It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jehovah's Witness's (NWT) Flawed??

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The Jehova's Witness came to my house once. I made the mistake of talking to them at the door about this and that. I think I asked them about armageddon for s***s and giggles. They ranted on and on. I told them that I'd better go now and to come back another time (another big mistake). They asked when, and just to get them off my back I said in 3 weeks. They came back to my door in 3 weeks exactly to the minute. I looked out a window very carefully and it was them.

I didn't answer the door.




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   


I told them that I'd better go now and to come back another time (another big mistake). They asked when, and just to get them off my back I said in 3 weeks. They came back to my door in 3 weeks exactly to the minute. I looked out a window very carefully and it was them.

Yes, this is because when the JWs are out knocking door to door, they are very detail-oriented and aggressive in their pursuit of anyone who displays any sort of interest at all. Even if you tell them to get lost, they will come back unless you use a word that makes their alarm bells ring. If you want to get rid of the JWs forever, tell them you are a Satanist. You might want to come to the door with some chicken feathers and ketchup dripping from your maw for effect.

Want to know something funny? If two JWs are out doorknocking on a Saturday morning, for example, around 9AM (The standard time for JW's to start doorknocking each morning) and let's say they are doorknocking on a street where a fellow JW lives and who did not show up for morning doorknocking on that particular Saturday morning. Well, in this case, they will continue to knock on non-JW doors as they go down the street, but it is considered bad form to knock on a fellow JWs door who is sleeping in! On some occasions (rare), I'd be doorknocking with a JW prankster and he'd go up and knock on his fellow JWs door, just to wake them and bug them. JWs have resentment toward the sleeping-in JWs on Saturday. They're all globally encouraged to give their Saturdays (at the absolute minimum) to Jehovah by going out and doing recruiting.

Not evil, but surely hypocritical. They'll wake YOU up because you need Jehovah. Your neighbor who's a JW, however, gets to sleep in because he's already down with Jehovah.


[edit on 6-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Not evil, but surely hypocritical. They'll wake YOU up because you need Jehovah. Your neighbor who's a JW, however, gets to sleep in because he's already down with Jehovah.


For some reason I find this funny.


As for getting them to leave, I try my best NOT to. BUt for some reason that particular bunch never comes back and the new bunch somehow magically were told to stay away from 'that' house. This has happened in 4 states already.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsingera bunch of ballyhoo


You have fallen prey to your own stunted ability of historical research, but worse, singer, you swallow the very same stunted ability of those whom you obviously rely on for your facts. Sumeria is not, and I repeat, is not a civilization proven to be older than that of the Egyptians. Secondly, even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jews hailed from Egypt and created the faith Jehovah of your Jesus. The Lady of Warka found in Baghdad and dated to 3200BCE is currently among the oldest. It was surmised that Sumeria is older, however even the first year archaeological student will roll their eyes at that proposition were it made today.

The Egyptian Badarian period dating to 5500BCE, or the dynasty archaeologists were forced by virtue of their error to number as ‘zero,’ is after I do the math for you, 7,500 years old. In fact, singer, that was until 30 years ago when Nabtan Playa dating to 9,000 BCE was discovered, and within the last two years those excavations show that they were already herding 4,500 years before Abraham. Your Sumerian history dates no older than 4,000 BCE at best. Further, Singer, the evidence of trade with Babylon has been found in Abydos dating back as far as 4,000BCE.


As for the rest of your post, you only look for sympathy out of desperation and a sense of inferiority, where desperation is quoting scripture to prove scripture, and speaking of me not liking you suggests I actually care enough to consider the prospect. If that is what you need to prop your ego, then be my guest.


Have a nice day!
Merci! I have had many, hope you have also.


[edit on 8/9/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
JOKE:
[Bible for idiots]: "At the start there was a word, and since there was only 1 word, and that 1 word was all there was to worship, that word was God."

Don't worry, God has a sense of humor. God can laugh at me, as long as I can laugh at words.

Nice thread. Good Post.


EDIT TO ADD:
If you think God has no sense of humor, I'll send you a copy of my auto-biography.

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If you think God has no sense of humor, I'll send you a copy of my auto-biography.


