This thread was/is sad on so many levels
Posts by TD
-
17"Modern Bibles" New World Translation - Part II
by Perry inbehold, the days come, saith the lord god, that i will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the lord .
amos 8: 11. .
most of us who have been raised as jehovahs witnesses since at least the 1960s were occasionally reminded of the scholarship of fred franz and his command of eight or more languages, including the biblical languages of hebrew and greek.
-
-
-
50
Prove That Jehovah’s Witnesses Do Not Have The “Truth”
by minimus insomeone is researching jehovah’s witnesses.
they happen to come on to this site.
do the witnesses have the truth??.
-
-
TD
It's not possible to prove a negative. Burden of proof rests on the claimant.
It is possible to prove that the JW's have done many things that are incompatible with what they claim to be.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
TD
And that destroys any argument that the Prohibition is about Transfusions. Thanks TD, couldn't be more concise.
From what I've seen in JW literature, this is not unusual (i.e. A facile treatment of a subject in one publication is undermined by a more thorough treatment in another.)
The JW Bible Encyclopedia, Insight On The Scriptures Vol II page 587 states with regard to the Decree:
"The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood and from sexual immorality."
So clearly they do understand that the phrase, "Keep abstaining...from blood" was specific to its context
There is a view common among Bible scholars that the Decree was simply a temporary measure to ease the tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The wording is actually pretty weak. In both English and Ancient Greek the connotation is clearly one of voluntary compliance.
The JW parent organization argues against this viewpoint by (You guessed it) linking it back to earlier commands and/or appealing to scholars who do:
For example the October 22, 1990 issue of Awake! said on page 15:
“But those who respect the Creator's wishes do not treat it that way. 'You must not eat blood' was God's command to Noah and his descendants—all mankind. (Genesis 9:4) Eight centuries later He put that command in his Law to the Israelites. Fifteen centuries later he reaffirmed it once again to the Christian congregation: 'Abstain from blood.'—Acts 15:20.”
The June 15, 1991 Watchtower said on page 9:
“The early Christians upheld that divine prohibition. Commenting thereon, British scholar Joseph Benson said: "This prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites . . . has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."
The June 15, 1978 issue of The Watchtower said on page 23:
“In "Origin and Beginnings of Christianity," Professor Eduard Meyer commented that the meaning of "blood" in Acts 15:29 was "the partaking of blood that was forbidden through the law (Gen. 9:4) imposed on Noah and so also on mankind as a whole."
So again, it is clear from both their direct statements and the authoritative sources they have chosen to appeal to that the JW's do understand that the mention of blood in the Decree was a reiteration of existing commands against eating it.If we want to go back even farther, blood fractions were originally allowed on the basis that they did not qualify as "food."
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden...
...And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden." (The Watchtower September 15 1958 p. 575)So yet again, it's very apparent that they do understand the phrase. It's only by ripping it out of its context and invoking it as an independent construction that they apply it transfusion -
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
TD
I think I will have to go back over it a few times. It’s been a while since I have considered an ‘intransitive verb’ and a ‘finite verb’. Grammar was not my best subject.
It can be confusing. I notice somebody on the board Bobcat mentioned above read through the entire post including the examples and didn't understand one single, solitary word it
Abstain and its synonyms (Refrain, Forebear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning it to, "Keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something." (I'm quoting the American Heritage Dictionary here)
When that action is clearly understood, it is normal in everyday, conversational English to omit it, as in, Abstain from fatty foods or Abstain from wine. (The individual on the other board mentions sex, but that is not a legitimate example because that word doubles as both a noun and a verb.)
What's actually happening here is that the listener is mentally completing the thought themselves. The former is clearly a reference to eating fatty foods and the latter is clearly a reference to drinking wine
Conversational English is not the same thing as written composition and using the word, "Abstain" when the context is not clearly understood, as in "Abstain from boat" is most certainly ungrammatical.
This whole conversation can be bypassed with a JW simply by pointing out that they have acknowledged on a number of occasions that the mention of blood at Acts 15 was a reiteration of the prohibition against eating it in the Law. A good example can be found in their older Bible Dictionary, (The blue one) under the heading, Paul, but there are plenty of others too.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
TD
I don't disagree with your analysis, but I think the problem with the JW interpretation of the Decree is much more basic than that
What the Law forbade was the eating of blood. Transfusion would fall under the umbrella of this command only if it can be shown to be either physically, morally, ontologically or in some other way equivalent to the eating of blood.
It can't and the JW's know it.
They therefore attempt to get around that inconvenient fact by invoking the phrase, "Abstain from blood" as in independent construction in an attempt to convey the idea of a simple and direct command applicable to all uses of blood
That is semantic legerdemain.
You can't invoke a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it. It's ungrammatical.
Allowing the JW's to get away with such a cheap trick is a level of charity they really don't deserve.
"Abstain" is intransitive, which means it is unable to take a direct object or transfer action from subject to object.
What, for example would it mean to:
Abstain from shrubbery
Abstain from crankshaft
Abstain from train
These phrases are completely nonsensical because they're grammatically incomplete
The only way to make an "Abstain from" construction work is to either preface it with an appropriate context or modify the intransitive verb, "abstain," with a finite verb. Only then do you have a transfer of action between subject and object.
Like this:
Abstain from cutting the shrubbery
Abstain from scratching the crankshaft
Abstain from riding on the train
Another way to illustrate this problem is to attempt to express the abstention from blood as a, "Do not."
For example, "Fornication," in contrast to the other three items listed in the decree is the name of a finite act and therefore has a verb form.
I can easily state that abstention as a finite negative:
Do not fornicate
You can't do this with blood because it is not a finite act. It's an object and there is no verb form of the word that really works here. The only way to phrase the abstention as a "Do not" is as I've explained above.
