review comments
will be in black and parentheses ()
wt quotes
Blondie,
Thanks for another excellent commentary. This topic has been at the core of WT propaganda from its beginning. They've deceived themselves and millions of others with their misunderstanding and abuse of what Jesus taught about watchfulness and urgency. You did a beautiful job of showing their unchristian motives and some of their most distorted teachings.
fjt
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/post.ashx we had a great reunion >>>>>> hope everyone enjoyed it as much as i did.
will post pictures when the are developed (((hugs))
Okay. Now that I know lollydawdle's moniker, I can say "mouthy and lollydawdle supplied some delicious food." Lolly is a vegetarian and made an excellent meatless lasagna, not easily forgotten. Irreverent and Blondie arrived after I nearly finished off both lasagnas, the one baked by mouthy and the one by lolly. I hope they can forgive me of my weakness for good cookin'.
on a recent thread about the year of the destruction of jerusalem, i learned from "scholar" about rolf furuli.. i looked up his name in google, and came with a few interesting links.
all i can say is that i am glad there aren't too many witnesses going to universities, especially those claiming to be researchers.
first they must take their blinds off.. a review of rolf furuli's book "the role of theology and bias in bible translation".
Scholar,
Would a genuine scholar make the following criticisms without seeing the rafters in his own eyes?
The expression 'Jonsson hypothesis' is most appropriate because Jonsson has not proved his case but simply presented and interpreted the secular and biblical evidence supporting his claims . . .
Why not then speak of the "Watchtower hypothesis"? The WT Society has merely presented and interpreted its own claims with very little if any credible evidence. And why give Jonsson the credit for a so-called "hypothesis" that appeared in print long before he showed that it is a far better explanation than the one given by the WT Society?
scholars are divided as to whether the Fall of Jerusalem applies to 586 or 587 and both sides have their own reasons for supporting their particular position.
Isn't this an admission that Jonsson's explanation is scholarly? More important than any supposed disagreement between 586 and 587 is the almost unanimous rejection of 607. How prudent is it to reject an explanation acceptable to the majority of scholars in favour of an explanation that most of them have rejected? It seems to me that the only excuse the WT Society has for such a poor choice is "their own [prideful and stubborn] reasons for supporting their particular position."
Unfortunately, the posters on this board are deceived by Jonsson in that they believe that he has all the answers and that his critique of WT chronology is Absolute Truth.
Is it truly scholarly to accuse others of being deceived when the weight of evidence is in their favour? Is it honest? As for claims of having "all the answers" and possessing "Absolute Truth," these were made by the WT Society long before Jonsson was even born!
Jonsson has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars and simply represents a biased attempt to disprove WT chronology therefore his work does not represent scholarship at its best.
Isn't it contradictory to say in one breath that Jonsson's view is supported by some scholars and then in another breath to say that he "has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars"? Is it fair to say he's biased when he shows plainly what scholars have advocated and what they've rejected? Is it "scholarship at its best" to reject Jonsson in favour of the WT Society when the majority of scholars reject the explanation given by the WT Society and have not done so with regard to Jonsson's explanation?
Why don't you compare Furuli's chronology and you will see that the secular evidence is not infallible and is open to serious criticism.
Where is the honesty and sincerity in saying that the evidence presented by some scholars is "not infallible" when that fact is especially true of one's own so-called "evidence"? Which is more "open to serious criticism, the claims of the majority or claims that the majority have shown to be outdated and as unsupported by sound reasoning and evidence?
Furuli presents his research in a unbiased way which contrasts markedly with Jonsson's handling of the evidence.
Furuli's "research" conflicts with the results of more recent evidence that fully supports Jonsson's handling of the evidence. Isn't it therefore more than a bit absurd to make the above accusation?
fjtoth
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/post.ashx we had a great reunion >>>>>> hope everyone enjoyed it as much as i did.
will post pictures when the are developed (((hugs))
It was great meeting Irreverent and Blondie in real life for the first time. Wow! The experiences they've had! Both shared super insights on life in and out of JWs. A real balanced couple. Mouthy shared some fine motherly wisdom, and she and her friends supplied some delicious food. The whole event was truly like a warm family reunion.
fjtoth
on a recent thread about the year of the destruction of jerusalem, i learned from "scholar" about rolf furuli.. i looked up his name in google, and came with a few interesting links.
all i can say is that i am glad there aren't too many witnesses going to universities, especially those claiming to be researchers.
first they must take their blinds off.. a review of rolf furuli's book "the role of theology and bias in bible translation".
