1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by WitnessofJah, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. Aniset@sbcglobal.net

    [email protected] New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +0
     
  2. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Witness,

    Ok.... you win. Shall we go point by point? Pick ONE issue in the thread and we'll go from there... let's try to keep things simple... one topic at a time.

    Waiting to hear from ya,
    Scott
     
  3. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669


    I apologize for the misunderstanding, forums can become so impersonal. My comment reflected WitnessOfJah’s absence as if a teacher was sick from school and they had to get a substitute to fill in. It’s just a small concern.



    That’s quite alright. According to WitnessOfJah, Jehovah Witness are harmonious not only in the way they live their lives but in their knowledge of THE BIBLE. So I K(NOW) any answer you reply to will agree with the organization’s understanding of THE BIBLE.

     
  4. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    **Sorry if I am not posting at the moment but my schedule is extremely hectic right now. I will try to post when I get the chance and will definitely backtrack on the views/questions you have asked.** :)
     
  5. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    The topic I pick is the Apocrypha. ;)

    The Watchtower publications are not a deviation from the Bible like the Apocrypha is, it is simply a guide to help the average Joe understand it better. There is nothing that can be found in our spiritual Watchtower articles that are not found in the Bible - check for yourself. Whereas with the Apocrypha, it is a combination of books that supports itself - at the expense of rest of the Bible.

    Also, it's funny you should mention it, but the Watchtower is mentioned in the Bible, hence our naming one of our publications after it. Isaiah 21:8: "And he proceeded to call out like a lion: "Upon the watchtower, O Jehovah, I am standing constantly by day, and at my guardpost I am stationed all the nights."

    I'm not using the same tactics as used against the Bible. All the "Bible contradictions" that people claim are either scriptures that have been taken out of context or misunderstood - and are always explainable. On the otherhand, the Apocrypha not only has contradictions, but it has some downright bloomers which not even the best Bible scholars can figure out - remember, God does not make mistakes. Since you brush off the "contradictions" as "non-evidence", you therefore will be able to easily explain and justify the following (I want to hear a counter-argument for each contradiction I provide - it's important):

    2 Maccabees: Unexplainable contradiction No.1:

    It claims that the prophet Jeremiah, at the destruction of Jerusalem, took the tabernacle (which had been replaced by the temple 420 years before) and the ark of the covenant to the mountain from which Moses viewed the land of Canaan. Its reference to the offering of prayers for the dead "is without parallel in Jewish literature." (2 Macc. 12:43-45). - This is a historical confliction with the rest of the Bible.

    2 Maccabees: Unexplainable contradiction No.2:

    The writer himself admits the work is of human origin, saying: "And here will I end. And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone, and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end." (2 Macc. 15:37-39) - This conflicts with 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture is inspired of God".

    Baruch: Unexplainable contradiction No.3:

    It purports to tell of captive Jews in Babylon collecting money and sending it to the priests in Jerusalem in the fifth year of that city’s having been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, when, in fact, at that time there was neither man nor beast there. It shows Jeconiah with the other Jews in Babylon, when, in fact, he was in prison. It tells the Jews that they will be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas the facts are that they were there only seventy years. And it speaks of the Jews having "waxen old in a strange country," although having been there only five years. —Baruch 1:2-7; 3:11; 6:3. Major conflictions in historical and geographical facts that disagree with the Bible and history books. Is this inspired of God?

    Ecclesiasticus (and Wisdom of Solomon): Unexplainable contradiction No.4:

    First of all, let me just say that the above books professes to speak for Solomon but was written many centuries after Solomon’s time - look up the facts for yourself.

    Its human origin is further betrayed by the fact that it contradicts God’s Word about man being created mortal and subject to death if disobedient. Wisdom says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity." "In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die, . . . yet their hope is full of immortality." And not only is immortality repeatedly attributed to man but man’s body is pictured as a mere hindrance to the soul, which at death is "received up."—Wisdom 2:23; 3:2, 4; 16:14. - Contradicts the Bible regarding life after death. This is a major deviation from the Bible's teaching.