This might seem like an esoteric point, but it's really not. It's actually very easy
In context, the phrase "Keep abstaining....from blood" is a reiteration of the prohibition on eating it as stated in the Law. That's why the word, "Keep" (Which the JW's like to omit) is there.
Out of context it is an incomplete thought that can mean anything a snake oil salesman wants it to mean.
---One more simple example and I'll shut up.
To illustrate how an "Abstain from" construction will morph depending upon the context in which it is spoken consider these two sentences:
His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."
Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."
Even though both doctors have said, "Abstain from alcohol" they are clearly not talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol, we would understand the latter to be a reference to its consumption.
The two abstentions are completely unrelated as they are meant to address two entirely different conditions.
-
40
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Wrong Regarding Staying Out of Politics?
by minimus inwe were told we were part of the world if we got involved in politics.
if we had employment that had political involvement we were instructed to get another job.
we were told we might be considered disassociated if we voted and then it became questionable.
-
-
TD
Context is everything. No normal person reading that passage would come away with the idea that Christians should not participate in society.
I understand if someone has problems with war and related issues, but that doesn't mean you cannot or should not vote on whether a school gets built
-
40
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Wrong Regarding Staying Out of Politics?
by minimus inwe were told we were part of the world if we got involved in politics.
if we had employment that had political involvement we were instructed to get another job.
we were told we might be considered disassociated if we voted and then it became questionable.
-
-
TD
Yes they're wrong
Voting is a civic responsibility of everyone. Your only viable alternative is to go off and live on an island somewhere
The Witnesses make the argument that by voting, you are responsible for anything bad the person you vote for does, which is fallacious because that's not how representative democracy works. We as humans make the best decisions we can and employ others in areas we're not qualified or don't have time for. If a doctor, lawyer, architect, or engineer screws up, it's not your fault for hiring them. It's their fault for failing you. And it's the same with politicians.
Even if this were not the case, you are just as responsible for your inactions as you are for your actions. If you can do harm by voting, (I don't agree with that, but let's assume just for the sake of discussion that the Witnesses are right) then you can also do harm by not voting. If you are responsible for the bad things someone you vote for does than you are equally responsible for the bad things someone you don't vote against does.
So the JW argument fails on both fronts.
-
56
JW Net and Politics
by snare&racket inthis site was and remains instrumental in assisting people that want to leave the jw's.. there has been political discussion here for some time now, a good couple of years and it makes me feel a little uneasy.
i just opened up the site for the first time in some weeks, of the 10 posts being discussed, 4 were by the same poster, about politics, promoting their right wing beliefs.. this has been the trend for some time now, the same name behind a peppering of posts stirring the right v left of politics.. i remain forever grateful to the site and it's founders simon & angharad, i appreciate that simon shares some of these these political beliefs.
it would be a shame to see the site evolve from a place for jw freedom of thought and escape, to political squabbling, that the world is frankly tired of right now.. just to clarify, politics is my hobby, whilst my friends read the football scores, i'm reading polling data.
-
-
TD
Yes. He was a prophet of the Y2K apocalypse a few years before he came here and when that failed to materialize he was completely unfazed.
--Which to me, raises the question of whether he actually believes what he's peddling
-
56
JW Net and Politics
by snare&racket inthis site was and remains instrumental in assisting people that want to leave the jw's.. there has been political discussion here for some time now, a good couple of years and it makes me feel a little uneasy.
i just opened up the site for the first time in some weeks, of the 10 posts being discussed, 4 were by the same poster, about politics, promoting their right wing beliefs.. this has been the trend for some time now, the same name behind a peppering of posts stirring the right v left of politics.. i remain forever grateful to the site and it's founders simon & angharad, i appreciate that simon shares some of these these political beliefs.
it would be a shame to see the site evolve from a place for jw freedom of thought and escape, to political squabbling, that the world is frankly tired of right now.. just to clarify, politics is my hobby, whilst my friends read the football scores, i'm reading polling data.
-
-
TD
Eden,
To be short, yes, I believe that individuals like "e-watchman" do suffer from a personality disorder that is yet to be formally named, but is emerging in scientific studies, They play into the hands of people who craft conspiracy theories, becoming their useful tools in the vital role of spreading and amplifying them.
That individual is more purveyor than consumer.
The weaving of current events into his wild, allegorical scriptural interpretations and the promotion of those ideas to the gullible goes back more than twenty years.
For those curious:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/users/6903/You%20Know/topics
-
56
JW Net and Politics
by snare&racket inthis site was and remains instrumental in assisting people that want to leave the jw's.. there has been political discussion here for some time now, a good couple of years and it makes me feel a little uneasy.
i just opened up the site for the first time in some weeks, of the 10 posts being discussed, 4 were by the same poster, about politics, promoting their right wing beliefs.. this has been the trend for some time now, the same name behind a peppering of posts stirring the right v left of politics.. i remain forever grateful to the site and it's founders simon & angharad, i appreciate that simon shares some of these these political beliefs.
it would be a shame to see the site evolve from a place for jw freedom of thought and escape, to political squabbling, that the world is frankly tired of right now.. just to clarify, politics is my hobby, whilst my friends read the football scores, i'm reading polling data.
-
-
TD
I guess we all have our own hot buttons and blind spots.
I'm still mulling over the perception that this board has not always been highly political.
Does nobody remember the retired attorney asking the men here in all seriousness how they had adjusted to no longer being dictators? Or how threads often morphed into attacks on men?
Does nobody remember the months of discussion on WMDs in Iraq? Our whether the second Gulf War was about oil?
Does nobody remember the many discussions on whether there was ever a legitimate reason to own a gun?
Does nobody remember how conservative residents of the Midwestern and Southwestern U.S. were portrayed as uneducated by liberals who seemed to think they were?