Scholar:
When you have the academic qualifications that Furuli has achieved then you are in position to be critical of his scholarship.
Aren't you attacking the wrong person? It doesn't seem to me that Faraon is claiming any academic credentials. He's merely putting us in touch with academics who are qualified to pass judgment upon Furuli.
Furuli has done a magnificant jog in elevating the NWT, defending our blood issue and deconstructing the Jonsson hypothesis.
With all due respect, Sir, that statement is laughable.
BA MA Studies in Religion
I assume you are telling the honest truth. Please tell us at what seminary, college or uinversity you earned your BA and MA.
fjtoth
how can you explain to a person that "god is love" then explain disfellowshipping to them, even though the person who is the "prodigal son" is forgiven instantly?
witnesses say that this is just an illustration.. they forgot to tell you that all they're teachings are from illustrations that jesus used.
they use double speak in this regard.
comments you will not hear at the 1-11-04 wt study
"take exquisite delight in jehovah," david said, "and he will give you the requests of your heart.
(pedophiles are protected by a two-witness rule in the wts.
Taking "exquisite delight" in someone is something that comes naturally and involves the whole heart and mind, one's total focus. It's plain to me that the article should have been called something like "Do This If You Want to Be Happy!" The focus is on the reader, not on the Person who should be the object of the reader's unbridled affection.
fjtoth
.
..."walking with god.
" why not call it "walking with god after we just gave him glory"?.
It's plain already what the theme of the entire program will be: "Don't walk with them there apostates. Walk with us because we are God, ... er, ... uh, ... follow us because we are the only ones in the whole wide world who are walking side-by-side with God."
Somehow, the closet ("we alone have the truth") mentality of the WTS and JWs reminds me of Mark 9:38-42 (NWT):
John said to him: "Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying [walking with] us." But Jesus said: "Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink on the ground that you belong to Christ, I truly tell you, he will by no means lose his reward. But whoever stumbles one of these little ones that believe, it would be finer for him if a millstone such as is turned by an ass were put around his neck and he were actually pitched into the sea.
DAY ONE - Prevent Those Not Using the Name "Jehovah's Witnesses"
DAY TWO - Shun and Revile Those Not Walking With Us
DAY THREE - Don't Give Even a Cup of Water to Others Who Say They Belong to Christ
DAY FOUR - The Society Will Lighten the Millstone Around Your Neck and Rescue You
fjtoth
in the foreword of ray franz's book 'in search of christian freedom', he says: .
"there is yet another, very significant, side to the matter.
many persons seek only a negative freedom.
Noumenon,
You make some good points, but Avishai is right. You come across as patronizing and insulting. You turn readers off with phrases like the following:
How many on this site can say that they have ...? ... It seems to me that most on this site imagine they are ... they have not comprehended ... many seem mired ... They seem to have a compulsion ... Are not many of you still psychologically enslaved ... your emotional 'religious' addiction. ... Many seem ... Isn't it time to learn to move on ...?
Your judgment of "they" not very subtly turns into an insensitive condemnation of "many of you." Would you so quickly chide Jesus for persisting in his condemnation of the Pharisees? If not, why criticize those who clearly see and expose the WTS as a modern organizational Pharisee?
i really wanna know.
i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.
frannie b
In my view, no translation is perfect, though some are a tad more accurate than others. No translation can be trusted 100 percent in every single verse. Having a variety of translations is best. Often the original meaning can be deciphered by noting what the majority of translations say.
The NASB and the NIV were produced by trinitarians, as were most translations, and they show a bias in several texts toward the Trinity. The NWT was produced by non-trinitarians, and it's obvious that John 1:1 shows their bias against the Trinity. But in fairness to the NWT, very few translations seem to have it just right at John 1:1, a verse that is difficult to translate into English. "God" and "a god" are equally as tolerable and as inaccurate as the other.
In my opinion, and according to many articles I've read during the past few years, the NASB, the RSV and The New Jerusalem Bible are as accurate as any, and nobody will be steered far wrong by the NWT either. The NIV Study Bible has excellent footnotes that appeal in most instances to both trinitarians and non-trinitarians.
fjt
