Posts by Island Man

62

Your explanation for a total contradiction in the New World Translation.

by Johnny Brown in

"for if you publicly declare with your mouth that jesus is lord,+ and exercise faith in your heart that god raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.

10 for with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration+ for salvation.

11 for the scripture says: no one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.+

Island Man

I have a serious issue with the NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" in the NT when there isn't a single Greek NT manuscripts containing the name of God. The insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT of the NWT has corrupted some NT texts. Romans 14:8 is a notable example of this, where the NWT erroneously renders "kyrios" (Lord) as "Jehovah" even though the very next verse (Romans 14:9) makes it clear that the "kyrios" of Romans 14:8 refers to Jesus and not Jehovah.

However, even though I don't agree with the NWT replacing "kyrios" with "Jehovah" at Romans 10:13, the fact is that that particular "kyrios" does in fact refer to "Jehovah" (YHWH). I say this because Romans 10:13 is quoting an OT text - Joel 2:32 - that uses YHWH. It might be tempting, from a Trinitarian standpoint, to use Romans 10:13 to suggest that Jesus is Jehovah given that Romans 10:9-11 speak about the importance of faith in Jesus.

But Romans 10:13 is only being used to bolster a point made in Romans 10:12 and the point being made at Romans 10:12 is the impartiality of God. Romans 10:13 was quoted by the writer as an OT example of God's impartiality because it says EVERYONE who calls on God's name will be saved. It's simply not an attempt on the part of the writer to suggest that YHWH of the OT is the same Jesus of the NT.

Having said that, it is also possible that the writer of Romans 10:13 considers calling on the name of Jesus to be tantamount to calling on the name of Jehovah and therefore in fulfillment of Joel 2:32 - all without intending to suggest that Jehovah is Jesus. How so? Think about it: Jesus means "YHWH is salvation" and Joel 2:32 says people will be saved by calling on the name of YHWH. The name Jesus embodies in one word the message of Joel 2:32. Jesus is YHWH's provision for salvation. By calling on the name Jesus in faith, one is putting faith in YHWH's provision of salvation and is therefore putting faith in YHWH. He is quite literally saying: "YHWH is salvation". So calling on the name of Jesus is really calling on the name of Jehovah by proxy, as it were. So it is very possible and very reasonable for the writer to apply Joel 2:32 to calling on the name of Jesus in faith without believing or intending to suggest that Jesus is Jehovah.

5

truly frustrated! !

by crazyguy1 in

i have faded away but the wife and kids still go.

when i stopped others in the hall stepped up to help indoctrination the kids.

anything i say and tell the kids they don't want to listen too because of course its contrary to what their told at the lovely hall where their friends go.

Island Man

Teach your kids how to think logically and critically, without bringing up the subject of religion or JWs.

School them in the psychologically manipulative tactics that manipulative deceivers and charlatans use. Raise their awareness of the need to listen to all sides of a story and do objective and independent research.

You could discuss with your kids things like dictatorial govt. regimes like North Korea who censor the information that comes into their country from the outside and feed the populace only the govt's version of what is true and right. Ask them why such regimes do that. Ask them why such regimes are afraid of critical information getting to the populace.

You can read for them a story called "The Emperor's New Clothes" and discuss with them what lessons can be learned from the story.

You have to basically empower your kids to learn how to think for themselves and see through the JW bs for what it really is - bs - by inoculating them against JW tactics without ever bringing up the subject of JWs.

11

ancient ruins

by crazyguy1 in

they have discovered a temple complex in turkey they call gobekli tepi and another in southern iran they tentatively call arata.

both of these sites were discovered in the last decade or two and are being dated to older then 12000 years ago.

can anyone explain how they go about dating these site since carbon 14 dating doesnt work on stone and theres no patina or very little since these places were buried?

Island Man

"but that's impossible! Man was created just about 6040 years ago, so how can there possibly be a temple ruin that is 12,000 years old. These scientists don't know what they're talking about. The dating method is questionable. The global flood caused changes that resulted in a change in rate of radioactive decay, don't you know. So all those radioactive dating methods are questionable - never mind the fact that they all dove tail around the same period and match other forms of non-radioactive dating methods. The scientists are lying too. Satan has them under his control so they lie to contradict the truths of God's word." LOL.

2

Similarities with North Korean leadership

by stillin in

jw
friends

i wonder whether nk leader un has even seen this movie, "the interview.

" he might even get a laugh out of it.

but the censorship is so similar to the censorship found among jw's!