Deal
. I believe God does have a sense of humor but want to take you up on your offer. Can you U2U me and I'll give you my e-mail address?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
jake1997
Could you please expand on the comment about there being a principality
or power behind the Jehovah Witnesses.
Do you mean perhaps demons?
I read that "Jehovah" is really a god of war, and that if you read the old testament of the Bible he is always there where there is a battle.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

. Sumeria is not, and I repeat, is not a civilization proven to be older than that of the Egyptians. Secondly, even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jews hailed from Egypt and created the faith Jehovah of your Jesus. The Lady of Warka found in Baghdad and dated to 3200BCE is currently among the oldest. It was surmised that Sumeria is older, however even the first year archaeological student will roll their eyes at that proposition were it made today.



Well that is not the case, the Pre-Flood Euphrates valley was the starting point for civilization not the Nile Valley. Now if you choose to believe otherwise then fine, your choice but your premise of Hebrew from Egyptian is complete poop.


PS...


UR ring a bell?



[edit on 10-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Lets not forget the Indus valley, China, Etc. All had advanced forms of Civilization at the same time as the meso-sumarian culture.

On the subject of JW's. They are and always will be a Religion of mind control. And if they can be proven to make contrary statements. They will use semantics to explain away their own internal contradictions.

Like thier "Boo' Boo's In the Earliest NWT." Exp. Word was God later Became Word was a "god".

Exp. "Vaccinations, Blood tranfusions, etc."



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
So when they come by, let them in and show them the WORD and not that book they claim to be from God. Many do not know the history of the cult so elighten them.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well that is not the case, the Pre-Flood Euphrates valley was the starting point for civilization not the Nile Valley. Now if you choose to believe otherwise then fine, your choice but your premise of Hebrew from Egyptian is complete poop.
I cannot help what you wish to pretend does not exist. I posted information that you cannot counter:

The Egyptian Badarian period dating to 5500BCE, or the dynasty archaeologists were forced by virtue of their error to number as ‘zero,’ is after I do the math for you, 7,500 years old. In fact, singer, that was until 30 years ago when Nabtan Playa dating to 9,000 BCE was discovered, and within the last two years those excavations show that they were already herding 4,500 years before Abraham. Your Sumerian history dates no older than 4,000 BCE at best. Further, Singer, the evidence of trade with Babylon has been found in Abydos dating back as far as 4,000BCE.




PS...UR ring a bell?
Oh it rings many bells. How many bells shall I name for you?

1) UR of the Chaldees...where the Chaldeen empire came into existence 4-500 years after Moses supposedly wrote his fairy tales, and I say supposedly because the earliest account of UR of the Chaldees in Hebrew text can be dated no earlier than 10-11 hundred years after Moses lived.

UR- the name of the boat given to Ra, as he swept up and down the Nile smiting his enemies.

UR- the prae or cog-nomen given to many places in ancient Egyptian myth which has been carved in stone and papyrus, both of which is far older than any text you can erroneously date to an earlier existence.


None of your Biblical UR's can be predated to ANY Egyptian legend.

How is that for ringing all the bells at your diocese?


[edit on 8/21/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Well this is interesting indeed. Of course Abram was not from Caldea, but Sumer. You state that Egypt predates it. I remain unconvinced but back to Ur anyway,




The Biblical expression, "Ur of the Chaldees," although used by the great excavator of Ur, C. Leonard Woolley, for the title of a book about the city (Norton Library, 1965), is extremely anachronistic and misleading. Ur was originally a city of the Sumerians, not of the Chaldeans. The latter were actually Aramaeans, who did not appear in Mesopotamia until nearly a thousand years after the end of the Sumerians as a distinct linguistic community. The Chaldeans dominated Mesopotamia in the "Neo-Babylonian" Period, not only long after the Sumerians but also long after any reasonable date for Abraham -- if Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldees," this must be a different Ur, already Aramaean in Abraham's day, or it is just applying an anarchronistic epithet to a city that later was associated with the Chaldeans. The Sumerian language itself was neither Semitic nor Indo-European, a representative of a now vanished pre-historic language family that may have also included the Elamite, Kassite, Hurrian, and Urartuan languages. Since unaffiliated languages still exist nearby in the Caucasus (e.g. Georgian), it is always possible that they were all related.





Kings of Sumer and Akkad


Now thats all fine and dandy, but I wonder since both of these ancient civilizations were knowledgeable in Astronomy, can you explain this?

