accuracy

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 105 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by accuracy

• 
  24

  Dead Sea Scrolls published Jesus not There

  by Satanus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the prep and publishing of the dead sea scrolls is finally finishing.

  they date from 250 bc to 70 ce.

  out of a total of 52 volumes, jesus christ is not mentioned even once.. _________.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  Why would the Essenes (or whoever wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls) mention Jesus? He was not their man. They kept aloof from other Jews and accepted the primacy of the Law of Moses. Jesus would not have appealed to them. The same with Josephus, he had his hands full with other matters. But some scholars say that Josephus did mention Jesus, just not in the form in which his supposed statement is usually quoted. Not as the Christ, but as an alleged wise man.

  Jesus' public ministry was a brief one, a mere 3-3 1/2 years. Those who did not accept him as Messiah, or who deemed him but another failed revolutionary, had no reason to pay him any attention. It does not thereby follow that Jesus never existed.

  The New Testament does record Jesus' existence and his works. It was written and transmitted by people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus, or close to those who were. It was written and transmitted by people who had nothing to gain by "inventing" a myth of Jesus, but who had much to lose.
• 
  58

  Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

  by JosephAlward in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been a part of this forum for about one month, and during that time i've been struck by the willingness of many so former jehovah witnesses either to ridicule the bible, or to stand by while it's being ridiculed.

  so, i'm wondering how many of them while witnesses suffered through experiences so searing that they no longer believe in the god of the old testament.. who among you still believe that underneath the layers of contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors in the bible there may be found the words of a god who created the universe, and who also cares about you, personally?.

  joseph f. alward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  Joe,

  "Contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors" are in the eye of the beholder.

  It is not even so much as a faith profession as it is experiential living that convinces me that there is a God Who cares for me, personally and individually.

  You can argue with my faith, but you can't argue with what I have experienced for myself.

  The interesting thing, though, is that millions of Christians feel the same.
• 
  12

  "Who Wrote The Bible?"

  by Grout in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the book "who wrote the bible?

  " by richard friedman is the best single source i've found for explaining the origins of the torah.

  the "documentary hypothesis", now almost universally accepted, posits that the "five books of moses" were in fact written by at least four people as late as the return from exile.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  Joe,

  I can assure you that there are many Bible scholars with educations far beyond the sixth grade who dispute the Documentary Hypothesis. I have read their works in scholarly journals and books. The matter is arguable, but not beyond doubt. Two or more story strands do not mean that one author has not written or edited the whole. The book of Genesis itself indicates that different "histories" (sefarim toledot) whether oral or written, went into its composition. But this is not the same as the unproven JEPD controversy.
• 
  12

  "Who Wrote The Bible?"

  by Grout in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the book "who wrote the bible?

  " by richard friedman is the best single source i've found for explaining the origins of the torah.

  the "documentary hypothesis", now almost universally accepted, posits that the "five books of moses" were in fact written by at least four people as late as the return from exile.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  The Documentary Hypothesis has been around a long time but is "widely accepted" by only some groups of scholars. It is still a hypothesis because there are no real documentary proofs for it; it is based upon "educated guesses." To get a better view, balance your reading of this book with books by conservative or Evangelical Christian scholars, or conservative Jewish ones.
• 
  15

  16 reasons to doubt the divinity of the bible

  by bboyneko in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1)the old testament must have been written nearly two thousand years before the invention of printing.

  there were but few copies, and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.. 2) the written hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, anyone can test this for himself by writing an english sentence, leaving out the vowels.

  it will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone.. 3) the books composing the old testament were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  I also stand by my statement vis-a-vis the DSS and the Masoretic text. I am quite aware that there are some differences in orthography, due to normal changes in the written Hebrew language over time. But as I stated formerly, those primarily stylistic differences do not change the fundamentals of the message in any significant way.
• 
  15

  16 reasons to doubt the divinity of the bible

  by bboyneko in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1)the old testament must have been written nearly two thousand years before the invention of printing.

  there were but few copies, and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.. 2) the written hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, anyone can test this for himself by writing an english sentence, leaving out the vowels.

  it will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone.. 3) the books composing the old testament were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  Sorry, JanH, but if you say Modern Israeli Hebrew is not written without vowels, you are just ignorant of Modern Israeli Hebrew. I know better, I have studied Modern Israeli Hebrew and have read Modern Israeli Hebrew books and newspapers. Tell that to someone else.