    Ecclesiasticus (and Wisdom of Solomon): Unexplainable contradiction No.5:

    How obviously this book is of man rather than of God can be further seen by its worldly wisdom and, in particular, by the writer’s low opinion of womankind. In contrast to God’s Word, which squarely blames the man Adam for our woes, he says: "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." "Give me . . . any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (But why want any wickedness?) "All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman." Yet some would place these two books on the same plane as the Bible’s "wisdom" books.—Ecclesiasticus 25:24, 13, 19. - God loves everbody, so why is there such much hatred pointed at women? Answer: Because it was written from a man's perspective, and not God's.

    Supplement to Esther :Unexplainable contradiction No.6:

    What about the supplement to Esther, 10:4 to 16:24, appearing in the Apocrypha? It fares no better in the light of objective criticism. It asks us to believe that Mordecai was "a great man, being a servitor in the king’s court" in the second year of Artaxerxes, 150 years after he was taken captive the first time Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem. And in claiming that Mordecai occupied this position so early in the king’s reign it not only contradicts the canonical part of Esther but also its own reference later on to his being advanced. Profuse with references to God and acts of piety, it obviously was added to give Esther a religious tone. But references to God in themselves do not prove divine origin any more than their lack proves human origin. - Some more Bible contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

    So there you have it. These are only a few contradictions that I decided to point out, and I could type out more on request. I'm looking forward to an explanation.

    Okay then. So now we have both established that nobody on this planet know's who wrote Maccabees, I can go forward with my next question: If you don't anything about the writer and who he was, how can you be so sure with full conviction that he was inspired of God? Unlike the rest of the Bible, God did'nt use any anonymous writers to write entire books like Maccabees, ever - we know all the Bible writers. So why would he, for this one time, go against the grain and decide to withhold a name from a book that has no significance or particular importance with the rest of the Bible? Why? Or do you and I both have to take your Church's word for it?

    Thanks,

    WitnessofJah
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. sammy

    sammy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Ratings:
    +1
    Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? The Watchtower organization states that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross. The typical Watchtower representation of this is with Jesus on a single vertical stake, hands over his head with a single nail in his wrists. If Jesus were crucified on a cross, then two nails would be necessary, one in each hand. How then does the Watchtower organization handle the verse in the Bible that states that Jesus had nails (plural) in his hands: "Consequently the other disciples would say to him: "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them: "unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe" (John 20:25, NWT).
    Jesus had one nail in each hand. This is made clear by the use of the word ‘nails’ not ‘nail.’ Jesus must have been crucified on a cross, and not a stake as the Watchtower organization teaches. Why is it, then, that the Watchtower teaches something that is so clearly unbiblical?

    Where does it teach in the Bible that Jesus is Michael the archangel? Why isn't Jesus called Michael right now since he is in heaven?

    The Watchtower organization has claimed to be the prophet of God (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197) yet it has made numerous false prophecies. The excuse given for their false prophecies has been to quote Proverbs 4:18 which says, "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Whether or not the "light gets brighter" or not does not change the fact that the Watchtower made false prophecies. The Bible says in Deut. 18:20-22, "‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: "How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak..."
    If the NWT condemns false prophesying and states that it is proof that God is not speaking through that prophet, then doesn’t this prove that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is not speaking for God?
     
  7. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Witness is back! :woohoo:

    Hope things are less hectic for you, my friend... good to have you back.

    Let me start our "part 2" on a different note.... God bless you! I pray that our discussion will help lead people towards faith... be it my "version" or your "version" of it and that by God's grace we will both discuss our faiths with compassion and love. Amen!

    On to your post!

    Interesting..... not what I would have guessed, by the way. Let's have at it! To help those of you scoring at home ;) , we Catholics call these books in question the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS.

    You're testing my memory of this thread now.... If you are posting this to somehow imply that the Apocrypha does not have any support from the Bible, I think you might be suprised. Have you ever read the Apocrypha?

    There are some very striking similarities between some verses and the Bible.... some might argue they are evidence! :eek:

    Here's just a few from the Gospel of Matthew:
    Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

    Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

    Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

    Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

    Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

    Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

    Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

    Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

    Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

    Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

    Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

    Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

    Hehehe.... not what I meant, but very clever! :)

    Look up the thread here called Bible Discrepancies and you will notice your questions and comments mirror exactly what atheists and non-Christians are posting. Your always explainable does not mean without a doubt... you are just going on the assumption that you're correct in a certain matter and that the other person "just doesn't get it"....

