Posts by Shemittah

8

Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists

by Shemittah in

challenge to evolutionists and creationists

i think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view.

i'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).. .

Shemittah

Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists

I think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view. I'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).

I am a person who is not convinced by the assertions of evolutionists that life evolved spontaneously into all the different forms we see today. I don't like it when people use the "well everybody accepts it as fact" or "virtually all scientists accept it as fact" as an intellectual strongarm tactic into making those who disagree look stupid; such intellectual bullying is hardly an honourable way of persuading people to accept the truth as a certain person or group sees it. I would very much like to read a book on evolution by an evolutionist, but get the impression that I would be subjected to that sort of strategy, rather than an unemotional walk through what evolutionist claim they have as tangible proof. What I am looking for in particular is a book that provides detailed information about human/human-like/ape/ape-like fossils, with honesty in presenting what actually has been found - i.e. I want to know what part of, say, a skull for display is real bone, and which is fabricated to fill in any gaps. I don't want to be bogged down by endless theories about how man evolved, I want to be free to come to my own conclusions based on what we actually know to be fact.

I personally would be willing to take up the challenge set here. I would therefore be interested in hearing anyone's recommendations. For any evolutionist (or indeed anyone else) I would recommend the book "Darwin On Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson (second edition). I found "Bones Of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow very interesting in its discussion of the fossil record as it relates to primates, but felt somewhat irritated by its occasional excursions into preachiness, and the last few chapters in particular are given over to trying to convince its readers of a literal seven-day creation. "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael A. Cremo is one book I plan to read sometime which claims that there are fossils which contradict the common evolutionary claims with regard to man's appearance on this earth, such as the skeleton that was found in rock that, according to modern geological reports, is 500 million years old.

Personally, I have read online articles from evolutionist sources, resulting in a better understanding of how evolutionists think and how taxonomy and micro/macro evolution fits into the scheme of things. We all owe it to ourselves to free our minds so that we can think for ourselves, and not allow someone else to do the thinking for us, no matter how expert that person may appear to be, whether they wear the robe of a "priest" or the white coat of a scientist. Shutting ourselves off from considering the other person's argument may mean we pay a very high price, intellectually, emotionally, or physically. We could lose Please consider the following extract from John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History Of American Education" (page 210), where the then eight-year-old author was in a class being taught by a Jesuit priest:

After a brief lecture on each combatant and its cultural and historical characteristics, an outline of incitements to conflict was chalked on the board.
"Who will volunteer to face the back of the room and tell us the causes of World War One?"
"I will, Brother Michael", I said. And I did.
"Why did you say what you did?"
"Because that's what you wrote."
"Do you accept my explanation as correct?"
"Yes, sir." I expected a compliment would soon follow, as it did with our regular teacher.
"Then you must be a fool, Mr Gatto. I lied to you. Those are not the causes at all." It was like being flattened by a steamroller. I had the sensation of being struck and losing the power of speech. Nothing remotely similar had ever happened to me.
"Listen carefully, Mr Gatto, and I shall show you the true causes of the war which men of bad character try to hide," and so saying he rapidly erased the board and in swift fashion another list of reasons appeared. As each was written, a short, clear explanation followed in a scholarly tone of voice.
"Now do you see, Mr Gatto, why you must be careful when you accept the explanation of another? Don't these new reasons make much more sense?"
"Yes, sir."
"And could you now face the back of the room and repeat what you just learned?"
"I could, sir." And I knew I could because I had a strong memory, but he never gave me that chance.
"Why are you so gullible? Why do you believe my lies? Is it because I wear clothing you associate with men of God? I despair you are so easy to fool. What will happen to you if you let others do your thinking for you?"
You see, like a great magician he had shifted that commonplace school lesson we would have forgotten by the next morning into a formidable challenge to the entire contents of our private minds, raising the important question, "Who can we believe?" At eight, while public school children were reading stories about talking animals, we had been escorted to the eggshell-thin foundation upon which authoritarian vanity rests and asked to inspect it.
There are many reasons to lie to children, the Jesuit said, and these seem good reasons to older men. Some truth you will know by divine intuition, he told us, but for the rest you must learn what tests to apply. Even then you should be cautious because it is not hard to fool even these.
Comments please!

