Posts by TD

63

GB Admits It Has No Answers, Blood

by Maximus in

jw
friends

"in contrast with humans, who have a limited life span, jehovah never feels pressured by time to reveal his secrets prematurely.

this fact should prevent us from becoming impatient when certain bible questions cannot presently be explained to our satisfaction.

"modesty on the part of the faithful and discreet slave class, commissioned to provide the christian household with food at the proper time, prevents it from presumptuously running ahead and wildly speculating about things that are still unclear.

TD

I miss "Tom/Zach." Where is he? He knows tons of stuff about that, and maybe he could educate me.

Gee Farkel, I'm touched.

Actually, Hawk and Maximus have done a fine job and there's not much more to say. As monochorionic (both monoamniotic and diamniotic) twins, triplets etc. develop and grow, so does the placenta. Pretty soon there are scores of intersections as the network of vessels from the umbilicals of each respective twin become more and more intertwined. Their blood is freely exchanged. This is quite common.

Less common is twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTT) where one twin, the "recipient" gets more than his or her fair share of the blood, while the other twin, the "donor" is robbed. The upshot is that one twin is born with an overload circulatory system while the other is born severly anemic. Both conditions are life threatening and require immediate attention. However it is at this point were current WTB&TS policy rears its ugly head, because an important and sometimes only means of saving the anemic twin is forbidden to Witnesses.

Tom

15

Give blood?

by spike in

jw
friends

i had a conversation with my doctor.

i decided to use blood.

i wanted to know my blood type.

TD

Hello Spike,

Like some of the others here, I'm a regular donor. It's easy, quick and painless.

Having been raised to believe that blood donors were the scum of the earth, I was a little leery the first time I went in. I ended up donating alongside two police officers.

The only time I was the least bit uncomfortable was the time two Witnesses doing street work came in and left magazines at the front desk. (The look on their faces was priceless.)

Tom

19

Educated Criticism Will MESS YOU UP

by Farkel in

jw
friends

since the days of da judge, dub leaders have scorned education and science.

to, victims, predators, moral degenerate, selfish, liar, anarchist, pawn of satan, materialistic, drug addicted, fetus-killing, promiscuous slut we can now add homosexual, marriage wrecker, juvenile and adult delinquent with venereal disease.. see what getting a genuine education or reading works by those who have one can do to you?

to victims, predators, moral degenerate, selfish, liar, anarchist, pawn of satan, materialistic, drug addicted, fetus-killing, promiscuous slut, homosexual, marriage wrecker, juvenile and adult delinquent with venereal disease, worship of the wild beast, we add spiritist, atheist, and communist.. *** w55 1/1 8 part 1: early voices (1870-1878) ***.

TD

Hi Farkel,

I’m sure you’re speaking tongue-in-cheek, but for those that don’t know, “higher criticism” was a major pet peeve of C. T. Russell. It’s a term that occurs literally hundreds of times throughout Zion’s Watch Tower and Millennial Dawn.

Traditionally, “higher criticism” denoted the study of the historic origins, dates and authorship of the various books of the Bible. The book Who Wrote The Bible? by R. E. Friedman is a good modern example of “higher criticism” or “introduction.” This is distinctly different than textual (lower) criticism, which is simply the study of manuscripts and codices. Examples of this latter type of critic would include men like Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorff, Scrivener, Westcott, and Hort.

Russell and his successors could tolerate men like these even though they didn’t always agree with them. For obvious reasons though, “higher criticism” is scorned by groups like the Witnesses who believe that the Bible is literally the word of God, and likely always will be.

Tom

10

Blood Products - A poll

by Kismet in

wow an opportunity to start the first thread in a new forum!!!

i couldn't resist!.

keeping on topic however, i am wondering what your stance is on blood?.

TD

Would you accept blood, why or why not?

Red cells, platelets or plasma in an emergency. For scheduled surgery, I would prefer to go bloodless if at all possible.

How about blood fractions? Any reason why or why not?

No problem with fractions. In one form or another most people have accepted one or more blood fraction even though they don't realize it.

Do you still carry your blood card? Why or why not?

I carry a "blood card." It lists my name, my blood type, and my donor ID. On the back is a record of donations.

Tom

37

Tertullian & June 15/00 WT on Blood

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

in two paragraphs in the june 15/00 wt qfr on blood, tertullian is quoted a few times in the 5th and 6th paragraphs on page 29.

( http://www.jwfiles.com/blood-wt6-15-00.htm.

i have been trying to find the exact quotes from tertullian.

TD

hawkaw,

Question for you Tom - There was a Tom on the old H20 board who brought out some really good quotes that showed how the present quotes in WT and A! articles were lies when compared to what was said in the past. Are you that same Tom?

I'm the "Tom" from H20, but to be honest and give credit where credit is due, many of those examples of JW "historical idealism" (...cough cough) were originally discovered by AlanF.

Tom

37

Tertullian & June 15/00 WT on Blood

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

in two paragraphs in the june 15/00 wt qfr on blood, tertullian is quoted a few times in the 5th and 6th paragraphs on page 29.

( http://www.jwfiles.com/blood-wt6-15-00.htm.

i have been trying to find the exact quotes from tertullian.

TD

In the same vein (no pun intended) it is interesting to note the marked difference between these two quotes:

“Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the “father of Church history,” relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177 C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: “How can we eat infants—we, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.”"
(Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, 1977, p. 13)

“Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians “are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals.” She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?”
(How Can Blood Save Your Life? 1990 p. 5)

As hawk has noted, the clear implication in the second quote is that Biblias died as a result of a refusal to eat blood - which is completely untrue.

