If the Weekly World News published the story, it has to be true!
Posts by VM44
-
27Can the Demons infect a computer?
by Comatose inno self respecting jw would doubt the demons ability to attach themselves to physical objects.
for example if a jw put a poster on their wall of a pentagram or some other "satanic symbol" that's a "doorway" for the demunz.
it's inviting them into your home.
-
-
-
27
Can the Demons infect a computer?
by Comatose inno self respecting jw would doubt the demons ability to attach themselves to physical objects.
for example if a jw put a poster on their wall of a pentagram or some other "satanic symbol" that's a "doorway" for the demunz.
it's inviting them into your home.
-
-
VM44
US preacher finds demon-possessed PCs
And they speak in tongues, too
By Thomas C Greene, 10th March 2000
Forget about viruses and malicious hackers; the real threat these days is far more insidious. Your home computer may be host to a demon, and you and your family may well come under its malevolent control, the Weekly World News reports. "While the Computer Age has ushered in many advances, it has also opened yet another door through which Lucifer and his minions can enter and corrupt men's souls," the paper quotes the Reverend Jim Peasboro, author of an upcoming book, The Devil in the Machine, as saying. Demons are able to possess anything with a brain, from a chicken to a human being. And today's thinking machines have enough space on their hard drives to accommodate Satan or his pals, the paper reports. Disk capacity is an issue, however. Only a PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit, the minister explained. The Georgia clergyman says he became aware of the problem from counseling churchgoers. "I learned that many members of my congregation became in touch with a dark force whenever they used their computers," he said. "Decent, happily married family men were drawn irresistibly to pornographic Web sites and forced to witness unspeakable abominations. "Housewives who had never expressed an impure thought were entering Internet chat rooms and found themselves spewing foul, debasing language they would never use normally," he declared. "One woman wept as she confessed to me, 'I feel when I'm on the computer as if someone else or something else just takes over.'" The minister said he probed one such case, actually logging onto the parishioner's computer himself. To his horror, an artificial-intelligence program started spontaneously. "The program began talking directly to me, openly mocked me," he recalls. "It typed out, 'Preacher, you are a weakling and your God is a damn liar.'" Then the device went haywire and started printing out what looked like gobbledygook. "I later had an expert in dead languages examine the text," the minister said. "It turned out to be a stream of obscenities written in a 2,800-year-old Mesopotamian dialect!" The minister estimates that one in ten computers in America now hosts some type of evil spirit. The Reverend advises anyone suspecting that their computer is possessed to consult a clergyman, or, if the computer is still under warranty, to take it in for servicing. "Technicians can replace the hard drive and reinstall the software, getting rid of the wicked spirit permanently," he says.
-
34
A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956
by VM44 ina jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.
does vat 4956 prove 587?.
many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.
-
-
VM44
Here is the complete text written by the "one who thoroughly studied Vat 4956."
http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Astronomical Dating
The chronology placing the date for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587
BCE is derived from records which have come down to us in the form of
clay tablets, the majority of which are documents made during the
Seleucid period (4th century BCE). Many of these documents make
reference to astronomical events, such as eclipses of the sun and moon,
which are numbered to the years of various kings; however, the accuracy
of the year numbers (and in some cases the king so named) in these
documents is of a questionable nature.
In fact, contemporaneous astronomical texts, sufficient to construct an
accurate chronology for the period in question, are wanting. It is very
likely that such contemporaneous texts were also lacking in the Seleucid
period as well, which is the reason why the historians of that period
would have compiled documents in an attempt to construct a chronology
thought to address the earlier period.
In addition to the information presented on the clay tablets from the
Seleucid period, several astronomical events are listed in the canon of
the first century astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. Ptolemy's canon contains
astronomical events which are aligned with certain year numbers for
specific kings who ruled in the earlier period. However, out of all the
eclipse data that Ptolemy provides only one extant document matches the
eclipse and year number with the data listed in his canon, and that is a
copy made during the Seleucid period dealing with an eclipse in the
seventh year of Kambyses.
Furthermore, it has been mathematically proven that Ptolemy's method of
calculation could not have yielded the dates for many of the eclipses
that he listed in his canon. Thus, Ptolemy fabricated much of the
information that he presented in order to align the astronomical
information with what was then the popular chronology. (The mathematical
proof that Ptolemy fabricated his data can be obtained from Robert R.
Newton's /The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy/, published by The Johns Hopkins
University Press, ISBN 0-8018-1990-3.)