Alex.

126

DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

.

i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

Shemittah

EXTRACTS FROM "GENOME - THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A SPECIES IN 23 CHAPTERS"

These extracts are taken from the paperback edition (2000) which I read some months ago. The list here has been compiled by me, and so this is no 'cut and paste' post. It should be noted that the author (Matt Ridley) is an evolutionist as is made abundantly clear in Chapter 2 - Species. I recommend this book to anyone interested in human DNA, and particularly to those looking for an entertaining introduction to the subject.

The "machine-code" quality of DNA is of particular interest to me, as I trained for and worked for some years as a computer programmer, even at the machine-code level. Years ago machine-code programmers would often work with Hexadecimal (base 16) numbers to represent, say a byte. Our usual denary (base 10) system uses digits 0 to 9 which gives us 10 permutations per column (units, tens, hundreds, etc). In Hexadecimal the letters A to F are used to represent 10 to 15 (hence 16 permutations) and a two digit system is used to represent the 256 different values of a byte. DNA, as a base 4, three 'digit' system, would yield 64 different values (see extract 1 below). That's like having 64 types of material to build a house, 64 colours to paint a picture, or sound intervals to create a piece of music. Or 64 different machine-code values to write a computer program. The question remains however, who/what wrote the original program(s), from which all the genetic photocopies were made? Is it Natural-Selection who, it is claimed, started off with one master program that randomly changes itself, or is it God-Sabaoth who, it is claimed, wrote a number of different programs specifically for a certain type of lifeform? The debate rages on!

1. "Whereas English books are written in words of variable length using twenty-six letters, genomes are written entirely in three-letter words [called BASES], using only four letters: A, C, G and T (which stand for adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine). And instead of being written on flat pages, they are written on long chains of sugar and phosphate called DNA molecules to which the bases are attached as side rungs. Each chromosome is one pair of (very) long DNA molecules. The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself. The photocopying is known as REPLICATION, and the reading as TRANSLATION. Replication works because of an ingenious property of the four bases: A likes to pair with T, and G with C. So a single strand of DNA can copy itself by assembling a complementary strand with Ts opposite all the As, As opposite all the Ts, Cs opposite all the Gs and Gs opposite all the Cs. In fact, the usual state of DNA is the famous DOUBLE HELIX of the original strand and its complementary pair intertwined. To make a copy of the complementary strand therefore brings back the original text. So the sequence ACGT become TGCA in the copy, which transcribes back to ACGT in the copy of the copy. This enables DNA to replicate indefinitely, yet still contain the same information." - Page 7, paras. 2-4.

2. "Big brains needed meat (vegans today avoid protein-deficiency only by eating pulses); food sharing allowed a meaty diet (because it freed the men to risk failure in pursuit of game); food sharing demanded big brains (without detailed calculating memories, you could be easily cheated by a freeloader); the sexual division of labour promoted monogomy (a pair-bond being now an economic unit); monogomy led to *neotenous sexual selection (by putting a premium on youthfulness in mates). And so on, round and round the theories we go in a spiral of comforting justification, proving how we came to be as we are. We have built a scientific house of cards on the flimsiest foundations of evidence, but we have reason to believe this it will one day be testable. The fossil record will tell us on a little about behaviour; the bones are too dry and random to speak. But the genetic record will tell us more." - Page 35, from para. 1 (*neoteny = the retention of juvenile features in adult life).

