because of the belief that the bible is quite literally the word god jws must shut out many logical concepts and theories.
it's not just evolution although that is a large one.
i know when i was in there were certain concepts that made sense to me but i would try not to think about them too much.
The evolution/creation book had a picture in it of a building (the UN building I think) with the caption saying something like, 'explosions don't make buildings.' It was trying to relate that to the idea that the 'big bang' theory could not possibly be right.
I told one sister that in fact everything (including that building) was made with explosions or 'explosive-like' processes. Boy, did I get a weird look.
Bobcat
i was hoping to share maybe a scripture or two with my kids where they could see the obvious problems with the jw doctrine, any ideas?
I had a thread on 1914 using Acts 17:30, 31 - here.
Regarding the supposed "new" scrolls of Rev 20:12, you might have a look at John 12:47, 48 and Rom 2:14-16. Both passages refer to what people would be judged on during "that day." In contrast, the WT consistently describes the scrolls of Rev 20:12 as something that will be new then. To me it says something about their lack of understanding of the good news. (Your mileage may vary.)
Bobcat
anointed christians knew that 1914 would mark a turning point regarding divine rulership.
as soon as they discerned the fulfillment of bible prophecy, they boldly declared to others that gods rule had begun.
today, with so much evidence that gods kingdom is already established in heaven, why do the majority of people not accept what this means?
the following information looks at the use of the descriptor "christian" and "jehovah's witness".
reference is made to information published by the wtbts, as is information in wikipedia.
a discussion ensues at the end.. insight vol i - christianpublished in 1988the latinized greek term khristianos, found only three times in the christian greek scriptures, designates followers of christ jesus, the exponents of christianity.ac 11:26; 26:28; 1pe 4:16.it was first in antioch [syria] that the disciples were by divine providence called christians.
For those interested, I just had occasion to research this subject more closely. My purpose in posting here is not to counter the OP's fine points, but rather, to expose some of the WT's (read Insight publication) deceptive research.
The OP correctly lists these references given in the Insight book (Vol I, p. 440)
The Greek word khre·ma·ti′zo as used in the Christian Greek Scriptures is always associated with something supernatural, oracular, or divine.
- Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, p. 78), defines it as “to utter an oracle . . . i.e. divinely intimate.”
- Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon (1885, p. 786) gives the meaning: “Spoken in respect to a divine response, oracle, declaration, to give response, to speak as an oracle, to warn from God.”
- Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889, p. 671): “to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven . . . to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed . . . to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulge the commands of God.”
- Thomas Scott in his Explanatory Notes on this text (1832, Vol. III, p. 419) says: “The word implies that this was done by divine revelation: for it has generally this signification in the New Testament, and is rendered ‘warned from God’ or ‘warned of God,’ even when there is no word for GOD in the Greek.”
- Concerning Acts 11:26, Clarke’s Commentary says: “The word [khre·ma·ti′sai] in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Matt. ii. 12 . . . If, therefore, the name was given by Divine appointment, it is most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God.”—See Mt 2:12, 22; Lu 2:26; Ac 10:22; Ro 7:3, Int; Heb 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, where this Greek verb occurs.
(All the underlining above is Bobcat's to highlight which references are being quoted from.)
In all of these quoted references (except Scott's) there is a certain amount of scholastic deception. Each one actually has the words quoted, but the quoting is often out of context or contrary to the author's intention. For example:
The definition in Strong's Exhaustive Greek Dictionary actually reads (can be seen online here):
5537. chrematizo khray-mat-id'-zo from 5536; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of 5530), i.e. divinely intimate; by implication, (compare the secular sense of 5532) to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title:--be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.
I underlined the Insight book's quoted part. You will notice that the quotation leaves out the part of the definition, "to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title:--be called"
Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words 'expands' on Strong's, giving this definition with regard to "were called" in Acts 11:26 and Rom 7:3 -
(4) Occasionally it means "to be called or named", (4a) Rom 7:3; and (4b) Acts 11:26, of the name "Christians." Its primary significance, to have business dealings with," led to this. They "were (publicly) called" Christians, because this was their chief business, following the Christ.
