. (I.e., Noah had to bleed animals he killed for food.)
5. The Noachian Decree never addresses using animals that died of themselves as a food source.
6. The only prohibition on blood issued to Noah was in regard to eating.
7. God himself provided unbled flesh of animals that died of themselves expressly as food to descendants of Noah that were not under the Mosaic Law.

From these facts sound deductive arguments are formed concluding that God has no problem with humans using unbled flesh of animals that died of themselves as food. Likewise is the conclusion that God has never issued a prohibition on using donor blood for transfusion. The same facts line up with stipulations of the Apostolic Decree regarding blood and things strangled.

If the WTS wants thinking persons to believe the Apostolic Decree to mean something more then the burden of proof lay at its feet to provide it. So far neither the WTS nor apologist like Wrench have evidenced such a claim. All they have done is assert it. Should the WTS prove true this claim then a huge problem remains: they have to prove how that conclusion supports its doctrinal position requiring JWs to respect JWs that conscientiously accept a hemoglobin agent from blood and simultaneously shun JWs that conscientiously accept a platelet agent from blood. They also have to demonstrate how it is possible to say JWs abstain from blood when in fact JWs use from blood all the time. They also have to demonstrate the validity of a teaching that forbids JWs from contributing to the donated and stored blood supply but respects JWs for using from the donated and stored blood supply.

Apologists like Wrench have a daunting task to perform. One that is impossible in my opinion because sound deductive argumentation already demonstrates that God does not prohibit the use of donor blood for transfusion. This means WTS apologists have to refute these arguments plus prove their own conclusions true.

Marvin Shilmer

11

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 12

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 12

the wts writes:

"abel never ate flesh with its blood, which is its soul or life.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Effe

You write:

There is however one question I have. I read the article "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to Abstain From Blood" from the Pathways-site. I thought it was a well written document. But it leaves me with one question. If we assume that the Noachian Law speaks solely about animals killed for food, then what does Paul mean with "things strangled?" What does "things strangled" exactly mean? Bcause when it means a dead animal who died by himself (due to drowning, or something like that), then where does that leave us as regards to the Noachian Law speaking solely about animals killed for food?

Strangulation is a means of killing an animal. The Apostolic Decree to abstain from things strangled was a prohibition of animals killed by strangulation. Strangled animals are typically unbled. Hence eating strangled animals would be contrary to the Noachian Decree.

The Noachian Decree gave Noah permission to use living animals as a food source, and prohibitions accordingly. At no time does the Noachian Decree so much as address animals that were dead that Noah would not have to kill, or any prohibitions regarding them.

Marvin Shilmer