Some believe that Ptolemy received his data from Hipparchus, who is
thought to have transferred data into the Egyptian system from records
"brought over" from Babylon, which had been transferred into the Greek
system developed by Kallippos; yet there is uncertainty concerning which
Greek calendar Hipparchus used in his works. It must also be noted that
Hipparchus, from whom Ptolemy might have obtained some of his data, is
suspected of having obtained his information base by working backward
from the results he expected. This would mean that Hipparchus was
working only with astronomical records made in a later period, and that
he assigned a king's year number based on the opinion popular in his time.
Moreover, Ptolemy produced a list of Babylonian kings with the lengths
of their reigns. His numbers agree with those of Berossus, who was a
Babylonian priest during the Seleucid period. For this reason many
believe that Ptolemy obtained his historical information from sources
dating from the Seleucid period and not from contemporaneous Babylonian
manuscripts. This was also the opinion of Edwin Thiele, who states:
"Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical
purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers
of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning
of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct
allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical
data which were then available."-/The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
Kings/, page 293.
From this it can be seen that the year numbers for the Babylonian kings,
which Ptolemy listed in conjunction with the astronomical data in his
canon, were based on records available in the Seleucid period; and
although the astronomical data may be somewhat accurate, the accuracy of
the year numbers is questionable. Additionally, several sources prior to
the time of Ptolemy give different numbers for the lengths of the
Babylonian kings.
Surprisingly, astronomical records from the Seleucid period differ
radically from astronomical texts contained in /Enuma Anu Enlil/ (a
document containing astrological reports to Assyrian kings from Babylon
and Assyria). The earlier records are rarely dated to the year of a king
as they were written primarily for astrological purposes. Some of the
records contain eclipse predictions, which either came about as
predicted or did not occur ("passed by"). From this we can conclude that
the early Babylonians had some empirical knowledge of astronomical
events; but the records do not indicate that they used this knowledge to
establish a chronology, that practice was taken up by astronomers in the
Seleucid period who were far more proficient in calculating eclipses.
This fact is evident when one compares records from the two different
periods. Thus, astronomers in the Seleucid period were able to produce
tables of ancient eclipses, to which they assigned year numbers based on
king lists available at that time. Thus, the alignments between year
numbers and eclipses were only accurate to the extent that their king
lists were correct. Missing one interregnum at any point would
invalidate their whole chronology prior to the interregnum.
According to the conventional chronology, Nabonassar ascended the throne
in 6 February, 747 BCE. Ptolemy (or one of his predecessors) would have
had no trouble picking an eclipse for what was thought to be the
ascension year of Nabonassar; then it would have been a simple matter to
construct a chronology from that date by aligning eclipse records with
year numbers based on king lists available at that time. Ptolemy also
listed the dates for the eclipses in the first and second years of
Merodach-Baladan as 19 March, 721 BCE, 8 March, 720 BCE and 1 September,
720 BCE. Nevertheless, Newton concluded that Ptolemy may have fabricated
both the eclipse in the first year and the late eclipse in the second
year. He also concluded that Ptolemy definitely fabricated the early
eclipse in the second year; and, as was previously demonstrated, is it
uncertain that the year numbers assigned to these eclipses are accurate.
Ptolemy lists the eclipse in the fifth year of Nabopolassar as occurring
on 22 April, 621, but this is another eclipse that Newton concluded was
fabricated, and, once again, there can be no certainty about the year
number. Ptolemy also stated that this eclipse had a magnitude of 3.0,
yet it appears in Oppolzer's canon as only 1.6.
Another document used to support the popular chronology is known as BM
32312, which describes the positions of Mercury, Saturn and Mars datable
to 652 BCE. The document also mentions a battle which took place between
the Assyrians and Babylonians at Hirit on the 27th day of an unknown
month. Because the name of the king and the year number are broken off
from the tablet some conclude that this document cannot be a copy made
in a later period. Another document, BM 86379, known as the "Akitu
Chronicle," mentions a battle at Hirit on the 27th day of Adar in the
16th year of Shamashshumaukin. Based on the assumption that both
documents speak of the same battle at Hirit on the 27th day, many
conclude that BM 32312 assigns the 16th year of Shamashshumaukin to 652
BCE. The "Akitu Chronicle," however, when considered in the light of
another document, BM 96273, known as the "Shamashshumaukin Chronicle,"
reveals an anachronism that would establish 652 BCE as the 16th year of
Kandalanu! (See artilce on "The Akitu Chronoicle.")
VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular
chronology. It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period,
which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to
the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. There is, however, no evidence to
support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE
from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the
possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication,
compiled during the Seleucid period, possibly from a badly damaged
tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king.
Yet another document considered a pillar in the conventional chronology
is BM 76738 + 76813, known as the "Saturn Tablet," which contains
observations of the planet Saturn datable from 647 - 627 BCE. The name
of the planet Saturn does not appear in the text, and the name of the
king is restored (from only a few traces in the first line) to
Kandalanu. The data found on the document is thought to have been
extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/ and aligned with the year numbers for
Kandalanu. A mark on the tablet indicates that the scribe was copying
from a broken tablet. As with a previous example, this document was
copied at a later period from an earlier document, which contained data
extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/, that had been aligned with year
numbers for Kandalanu (?) for the purpose of constructing a
chronological scheme based on the assumption that year numbers from
Kandalanu's reign should be synchronized with the extracted data.
A similar, but somewhat older document, Tablet 63 of /Enuma Anu Enlil/,
known as "The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa," contains observations of the
planet Venus, for which several dates have been proposed - 1702, 1646,
1582 and 1419 BCE. Only the most recent date, 1419 BCE, aligns with the
smallest percentage of error, 8 percent, with calculations that meet the
requirements for the data found in the text. While the percentages of
error for the two dates which align more closely with the popular
chronology, 1646 and 1582 BCE, are 44 and 28 percent respectively!
The Assyrian Eponym List contains an entry in the 9th year of Ashurdan,
in the eponym of Bur-Sagale, which notes that "the sun had an eclipse."
This eclipse is often placed in 763 BCE according to the popular
chronology; however, the eclipse of 809 BCE aligns perfectly with the
chronology derived from the Biblical record, which places the fall of
Jerusalem in 608 BCE prior to a full 70 years' desolation.
Herodotus reported an eclipse of the sun at the sceen of the battle
between Lydia and Media. According to the chronology which places the
fall of Jerusalem in 586 or 587 BCE that eclipse had to have occurred in
585 BCE. Yet the eclipse in 635 BCE was adequate enough to produce
noticeable darkness, which would have provided a portent sufficient to
end the war as recorded by Herodotus. (See artilce on "The Lydian-Median
War.")
A translation of the text of the Ugarit Eclipse Tablet reads, "was put
to shame the day of the new moon of Hiyyaru entering in of the sun
gatekeeper of her Rashap." Some understand the wording of the text to
mean that an eclipse of the sun occurred at sunset by reading, "The day
of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to shame (at the) going down of the
sun, her gatekeeper (was) Rashap." But two separate clauses are
intended; the first, "The day of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to
shame," and the second, "(at the) going down of the sun her gatekeeper
(was) Rashap." In the Hebrew (a Canaanite language similar to Ugaritic)
Rashap means "flame;" thus, Rashap is a participle/noun meaning flaming
one, which meets the discription of the planet Mars. The solar eclipse
of 20 May, 1078 BCE began at 7:40 AM (local time), it was almost total
at 9:00 AM and ended at 10:45 AM. The eclipse would have produced
darkness such that bright stars would have been visible at Lon 35:37 deg
E and Lat 35:47 deg N (Ugarit). The sun set with Mars becoming visible.
The Ugarit Eclipse Tablet was found in a room next to the palace entry
way of King Nikmaddu (II) bearing evidence of having been in a fire.
Rohl notes that the date of the fire, which destroyed half of the palace
of Nikmaddu (II), is determined by an entry in the Amarna letters
recording a message to Akhenaten from the King of Tyre; other entries
indicate that Akhenaten received word of the fire just after the death
of Amenhotep (III) when Nikmaddu (II) ruled Ugarit. He further
synchronizes the reign of Akhenaten, after an exhaustive analysis, with
the death of Saul at Gilboa. Thus, the eclipse in 1078 BCE aligns
perfectly with the Biblical chronology placing the beginning of David's
reign 80 years before the division of the kingdom in 998 BCE. (David and
Solomon reigned 40 years each.)
The Biblical chronology aligns nicely with the astronomical data found
in /Enuma Anu Enlil/. Several examples can be cited. (See article
"Astronomical Records from Ancient Assyria.")
Placing the return of the Jews from exile in 538 BCE, allowing for a
full 70 years' desolation of the land and using the total of the reigns
of the kings of Judah, which is 390 years, I have constructed the
Biblical chronology set forth on my charts. In addition to listing the
reigns of the kings of Judah, I have also synchronized them with the
reigns of the kings of Israel, Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.