    As far as all of your "contradictions" .... I'll pass. I must admit that I am not interested in a back and forth about yours or my explainations of a particluar verse.... I would prefer to speak about the formation of the Bible as it related to the DC books....but I did tell you I would follow your lead, so if you must focus on this, I will concede. Let's move on.
    Who wrote Ruth?
    How soon was Ruth written from when it took place "in the time of judges' (Ruth 1:1)

    Looking forward to your replies.
    Scott
     
  8. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    ....previously on 144,000.

    People who start religious wars only read into the parts where Jehovah has taken an active judgment against the people who degrade or debase His Word or law (Genesis through Deuteronomy is quite famous for this). It is because they did take the time to look through THE BIBLE that gives them the justification to enact wars. They are not thinking about the consequences of their personal actions they are thinking about how they are going to please Jehovah by cleansing the earth of people that disrespect God (as if GOD can BE disrespected or offended). Jehovah as He is described in THE BIBLE has never stood as a symbol of ultimate peace to me.

    An illustration of this example would BE someone has a BIBLE another man has a BIBLE yet they cannot agree on certain passages or scriptures and a debate ensues. Who’s fault is this? The individual person's religion/an individual’s perspective/an individual’s reading comprehension abilities/THE BIBLICAL authors/historical scholars/printers? It is THE BIBLE’s fault. Jehovah Witness’s and other prominent religions engage themselves in this illustration/conflict/example everyday. Whose fault is this? Jehovah’s? Every religion who takes THE BIBLE seriously has confessed to me that outside resources are needed/useful/available for the comprehension of this book. Does this sound like a practical easy to use life manual from a loving Supreme BEing?

    Now I am not a All-Powerful BEing nor has my life ever acquired the kind of attention that GOD's has but if my word was misinterpreted/misunderstood/misused wouldn’t you think that I would take every opportunity to try to CORRECT this matter?



    There could BE 1000 BIBLES all scripted by the hand of GOD Himself it would not change the fact that humans will and can do anything they want to do. It is this over extension of ego and this failure to take responsibility not only for their own lives but for the consideration of other lives which is why the world is in the “mess” that it is today. You do not need a book to see that and you certainly do not need to believe in the existence of GOD as a reminder of this. This TRUTH exists with or without such knowledge.




    I would BE very skeptical of a book that professes to BE God’s TRUTH that supports or encourages the practice of faith.

    That is because the runner has PROVEN this TRUTH for Himself. The runner K(NOW)s and UNDERSTANDS the benefit of keeping fit. The runner can see and has been introduced to the gold medal and comprehends the rewards for his efforts. THE BIBLE offers no such UNDERSTANDING/PROOF/comprehension in the compensation of rewards. Any runner chasing after faith will run throughout his physical existence until that person finally tires or dies, whichever comes first.

     
  9. killah247

    killah247 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +1
    wat is jehova's witness,wat is there purpose of life...?
     
  10. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    The name "Jehovah" was most definitely in the original Greek manuscripts - which is why we include it in the first place in the NWT - to try and be as accurate as possible. Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri·os and The·os´. This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

    The name "Jehovah" is seen over 7,000 times in the original manuscripts - and the NWT is the only Bible that repeats this. God gave us humans his name for a reason - so why should we expel it from his own word?



    So because he was crucified with “nails”, you automatically jump to the conclusion of a cross, right? If we read just the Bible accounts of the actual impalement, we would know very little about how Jesus was impaled. The Gospel writers state only that he was impaled or fastened to the stake. They do not say in their accounts of the impaling how this was accomplished, whether by Christ’s being transfixed with the stake forced through part of the body, by being tied to the pole or by being nailed to it. —Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:25; Luke 23:33; John 19:18. The Bible does also not say whether his hands were nailed one on top of the other with a single nail through them both, or side by side with a separate nail through each. If the latter was the case, Thomas’ remark in John 20:25 could be understood as applying only to Jesus’ hands.