Edward Robinson's Lexicon is also quoted (can be downloaded as a PDF here; see p. 898 in the PDF for the definition). The part that the Insight book quotes is given in Robinson's lexicon as definition "a." But Robinson lists Acts 11:26 under definition "b," which reads:
b) In the later Greek usage, i. q. < to do business under any name, as any one ;' hence genr. to take or bear a name, to be named, called, constr. with the name in apposit. Acts xi. 26 . . . Rom. vii. 3 Jos. Ant. 13. 11:3
It is exactly the same with Thayer's Lexicon. The Insight book quotes from Thayer's definition "2." But Thayer himself places the verb "were called" in Acts 11:26 under his definition "3." Here is Thayer's complete definition (which can be seen here, scroll down a little):
1. "to transact business, especially to manage public affairs; to advise or consult with one about public affairs; to make answer to those who ask advice, present inquiries or requests," etc.; used of judges, magistrates, rulers, kings. Hence, in some later Greek writings,
2. to give a response to those consulting an oracle (Diodorus 3, 6; 15, 10; Plutarch, mor., p. 435 c. (i. e. de defect. oracc. 46); several times in Lucian); hence, used of God in Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 14; 10, 1, 3; 11, 8, 4; universally, (dropping all reference to a previous consultation), to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven ((Jeremiah 32:16 ())): with a dative of the person Job 40:3; passive followed by an infinitive (A. V. revealed etc.), Luke 2:26 (χρηματίζειν λόγους πρός τινα, Jeremiah 37:2 ()); passive, to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed (R. V. warned of God), Matthew 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 11:7 (this passive use is hardly found elsewhere except in Josephus, Antiquities 3, 8, 8; (11, 8, 4); cf. Buttmann, § 134, 4; (Winers Grammar, § 39, 1 a.)); to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulge the commands of God, (τίνι, Jeremiah 33:2 (); Jeremiah 36:23 (): of Moses, Hebrews 12:25 (R. V. warned).
3. to assume or take to oneself a name from one's public business (Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, others); universally, to receive a name or title, be called: Acts 11:26; Romans 7:3 (Josephus, Antiquities (8, 6, 2); 13, 11, 3; b. j. 2, 18, 7; (c. Apion. 2, 3, 1; Philo, quod deus immut. § 25 at the end; leg. ad Gaium § 43); Ἀντίοχον τόν Ἐπιφανῆ χρηματίζοντα, Diodorus in Müller's fragment vol. ii, p. 17, no. 21:4; Ἰάκωβον τόν χρηματισαντα ἀδελφόν τοῦ κυρίου, Acta Philippi at the beginning, p. 75; Tdf. edition; Ἰακώβου ... ὅν καί ἀδελφόν τοῦ Χριστοῦ χρηματίσαι οἱ Θειοι λόγοι περιέχουσιν, Eus. h. e. 7, 19; (cf. Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word, 2)).
Again, I underlined the parts that the Insight quotes from. But notice how Thayer places Acts 11:26 under definition "3."
Thomas Scott seems to believe that the calling in Acts 11:26 was "by divine providence." His Volume V can be downloaded here (see page 716 of the PDF for the actual quote. (The Insight book says the source is from "Vol III." But this appears to be a typo. The quote is from Volume V.) Scott's premise for saying the name was "by divine revelation" is incorrect. He says:
"It came to pass that they" (Paul and Barnabas) " called the disciples Christians." indisputably the natural construction of the verse."
Compare the Acts 11:26 at BibleHub (here). And the Greek of the text here. There is nothing in the verse that suggests that "Paul and Barnabas" were the ones who gave this name. And here is a page of various commentaries on this verse.
Here is the entire context of the Adam Clarke quotation:
And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch - It is evident they had the name Christians from Christ their master; as the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their name from their masters, Plato and Pythagoras. Now, as these had their name from those great masters because they attended their teaching, and credited their doctrines, so the disciples were called Christians because they took Christ for their teacher, crediting his doctrines, and following the rule of life laid down by him. It has been a question, by whom was this name given to the disciples? Some think they assumed it; others, that the inhabitants of Antioch gave it to them; and others, that it was given by Saul and Barnabas. This later opinion is favored by the Codex Bezae, which reads the 25th and 26th verses thus: And hearing that Saul was at Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the Church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first called the disciples at Antioch Christians.