3. "All was suddenly clear: DNA contained a code written along the length of an elegant, intertwined staircase of a double helix, of potentially infinite length. That code copied itself by means of chemical affinities between its letters and spelt out the recipes for proteins by means of an as yet unknown phrasebook linking DNA to protein. The stunning significance of the structure of DNA was how simple it made everything seem and yet how beautiful. As Richard Dawkins has put it [in 'River out of Eden'], 'What is truly revolutionary about molecular biology in the post-Watson-Crick era is that it has become digital ... the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.'" - Page 50, from para. 1.

4. "Science is supposed to advance by erecting hypotheses and testing them by seeking to falsify them. But it does not. Just as the genetic determinists of the 1920s looked always for confirmation of their ideas and never for falsification, so the environmental determinists of the 1960s looked always for supporting evidence and averted their eyes from contrary evidence, when they should have been actively seeking it. Paradoxically, this is a corner of science where the 'expert' has usually been more wrong than the layman. Ordinary people have always known that education matters, but equally they have always believed in some innate ability. It is the experts who have taken extreme and absurd positions at either end of the spectrum." - Page 79, from para. 2 (The author is here talking about what constitutes intelligence).
5. "By studying the way human beings speak, Chomsky concluded that there were underlying similarities to all languages that bore witness to a universal human grammar. We all know how to use it, though we are rarely conscious of that ability. This must mean that part of the human brain comes equipped by its genes with a specialised ability to learn language." - Page 93, from para. 1 (The author makes reference to Noam Chomsky's book "Syntactic structures").

6. "Pinker and Cosmides both contend that the same applies to the human brain. Its modules, like the different blades of a Swiss-army knife, are most probably designed for particular functions. The alternative, that the brain is equipped with random complexity, from which its different functions fall out as fortunate by-products of the physics of complexity - an idea still favoured by Chomsky - defies all evidence. There is simply nothing to support the conjecture that the more detailed you make a network of microprocessors, the more functions they will acquire. Indeed, the 'connectionist' approach to neural networks, largely misled by the image of the brain as a general-purpose network of neurons and synapses, has tested the idea thoroughly and found it wanting. Pre-programmed design is required for the solving of pre-ordained problems." - Page 103, para. 2.

7. "The SRY gene is peculiar. Its sequence is remarkably consistent between different men: there are virtually no point mutations (i.e., one-letter spelling differences) in the human race. SRY is, in that sense, a variation-free gene that has changed almost not at all since the last common ancestor of all people 200,000 years ago or so. Yet our SRY is very different from that of a chimpanzee, and different again from that of a gorilla: there is, between species, ten times as much variation in this gene as is typical for other genes. Compared with other active (i.e., expressed) genes, SRY is one of the fastest evolving." - Page 112, para. 1 (The SRY gene "begins the whole cascade of events that leads to the masculinisation of the embryo").

8. "Oncogenes, in the unmutated state, are needed for cells to grow and proliferate normally throughout life: skin must be replaced, new blood cells generated, wounds repaired and so on. The mechanism for suppressing potential cancers must allow exceptions for normal growth and proliferation. Cells must frequently be given permission to divide, and must be equipped with genes that encourage division, so long as they stop at the right moment. How this feat is achieved is beginning to become clear. If we were looking at a man-made thing, we would conclude that a fiendishly ingenious mind must be behind it." - Page 239, para. 2 ("Oncogenes are genes that cause division and growth but, surprisingly, several of them also trigger cell death.").

Alex.

126

DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

.

i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

Shemittah

Well, I hear the BBC are bring the next instalment of its "Walking With..." series. It's amazing what sorts of things you can come up with when you have a computer graphics rendering program and a vivid imagination! Yes folks, its "Walking With Cavemen" (or was it "Apemen"?) Nice little earner this series - especially from a supposedly non-commercial television company. I see they are doing their bit to indoctrinate the younger generation into accepting they are only animals. Hey, don't you know they are already starting to de-volve into Neaderthals thanks to the great dumbing down in education, most of them already don't know how to make fire with sticks. Since they've just about rung this subject dry, the next instalment will probably be "Walking With Aliens". Now that I would like to see! ;0)

Alex.