    There is one thing we do know though: That he died on a stake. Matthew 27:38-40: “Then two robbers were impaled with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 So the passersby began speaking abusively of him, wagging their heads 40 and saying: “O you would-be thrower-down of the temple and builder of it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake! There is also a long history of the Bible referring to stakes in which it meant upright poles. Also, you have to remember that Jesus died a roman death – and archaeological evidence supports this since crucifixion stakes (upright poles) have been found on ancient Roman settlements. What’s more is that there is not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support the idea of a cross.

    The Bible refers to a “stake” several times in the Bible, and the dictionary further supports the case of what a stake is – an upright pole. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Stake



    The name “Jesus” was his earthly name. The name “Michael” is his heavenly name. Jesus is called Michael now. And how do we know that Jesus is Michael? Because Jesus is the archangel. Jude 9 confirms Michaels identity: “But when Mi´cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”



    Notice how the most recent quote you have on that site is in 1968 – which shows that we are getting better and better and are fulfilling Proverbs 4:18. Out of our entire history, 7-8 misunderstandings on your web page is not bad going – and we have now rectified those mistakes. If we are wrong, we improve and learn from it to become even more accurate and closer to God. James 3:2 says: “For we all stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, able to bridle also [his] whole body.” On the flip side of the coin, most religions today stick to their guns in the face of FACT, so who is doing the better? We are the ONLY religion on this planet who follows and obey every commandment of God (Blood, Preaching, use of his name), and in the face of this, people condemn us for making an effort to come closer to the truth? As Jesus said: “Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone…”.
     
  11. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    I'll cover the rest of the other questions first thing tomorrow morning. :)
     
  12. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    :confused:
    "YHVH" is the Hebrew word that translates as "LORD". Found more often in the Old Testament than any other name for God (approximately 7,000 times), the title is also referred to as the "Tetragrammaton," meaning the "The Four Letters". YHVH comes from the Hebrew verb "to be" and is the special name that God revealed to Moses at the burning bush. "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM; and He said, thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you... this is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations'" (Exodus 3:14-15). Therefore, YHVH declares God's absolute being - the source of everything, without beginning and without end. Although some pronounce YHVH as "Jehovah" or "Yaweh," scholars really don't know the proper pronunciation. The Jews stopped pronouncing this name by about 200 A.D., out of fear of breaking the commandment "You shall not take the name of YHVH your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7). (Today's rabbis typically use "Adonai" in place of YHVH.)
    www.septuagint.net

    This extreme veneration for the Divine name must have generally prevailed at the time when the Septuagint version was made, for the translators always substitute Kyrios (Lord) for Jehovah. Ecclus., xxiii, 10, appears to prohibit only a wanton use of the Divine name, though it cannot be denied that Jehovah is not employed as frequently in the more recent canonical books of the Old Testament as in the older books. It would be hard to determine at what time this reverence for the Divine name originated among the Hebrews.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

    Genesis 1 εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην

    http://septuagint.org/LXX/Genesis/Genesis1.html

    Need some help with the Greek? http://www.greek-language.com/alphabet/

    :)
    Scott

     
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,471
    Ratings:
    +1,278
    Religion:
    Christian
    Where did this doctrine originate?

    If you and I read two different translations of let's say Romance of the Three Kingdoms (chinese novel) and we get into an arguement over differences, is it the book's fault?

    You can't blame a book for a person mis-translating/understanding.

    I do not believe that the Bible needs any outside resources, I have yet to read a resource on Bible reading that has really been useful, and availability does not mean endorsement.
     
  14. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    I'm still very busy, but I'll try my best to respond to the posts. :eek:

    I posted that because you implied that the Watchtower publications was a seperate teaching from the Bible. And yes, I have got a copy of "The Apocrypha" in my library, and I have read several passages before. However, I have also read the Bible, and I could'nt help notice the complete difference in writing style between the two. The Apocrypha is mostly written in a 1st person format.