/Back <998-538.html>/ -
34
A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956
by VM44 ina jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.
does vat 4956 prove 587?.
many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.
-
-
VM44
A JW wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by VAT 4956. Comments on the author's logic would be appreciated. --VM44
Does Vat 4956 Prove 587?
Many point to Vat 4956 as proof that Jerusalem was desolated in 587BCE. After all Vat 4956 is an eyewitness account of celestial phenomena that occured in the 37th year of Neb. It is so detailed that the astronomical events that are recorded in this tablet could have only occured in the year 568BCE. And since it was written in the 37th year of Neb.....Wait! What's that you say? It was not written in the 37th year of Neb by an eyewitness to the celestial events?
Well, maybe not. But it was observed in the 37th year of Neb and written a little while later while Neb was still king or shortly thereafter during the rule of other Babylonian kings by a very reliable and trustworthy person. No? It was written then either?
You might be very surprised to learn that the tablet known as Vat 4956 is admittedly a copy dated during the Seleucid period and the time of Berosus some 300 years after the supposed events that it records. The fact is we do not know how many times it was copied and handed down. We do not know if there really was an original tablet. We do not even know if 'in the 37th year of Neb' was originally in it or if the copyist added those words perhaps to reflect what they thought or what Beorosis thought at the time because amazingly it does reflect the beliefs of Berosus whose beliefs may have well been popular at the time. Who can really say? And remember this, it is not an inspired record from God.
It is much like this conclusion reached by one who thoroughly studied Vat 4956:
"VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular chronology. It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period, which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication, compiled during the Seleucid period, possibly from a badly damaged tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king."
So then what really does Vat 4956 prove? It proves that there surely were people living almost 300 years after Neb that believed that his 37th year occured in the year that we now consider to be 568BCE only about 30 years before the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus. It proves that Vat 4956 may reflect well what was believed by Berosus and probably others at the time. But the simple fact is that any astronomer could research and describe events that occured in a certain year and then date it to any date they wanted such as in the 37th year of Neb.
Are you aware of another tablet that has been discovered which says something different. This tablet shows many celestial events that could have only happened in the year 588BCE. This tablet says these events occured in the 37th year of Neb also. If this tablet was written about 300 years after Neb then we have conflicting stories. Perhaps this person believed that Neb's 37th year was about 50 years before the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus in the year 588BCE as we know it. Can it really be so? Where is this tablet?
You will find it sitting on my dining room table as it is on a Big Chief tablet belonging to my preschooler and written by someone of modern times. But it well illustrates the nature and reliability of Vat 4956. An astronomer who lived in the time of Berosus could have very well written a document describing the celestial events of 588BCE and dated it to the 37th year of Neb and who would have known? Who could have argued with it?
Why would such a document as Vat 4956 be written if it is not true. Was it a conspiracy against the Watchtower which they knew would rise up in the future to proclaim 607 as the year of Jerusalem's destruction? That is the argument used in an attempt to discredit and show the foolishness of JWs. But consider.
Perhaps Vat 4956 was written for one of the following reasons. It could have been written to support those beliefs popular during the time. Or perhaps it was written to show that the sacred Jewish writings at the time concerning the 70 years of desolation and restoration were inaccurate. Or even consider that perhaps it was an attempt by Satan the Devil to obscure the date of Jerusalem's destruction in order to make Jehovah's prophets appear to be wrong about the 70 years of desolation and it has worked for the most part. Or even looking at the bigger picture, to confuse the starting and ending point of the seven Gentile times, to put forth the lie that 1914 is not the date of Christ's presence at all, in order to bring forth the notion: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'
As the Watchtower accurately put it way back in 1972:
"It should not be overlooked that the source of corroborative evidence should bear the earmarks of dependability. Can this be said about “VAT 4956”? Not really. The text is not an original and it contains numerous gaps. Certain terms found therein cannot even be understood now. Twice in the text the notation hi-bi (meaning “broken off, obliterated”) appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that he was working from a defective copy.
Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents a true picture of the original, this would not establish the correctness of the historical data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place astronomical data, so the copyist of “VAT 4956” may, in line with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the ‘thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.’ As admitted by the German scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the translators of this text), the scribe evidently changed words to conform with the abbreviated terminology common in his day. But he was both inconsistent and inaccurate. So he could just as easily have inserted other information to suit his purposes. Hence both Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956” might even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share mutual errors."
But if Vat 4956 is inaccurate then doesn't this also undermine the evidence that Babylon was conquered in 539BCE? No it does not. For the 37th year of Neb can still be 588BCE and it does not effect 539 in any way. 539 as the date of Babylon's conquest is proven historically with the backing of Biblical evidence in many different ways.