53

Dizzy Christianity - Fraudulent and Evil Rotten - from beginning to end

by Xander in

was going to bump the other thread, but, this....just...... i mean:.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm.

some fun the early christians had:the pope's pears:.

Shemittah

This is a very interesting thread, and I'd like to make some comments relating to subjects raised in it.

Analyzing "God"

Xander made this statement: Either God "does NOT exist at all, exists and is powerless to actually DO anything, or exists and gets great pleasure out of watching human suffering."

1. does NOT exist at all - maybe

2. Is powerless to actually DO anything - maybe3. or, exists and gets great pleasure out of watching human suffering - not necessarily In my view, we must accept that a person's existence cannot logically be determined by their character, so God - simply as an entity - cannot be discounted by judgment of moral character. There is a possibility that God could be neither "good" nor "evil" towards humans, but simply indifferent (i.e. expresses no particular emotion - pleasure or compassion), that he neither made "good" nor "evil", but that "good" or "evil" are simply outcomes based on various permutations - that is why human responsibility is so important. Steel is not "evil" of itself but it can be fashioned into a weapon of "evil", even then it continues to remain benign until it is actually used to harm someone.

There is of course the possibility of two entities/forces/energies (which may be referred to as "god") which compete - this is a very ancient theory. It is hoped of course that any cosmic force for good will eventually win out, but that does not excuse human beings from abdicating responsibility for their own actions or non-actions. As for proving the non-existence of "god" as a creative force, etc, this has neither been proved nor disproved (absence does not prove non-existence, only absence). Theism or Atheism, God-based religion or Evolution-based religion is open to all, each with their own positives and negatives, one focused (in theory at least) on responsibility to that which is external (God, other human beings), the other focused (by its very nature) on responsibility to that which is internal (oneself).

For all we know, some ancient space-travellers may have visited a barren planet earth and given it a kick-start into sentient life! Let's face it, our "neck of the woods" is tiny in comparison with the rest of the known Universe, so it would be arrogant to assume that we are the only form of intelligent life in it. It makes sense to me to keep an open mind. Magic and miracles only remain such until we know how they work, and belief in ancient monsters only remains foolish until such time as the fossil of one is dug up! What I've said here does not mean that I personally believe any of the above, just that there are more possibilities than there might at first appear. I don't believe that thinking people should be limited to just two possibilities: (1) An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring God - according to the common human definition, or (2) No intelligent (supernatural or otherwise) beings besides us on planet earth that had/has a hand in our past/future.

Atrocities of "Christians"

I also don't think it fair to judge the merit of a large group of people or institution based on a few incidents of bad behaviour by a few individuals. However, that is not the case with Christianity as seen and understood by the world as an historical entity. To quote words attributed to Jesus Christ, "a bad tree will produce rotten fruit", and "Christianity" has indeed (even in modern times) been blighted with acts of physical and mental brutality as a characteristic. So I believe it is morally reprehensible to be giving support to religious groups that have had a notable share in such Church history, even though they may be more civilised nowadays. Lets not forget that both Catholicism and Protestantism have major acts of bloodshed on their hands, the source and intensity simply alternating according to which group held power and the strength of that power.

Although the examples presented at the start of this thread are horrifying, I am not surprised because the history of Christendom has been more noted for its cruelty than for its acts of human kindness - which is why I don't support it in any way.

Christianity And The Existence Of Jesus

I recently read the book "The Christ Conspiracy - The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Acharya S. Although I don't agree with some of the views and conclusions put forward by the author, there is much evidence to support the claim that by the second century, Christianity was showing signs of Mithraitic influence. As for Jesus Christ himself, there is very little if any contemporary witnesses to his existence (outside of the NT), that is for sure. Unfortunately, many documents have been lost due to the early Catholic Church's destruction of the huge library at Alexandria. This dreadful act not only, I believe, gave the Church power to hide certain recriminating evidence from the masses, but also may have removed some contemporary historical evidence for the existence of a person who relates in some way to the Jesus of the NT.