Island Man

It's all over the news that NK is verbally attacking the US because of that very said movie. Trust me, Un has seen the movie! LOL

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/26/world/asia/north-korea-the-interview-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

13

User sign-in issues

by Simon in

just a heads-up / status update - i'm still working on the issues so please don't think i've abandoned you if you still can't sign in and i haven't replied to your email.. i will get things sorted out and then we'll have the old gang back together.. thanks again to you all for your patience and perseverance while the teething problems are being ironed out.

Island Man

We know you're working hard to resolve issues, Simon.

Even with the minor issues like having to sign in each time I visit the site in a new browsing session, despite having checked the option to remember me, the new site is still an improvement from the previous one.

I personally appreciate the readability of the posts. I can now zoom the page and still comfortably read entire lines in a post without having to scroll horizontally.

Good work Simon!

7

JW Doctor mis-Illustrates a Blood Doctrine

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

today i added a new article to my blog addressing an article written by a jw medical doctor in a regional medical journal.

it's part of an initiative giving attention to how licensed medical professionals among jws have dealt with the blood transfusion subject.

what they say, how they say it, and what they don't say are all very telling.

Island Man

His abstain from penicillin fallacy illustration is just another version of the JWs' abstain from alcohol fallacy illustration. As you rightfully pointed out the very critical difference between the why of abstention from blood and the why of abstention from penicillin, is conveniently omitted because those very critical differences in the whys causes the comparison to fall flat on its face for the fallacy that it is.

Another interesting point is this: JWs apply the command to abstain from blood to blood transfusions by equating a blood transfusion with the eating of blood. What's their basis for equating the two? Since feeding can be done intravenously as in the case of very ill patients, they reason, then the administering of blood can be compared to such feeding since it too is done intravenously. I don't know the technical term for this kind of fallacy, but it's basically the fallacy of equating two practices (transfusions and feeding) based on the fact that they share a common action (intravenous administration of a substance).

This is a very interesting fallacy that makes hypocrites out of the JWs. Why? Because if they apply this flawed reasoning consistently, they should also be abstaining from invasive gynecological examinations. You see, Acts 15 also says to "abstain from ... fornication" - a practice which often involves inserting an object into the vagina. So by the JWs' fallacy of equating two practices based on a common action, both practices (fornication and invasive gynecological exams) share the common action of inserting an object into the vagina. Therefore Watchtower should regard such gyn exams as a form of fornication and instruct JWs to refuse them.

Of course, if you tell a JW that abstaining from fornication should apply to gyn exams based on their own fallacy of equating two practices based on a common action, the JW would be quick to say you're being ridiculous and proceed to show you how the two are not the same. He might point out the different motives and objectives between the two actions ... and then you can take his own reasoning and turn it around to the blood issue to show him how the organization's position of equating blood transfusions with the eating of blood is just as ridiculous.

3

Why the -2 shown for my In Box?

by Marvin Shilmer in

on this new version of jwn my inbox notification icon has the little mailbox emblem and next to it a -2. what is that all about?

.

Island Man

I'm getting it 2.

25

Public Speaker Training stifled by wt, it's new 'school' programme.

by prologos in

the 2015 school setup, discussed this week eliminates the last "school talk" by brothers in favour of 'demonstartions" (a la sisters conversations) of family worship sessions and the like.. is this not a shift away from encouraging bright young ones to hone their (under-estimated) speaker skills ---to.

now using more of the die-hard, org-bound, --even elders in indoctrination demonstrations?.

do you see this trend?

Island Man

Well in case you haven't noticed, the members of the governing body are not impressive public speakers at all, compared to many "rank and file" elders who give public talks.

They clearly don't pay too much attention to their own art of public speaking so why should it be surprising that they would vote to cut out public speaking training parts from the TMS?

180

Please post new forum feedback or questions here

by Simon in

well, the switchover happened - there were a couple of things i had to fix which meant the posting was disabled for longer than i planned but it's now enabled and some people have already posted.. if you have any questions about the new format or suggestions on how to improve it, please post them here.. if you are having trouble signing in or posting then you'll need to email me instead.. many thanks to everyone for their patience during the changeover !.

Island Man

Thanks Simon.

180

Please post new forum feedback or questions here

by Simon in

well, the switchover happened - there were a couple of things i had to fix which meant the posting was disabled for longer than i planned but it's now enabled and some people have already posted.. if you have any questions about the new format or suggestions on how to improve it, please post them here.. if you are having trouble signing in or posting then you'll need to email me instead.. many thanks to everyone for their patience during the changeover !.

Island Man

Are we going to have a button for emoticons or is that feature gone or do we have to write it out in code form like ;) ?