The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 2250 B.C. This fact is highly significant.

Throughout ancient historical writings, from time to time scholars come across comments about astronomical events, especially total or almost total solar eclipses. These are much more accurate time-dating factors! Because of the infrequency of solar eclipses at any given location, astronomers can date every eclipse going back thousands of years; and mention of a solar eclipse in an ancient tablet or manuscript is an important find. A solar eclipse is strong evidence for the dating of an event, when it can be properly corroborated by ancient records. Yet the earliest one was only a little over two thousand years before the time of Christ.

We can understand why the ancients would mention solar eclipses since, as such rare events, they involve the blotting out of the sun for a short time in the area of umbra—(the completely dark, inner part of the shadow cast on the earth when the moon covers the sun). Yet, prior to 2250 B.C., we have NOT ONE record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people!

"The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the *Book of History."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 520.



ASTRONOMICAL RECORDS


But yet we bring Egypt back into this and it would seem that Sumer is yet again older,

The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.

The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian, inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of Inanna.

The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai Peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.

The Sumerians were the first people with written records in the region of greater Babylonia. Their earliest dates present us with the same problems that we find with Egyptian dates. *Kramer, an expert in ancient Near Eastern civilizations, comments:

"The dates of Sumer's early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."—*S.N. Kramer, "The Sumerians," in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is interesting indeed. Of course Abram was not from Caldea, but Sumer. You state that Egypt predates it. I remain unconvinced but back to Ur anyway,
At least you have agreed that your Bible lied to you by stating:

1) That Abram was not Chaldean.

However being Sumerian as per your timid offering does not excuse such a fault, for if this small indiscretion is made I can assure you there are much others which are larger.

2) It has taken you what, 3 months to formulate a response to my original question to you, and yet I note, it does not support your Bible.


3) As nice as yor below may be, you in fact back the very issue I have with the accuracy or should I say, non-accuracy of your Bible. Since, according to your own offering, Ur was not held by the Chaldeans until well after Abe. I have bolded your reference for you to read carefully. Hence, Moses, could not,and I repeat; could not have claimed Abe hailed from-Ur of the Chaldees. much less I might add ,his father.

The Biblical expression, "Ur of the Chaldees," although used by the great excavator of Ur, C. Leonard Woolley, for the title of a book about the city (Norton Library, 1965), is extremely anachronistic and misleading. Ur was originally a city of the Sumerians, not of the Chaldeans. The latter were actually Aramaeans, who did not appear in Mesopotamia until nearly a thousand years after the end of the Sumerians as a distinct linguistic community. The Chaldeans dominated Mesopotamia in the "Neo-Babylonian" Period, not only long after the Sumerians but also long after any reasonable date for Abraham -- if Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldees," this must be a different Ur, ...
But one step at a time, at least you have found yourself so confused that you actuay endorse my claim. Your second step is still to explain how Abe managed to go south from Bethel into Egypt and siuth fom there into Bethel. For that answer I will keep you perplexed until that is exposed by me.


Now thats all fine and dandy, but I wonder since both of these ancient civilizations were knowledgeable in Astronomy, can you explain this?
What exactly does this have to do with your good book lying? I would appreciate your satying on topic.


But yet we bring Egypt back into this and it would seem that Sumer is yet again older,
How many times must I repeat for you, the oldest artifact you can find in Summeria does not outdate that of Egypt, nor does it outdate the findings of that little old calendar in the Egyptian desert pointing toward Sirius. And how many times previously have I provided that Chaldean rule was what gave rise to Sumerian history? To add to your dilemma, I am going to toss in; Ur-the name of Ra's ship, and : Uatch-Ur- The Mediterranean. The more you learn, the more the cocoon is stripped from obscuring your vision.


The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
Written in what, script? This proves something I suppose, that man was born with stylus in hand? Even your Moses supposedly relied on your religious constitution to be inscribed in stone, not once, but twice! What does that tell you? It tells you that caveman drawings came first.


The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian, inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of Inanna.
Wrong! Cuneiform is the earliest known script as of today, however it originated from pictographs of a certain type, where, those pictographs hail from a people who have been knocked off the oldest pedestal which I note you cannot refute, and worse, it is now offered that these very same Sumerians are not as old as even the Germanic race, much less the Egyptians.