Tom

26

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

by VM44 in

jw
friends

the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.

watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?

or read it?

TD

Friday,

So what do YOU think, are you inclined to think that simply because the translator of the Vulgate is “reputed” to be familiar with the source language that he understood it perfectly, and was above making mistakes?

Certainly not. Written language is far from being a perfect communication medium and people misunderstand each other when it comes to subtleties all of the time. A case in point is your statement above. I did not say that Jerome was “reputed to be familiar” with the source language, as there is no question on that point. The question is one as to the degree to which he was familiar with it. When I spoke of his “reputed familiarity” I was referring to the fact that he is reputed to have actually known the source language (or at least a variant thereof) as a living, spoken tongue and therefore would have been very familiar with it.

Was Jerome infallible with his translation thoughout? Did Jerome even have a full understanding of the Bible that he translated? Do you suppose that there have been respected modern-day translators that have disagreed with Jerome on some point or another as to translation?

Valid points, but I’m sure you must realize that his fallibility simply opens the door to criticism. It doesn’t automatically justify that criticism or relieve the critic of the responsibility of providing substantial evidence in support of his point.

Another thing: Isn’t it true that oftentimes translators have to rely upon the context as an aid for knowing precisely how to translate certain words? And, what’s more, isn’t that proven to be the case in the tempest at sea example, as well as others? … Wasn’t the word used in those examples simply seismos? And yet it was obviously not an earthquake, was it!

Yes, but Matthew 8:24 is a qualified usage where we are specifically told what was shaking. Even then the basic thought, a shaking of the physical surface supporting you, is the same. I think it would greatly add to the plausibility of your conclusion if you could find a simple, unqualified use of the word that is clearly made in reference to something else besides an earthquake.

You implied that there might be other objections that could be raised. What would those be in your estimation? Please elaborate.

Well a natural corollary to the question of how Greek would have been translated into other languages in times past, would be how other languages would have been translated into Greek. In other words, how would someone intimately familiar with the language have naturally expressed the concept in question. The only example I can think of off the top of my head (I’m sure there must be more) is Amos 1:1 in the Septuagint where the concept of “two years before the earthquake” is simply expressed as pro duo etwn tou seismou

Tom

26

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

by VM44 in

jw
friends

the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.

watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?

or read it?

TD

Hello Friday,

Good evening TD. Are you by any chance the "Tom" that used to post over on the old H20? Seems like he also went by "Zachary" if my memory serves me right.

Yes.

I would be delighted to know what you are talking about. Do you think that you have something that will overturn the conclusions that I've reached about the word seismos as used in the Bible? If so, let's hear it please. I'm all ears.

I don't really have an axe to grind on this question, so rather that actively desiring to overturn your conclusions, I'm simply curious if you are prepared to account for some of the more obvious objections that could be raised.

One such objection would be the rendering of scriptures such as Matthew 24:7, Mark 13:8 etc. in the Vulgate, especially given the antiquity of this translation and the reputed familiarity of the translator with the source language.

"...consurget enim gens in gentem et regnum in regnum et erunt pestilentiae et fames et terraemotus per loca."

"..exsurget autem gens super gentem et regnum super regnum et erunt terraemotus per loca et fames initium dolorum haec."

26

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

by VM44 in

jw
friends

the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.

watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?

or read it?

TD

Friday,

......the word "earth" is an unauthorized addition to the translation of the word seismos.

How do you account for the Vulgate?

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

does freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?

are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?

if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.

TD

"Dan,"

Your sentence structure is both interesting and familiar.

My thoughts on blood transfusion are as follows. There is no explicit command to abstain from blood transfusions, but there seems to be a Bible principle that suggests one should not ingest blood in any way. Should taking blood thus be a matter of conscience? I personally think it should. And by this statement, I do not mean that we should consider those who take blood transfusions to be our former brothers, who have shown they did not want the truth. A matter of conscience should be a matter of conscience.

This statement is only tangential to the question that I asked and you know it.

Additionally, to Alan you said:

I never argued, "in essence," that its okay for the GB to disfellowship "good people." Moreover (autem in Latin), I never said that the GB's teaching on blood transfusions is "false." I'm careful how I use that particular lingual sign. I prefer to say the GB's ideas are not fully formed at times. They are in the embryonic stage, but the GB may sometimes think that an embryo is a fetus or a full grown child.

Thanks for confirming that your evasiveness above was deliberate. Fully formed or not, because the blood doctrine by its very nature can require one to act in a manner contrary to some pretty clear biblical commands, it cannot seriously be regarded as anything else but false unless and until a concrete demonstration of its validity is provided. Such a demonstration has never been provided despite an almost continual outcry from the Witness community since long before you were born.

You can write it off to mistaking a partial for a whole truth. You can throw in a little superficial equivocation by describing the respective acts of consumption and transfusion in terms sufficiently fuzzy and generic to apply to both if you like. You can point out that God will eventually have an accounting with those who are reprehensible, a statement that for the believer, is true regardless of the crime or the denomination. It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up or want you want to call it. It is a doctrine where the consequences of being mistaken are some of the most vile, despicable, most obscenely evil things that "religion" is capable of. With apologies to the immortal Will, a pile of manure by any other name………

Thanks for nothing. We are wasting each other's time. (...again)

Tom