I still believe that a Jesus-type person existed and I accept the Gospel of Mark as most trustworthy out of the four gospels. I am, however, suspicious of some things attributed to him, knowing that control of what was passed off as canonical was securely in the hands of a Hellenised and Romanised group of bishops, more interested in keeping power over the mass of believers than in faithfully serving them as custodians of the original teachings and truth about Jesus.

Jesus In The Qur'an

It is interesting that the Qur'an refers many times to Jesus, what he taught, and what he did. Here are some examples:

"...we gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit..." - Surah 2.87

"Behold the angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company) of those nearest to Allah; He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.' She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' He said: 'Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, "Be", and it is! And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel.'" - Surah 3.45-48.

"And behold, Allah will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary!' Didst thou say unto men, "Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord;" and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things." - Surah 5.116-117.

"They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' ... They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God..." - Surah 5.72-73

Alex.

34

MDS' Book "The Report" (1994) Predicts Global War Ahead!

by bjc2read in

jw
friends

the following information is a direct quote taken from the "report" volume i pages 94-100 made back in 1994.. ("the report" written & copyrighted 1994.).

what do "many lands" have to do with this one land, the "land of decoration?

but who is he, that is the "king of the north?

Shemittah

DANIEL 11:41-45

"He [the King of the North] shall enter also into the beauteous land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall affright him; and he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to take away many. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain; and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." - Jewish Publication Society Old Testament.

Actions of the King of the North

1. He will invade (or enter into) the beauteous land (i.e. Israel).

2. Many countries will be overthrown.

3. Edom, Moab and "the chief of..." (or "chief part of" -TJB) Ammon will escape - Which equates with Jordan and the immediate surrounding southern areas of Israel today.

4. He will have control over the "treasures" and "precious things" of Egypt, with Libya and Ethiopia following.

5. Due to troubling reports coming from the east and north, he will become agitated to the point of going off in a fury to deal with those areas.

6. He will settle himself down in a specific place, between the "sea" and the "beauteous holy mountain" (obviously in an area in or close to Israel).

7. He will finally be brought to heel, with none prepared to lend him support.

Whatever one's view of who the "King of the North" is, it is obvious that he has huge military capability, such that he is able to sweep into many lands, leaving a destructive trail. Also, everything is taking place in the middle east area of the world - sound familiar? If we are applying the prophecy to the here and now, then there appears to be only one "King" in my mind with a huge military force who has an interest in modern-day Israel, such that he would be prepared to occupy (even temporarily) that land in order keep control. However, I leave it up to you the reader to make up your own minds. Unlike MDS, I certainly do not claim to have direct communication with the Almighty or to be a special chosen one! ;0)

Alex.

PS: ISP, I don't think most Muslims would require you to convert. ;0)

34

MDS' Book "The Report" (1994) Predicts Global War Ahead!

by bjc2read in

jw
friends

the following information is a direct quote taken from the "report" volume i pages 94-100 made back in 1994.. ("the report" written & copyrighted 1994.).

what do "many lands" have to do with this one land, the "land of decoration?

but who is he, that is the "king of the north?

Shemittah

DANIEL 11:40

I've taken a close look at this scripture and the underlying language (both from the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Text). Here are my first observations.