The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai Peninsula about 1550 B.C. ..
I can sense your desperation now as you find a need to venture 7 thousand years into the future.


The Sumerians were the first people with written records in the region of greater Babylonia.
Once more, you mean script.


"The dates of Sumer's early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."—*S.N. Kramer, "The Sumerians," in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72.
And by God, you had to reach back 48 years to find this drivel, it is as though science and archaeology stood still for you.





[edit on 8/25/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 8/25/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is interesting indeed. Of course Abram was not from Caldea, but Sumer. You state that Egypt predates it. I remain unconvinced but back to Ur anyway,
At least you have agreed that your Bible lied to you by stating:

1) That Abram was not Chaldean.


Gee a bit touchy arent we?

Look UR was from Sumer, which I believe PRE-dates Egypt. Just because the Bible says Ur of the Chaldeans doesnt mean squat. That is what they would know it by. Just as calling Iran and Persia the same thing and they ARE.

MEsopotamia, Iraq, Sumer, Chaldea, and maybe even Assyria (more west though). They are the same geographic area. The story of Abram was much later than when he lived. Ur is Ur.....imo

It could very well be that they translated it that way. Could have used mesopotamia in the same fashion.

Now I did find an interesting read, maybe you will believe it. I am skeptical.



THE "LONG" CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS

None of this comes as a surprise to those of us who have argued for
the "Sabbatical Cycle" reading of Genesis. Although many people have
assumed Genesis "years" are 360-day years, the Hebrew word rendered
"year" literally means "cycle of time" and is translated in the KJV as
"day" or "month" or "year" or "generation" or "age" or whatever cycle
might be implied. In Genesis, one cycle mentioned repeatedly is the
7-year Sabbatical Cycle. If we apply this to the Genesis chronology,
the Biblical version of events lines up perfectly with the expanse of
ancient history uncovered by Schoch and the other scientists.

Plato's date for Atlantis sinking and the geologic evidence for a
sudden rise in global sea-level match the Deluge of Noah perfectly.
The new evidence for the rise of ancient Egypt matches what Genesis
says about Egypt's founding after the Flood and what Plato said. We
have Joseph's great famine matching perfectly with the one found by
German scientists in 1999.

Even the pre-flood era lines up beautifully with carbon-14 dating
of the rise of modern man, the first use of agriculture, early art
and invention, and other details that match Genesis exactly.

THE "LONG" CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS


If this proves to be legit, it actually agrees with Genesis (as the author decodes it anyway).



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Anyway Ed, please U2U a mod and get the mass of your original posts reduced in size if you want people to discuss this issue. Scrolling down past all the references makes me tired.

If the question is, "Is the Jehovah Witness NWT bible flawed?" the answer would obviously be "yes". As for the proof, well its not hard to find.

In the bible most people read, and of which Jesus of Nazareth, "The Christ", is the star player, you see the translation, "LORD" or other terms which all make you think of the Big J-Man. The J-Dubs, however, want you to think about an even BIGGER J-Man, who Jesus supposedly spoke with when he was saying, "My Father is Greater Than I am."

Now, if the bible has value at all, it has value only in the gospel portion. The words of Jesus attune with many humans because the words he spoke resonated with what humans already knew to be true. As SomewhereInbetween alluded to, there've been humans around for centuries who knew how to form families, preserve a moral code, etc. We didn't need Jesus to tell us that, but it's good to have it said.

So if you have a book of which Jesus is the star and you translate it so that all the references to him are now to his Father, clearly you have a Zionistic view of the world.

So yes, comprehensively replacing "The Lord" (Jesus) with the word "Jehovah" in their whole bible was a move which they made due to calculated decisions within their church.

It is easier to grab souls at their door if those souls see your church as being different or unique in its pursuit of "global brotherhood". Having a wholly 'special' bible is powerful in ways most humans cannot imagine. It gives this group a unity of thought unlike any other cult.

The "New World" translation of the bible should be viewed for what it is. It is not designed to lead one to a true understanding of Christ's message. You'll need to put down the books and meditate if you want the truth. Books alone won't get you there.

I think Egyptians knew this, but what was Abraham's problem? Why was it all about him and his seed?


[edit on 27-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

The "New World" translation of the bible should be viewed for what it is. It is not designed to lead one to a true understanding of Christ's message. You'll need to put down the books and meditate if you want the truth. Books alone won't get you there.

