Well, I really don't want to encourage revenge... but I found Nathan Natas's suggestion helpful. Getting some occult items would scare the hell out of them. And that says something because they don't believe in hell.
Saename
JoinedPosts by Saename
-
20
It won’t be much longer now.
by Tameria2001 ina couple weeks back my husband got a phone call from his brother, whom he hasn’t spoken to in nearly 17 years.
well i take that back, he did speak to him at the family reunion, asking him to leave.
my husband basically told him to f off, he would leave when he’s darn good and ready, but he didn’t use the word darn.
-
-
-
12
Gods' name removed in Silver Sword?
by AmyWatson916 indoes anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?
that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.
odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..
-
-
Saename
The edition available online says, "You must not bow down to another god for Jehovah is known for requiring exclusive devotion. Yes, he is a God who requires exclusive devotion." I clearly see God's name in this verse. Am I understanding you correctly?
My printed version of NWT also has God's name in it. It seems to be consistent with the Hebrew text. Leningrad Codex reads, "כִּ֛י לֹ֥א תִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖ה לְאֵ֣ל אַחֵ֑ר כִּ֤י יְהוָה֙ קַנָּ֣א שְׁמֹ֔ו אֵ֥ל קַנָּ֖א הֽוּא׃." The bold word is God's name.
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
But to open that can of worms is to introduce the idea that every text can be subject to such manipulation and so every one of those passages by ancient authors they cite must be buttressed against it . . . To introduce doubt to a world of black and white fundamentalism is what they are very keen to avoid.
Very true. Haven't thought about that when I was writing my post. If they wanted to write more extensively on Josephus and Tacitus, they would have to explain how Josephus' second reference to Jesus is a later interpolation, even though its core is original according to the majority of scholars. Unless, of course, they were to claim that the whole passage comes from Josephus directly, which would be entirely absurd and likely foolish. Still, if they wrote that Josephus' second reference had been tampered with, you are right that in essence they would be acknowledging that every historical source and text is subject to manipulation.
To those followers of the Governing Body, it seems that Paul wrote all of the letters in the New Testament, and there is no further discussion with them. To them, it seems that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written by actual Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that those gospels were completed before the Jewish revolt in 66–70 CE. Oh, and how fiercely will they defend their notion that Jesus actually prophesied that the Temple would fall . . . because the gospels say it, so they must have been written before the revolt. They don't acknowledge any suggestion that it may not be as clear as the Governing Body tells them it is.
But if they did acknowledge that, they would be in essence admitting that the the authorship of the Bible is not so clear. Don't even get them started on how the gospel writers actually knew all those details about Jesus, such as what time it was when this and that happened, how Jesus sat down when he sat down, how Jesus said the words he said, and what exactly he said . . . Although I do wonder what they would say to that. Have you ever asked them about it?
P.S. I'm not sure where my head was when I was writing my first post in this thread. Grant was also a historian...
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
"I suppose the problem they have is that going to modern scholarship turns up lots of inconvenient issues which would need to be airbrushed out."
Sort of true. Whilst there would be no problem if they wanted to use modern scholarship to explain Josephus' and Tacitus' references to Jesus, they would have to deal with certain inaccuracies in the Bible if they wanted to use the Bible itself to "prove" Jesus' existence. For those who have no or little knowledge of how history works, the Bible can be used to explain Jesus' existence. Let me explain.
For example, one of the evidences that Jesus did exist is the fact that Jesus dies in the gospels. The problem is that in this period of time, Jews did not believe that the Messiah would die. They had many different ideas about who the Messiah would be and what he would do; however, there was no notion that he would die. "Messiah is sent by God, and then dies—on a cross, at that? How the heck does that work!?" would a Jew of that time answer. The belief that the Messiah would die developed after Jesus' death to explain why he died when he was the Messiah.
Now, if the Watchtower wanted to use the Bible to "prove" Jesus' existence, they would have to refer to such explanations that would be inconsistent with their own beliefs. In their publications, they have numerously claimed that the Jews expected the Messiah to be the priest, the king, and the prophet all at the same time. I believe there was a study edition of Watchtower last year which explained this concept. This is a completely inaccurate assumption.
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
Yes, I was extremely surprised about that. The existence of Jesus—as a historical figure who was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in the first century—is well-documented. It's not even a matter of debate amongst the scholars now since the likelihood of Jesus' existence was established long time ago. As far as historians are concerned, the actual existence of Jesus is the most likely explanation for all the evidence we have.
Having that said, I was really surprised that they didn't talk about it in more detail. The whole Awake publication could have been about Jesus' historical existence, yet all it suggests is something that would convince literally nobody. I bet it was written by someone with no historical training whatsoever. I mean, citing Albert Einstein? What the heck is this all about? Recently, there have been two scientists—very good published scientists at that—who talked publicly about how Jesus' did not exist. But that's all they were: scientists—with no knowledge of history.