Greek Septuagint (LXX)

"KAI {and} EN {in} KAIROU {of-time} PERATI {end} *SUGKERATISTHESETAI {he-shall-conflict} META {with} BASILEOS {king} TOU {of-the} NOTOU {south/southwest-wind} KAI {and} SUNACHTHESETAI EP AUTON {be gathered against him} BASILEUS {king} TOU {of} BORRA {north/north-wind} EN {in} ARMASI {wagons} KAI {and} EN HIPPEUSI {with horsemen} KAI {and} EN {in} NAUSI {ships} POLLAIS {many}, KAI {and} EISELEUSONTAI {shall-enter/invade} EIS {into} TEN {the} GEN {land}, KAI {and} SUNTRIPSEI {crush/wear-away}, KAI {and} PARELEUSETAI {shall-sail-past}." - Bagster & Sons.

Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT)

"UVE'ETH {and-at-time-of} QETS {end} *YITHNAGACH {he-will-engage-in-battle} 'IMO {with-him} MELEKH {king-[of]} *HANEGEV {the-South} VEYISTA'ER {and-he-will-storm-out} 'ALAIV {against-him} MELEKH {king-[of]} *HATSAPHON {the-North} BEREKHEV {with-chariot} UVEPHARASHIM {and-with-cavalries} UVA'ANIYYOTH {and-with-ships} RABOTH {many-ones} UVA' {and-he-will-invade} VA'ARATSOTH {into-countries} VESHATAPH {and-he-will-flood} VE'AVAR {and-he-will-sweep-through}. - The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament.
English Translation

"At the time of the end, the king of the south will lock horns with him, but the king of the north will attack him with chariots and riders and many ships. He will invade lands, sweeping through them like a flood." - The Jewish Bible [Tanakh The Holy Scriptures].

Important Hebrew Words

NAGACH - Strong's number 5055: "to butt with the horns; fig. to war against" In the LXX the word SUGKERATISTHESETAI is used which comes from the root word KERAS. This word is used properly of animals in defending themselves with their horns. For example, male deer lock horns and push each other in order to determine superiority.

NEGEB - Strong's number 5045: "from an unused root meaning to be parched; the south (from it drought); spec. the southern district of Judah, occasionally, Egypt (as south to Pal.). It is my belief that the King of the South is not America-Britain, but one which belongs to very dry land (at least at the time of the prophecy) south of Judah - the direction should be taken from the perspective of Israel.

TSAPHON - Strong's number 6828: "prop. hidden, i.e. dark; used only of the north as a quarter (gloomy and unknown). As with the "south", this "north", I believe, should again be taken from the perspective of Israel (i.e. to the north of it). If you travel northwards from Israel past the North Pole you'll end facing the USA. Maybe the WTS got their kings mixed up!

47

Why I Stopped Apologising For The WTS

by NewWay in

why i stopped apologising for the watchtower society - part 1. .

in response to requests for information on why i stopped being an apologist for the organisation, i have decided to write the following article.

what is written is not meant to attack the beliefs of jws, but rather to show why i personally came to the conclusion that i could no longer support the organisation.

Shemittah

Here is the link to the thread mentioned above. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/47542/2.ashx

34

MDS' Book "The Report" (1994) Predicts Global War Ahead!

by bjc2read in

jw
friends

the following information is a direct quote taken from the "report" volume i pages 94-100 made back in 1994.. ("the report" written & copyrighted 1994.).

what do "many lands" have to do with this one land, the "land of decoration?

but who is he, that is the "king of the north?

Shemittah

Well I have to say that this thread proved extremely interesting to me, so I have and will be doing some Bible research of my own (without the help of the WTS!), the results of which I'll post here later for anyone who might be interested.

TraumaHound: I like the program code! However, as all computer programmers know: However elegant the program code, if it is based on faulty logic, eventually the program will crash. I hope for your sake that the sarcasm subroutine called - if futureDate is greater than currentDate - is futureproof! ;o)

For all those who may rubbish Bible prophecy, you might like to consider the British comedian Jasper Carrot's words of wisdom: "I always buy the Watchtower and Awake! when the JWs come round, you know, just in case!" I personally don't believe the WTS to be "God's channel of communication", however, I do have a respect for the Bible and entertain the possibility that it does (at least in some parts - since we cannot be sure of what truly constitutes the complete Word of God) contain divine prophecy.