  Modern Israeli Hebrew can be written with vowels, and for learners, some material may have vowels. But those who know the language both read and write it without vowels.
• 
  15

  16 reasons to doubt the divinity of the bible

  by bboyneko in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1)the old testament must have been written nearly two thousand years before the invention of printing.

  there were but few copies, and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.. 2) the written hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, anyone can test this for himself by writing an english sentence, leaving out the vowels.

  it will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone.. 3) the books composing the old testament were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  This thread contains too many half-baked generalizations to shed any light. To be sure, those who do not wish to believe that the Bible is the Word of God can find a million "reasons" for that disbelief. But if the disbelief is supposedly based upon scholarship, it is wise to get the facts correct.

  For example, one of the reasons was:

  "2) The written Hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, Anyone can test this for himself by writing an English sentence, leaving out the vowels. It will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone."

  Wrong! It does not compromise accuracy or understanding that Biblical Hebrew was written without vowels. Modern Israeli Hebrew is also written without vowels, and millions of people understand and use it with precision and accuracy just fine. It is the language of literature, politics, and everyday life in modern Israel. Because it is a living language, people don't need the "vowels," though in some cases -- as in Biblical Hebrew -- certain consonants also do double duty as "vowels." And while Biblical Hebrew was still a living language, it was translated into Greek, which does have vowels. Therefore, the Greek translation (the LXX) can offer some assistance in understanding obscure Hebrew Biblical terms.

  Remember, too, the example of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though nearly 2,000 years older than the standard Hebrew Masoretic texts of Isaiah, over nearly 2,000 years of transmission by copyists, the DSS text is virtually identical with the Masoretic text. In view of the time, what few variants in spelling do exist -- none of which affect basic understanding or teaching -- are simply remarkable. One might even say "divinely" protected.

  There are similar flaws in all the points you have presented. But I will not go into them here, for in truth, entire books have already been written on these matters, containing excellent positive research.
• 
  3

  Cross and Crown, masonic symbol ? English's page

  by chasson in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.multimania.com/xmd/pyramide/debuga.htm .

  bye.

  charles

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  This old canard again? The pyramid is also an Egyptian symbol. The Cross and Crown is also a Christian religious symbol. Some Masonic degrees use these symbols, but they are certainly not exclusive to Freemasonry.

  Besides, in the early part of the 20th century, if Charles T. Russell was a member of the Craft, why would he have to hide it at that time? There was little stigma from any quarter to being a Widow's Son in those days. Indeed, among many it was considered to be quite an honor.
• 
  21

  Question about Accuracy & Persuasion

  by troubled in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in my social psychology class, we are studying a chapter on persuasion.

  here is an interesting excerpt from our study book, "social psychology: unraveling the mystery" by douglas kenrick, steven neuberg, and robert cialdini, page 171. please tell me if you think it applies to jws, ex-jws, and this board in general.. .

  p. 170, "done deals".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  sf, unless troubled wrote the book he is quoting from I would have to ask you, "Why are you shooting the messenger?" And what is your motive in doing so?
• 
  20

  WTS Encourages Hatred 1.12.01WT

  by ISP in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  examine the following statements and tell me if you think the wts is irresponsible in its furtherance of religious hatred which is an evil plaguing the world today.. 1 article 1. of the un declaration of human rights.

  all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

  they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  accuracy

  larc,

  Thanks for putting this 'up top for accuracy to see.' But I have no intention of getting into a debate with you. Reason: I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. You can't change me and I will not attempt to change you, so what's the point???

  However, it is rather rash and ignorant to spout out about what you think you know about me and my religion when your words show that you know nothing about either.

  None of your questions are new, nor revealing. I have read whole books on this stuff, and disagree with them just as I disagree with you. If I am condescending to you, take heart; I am condescending to a lot of people who think they know much but know little. Have you ever read a book by Phyllis Tribble titled "Texts of Terror"? She made points similar to yours. She is wrong and so are you. Just reading a text does not give insight. Just following the theories of Bible minimalists and revisionists doesn't give insight either.

  Jesus was a Jew. He observed the Law, though he had no use for the traditions of men, the Oral Law, that grew up to interpret the Law. Jesus' God was the Old Testament one. If you read the Old Testament for understanding, not just for criticism, you will find that it deals with love just as much as the New Testament does. The New Testament Christ did not mince words or actions with his opposers. And John describes him as the one who will 'tread the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty, as King of kings and Lord of Lords,' the "blood" of which reaches the bridles of horses for thousands of miles.

  The attempt to paint Christ as some Milquetoast, mystic, effete fellow is not Biblical. The only God Jesus believed in was the God of the Old Testament. There isn't any other.

  But my words on this are ended. What you said is already old stuff.