Posts by peacefulpete

7

Interesting Tablet find

by auntiem in

here is the link...it is interesting to say the least!.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/858803.asp?0dm=c218t#body.

hugs!.

Israelinsider's culture page had interesting comments on this find. In short every thing about it is suspicious. The experts who have been said to authenticate it are geologists not archeologists or linguists. The use of modern Hebrew idiom in the text strongly suggests a forgery using an ancient tablet. Considering the present Arab/ Israeli tensions and diputes over Jerusalem's holy areas such an item being "found" in an undisclosed place by an undisclosed person at an undisclosed time with such explosive content adds to it's lack of credibility.

6

benefits vs. cost of truth

by peacefulpete in

e-mail message .

i have long pondered what to do with my new understanding of the world.

i want to know the truth of the way things work.

peacefulpete

The respondants in the original Skeptic posting were not JWs. Many I'm sure were Catholics or Lutherns etc. As much as JWs like to think they are unique they're not. Excesses occur in all religions and disillusion is painful for believers of all faiths.

It is a form of lying to conceal the truth. It is a form of assault to critisize others beliefs. The middle ground of availabilty of information is the best way.

10

Isaiah 9 is it about Jesus?

by peacefulpete in

pelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who?

(look it up or this next part will make little sense.

) the piece is an expression of faith that yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (or when they get a king, as may be implied by referring to a birth of this king) who honors him (yahweh) with words of praise.

peacefulpete

thank you for the posts, The 10:21 verse was a nice detail. I must admit I neglected to look up the 8:1 verse in more than the NWT. I'm sure your right bias goes both ways. I do think though that Is 9:1,2 is quoted in Mat 4 and is applied to the preaching of Jesus. The NT authors scoured the scriptures for morsels that could be extracted and made to fit the Christian story. By this I do not imply fraud but only overzealousness and less than critical scholarship. This however does not suggest that verse 6 was understood to be addressing Jesus. It may infer that the writer of Matt 4 saw Jesus as the representative king who would be blessed by Yahweh the "mighty God". Even this however is speculative as neither he nor other writers of the time applied it this way.

This betrays a fundemental flaw with written communication doesn't it? While it has the advantage of greater permanance it unfortunately cannot elaborate upon difficult wording or expound the way a live teacher can. Forever students will be asked to interpret novels in school and politicians reinterpret the constitution every year. Printed word certainly has a place in our society but as life and death message from God it is inadequate.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 10 January 2003 0:37:54

Edited by - peacefulpete on 10 January 2003 0:43:23

10

Isaiah 9 is it about Jesus?

by peacefulpete in

pelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who?

(look it up or this next part will make little sense.

) the piece is an expression of faith that yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (or when they get a king, as may be implied by referring to a birth of this king) who honors him (yahweh) with words of praise.

peacefulpete

How many Christian versions have left the name untranslated? If translated here why not also for Mahershalelhashbaz? It seems obvious that the bias that this refers to Jesus prompted this inconsistency in translating to make the verse stand out. This traditional rendering is utilized by even those who interpret the text differently. This is seen in that the semi-colon and commas really convey the meaning here and this is clearly a matter of understanding of the passage as refering to Yahweh or his representative king. Many translators feel that attributing the phrase in question to Yahweh is the simpler reading and consistent with Jewish theology and other scriptural referencs to Yahwah being the force behind the throne. There is in fact nothing to recommend an interpretation of this verse as referring to Jesus other than religious bias.

6

what's in a name?

by peacefulpete in

perusing the insight books years ago it occured to me how many names of bible charactors seemed prophetic.

that is, their name matched to the story they appeared in.

"achan" for example means "bringer of trouble" and sure enough he was.

peacefulpete

Anita...The times in the Bible when names were changed it often reflected a change in the role of the charactor. The example you gave illustrates this. The hebrew names Azariah means "Jehovah has helped" Mishael means "who belongs to God?" and Hananiah means "Jehovah has been gracious". These names then represent the plot of the story. The giving of Babylonian names which praised other gods is also part of the tale as it amounted to a battle of Gods. The WT has called the names given at birth "prophetic" (Ishmael and Ezekiel) in their writings.
I will not expound too much but other names also had origins in other mythologies. For instance ABRAM is BRAHMA in Indu-Hittite mytholgy. The legendary progenitor of the Brahmins.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 14:36:25

2

Herodotus and the Egyptians

by sableindian in

here is another historian vastly quoted by wt.

yet when it comes to his eyewitness accounts.

could this be a hold out from russelism?.

peacefulpete

gentlemen prefer blondes

6

what's in a name?

by peacefulpete in

perusing the insight books years ago it occured to me how many names of bible charactors seemed prophetic.

that is, their name matched to the story they appeared in.