BJC: I remember you from many months ago when I used to post here under the name "NewWay". Some of my previous views have changed somewhat concerning things of a religious nature. My belief is that prophecy relating to "Israel" (or the "Land of Decoration") refers to literal Israel which can be seen and understood by all nations of the earth as it has and continues to occupy and important part of the world scene. This is in great contrast to the WTS (and the organisation of JWs) whose presence and significance on the world stage has and continues to be insignificant in comparison. I don't say that to ridicule JWs, but rather to put things in perspective. We must not forget that the WTS interpretation of "Israel" in Bible prophecy is simply that, interpretation, and as I pointed out many months ago, "greater fulfillment" application of scripture as a modus operandi in interpreting prophecy, had its beginnings with Jewish mysticism which allowed Jewish clerics (and early "Church Fathers", such as Origen) to make scripture accord with their own particular ideas. Although "The Report" still sounds like a revised version of WTS interpretation, I still found it interesting, and thank you for posting the extract.

As for MDS, I don't believe s/he is THE "anointed" (i.e. "messiah") servant of God no more than the next person who comes along claiming to be "God's channel of communication" (see Mark 13:21-23) - I hope you understand my caution. As far as the Spirit "receiving" what is Jesus', the Greek word used (lambano) in the scripture (John 16:14) can according to Strongs: "1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it". What was the Spirit taking from Jesus? The role which Jesus played towards his disciples as teacher, one who would carry where Jesus "left off" by guiding the disciples "into all truth" (verse 13). We must not forget who Jesus was talking to. It is true that we could extend Jesus words to all his following (future as well as present), but Jesus was addressing his words to the disciples at that time, not to some future generation of disciples. Therefore, what/whoever the Spirit is would be guiding his disciples from that time, which if it were a person would have had to have been someone living all those years ago and in order to be of service to later generations of disciples would have to have an incredibly long lifespan if s/he were to be alive today. This is why it seems more logical to me that Jesus was refering to the "active force" which was poured upon the disciples at Pentecost and led them as "teacher" on earth, after Jesus departed to heaven. In the letter to the Ephesians (3:20), Paul says that there was "the power working in us [Christians]" (Greek = "ten dunamin ten energoumenoen en hemin"). That sounds like the "Holy Spirit" to me, that is according to Jewish O.T. usage, not Christian Trinitarian usage. Just out of interest, don't Muslims believe that Mohammed was the fullfilment of Jesus' words regarding "the helper" and therefore regard him as being the "Holy Spirit"?

Kind regards to you.

Alex.

47

Why I Stopped Apologising For The WTS

by NewWay in

why i stopped apologising for the watchtower society - part 1. .

in response to requests for information on why i stopped being an apologist for the organisation, i have decided to write the following article.

what is written is not meant to attack the beliefs of jws, but rather to show why i personally came to the conclusion that i could no longer support the organisation.

Shemittah

Thanks for the welcome back!

Yes, I was NewWay. I hope to give some insight into the above questions soon, but I'm in the middle of some research with respect to things raised in another thread about a prediction regarding war and the book "The Report".

Kind regards to you all.

47

Why I Stopped Apologising For The WTS

by NewWay in

why i stopped apologising for the watchtower society - part 1. .

in response to requests for information on why i stopped being an apologist for the organisation, i have decided to write the following article.

what is written is not meant to attack the beliefs of jws, but rather to show why i personally came to the conclusion that i could no longer support the organisation.

Shemittah

Hi there!

It's been about 7 months since my last post here. At the time I felt I needed a rest from the board as it was taking up a lot of my time. I've had to sign up again, hence the new name (Shemittah - 'release'). A lot happened in my private family life over the few months or so since I left this board, but things appear to be settling down, so I've returned - I hope you don't mind!

Kind regards.

Alex.