Posts by no one

42

Trying to find cross v. stake topics

by Sad emo in

can anybody please help me out with some links on the cross versus torture stake debate either on jwd or external sites?

i know there was a thread on here not so long ago but i can't find it.. also, if any of you long time posters can recommend any outstanding ones from the deepest recesses of jwd which you might have kept as favourites, i would be most grateful.

i have to go offline for a while now so many thanks in advance for your help.. emo

no one

Emo,

Best wishes with your research.

After Leolaia posted her article, I got to thinking (Thanks Leo. Your topics always force me into research and thinking harder about a subject.) about how I could possibly approach JWs in a logical manner concerning the cross vs.stake issue. So - I tried imagining myself as a Roman executioner in charge of the duties of crucifixion and all that it would entail.

Let's assume for a sec that Christ was to be executed on a stake. And that he is about 6 feet tall. With his hands above his head and his legs stretched out so that he is nailed through the top of his feet, he should be nearly 8 feet long. If he was nailed through the heel (with legs wrapped around the side of the pole) and the legs were bent, maybe a foot or so shorter.

There was an earthquake at his death severe enough that it tore the temple curtain and threw bodies out of their graves, but the 'stake' with the weight of Christ up in the air did not topple. So - the stake should be at least 3, if not 4 feet in the ground for stability.

Next, people were able to observe the crucifixion from afar and the Roman who tried to give him something to drink had to do so with a reed. So - he was up in the air possibly 3 or 4 feet off the ground.

There was a sign posted, not only above his head, but (as per JW lore) also above his upstretched hands; adding more length to this pole.

And to my knowledge, there were no kilns for drying wood in those days to make it lighter by moisture removal (Warning. They may have been drying their wood. I've just never read anything on it.) The most populous tree in the region was pine.

So - how much does a non-kiln-dried pine post of approximately 6 inches in diameter and about 15 to 16 feet (3' in the ground, 3' to Christ's feet, 7-8' for his body length, 1' for a sign above him) long weigh? Call your local lumberyard.

And after it's all over, someone has to pull this pole up out of a hole and transport not only it, but all poles from the days' executions back to the storage area for the next batch of convicted to carry them.

I often thought about this dirt fill-in when the WT described in the "Greatest Man' book how Christ was hoisted, pole and all and dropped into the hole. I can't see how this could be done without pushing dirt into the hole when you pushed the pole to the edge of the hole to be dropped in. Perhaps they hoisted the pole by some sort of crane device to avoid this problem, but that would mean more equipment for something that shouldn't take a lot of men and effort to accomplish. I suppose the same could be said of a crew needing a ladder and pulley system to hoist a man nailed to the crossbeam up into the air and having to climb back up to get him down. However, I found that easier than trying to lift a man, pole and all out of the ground together or else climbing a ladder to pull nails out of a victim and then using some sort of pulley system to lower him to the ground.

It just always seemed very inefficient to me. You pull a post up out the ground and dirt is sure to fall in on it. Do it enough times (and the Romans were busy, busy when it came to crucifixion) and your're going to have to redig your hole eventually to regain your lost depth. I believe I'd have been making a suggestion to my superior about an easier, more effecient way that accomplishes the same goal.

Always seemed simpler, lighter, and more effecient to carry the crossbeam rather the the whole 4 yards.

42

Trying to find cross v. stake topics

by Sad emo in

can anybody please help me out with some links on the cross versus torture stake debate either on jwd or external sites?

i know there was a thread on here not so long ago but i can't find it.. also, if any of you long time posters can recommend any outstanding ones from the deepest recesses of jwd which you might have kept as favourites, i would be most grateful.

i have to go offline for a while now so many thanks in advance for your help.. emo

no one

Sad Emo,

Here is a link that contains a scan of the "Imperial Bible Dictionary" which the WT uses as a quote in their 'Reasoning From the Scriptures' book. Notice how the WT manipulates the quote through an ellipse to achieve the reasoning in their publication, while hiding information that contradicts their position.

http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/phone/crossx.html

72

The CO says --

by stillajwexelder in

the co has said in his latest talks "some have lost their sense of urgency and the organization is worried about it" .

even in the apostles day there was a a sense of urgency

no one

Even in the apostles day there was a a sense of urgency

Ask him of what benefit is 2000 years of " urgency" for humans with a 70 year life expectancy.

73

New 607 info?

by startingover in

i just discovered something i have not seen anywhere before.

i was looking at my old "all scripture inspired" book, and i say old because it was the first edition from 1963 and i had used it for years.

according to the wt cd there were revisions in 1983 and 1990. i came across this little goodie under the book of daniel.

no one

P.S. Leolaia,

I just don't feel comfortable with basing an argument on a known error.

