Posts by Island Man

2

Is the Watchtower claim that memorized prayers displease God, consistent with the bible and even JW culture?

by Island Man in

if memorized prayers displeases god then how is it that the psalms are filled with prayers that are written in acrostics to make them easy to memorize for recitation?

why would god inspire men to write prayers down in a format that makes them easy to remember for easy recitation again and again on different occasions, if he dislikes memorized prayers?

also, what about the jw practice of singing praises to jehovah by repeating the same songs in written form and/or from memory over and over again at kingdom hall meetings and conventions?

Island Man

The Searcher, some of the Psalms are actually prayers as clearly indicated by their superscriptions. Yet some of them are written in acrostic format for easy memorization. So the bible condones the act of repeating memorized prayers.

Regarding Matthew 6:7, the greek text actually literally refers to "multiplying words". This expression in my view, refers to the act of making very long wordy prayers - not repeating a prayer by rote. Interestingly, in the gospel of Mark, Jesus chides the pharisees for making long prayers as a pretext of righteousness.

If Jesus was referring to saying the same prayer over and over then his view would contradict the fact that the bible condones memorizing prayers in the Psalms for easy recitation and singing the same Psalms of praise over and over from memory.

Or are we to believe that God values recited songs of praise but is against recited prayers? Where's the logic and consistency in that view?

2

Is the Watchtower claim that memorized prayers displease God, consistent with the bible and even JW culture?

by Island Man in

if memorized prayers displeases god then how is it that the psalms are filled with prayers that are written in acrostics to make them easy to memorize for recitation?

why would god inspire men to write prayers down in a format that makes them easy to remember for easy recitation again and again on different occasions, if he dislikes memorized prayers?

also, what about the jw practice of singing praises to jehovah by repeating the same songs in written form and/or from memory over and over again at kingdom hall meetings and conventions?

Island Man

If memorized prayers displeases God then how is it that the Psalms are filled with prayers that are written in acrostics to make them easy to memorize for recitation? Why would God inspire men to write prayers down in a format that makes them easy to remember for easy recitation again and again on different occasions, if he dislikes memorized prayers?

Also, what about the JW practice of singing praises to Jehovah by repeating the same songs in written form and/or from memory over and over again at Kingdom Hall meetings and conventions? If memorized prayers displease him then logically it would also be true of the songs of praise that JWs sing to him over and over again from memory and from the written pages of song books.

22

How do JW's know that the bible is inspired?

by cappytan in

asked a friend of mine this question the other day.

here was his answer: "well, because paul said, 'all scripture is inspired of god...'".

but seriously, that argument is like saying, "the bible is inspired because it says so!

Island Man

Ultimately it boils down to faith in human tradition and faith in the book itself.

If you examine the criteria used for determining the inspiration of bible books you would notice that they're all fallacious and ultimately boil back down to 2 main arguments:

1. "We know bible book A is inspired because the earliest christian writers or earliest Jewish writers considered it to be inspired as evidenced by such and such early writing where the book is mentioned as being inspired." - Appeal to ancient wisdom.

2. "We know bible B is inspired because bible book A quotes or mentions bible book B." - Appeal to circular logic.

The point about the different books being in harmony despite being penned by different people living in the different times, is total rubbish that is easily debunked with a little common sense. Because the books were written years apart, later bible writers had opportunity to read the books of earlier writers. Thus having their thinking shaped by what they read in the earlier books, it is only logical that later writers went on to write books that harmonize somewhat with what was written before.

For the internal harmony argument to have any weight, all the books would have had to be written at the same time by writers living in different locations and unaware of what each was writing. Had that been the case, then the internal harmony argument would have some weight. But as it is with the books written years apart, it is a rather foolish one.

54

The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear in

i've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession.

after researching the issue for several years, i have come to a conclusion/theory that i would love to receive some feedback on.

this theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original nt scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't.

Island Man

My thought on the use of the divine name in the NT is as follows:

Assuming that God exists and the JWs are correct about "apostate christians" removing the name from the early NT manuscripts and replacing it with "Lord"; my question would be this:

If the use of the name of God in the NT was so important then why didn't God see to it that it was preserved in the NT? It's his name, for crying out loud! Why should I be so worried about restoring it when he obviously didn't care enough about it to ensure its preservation in the first place? I mean, not even in one manuscript?!!

It is claimed that God accurately preserved the bible down through the centuries. Well, if he truly did not see to it that something as important as his personal name was preserved in the NT . . . what else did he allow "apostate christians" to remove or add in very early on without leaving a single manuscript of the original uncorrupted text to expose the tampering? So you see by allowing his name to be removed without so much as a trace, he is giving people just cause to doubt the claim that the bible was accurately preserved.

What if . . . God deliberately ensured that his name was removed or not included in the NT for a good reason? What if . . . the NT is really not inspired of God? What if christianity is nothing but an apostate fraud? That would explain why God saw to it that his personal name was never written in the document or was subsequently removed without a trace. Maybe he's giving a clue that these books are not his? If the God of the OT exists, that would be my best bet as to why he would allow the name to be removed or ensure that it was not included to begin with - that christianity is really an apostasy from Judaism and the complete absence of the divine name from the NT is by divine providence.