    Similar verses does not automatically prove divinity. The Quran has many similar verses to the Bible, including some stories that are the same, so I guess you accept that the Quran is canonical with the Bible and therefore, should be printed along with the Bible so that it is one massive book that includes the Apocrypha, the Quran, and the Bible! :162: :D

    What actually really matters is what's inside those books - and you have to examine them from cover to cover. Evidence is not copying scriptures from the Bible - evidence is divine intervention and originality. I could jot down and copy some Bible scriptures onto a notepad with a few other invented doctrines....so I guess my notepad is divine now? The same can be said for the Apocrypha. Yes, the Apocrypha has some similar passages to the Bible, yes, the Apocrypha contradicts the Bible, and yes, it has many elementary mistakes in it also. Do you honestly think it is a book directly from God?

    This is what I'm getting at. You can't have a discussion about the Apocrypha without having a look inside it. Historical formation means absolutely nothing if inside the pages of the Apocrypha, it has false teachings. Until you decide to have an open mind and actually have a look at the Apocrypha itself - this argument won't be progressing very far.

    Samuel.

    Ruth was written about 10 years after the book of Judges was completed. Ruth was completed in 1090 B.C.E., and Judges was completed in 1100 B.C.E - both which were written by Samuel. I'm not sure what you're getting at here but if 10 years difference and books written by the same writer is in favour of your argument...

    Anyhow - back to Maccabees! Why did "God decide" to leave out the identity of the writer of that book when it would go against the grain of the rest of his books? For all we know, this guy could have been an unrighteous, immoral man - and nobody can say for sure one way or the other! His message in Maccabees is nothing to write home about, so why awould God leave his name out? The man even credited himself for his "masterpiece" of the Maccabees! "And here will I end. And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone, and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end." (2 Macc. 15:37-39)

    Thanks,

    WitnessofJah :)
     
  15. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    You're right - the OT has many books which all involve war. However, those were times when foreign enemies like the Assyrians, Philistines and the Edomites were trying their best to destroy God's people and influence them to worship false pagan gods - and God loved his people and wanted to protect them. Also, this was also a time when the people did not have the entire book of the Bible, which meant, Judges, Priests, and God himself had to judge for them. Today though, we have the entire Bible book which is full of guidelines, encourages us to love one another, and to be peaceful citizens. That's exactly why the New Testament is called the New Testament - because it is a New Covenant between God and his people (Heb 8:6-13). And The OT is also exactly that - a former covenant (the Mosaic law) that no longer falls into our category anymore - but we can still learn much from. If Military chiefs and commmanders want to conveniently interpret the Bible so that it fits into their agenda - that is not of the fault of the Bible - because the Bible teaches us otherwise.





    The main reason why most religions have the their own interpretation of the Bible is due to misunderstanding, or in some cases, deliberate acts of diverting the truth. You can liken it to a sweet shop: God puts all the sweets in a shop, but there are people out there who pick and mix want they want and what they don’t want and just take according to their own agenda and needs. And on the other hand, some people take all of God’s sweets and benefit from all of them – the way he intended it to be. Who is right or wrong, the partial people or the people who take full advantage of what he has given us? Also, people deliberately diverting the truth is fulfilling what the Bible said would happen: Thess 2:3 says: “Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.”





    The Bible informs us in 1 John 5:19: “1We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.” Carrdero, do you remember our discussion earlier in this thread when we talked about how God is allowing Satan to try and mislead the world, but eventually, God will prove his univeral sovereignty? That is exactly why God has not done anything. He want’s to prove to the universe that there are people on earth who are willing to follow him out of their own free will and is only allowing Satan to do what he does – for the time being only. Soon enough, God will destroy Satan and his followers along with the false doctrines and wicked people – permanently. (Rev 16:16).





    God has given every human being who was ever born the right to free will and the right to make their own decisions. The world is in a mess today – you are 100% right. When God proves his universal sovereignty to Satan – everything will be reversed. Every Bible prophecy has been fulfilled without fail – apart from the future ones – which is going to be fulfilled next. These prophecies include the cleansing of mankind and the permanent destruction of wickedness. Without the Bible, how would we know these prophecies? We wouldn’t. It is the Bible that gives us a hope for mankind – which we would not have this hope from any other source. Life would not be worth living if you had to die in vain with no hope whatsoever.