I think Egyptians knew this, but what was Abraham's problem? Why was it all about him and his seed?



Gee that does not seem to be what the Book says. And as for the seed, it was that covenant thing that concerned ol Abram.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsingerGee that does not seem to be what the Book says. And as for the seed, it was that covenant thing that concerned ol Abram.
What covenant thing would that be exactly, singer? The one where God supposedly decides that he would be quite willing to annihilate all of his other creatins whom he supposedly loved, in favour of Abe's tribe?

The very same covenant singer that Jesus was willing to take up the literal sword against and fight for? You do after all believe that Jesus was all for winning and would therefore endorse the use of arms and using same to do so, is that not correct? Building up of arms is not the same as the peaceful..turn the other cheek preaching.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Ah nice try, but Jesus would not NEED to take up arms. And the covenant was with Abraham and his seed, the chosen seed, Issac..........

But that is just an ol book........



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

edsinger said:
Gee that does not seem to be what the Book says. And as for the seed, it was that covenant thing that concerned ol Abram.

[...]

And the covenant was with Abraham and his seed, the chosen seed, Issac..........

Yeah, I know this already. Quite well.

I have met Christians who can argue around the clock. Most of them are opposed the the Witnesses and their bible, but so many of them are simpleminded themselves. I have watched their eyes glass over as I talk about all the other religions of the world. I think there was plenty of good ideas before Abraham and certainly before Jesus, so the whole covenant seems useless. Not to mention that this covenant of Abraham encourages the Jew versus Muslim flavor of our crazy world. Why not move on from Abraham already?

Ed, do you think Christianity could just be Judaism re-packaged? This is how I see it. I mean you are still essentially accepting the entire Jewish story, but the only break is with the law covenant of Moses. Really though, doesn't Jesus give a lot of power and credibility to judaism as a belief system? I know it's like saying that Coke secretly controls Pepsi, but think about it for a second. Who would care about Jews or give them such world power if Jesus had not existed? Would being Jewish matter any more than being, say, Belgian, if Jesus had not lived?

Anyway, I bumped this thread about the J-Dub bible because it seemed the best place for the following topic:

I am curious about this quote from Wikipedia regarding Dwight Eisenhower:


en.wikipedia.org...

Eisenhower's family originally belonged to the local River Brethren sect of the Mennonites. However, when Ike was five years old, his parents became followers of the WatchTower Society, whose members later took the name Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower home served as the local WatchTower meeting Hall from 1896 to 1915, when Eisenhower's father stopped regularly associating due to the WatchTower's failed prophesies that Armageddon would occur in October 1914 and 1915. Ike's father received a WatchTower funeral when he died in the 1940s. Ike and his brothers also stopped associating regularly after 1915, but Ike's mother continued as an active Jehovah's Witness until her death. Ike enjoyed a close relationship with his mother throughout their lifetimes, and he even used a WatchTower printed Bible for his second Presidential Inauguration. In later years, Eisenhower was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony on February 1, 1953, just weeks after his first inauguration as president.

I am wondering if there is evidence to support Ike being sworn in as President on a New World Translation of the bible. If this is true, it seems like it would be important to most American Christians. I would like to clarify this issue if anyone can help. Globalization and the "New World" plan seem to have gotten real momentum after WW2.


[edit on 13-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
you can rag all you want on jehovahs witnesses but they are the one religion doing what god wants people to do: give glory to god. His name is censored in many bibles yet in the bible jehovah says "know that i am jehovah your god" his name is in every bible in print but only a few times. the bibles many of you have can look to any page and see the word LORD or GOD in capital letters. they censored gods name because of an old stupid belief that gods name was too holy to pronounce

but in the bible when god spoke to moses and others he strongly proclaimed his name and said all glory belongs to him. many religions dont accept it and simply call him "god" but god is a title not his name....dont you think the creator of all things in the universe wants you to call him by name? ive read alot of the new world translation and the differences in that bible are no big difference from the king james and other bibles except they translate it better and clearer for eaiser understanding and they proclaim gods name jehovah. They dont celebrate holidays and stay neutral on government policies.

when was the last time you were in trouble and you yelled out "oh god help me" and yet you didnt recieve help? try yelling his actual name and you may find much better results. Just a thought







 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join