The word χρηματισαι in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Mat_2:12; Luk_2:26; and in the preceding chapter of this book, Act_10:22. If, therefore, the name was given by Divine appointment, it as most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness which are so essentially required and implied in the character. Before this time. the Jewish converts were simply called, among themselves, disciples, i.e. scholars; believers, saints, the Church, or assembly; and, by their enemies, Nazarenes, Galileans, the men of this way or sect; and perhaps lay other names which are not come down to us. They considered themselves as one family; and hence the appellation of brethren was frequent among them. It was the design of God to make all who believed of one heart and one soul, that they might consider him as their Father, and live and love like children of the same household. A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear upon earth; and to receive it from God, as those appear to have done - how glorious the title! It is however worthy of remark that this name occurs in only three places in the New Testament: here, and in Act_26:28, and in 1Pe_4:16.
The underlined portions are what the Insight book quotes. Of note is that Clarke makes his statement tentative, "If . . ." And he also ends his discussion saying, "It is however worthy of remark that this name occurs in only three places in the New Testament: here, and in Act_26:28, and in 1Pe_4:16." In other words, "If" the name "Christian" was God-given, then, it is more than a little curious that Jesus' disciples at that time didn't use it.
It is also noteworthy that the Insight book only quotes from relatively old references. I can't find any more modern references that give any credence to the idea that the verb "were called" in Acts 11:26 should include "by divine providence." Even so, there are numerous older references that understand the verb "were called" in Acts 11:26 as something the surrounding populace did. See this post for an additional sampling.
Bobcat
i sat through part 1 of the drama yesterday.
i thought they did a fairly decent job with it, except for the weird questions asked up front by an ancient guy asking "how do you know jehovah's witnesses have the truth?
" that has absolutely nothing to do with how he was convinced jesus was the messiah.
Tacoma, Washington, USA
Thanks LQ. Just checking if we were in the same location. I was visiting the RC in Jax, FL Friday.
Bobcat
i sat through part 1 of the drama yesterday.
i thought they did a fairly decent job with it, except for the weird questions asked up front by an ancient guy asking "how do you know jehovah's witnesses have the truth?
" that has absolutely nothing to do with how he was convinced jesus was the messiah.
LQ:
Where was the RC you were at (if it is okay to tell me)?
Bobcat
dont know if this has been up before, but i just happened to see it today.
its from the book "a study guide for god's word" which came last year if i am not mistaken.
anyway.... what is the deal with "about 1914 c.e" ??
They believe Satan was cast out sometime between 1914 and 1918. The WT holds that Jesus became king of God's Kingdom in October 1914. They believe this is foretold at Rev 12:5.
According to this 'chronology,' Satan is thrown out afterwards, which is described in Rev 12:7-12.
They believe that the 'persecution' that landed the 7 WT officials in prison (which begins in the spring of 1918) is in fulfillment of Rev 12:13.
Thus, for the WT, Satan had to have been thrown out of heaven sometime after October 1914, but before the 'persecution' begins in the spring of 1918. And since these events (the war in heaven and Satan's being thrown out) are invisible to humans, they want to show themselves 'cautious' Bible students and simply say "about 1914."
(I posted about this also here on another site.)
Bobcat
in the article 'judgement day' published by jehovah's witness', they are saying,'in 'judgement day', the people who will be resurrected and had no chance to learn about god will not be judged according to their past deed but what will they do after resurrection.
' and they show the scripture roman6:7 which says"who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
" if we take out context and see it literally , it has that meaning but the scripture's contextual meaning is totally different, it doesn't talk about physical death but the death of old personality.so in this cotext, this cannot be applied.this is anacceptable to admit..
John 5:28, 29, 12:47, 48 and Romans 2:14-16 show that people will be affected at the judgment by what they did during their life.
John 12:47, 48 & Romans 2:14-16 also give an indication of what is in the scrolls of Revelation 20:12.
Bobcat
well after a full watchtower study last week about how we should not read to much into bible account as types and antitypes, we had a whole study article on what the 10 wise virgins now means.
interesting though is the fact that only in 2007/8 they taught that the discreet virgins were the annointed ones who waited for christ's return in 1914 and the foolish ones were the ones who fell away in 1914 because the end didn't come.
now though, we have new light!
For any interested in a comparison of the WT explanations of the parable of the 10 virgins and the parable of the talents with what a good academic commentary has to say, I posted reference material for both parables on the DTT site:
The parable of the 10 virgins: here.
The parable of the talents: here.
Bobcat
i know there are many posts discussing the may money requesting televangalism...er... broadcast i mean!
but i wanted to start one where anyone can put what they have heard any non-exjw, non-apostate witnesses say good or bad about the broadcast.
i don't see how it can't rattle followers... but then again i might be surprised how they can twist things (2+2=5).