    The fact is, I could go on forever showing you scriptures from the Bible – but it won’t really matter unless “you make the truth your own”. God says very graphically in the Bible that you are either with him or against him – there is no sitting on the fence. On a separate note, 2 Corinthians 4:2 says: “but we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God

    Thanks,

    WitnessofJah. :)
     
  16. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    A Jehovah's Witness is exactly that - people who bear to people his name and also preach the hope for the mankind from God - like God commanded us to in the Bible. Isaiah 43:10 says: "YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none." Also his commandment to preach: Matthew 24:14: "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." Anybody who calls themselves Christian are supposed to preach - God's commandment to preach is no less of a commandment than any of the others found in the Bible.

    So what do we believe? Long answer short, we believe that Jesus is God's son (not the Trinity), that our hope for the future is here on earth to live forever in paradise, that hell is not a burning fiery furnace that you will eternally suffer, but Sheol (translation of hell), which is the common grave. Also, the reason why wickedness is seen today is because God is in the process of proving his universal sovereignty against Satan the Devil, and when he does that, then the end will come.
     
  17. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7



    The Hebrew name YHWH is NOT translated as "Lord" - it is simply a replacement for it that people use. Je·ho´vah, the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah´ (become); means "He Causes to Become" - which is what the name Jehovah means. "YHWH" is not God's title like you implied - it is his name. Isaiah 42:8 says: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning "four," and gram´ma, "letter"). These four letters (written from right to left) areיהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH = JEHOVAH).




    The point remains the same: That יהוה is found many times throughout the original OT and also in a different form thoughout the Greek scriptures...so why have you decided to replace it with titles? You might say we are inaccurate, but if you look at your own Bible, can you really say that it is a much better translation? How?



    I thought I would post this, this is a fantastic piece of text to answer your claims: :)

    The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky´ri·os or The·os´ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

    It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."​


    As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters." In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: "The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho´ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI]."—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.​


    The so-called Christians, then, who "replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios" in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.

     
  18. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    That Jesus is the archangel, and therefore, is Michael?

    First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word "archangel" is Michael - see Jude 9. Since Michael is the only person referred to as the "archangel", it very easy to conclude that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person.
     
  19. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669


    Yes, but certainly you would have to agree that there were other practical and peaceful ways to not only protect human lives without all the needless judgment and wrath and to keep the flock faithful at the same time and maybe offer the opportunity of enlightening old enemies and inspiring new converts. Could God have handled the situation better?

    I also have a problem with the term “His people.” When have you ever K(NOW)n GOD to help one society of people over another? Do you agree with this? Is this a God that you would want to fall in favor with? Doesn’t this describe God as BEing prejudice? If they were God’s chosen people and God did have the power, why not remove all the obstacles in His Chosen people’s path?

    Why would GOD have to wait until THE BIBLE (a book) was completed? I am sure the Laws and TRUTHs of GOD were already assigned and established to GOD’s UNDERSTANDING and as the Ten Commandments has shown us communication of the written form was already BEing considered a possibility. You have to keep in mind that we are talking about an All-Powerful BEing. Any excuse that you make for GOD either demeans any majesty that we have associated with HIm or it belittles humans in general…..or both.
    So what you are admitting here is that God can change or redefine His relationship with us. Can that still BE possible? If after 2000+ years is the God of THE BIBLE the same God that we have understood and read about? What other new “covenants” has God considered?
    Is it a possibility that Jehovah’s Witnesses have also misunderstood THE BIBLE and that they too could have misinterpreted GOD’s TRUTHs?
    Why does GOD have to PROVE anything to the universe? What does GOD have to lose or gain from this question of Universal Soverienty? If GOD wants us to respect/admire/K(NOW) Him there are more sincere ways to go about this than implying conflict/doubt/obstacles in our already demanding lives. Does this sound like a Loving creator who is looking after humans better interests or does it sound like a selfish, insecure, BEing who not only has doubts about Himself but does not believe in us either?

    As for free will I am not to sure if we have the same definition for this. If this is something that we have or have been given by God, why are there penalties and stipulations and added obligations that eventually culminate in the form of sentencing and judgment and possible death? Do you encourage your physical REALationships like this or is this just an act of sincerity you reserve just with God?


     
  20. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Having a jolly laugh does not make me Santa Clause

    Bob
     
Loading...