Posts by simwitness

18

Signs

by SpiceItUp in

who is going to see this movie this weekend.

i was completely excited when i saw the previews for it the first time a few months ago--now its almost here.. i cant wait!.

who else has been waiting in anticipation for this one??

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

simwitness

The best viewpoint is one of balance, especially when a topic such as translation bias can come into play.

My suggestion:

Don't rely on any one source (or Translation) to base your bible studies on. Get several. Also, use resources, such as Strong's Concordance, that are available outside of the WTBS to keep your viewpoints balanced. Shy away from those books that are heavily biased toward a specific theological standpoint, until you are ready for them.

There are many online bibles and concordences that will help you along.

Primarily, remember to think for yourself, and honestly seek out the answers to your questions. If the answers you get doesn't "jive" for some reason, then keep searching. No "imperfect" man (or organization) has a trademark on the "truth".

Personally, I do not trust the NWT as my main point of study, since I have no basis on which to trust the honesty of the translator(s). I compare it, with others, and seek a balanced view of the question.

25

Asteroid + Dow Jones = You Know's Prophecy

by Amazing in

jw
friends

.

okay you know: i am confused and need some wisdom.

see my secular humanist response below.edited by - amazing on 24 july 2002 19:44:40.

simwitness

Looks like this isn't a problem anymore....

5

Heaven-or-hell argument ends with shotgun slaying

by simwitness in

jw
friends

.

well, i guess one of them will find out sooner than the other!.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/us/07/29/afterlife.argument.reut/index.html.

simwitness

Well, I guess one of them will find out sooner than the other!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/29/afterlife.argument.reut/index.html

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

simwitness

Bleep, RWC...

I had no intentions of debating the Trinity, or starting a debate on the subject. The reason that it came up was YK's use of it as support for his (faulty) claim that only the JW's could have a relationship with God.

YK's faulty logic has already been pointed out on the subject, and he has quietly left the thread.

There have been numerous other threads on this board related to the subject of the Trinity, or feel free to start a new one if you desire, but I think YK would like to see this thread end, so that he can start a new one using his famous "fuzzy logic" on the end times and just how special the JWs are.

Have a great day!

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

simwitness

You know,

Your response is about the closest thing to a non-response I have ever seen you post.

Have a nice day!

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

simwitness

So, even if that presumption is correct, your logic is still faulty based on my other statements.

Secondly, IMO, the trinity does not speak to God's identity, but more so to his nature... which again are two different things.

And, I am not debating the validity/non validity of the Trinity doctrine, nor am I stating which view I hold, just your use of it as your "basis" for the statement that only JWs can have a relationship with God.

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

simwitness

You Know...

Thanks for the response, however, your logic is a bit flawed here, on at least 2 levels.

1. You presume that you are correct as it applies to the nature of God (Trinity vs. Non-Trinity). While I do not profess to understand or know the absolute answer to that question, I can say that I have heard BIBLICAL arguments on both sides that were very convincing. The same applies to the covenent you speak of.

2. You paint with a very broad brush.

That rules out any and all religions that claim that Christ is God, or other such Trinitarian nonsensical double-talk, which is pretty much all of Christendom.

and

Christendom though is basically cluless about the new covenant and what it entails, which betrays them as having no basis for their claims

For 2 reasons:

One, I am reasonably sure you have not studied every aspect of "christendom" in order to know wether or not your claims are valid, you simply assume that they are. Secondly, you state that it is "pretty much all of christendom", what about the "others" ??

So, the "basis" for your statement:

But, the truth is that Christendom has no basis for claiming any sort of relationship with God, but we do

Is based on assumptions that you cannot prove, and an assumption about what others do/do not understand or believe. Beyond that, you are presuming to dictate to God who he will or will not have a relationship with based on YOUR understanding of things.

I would never presume to state who can and cannot have a "relationship" with God.

I would further that your first statment, however, is essentially correct:

The basis for having a relationship with God is very simple, a person has to know something about God

And would only change it to this:

The basis for having a relationship with God is very simple, a person has to have a desire to know something about God.

And this, pretty much includes EVERYONE.

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

simwitness

You Know...

But, the truth is that Christendom has no basis for claiming any sort of relationship with God, but we do

Here we go again, please state the "basis" for that claim. And you cannot use suppositions or simple "Faith that it is so" as evidence of the claim. (Since they could be used by any member of "christendom" to support their claim as well).

One amusing observation: The hypocrisy of my apostate opponents is evident in that apostates claim to be the only ones to be able to think for themselves, and that all of Jehovah's Witnesses have been brainwashed by the Watchtower Society. And, yet, when presented with a well-thought out scriptural explanation that deals with their accusation against us, and yet is not what the Watchtower teaches, the retort is--- 'The Watchtower doesn't say that.YK is an apostate.' LOL

Ironically, when we use the same arguments that you do against the WTBS, you call us apostates.

LOL.

134

THE DILEMMA FACING APOSTATES

by You Know in

the dilemma facing apostate jehovahs witnesses, or apostate dubs, as i have dubbed them, (no pun intended) is the very fact of their seeming success.

one of the great ironies of the apostate movement, that presumptuously boasts of "know the truth about the truth," is that apostates themselves are bound by the watchtower's own interpretive shortcomings, and hence are massively ignorant of jehovahs judicial decisions regarding his organization.

in that the presumption in operation is that if enough scandal and error can be brought to light regarding the governing body, the watchtower society's teachings, as well as individual jehovah's witnesses, then that somehow means that jehovah's witnesses have no connection with jehovah god.

simwitness

Re: THE DILEMMA FACING APOSTATES

Jul 23, 2002 12:56

You Know...

Simiwitness.
I was wondering how long it would take for you to start the name calling and personal attacks..
I haven't called you any names nor have I attacked you personally.

What do you call this?

Are you so illiterate that you cannot supply the verses for yourself?

In my estimation, that is a personal attack, attempting to discredit me in the face of others. (I do not care to discuss this specific issue further, as it serves no real pourpose).

Now, onto this comment:

The dictionary definiton of faith is irrelevant. I cited the Bible's definition of faith. That's what we are talking about, right, using the Bible? Or are you unaware of what Hebrews 11:1 says?

Are you actually serious here? Let's look at the NIV translation of Hebrews 11:1.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see

and the NWT:

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Not sure there is a real difference between the two Bible definitions, and certainly no real difference than the one I offered from websters. "evident demonstration of realities not beheld" is not, of itself, evidence of them.

Secondly, you said "demonstratble reality of things not beheld" which is very different than the "evident demonstration of realties not beheld". You simply cannot demonstrate things that are not seen. (Don't use the wind, since you can physically feel the wind, you are in essence, seeing it, or atleast "beholding" it).

Evidence is a noun, a thing, while "evident" is an adjective used to describe that thing. (or are you so illiterate you need to take basic English again?? )

However, having faith that something is so, does not make it so.

I was going to discuss the Luke 21:8 bit further, but I believe that has already been discussed at length on this board, If you want to discuss that further, please let me know.