In conclusion we might ask a few simple questions:
Who was the copyist of the VAT 4956? Was he an astrologist? Was he inspired by God? Did he have an agenda? Did he have any qualms about adding his own thoughts? Did he mind adding words to prove what he believed? Did he know Nebuchadnezzar? Was he there during the 37th year of Neb? Did he really copy it from anything or just make it up using known astronomical happenings from the year 568BCE? Was he a Godly man?
On the other hand:
Who wrote Ezekiel? Who was Isaiah? Who was Daniel? Who was Jeremiah? Who was Ezra? Who did they worship? Were they inspired of God? Did they add their own words?
Who should we believe? These Bible writers approved by Jehovah and inspired by him? Or some unknown copyist? -
-
-
VM44
"...yet the WT will take it anyway"
If a JW bought a lotto ticket and won, the Watchtower would accept any money donated to them from the winnings.
Then the local elders would put the JW on reproof!
-
3
Yahweh Flunked Science
by VM44 inyahweh flunked science.
by anonymous.
http://www.amazon.com/yahweh-flunked-science/dp/1478330538/.
-
-
VM44
I thought the title was interesting.
But I am not sure if this book is worth ordering, that is, paying money for.
Each person will have to decide that for themselve.
-
3
Yahweh Flunked Science
by VM44 inyahweh flunked science.
by anonymous.
http://www.amazon.com/yahweh-flunked-science/dp/1478330538/.
-
-
VM44
Yahweh Flunked Science
by Anonymous
http://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Flunked-Science/dp/1478330538/
Creationists like to say evolution is “only a theory.” Well, Hebrew mythology is also only a theory about how the universe works, and a totally lame one at that. There’s all kinds of evidence proving just how lame this theory is. Unfortunately, it’s all very cleverly buried in the Bible, where no one ever looks. “Yahweh Flunked Science,” a unique, funny, 21st century assessment, gets right to the point and reveals what the all-too-human ancient authors of Scripture really thought. For every flash of genius, there are a dozen things the All-Knowing Creator of the Universe is shockingly misinformed about. Nothing big, just all the things He supposedly invented – trivial stuff like the earth, the heavens, etc … and even stuff He’s supposedly good at, like morality and justice. And for each pretty sentiment in the Good Book, we get four or five that are totally barbaric. It’s all broken down here, all the perverted, psychotic stuff the Bible has to offer, but without the preachers’ guilt trips that keep you from focusing on what it really says. It’s time to stop arguing with believers in fairy tales. Let’s hear them out, and enjoy a few laughs as we point out the ridiculousness of their quaint notions. Then, when we’re finished indulging them, let’s turn the conversation back over to the adults.
-
15
Resurrection of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah...the complete story
by MacHislopp insometime ago a friend of mine was very surprised when i did tell him about the many changes concerning the resurrection of the men from sodom and gomlorrah.
he didn't want to accept just the statements i.e.
yes/no + publication + date, so to make him a much happier person i did send him this:
-
-
VM44
Can someone explain why The Watchtower cannot make up its mind when answer this question?
What is the cause of their going back and forth?
-
12
I'll Take Your Literature if You Take Mine
by VM44 inin the september, 2013 okm, september, on page 3 appears "i'll take your literature if you take mine.".
that is the proposition of some householders.
since we do not exchange our bible study aids for religious literature that disseminates error, how might we answer tactfully?
-
-
VM44
So "the only religious literature that I read highlights God's Kingdom."?
Rather, "the GB often relies on "worldly wisdom" from old books and dead opposers, who were educated by, and members of "apostate Christendom.""
The JWs should really be more honest when speaking to people at their homes.
http://www.freeminds.org/history/busselmn.htm
reprint from the Mar/Apr 1996 Free Minds Journal
reprints of the Free Minds JournalNew Light
from Old Books and Dead Opposers
by Gary Busselman
In support of their recent Biblical interpretation change concerning "this generation" (Matt. 24:34), the Governing Body (hereafter GB) of Jehovah's Witnesses submitted four documents. (Watchtower, 11/1/95, p. 12)
Those were:
1. Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
2. W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
3. J.H. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
4. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964), edited by Gerhard Kittle.