Whatever the case, it is not the responsibility of the translator to emend the text by guessing which kyrios refers to "Jehovah" and which one refers to Jesus. The job of the translator is to translate, period. Kyrios = "Lord", period. The translator should faithfully and accurately translate the text he has available to him and let God take up his legal case against those who removed the name early on - it is their sin and not the translators' responsibility. It is not the job of the translator to attempt to correct it because the translator is not an inspired bible writer. By attempting to correct it, it is virtually inevitable that the translator will introduce further errors like Watchtower has done.

38

Types and anti types

by Deltawave in

according the watchtower study of may 10th, it has been made clear no prophetic meaning should be given to a a scripture or passage unless the bible itself gives clear interpretation of it.

therefore daniel 7 especially gives it's fulfillment to nebuchadnezzar only.

no future kingdom or 2520year wait til 1914. no gentile times or "this generation".

Island Man

Here's a challenge to all the posters:

Quote me the phrase in this week's Watchtower study where they clearly admit that their type-antitype teachings were false. lol.

Be very careful how you read Watchtower literature, lest they should continue to deceive you even after you're awake.

It seems to me that Watchtower played a game of double-speak with this week's Watchtower study. The study article was carefully worded to on the one hand give the impression that they're humbly admitting that their type-antitype teachings were false ( But nowhere do they actually say this.) This impression appears to be targeted at those who might be disillusioned with the organization's past ridiculous antitype teachings. They're trying to placate these ones by giving them the impression that the org is correcting its mistakes. But on the other hand, for those who weren't disturbed by the type-antitype rubbish they're giving the impression that they're merely changing their teaching method and focus. They're not actually saying that their type antitype interpretations were false. All they're saying is that that method of instruction is a bit too deep and intellectual and is less preferable than the practical application approach.

So should any awake JW raise the issue of the 1914 teaching still being valid despite the type-antitype method being abandoned as false, the elders can always say:

"Where did you read that the type antitype teaching method is false? What I read is the society has moved away from that method of teaching for the sake of simplicity and emphasizing the practical benefit of bible accounts. I don't recall ever reading that those teachings were false. I also remember reading where they said we should be reluctant to - not that we should not ever - assign antitypical assignments to bible accounts when the bible does not clearly indicate that one exists. So the tree dream is one of those that are the exception . but we have indication in the bible that trees represent rulerships and that Jesus is the lowliest of mankind so the bible does indirectly point to the tree dream in Daniel having a greater antitypical fulfilmment"

Behold the craftiness of Watchtower!

160

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

by Alive! in

i've noted active, devoted jw's state the above.. and, it's not a problem for me to remain trusting of god, i just don't trust religions or men.. recently, a member of this forum stated that he remains an active jw, in the family of god's people, wanting to encourage and do good - whilst recognising that the pastoral leaders (the gb) have shipwrecked the faith of many, being unsound scripturally etc, etc.. stop and think about this - the bible says to not follow after those who lie and hurt the faith of "little ones".. the pharisees were accused of traversing over lands and expending much energy to make a single convert - only for that convert to end up worse of than he started off with.. it's one thing to not believe this is the 'truth' and feeling the awful pressure of managing ones life, trying not to lose ones family.. it's quite another thing to declare oneself to be a christian believer of god's jw household, and somehow believe the god of love would use corrupt liars to parade as jesus' brothers in the urgency of last days.

really?

and, to then visibly promote faith in corrupt men, and try to bring converts into a place where the rulership is wrong.. some of us are dying from hurt here.......give me a break..

Island Man

Brother Jeramy, a Catholic can use similar reasoning as you to defend being a Catholic. But of course we all know that JWs will say the Catholic church is false. How is it that JWs always use special pleading to defend their religion as true despite its obvious failings, but are quick to indict all other religions as false even for the most minor errors? JWs are hypocrites!

23

Are the writers in the writing department purposely misquoting people?

by paulmolark in

after reading that great post about the june 1 article on science i got to thinking.

although it is great to believe there is this huge group of guys in the jw writing department that are constantly looking to mislead us by twisting the words of scientist etc... i really think it is more likely they are google researchers that do not have the ability to grasp the thoughts that are being expressed in the scientific article they quote mine from.. i honestly believe the reason that this happens is because of the individuals they use to write these magazines.

these are not college educated men.

Island Man

They have been misquoting people since long before Google and the Internet, so yes, I would say it is deliberate.

54

The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear in

i've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession.

after researching the issue for several years, i have come to a conclusion/theory that i would love to receive some feedback on.

this theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original nt scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't.

Island Man

"I know I'm going to sound like a cheerleader for "The Society," but how does the NWT in any way minimize the role of Jesus? I have copies of many translations and I fail to see how the NWT does what you are suggesting."