Now, when it comes to the other three persons, Michael Grant, William Durant, and Rudolf Bultmann, I wouldn't necessarily say it's wrong to classify them as "experts." William Durant was the only historian of those three; Michael Grant had a degree in literature, and Rudolf Bultmann was a theologian. And although literature and theology are not the same as history, they are still fields relevant to Jesus' existence. Nonetheless, it does surprise me that they did not cite actual experts like Bart Ehrman, who is one of the leading scholars in the field of the New Testament studies. He additionally specializes in textual criticism and has training in history. But I suspect the Watchtower was unwilling to cite people like him because... they are atheists who were convinced of the lack of consistency within the books of the Bible because of thoroughly studying it.
-
17
Revelation 5:9,10 and the 144,000
by Darkknight757 ini hesitate to ask this question.
during some recent research on youtube i came across a few videos explaining how watchtower manipulated revelation 5:10. revelation 5:10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our god,and they will reign on the earth.”" -niv.
the nwt13 renders this verse: 10 and you made them to be a kingdom+ and priests to our god,+ and they are to rule as kings+ over the earth.”.
-
-
Saename
It makes as much sense as a book like "lord of the rings" does....
I would have to disagree. Lord of the Rings makes sense. It's just that it's a fictional―not a factual―collection of books. When it comes to the Bible―and I'm talking about the Christian Bible, the New Testament―not only is it not factual while it claims to be so, it also doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I mean, the gospels don't even agree on the matter of when Jesus was born! Luke's story indicates that his Jesus was born 10 years after Matthew's Jesus. (You know, the census vs Herod the Great thing and all...)
-
8
Hideout for predator
by ab.ortega ini read this comment posted on a news site: .
if the police show up at the kingdom hall looking for a sexual predator, the elders will escort them out an emergency exist and tell them to "hide out until the coast is clear.".
is this true, is there printed instructions to support it?
-
-
Saename
The comment is unclear... Does the person mean that the elders would hide the alleged sexual predator or the police officers, saying that there is an emergency? I find the latter unlikely and strange, but at the same time, the author uses the plural pronoun "them" which would indicate that s/he is referring to the police officers... But if the comment is actually talking about hiding the police officers, then it's probably sarcasm...
Having said that, I think it may be probable that some elders would attempt to hide the alleged perpetrator. After watching the ARC, I came to the conclusion that those JW elders are extremely stupid. It's physically impossible for their brains to process information on their own. One elder testified to the Commission that he would first contact the branch―instead of the police―even in a case where a member of the congregation were to murder another person. Surprisingly, that answer did not change even when the elder was asked about this member killing a second human being.
Some people are just too far gone...
-
2
Becoming fools - TheraminTrees.
by Witness My Fury ininteresting easter egg video from theramintrees:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewehb4qm1hg.
-
-
Saename
That was an interesting video. I heard about that analogy of the class before, but I never thought about it critically. What TheraminTrees proposed was fascinating.
-
17
Revelation 5:9,10 and the 144,000
by Darkknight757 ini hesitate to ask this question.
during some recent research on youtube i came across a few videos explaining how watchtower manipulated revelation 5:10. revelation 5:10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our god,and they will reign on the earth.”" -niv.
the nwt13 renders this verse: 10 and you made them to be a kingdom+ and priests to our god,+ and they are to rule as kings+ over the earth.”.
-
-
Saename
"Instead of "on the earth", Watchtower renders the verse "over the earth" and makes the connection of these ones to the 144,000."
The Greek word this verse uses is ἐπί ("epi"). The problem with this word is that it has multiple meanings. It can mean different propositions in English:
- upon
- unto
- against
- in
- at
- on
- about
- over
- before
- by
Here are some examples of verses in different translations:
- Matthew 7.25 uses "epi" to mean "upon" in KJV and INT.
- Matthew 10.18 uses "epi" to mean "before" in NAS, KJV, and INT.
- Matthew 10.21 uses "epi" to mean "against" in NAS, KJV, and INT.
- Matthew 18.13 uses "epi" to mean "over" in NAS and INT, whereas KJV renders "epi" as "of."
In short, the rendering of "epi" as "over" in Rev. 5.10 is neither wrong nor right. It's just another example of the fact that the original New Testament cannot be reconstructed. There is not a single possibility to know what the authors meant when they penned their words. Each manuscript we have is different from each other, and some of the Greek words can mean different things, each of which interpretations can be considered agreeable depending on how you read the verses. This problem is especially evident when you attempt to interpret the prophecies.
-
33
Jesus Knows the Day & Hour Now?
by KillerJones ini was skimming the july 2016 wt study article and came across a paragraph indicating that, despite scriptural evidence, the governing body indeed feels that god's son now knows the exact day and hour of armageddon.
is this 'new light'?
from the second study article, page 14, pgh 4:.
-
-
Saename
I thought the Governing Body doesn't deal in hypothetical questions and answers? I mean, when Geoffrey Jackson was asked in the ARC whether Jesus would point to Deut. 22:23–27 (I hope this was the right scripture) to show that there are exceptions to the two-witness rule, he denied to answer, saying that it was a hypothetical question, and that he can't know without talking to Jesus first. Now this paragraph clearly speaks about a hypothetical scenario. The problem is that the Witnesses will now say that this is the new light. Shame on you, Governing Body.