Most parents will tell you that a number of their arguments with their children are based on a known error. The children know it; we, as parents, know it, but the argument has to occur anyway.

73

New 607 info?

by startingover in

i just discovered something i have not seen anywhere before.

i was looking at my old "all scripture inspired" book, and i say old because it was the first edition from 1963 and i had used it for years.

according to the wt cd there were revisions in 1983 and 1990. i came across this little goodie under the book of daniel.

no one

Especially focus on what matters more to their interest than mine.

You may have to elaborate on this for me. Their interest, IMO, is to convert you to their thinking.

73

New 607 info?

by startingover in

i just discovered something i have not seen anywhere before.

i was looking at my old "all scripture inspired" book, and i say old because it was the first edition from 1963 and i had used it for years.

according to the wt cd there were revisions in 1983 and 1990. i came across this little goodie under the book of daniel.

no one

Leolaia,

It is an erroneous assumption on the Society's part that Ezekiel discusses the hero of the book of Daniel.

Be that as it may, if you're going to have a discussion with JWs, it usually has to be on their terms. And, as stated, they have committed that the Daniel of Ezek. is Daniel. So-let's play their game.

Their chronology is also fatally erroneous.

We're on the same team here.

Now I don't believe it is prudent to play one error off another; we should rather expose error through known facts. Otherwise, the argument would simply be based on a red herring.

Everyone has their own game/strategy. I doubt you'd find many here with loved ones still in that would tell those they are trying to 'get out' that the Bible is based simply on myths. And how many witnesses have you ever met that have looked at the spelling in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek the word Daniel.

There is an audience here for your work. As stated privately to you, I am a fan. But to talk to the average 'joe witness', I'm afraid that the 'glazed-over' look would show up a lot sooner in your conversation with them of Daniel than mine.

73

New 607 info?

by startingover in

i just discovered something i have not seen anywhere before.

i was looking at my old "all scripture inspired" book, and i say old because it was the first edition from 1963 and i had used it for years.

according to the wt cd there were revisions in 1983 and 1990. i came across this little goodie under the book of daniel.

no one

Leolaia,

I was addressing startingover's observations on the WT spin on scripture. Most JWs aren't going to be receptive to ancient myths and legends as influencing the Bible, even if true. For me, to talk to these people, you have to buy in to their beliefs and chronology, then pose questions to them that raise doubts about the problems that their statementsand chronology create.

As shown by the superscript notation that I stated, it's obvious that to the WTBTS, the Daniel of Ezekiel is the one and only Daniel of the book of Daniel. Whether I believe it or not, when talking to a JW, to allow the conversation to progress with them, I allow myself to say, "OK, Dan. 2:1 is the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar in regard to his becoming king of Jerusalem. But hey, doesn't this create a problem over here in Ezekiel where he says..."

Since there are JW lurkers here, I wanted to post in a way where they can reference their own literature without having to resort to 'pagan' sources and perhaps go hmmmmm.

73

New 607 info?

by startingover in

i just discovered something i have not seen anywhere before.

i was looking at my old "all scripture inspired" book, and i say old because it was the first edition from 1963 and i had used it for years.

according to the wt cd there were revisions in 1983 and 1990. i came across this little goodie under the book of daniel.

no one

startingover,

I've wondered if they became a bit more vague about Dan. 2:1 because of the chronological conflict the statement creates with Ezekiel.

In the "All Scripture" book under Ezekiel, they list what year it is under nearly every subheading. Using their chronology, Ezek. 24:1 (9th year) is 609. Ezek. 29:1 (10th year) is 608.

Sandwiched in between these chapters is this pronounciation against the king of Tyre: "look! you are wiser than Daniel. There are no secrets that have proved a match for you." (Ezek. 28:3) In the large print NWT, a reference superscript for "Daniel" points to Daniel 2:48.

The closest year identifier for Chapter 28 is Ezek. 26:1 (11th year). No month is given, so by WT chronology, it should be 608 or 607 depending on how Ezekiel reckons the start of his exile; leaving Jerusalem (Adar), arriving at his city of exile, or just using the Jewish calendar where the month mentioned is the actual month of the year.

How has Daniel gained so much fame that he requires no explanation as to who he is in a declaration to a foreign king (Tyre) in 608/7 when he (Daniel) hasn't been faced with Nebuchadnezzar's 1st dream yet in 606/5? Even Nebuchadnezzar doesn't consider him as capable at this point since Daniel was not brought before the king, but instead Daniel seeks the king out; and not to reveal the dream, but to ask for time. So, Dan.1:17 seems to be a segue to Chapter 2 and Daniel doesn't yet have the dream interpreting ability until his prayer in chap. 2.

42