Here's a blatant example of Watchtower replacing "kyrios" with "Jehovah" even though the writer was not quoting from the OT. Worse yet, the replacement corrupts the true meaning of the text for the text is using "kyrios" to refer to Jesus. But Watchtower's Jehovarization of the text changes it to refer to Jehovah and makes it illogical. The text is Romans 14:8, which in the NWT, reads (NWT):

"None of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only, and no one dies with regard to himself only; 8 for both if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah. 9 For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living."

The use of Jehovah in Romans 14:8 is inconsistent with the context of Romans 14:9 which clearly identifies the "kyrios" of Romans 14:8 as being Christ. You see, Romans 14:9 gives the justification for why we belong to kyrios whether we live or die - because that kyrios became kyrios of dead and the living by dying a sacrificial death. Romans 14:8 is supposed to flow logically into Romans 14:9 where the kyrios is identified as being Christ. But in the NWT this definite logical flow is shattered by replacing kyrios with Jehovah thereby corrupting Romans 14:9 in the NWT to being an illogical non-sequitur.

Now notice how the text makes more logical sense in KJ21 when "kyrios" is consistently and accurately rendered as "Lord":

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and arose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

160

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

by Alive! in

i've noted active, devoted jw's state the above.. and, it's not a problem for me to remain trusting of god, i just don't trust religions or men.. recently, a member of this forum stated that he remains an active jw, in the family of god's people, wanting to encourage and do good - whilst recognising that the pastoral leaders (the gb) have shipwrecked the faith of many, being unsound scripturally etc, etc.. stop and think about this - the bible says to not follow after those who lie and hurt the faith of "little ones".. the pharisees were accused of traversing over lands and expending much energy to make a single convert - only for that convert to end up worse of than he started off with.. it's one thing to not believe this is the 'truth' and feeling the awful pressure of managing ones life, trying not to lose ones family.. it's quite another thing to declare oneself to be a christian believer of god's jw household, and somehow believe the god of love would use corrupt liars to parade as jesus' brothers in the urgency of last days.

really?

and, to then visibly promote faith in corrupt men, and try to bring converts into a place where the rulership is wrong.. some of us are dying from hurt here.......give me a break..

Island Man

When a JW says:

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

You simply respond by saying:

"Exactly! The organization is imperfect and it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah. I'm glad to see that you finally understand where I'm coming from!"

The idiotic reasoning behind the original JW quote is that one should continue "serving Jehovah" even if the organization fails to live up to what is expected of it. But get this: by "serving Jehovah", what they really mean is blindly serving the corrupt organization that doesn't measure up to what it professes to be, because they equate "serving Jehovah" with being in the organization. So in reality, the JW quote is actually a ridiculous self-contradiction where they simultaneously separate Jehovah from the organization while also equating the two ... all in one sentence! It's as if they're really saying:

"The organization is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with the organization. So even if the organization should fail you, you should not let that stop you from being loyal to the organization because surely the organization will not fail you even if the organization fails you."

Their thinking is so twisted. They're nuts and they're too indoctrinated to see it!

54

The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear in

i've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession.

after researching the issue for several years, i have come to a conclusion/theory that i would love to receive some feedback on.

this theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original nt scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't.

Island Man

Here's something to think about:

We know the name existed in the OT even though there are manuscripts with it removed and replaced with the Hebrew version of Lord. But the OT is a lot older than the NT. There was thus a lot more opportunity to thoroughly remove YHWH from the OT copies without leaving a trace . . . and yet we have OT manuscripts containing YHWH!

Is it reasonable to believe that copyists of the NT succeeded in thoroughly removing YHWH from the NT while failing to do the same for the much older OT? How likely is it that copyists would succeed in totally removing all occurrences of YHWH from all NT copies without so much as one surviving with YHWH? That seems highly improbable. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the name was never in the NT to begin with.

By the time of the NT's writing, it was already the culturally accepted norm to substitute YHWH with Lord. All of the Jewish culture was doing it and all the early christians who initially came from a Jewish background grew up doing it. Even the copies of the septuagint in use at that time had already replaced YHWH with kyrios - never mind the fact that there may have been a minority of copies with YHWH. It certainly was not the norm. So even the argument about NT writers quoting the OT where YHWH is mentioned, is flawed! Why? Because the NT writers were likely quoting from later copies of the septuagint which already had the name replaced with kyrios! It is only natural then, to expect that early Jewish christians - the writers of the NT - would continue the tradition they grew up knowing and practicing, in their NT writings. Remember too that it was considered blasphemous to use the name.

Why would christians go out of their way to use the name and bring persecution on themselves when the bible does not mandate the use of the name? Consider too that the majority of the books of the NT are letters that were read out loud at church meetings. Do you think the authors would write YHWH in them and have the reader at the church meeting accused of blasphemy by some unbelieving Jew who happened to be visiting the meeting?

I think the most logical and objective conclusion that one can arrive at in view of the total absence of any NT manuscripts with YHWH, is that the name was never in the NT to begin with. It is only because of theological bias - their over-fixation on the need to use "Jehovah" - that JWs want to believe that it must have been there. They cannot believe that early christians did not share their unhinged fixation on the name "Jehovah".