After reading the November 1, 1995 Watchtower, my friend, Steven A. Hickey, pastor of Harvest Covenant Church in Sioux Falls, SD (also a Biblical scholar and theologian) asked me, "How do they get 'new light' from a guy who's been dead for a hundred years?" In my research that he inspired, I found that the GB often relies on "worldly wisdom" from old books and dead opposers, who were educated by, and members of "apostate Christendom." (Sorry folks, Watchtower language, not mine.) Here are some additional facts regarding these sources.
1. Walter Bauer (1877-1960), German lexicographer. Taught at Gottingen from 1916 to 1945. (Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, 1982, Moody Press, Chicago.)
2. William Edwy Vine (1873-1949), vocal OPPOSER of Jehovah's Witnesses, called their teachings of conditional salvation, the denials of the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity heresies. [Vine was appealed to by the Watchtower 52 times in their encyclopedic Insight on the Scriptures alone.] Greek scholar, educator, editor, pastor and author, educated at University College of Wales; BA & MA in "Ancient Classics" from University of London, pastor at Manvers Hall Church in Bath for 40 years. Celebrated Christmas, believed in Hell and that Christ is God, that He died on a CROSS, it is proper to address Him in prayer, and that all believers partake in the Lord's Supper.
Vine denied the concept of an early Christian "organization," and a "selective" resurrection. He wrote two volumes on the "End Times" and the parousia. Vine taught that parousia should not be translated at all and that it (parousia) will start with the rapture of the Church, (when believers meet Christ in the air) and it will end with the manifestation of Christ in glory. (Publisher's Forward of Vine's Expository, 1981 ed.and W.E. Vine, His Life and Ministry, Oliphants LTD, London, 1951)
3. Joseph Henry Thayer (1828 -1901), New Testament lexicographer, born in Boston, MA, College at Harvard and seminary at Andover. Ordained a pastor in the Congregational Church in 1859.Professor of sacred literature at Andover Theological Seminary (1864-1882).Lecturer at Harvard Divinity School (1883-1901). Instrumental in founding the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. (Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, 1982, Moody Press, Chicago.)
4. Gerhard Kittle (1888-1948), German biblical scholar, born in Breslau, Germany. Instructor at Kiel (1913) and Leipzig (1917), professor of New Testament at Greifswalg (1921-1926) (ibid. p. 229)
Similarly, the Watchtower publication Insight On The Scriptures, vol. 1, p. 440 applies for credibility citing the following sources of "worldly wisdom":
1. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, James Strong (1822-1894), Methodist biblical scholar and educator. A member of the Anglo-American Bible Revision Committee. (Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, 1982, Moody Press, Chicago, p. 385)
2. Edward Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon, Edward Robinson (1794-1863), American biblical scholar, studied at Hamilton College and learned Greek at Andover Theological Seminary. Did much research and theological writing. (Who Was Who in Church History, Moody Press, Chicago, 1962.)
What do these Watchtower sources all have in common?
a. They are all dead. (Long-time dead men don't usually write, call or show up on videos.)
b. They were all college educated (unlike most Witnesses I know). And they read Greek and Hebrew (unlike all Witnesses I know).
c. None were Jehovah's Witnesses. All were students of, and/or members of "Christendom."
d. All were writers of what the Watchtower calls "wisdom of the world."
-
12
I'll Take Your Literature if You Take Mine
by VM44 inin the september, 2013 okm, september, on page 3 appears "i'll take your literature if you take mine.".
that is the proposition of some householders.
since we do not exchange our bible study aids for religious literature that disseminates error, how might we answer tactfully?
-
-
VM44
In the September, 2013 OKM, September, on page 3 appears "I'll Take Your Literature if You Take Mine."
----
That is the proposition of some householders. Since we do not exchange our Bible study aids for religious literature that disseminates error, how might we answer tactfully? (Rom. 1:25) We could say: "Thank you for your offer. What does this say about the solution to mankind's problems? [Allow for response. If he invites you to read his literature to find the answer, you can remind him that you did not offer literature without telling him what it contains. Then read or quote Matthew 6:9,10.] Jesus indicated that God's Kingdom will cause God's will to be done on earth. Therefore, the only religious literature that I read highlights God's Kingdom. May I show you from the Bible some specific things that God's Kingdom will accomplish?"
----
The JWs are NOT to receive any religious material from the householder.
But saying that "the only religious literature that I read highlights God's Kingdom." does not seem correct. It assumes that the householder's literature does not itself highlight God's Kingdom.
Furthermore, it is not accurate in that many JWs read books and publications not published by The Watchtower.
Saying what the Kingdom Ministry suggests say to a person at the door would not be completely correct, but simply a means to avoid accepting what the householder offers.