"achan" for example means "bringer of trouble" and sure enough he was.

peacefulpete

Perusing the Insight books years ago it occured to me how many names of Bible charactors seemed prophetic. That is, their name matched to the story they appeared in. "Achan" for example means "bringer of trouble" and sure enough he was. It would have seemed an easy thing to identify the trouble maker in the story yet noone seemed to know it was Achan until Jehovah pointed him out. I pondered, did God inspire his parents to name him "trouble maker" or was Achan not his real name? This pattern of names fitting the charactors role in the story is repeated over and over. (Moses=drawn from the water, Ishmael=God hears, As the story says He did when Ishmael was dying in the desert, Miriam=rebellious, etc.) Sometimes the connection is more subtle but dozens of names refer to roles in the story or to geographical places where the charactor is said to be from. Sometimes the stories surrounding the charactor were abbreviated in the Bible version and were preserved only in extra-bibical literature. I have since also found that secular reference works reveal the meaning of the names far more often than the Insight Volumes. What does this imply? I can see it three ways, either the names are author's creations, the stories were fictional or Jehovah is playing puppetry with humans. Anyway you look at it it's troubling.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 11:9:6

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 11:42:36

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 14:41:6

10

Isaiah 9 is it about Jesus?

by peacefulpete in

pelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who?

(look it up or this next part will make little sense.

) the piece is an expression of faith that yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (or when they get a king, as may be implied by referring to a birth of this king) who honors him (yahweh) with words of praise.

peacefulpete

I thought my title was funny and would draw readers, guess I'm not as funny as I thought. Please somebody say something.

3

Theocratic Terrorism

by openminded in

if you think theocratic warfare is a conflict to terminology, the institute of american dialect has coined the term "theoterrorism.

" simply put, it is the killing of civilians for religious purposes.

another formidable reason why theocratic governments do not work.

peacefulpete

nice observation, I remember often asking people "what would the world be like if everyone was a member of your religion?" then proceeding to declare that if everyone was a Witness the world's problems would disappear. However mental constraints and forced conformity do not produce fulfilled lives. The illusion of peace within any church that requires this conformity is not the result of superior ethics or model tolerence but of selectionism. If the Witnesses adopted the old ways and killed the rebels rather than DF the rebels, they would dutifully obey for the attitude is the same. It was only the legal consequences that forced the adjustment from execution under Judaism to excommunication under Chistianity. Theoterrorism, good word.

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

peacefulpete

Actually I spent 32 years as a devout Christian and member of 2 churches, as a witness I resolutely defended the Bible against people who argued as I now do. Yet I take pride that my position was due to incomplete knowledge not arrogance. Do not say I have arrived at this painful conclusion due to a desire to not believe in God. It is inexcusable to say such things about people you do not know.

There is nothing in the word "anointed" or "messiah" to suggest divinity. You are aware of the common usage of the term in Jewish writings in reference to High Priests Kings and even others. Why do you now lie and say the word cannot be used in referrence to men? The math does work when you use the correct dates as my post showed. Much of your posting has no bearing on the explanation I have presented. The fact that sectarian Judaism and the world outlived the predicted end fortold by the author fully explains why the text was altered in the Greek version and why fresh interpretations were being invented. Such is always the case of failed predictions. As a person familiar with the JWs should be aware of. The very fact that there have been dozens of interpretations using various calculations and dates arriving at different dates and applications is proof enough that the desire to believe is directing the conclusions. For example televangelists and other fundi groups insist this passage MUST refer to a yet future coming of Christ as they recognize problems with your explanation and can't accept mine. When you combine the almost magical allure of numbers and cryptic wording with the imperfect science of history and the result is hundreds of years of impassioned arguments and division. I'm through. Let the facts stand on their own. You can get your last word in again.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 1:20:27

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 9:53:16

Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 9:57:9