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.

 

the ask a unbiased ex-Jehovah's witness anything Thread

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


most of the JHW's i still know today seem to fit your descripion of helpfull people but certainly not al .

And yes i do believe in a end time . I'm pretty sure one day life is gonna be totaly wiped out in the entire galaxy, but i don't believe the whole rapture thing anymore. But i have to admit that i can't find anything that clearly makes the rapture impossible.

and no i don't intend to take up all those "invented" holidays. Maybe one day if the father in me awakens .....

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Spartannic]




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Spartannic
 


So now that you are free, so to speak, what faith(if any) are you pursuing?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Okay, lets say a JW kid gets a blood tranfusion (court order requires it) to save thier life. How does this affect thier status in the religion?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Okay, lets say a JW kid gets a blood tranfusion (court order requires it) to save thier life. How does this affect thier status in the religion?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Okay, lets say a JW kid gets a blood tranfusion (court order requires it) to save thier life. How does this affect thier status in the religion?


if the situation is not under his control then it shouldnt affect it. (implying that he has done EVERYTHING to avoid that senario.)



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

one can only guess who the translators were. the closest anyone can get to that information is an ex JW apostate who named who headed the committee.

1. its sheer speculation. of course anit-JW websites dont present it that way.

2. ok, you possibly have the names of the people who headed the committee. so what? you still dont know who actually did the translating. how can you possibly smash the credentials of someone when you have absolutely no idea who he is?


There were two people who translated the NWT. They admitted in court that they had no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. It wasn't translated by a committee like modern Bible translations are, such as the ESV, NLT, and NASB. Greek scholars recognize as well that the NWT of the Greek scriptures isn't good--that they translated it with a particular bias in mind. John 1 comes to mind.

It's not a big deal whether or not the author puts his name on a piece, but, typically, when one is writing articles about the Bible, the name of the author is mentioned somewhere. For example, my ESV study Bible has a plethora of articles in the back. Each of them have the authors name. Admittedly, it's in the front of the Bible instead of the back, but, if one could see the layout of the Bible, they'd see why.


imperfect servants of god can make mistakes. they admit it, learn from it and move on.


The punishment, as said by the Law, is public stoning. I didn't have any one prediction in mind. But, I was actually thinking more towards the early 1900s and earlier. I know that there were many predictions made then that never came to pass. Many left the JWs because of that.



1. the list of tribes in revelation doesnt match the actual tribes of isreal, so how can it be literal?


This depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Many, including myself, believe that the list doesn't match up with previous lists of tribes because the tribe of Dan became so pagan that they were virtually wiped out of existance. A similar thing would have happened to Ephraim.


2. the first century christians also knew that the tribes were figurative. james 1:1 says ¨to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.¨ he wasnt ONLY addressing jews, but rather congregations that likely included gentiles.


Again, this is an issue of interpretation. It should be noted too that the time of the writing of this letter was about 40 AD or so. There were gentile Christians, but many Christians were of Jewish ancestry. It is also not known specifically who James was writing to. He might have been writing to Jewish congregations. This James was the brother of Jesus, so he may have had a more Jewish focus, much like the Apostles did.

Also, we can't say want all of first century Christendom though about this verse because, not all the scriptures had been gathered, and canonicity for many books was being discussed still.

Out of curiosity, are you a Jehovah's Witness, Miriam?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: I direct your attention to this Thread HERE [started by miriam0566] , which is where I'm lifting these quotes from.....

"Bible Translations compared

CONTENT FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE.
Subject: Jeopardy Game Show Question.
Importance: High interesting Recently on Jeopardy, one of the answers was "It's the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?" No one got the correct question, so Alex Trebek said "What is the; New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.""...

And then....

"Chapter Eleven:

A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John." "John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel." "All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."". [Note: Bold my emphasis!]
Can you debunk Debuhn's [the Author of the text I'm quoting] credibility concerning what he states and I emphasize in bold? Because you state and I quote you "Greek scholars recognize as well that the NWT of the Greek scriptures isn't good--that they translated it with a particular bias in mind. John 1 comes to mind. ".....Who are these Greek scholars and how well respected are they as experts in this area and what are their personal biases? Do you have any proof and can we see it?

Personal Disclosure: Looking forward to you denying any ignorance I may have or be promoting and I hope the information I provided may have dispelled any of yours.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
1. its sheer speculation. of course anit-JW websites dont present it that way.


There were two people who translated the NWT. They admitted in court that they had no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. It wasn't translated by a committee like modern Bible translations are, such as the ESV, NLT, and NASB. Greek scholars recognize as well that the NWT of the Greek scriptures isn't good--that they translated it with a particular bias in mind. John 1 comes to mind.

as i said before. sheer speculation.


The punishment, as said by the Law, is public stoning. I didn't have any one prediction in mind. But, I was actually thinking more towards the early 1900s and earlier. I know that there were many predictions made then that never came to pass. Many left the JWs because of that.


that law is for people who profess to be prophets even though god never spoke to them.

the governing body never profess to talk to god or to be prophets. the derive information from scripture which of course is open to error. the organization has constantly refined themselves. if they see something that they are doing wrong, they adjust it. there are many examples of this including the use of religious symbols, celebrating of holidays etc etc.

stone them if you want.



This depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Many, including myself, believe that the list doesn't match up with previous lists of tribes because the tribe of Dan became so pagan that they were virtually wiped out of existance. A similar thing would have happened to Ephraim.


this is one of the topics that we could debate for hours.

if the old covenant was terminated and and a new one instituted by jesus, then why would literal isreal = spiritual isreal?

even jesus explains that gentiles would be invited to the kingdom with the parable of the wedding feast.

matt 22:[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
[8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
[9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
[13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

the jews scorned their birthright. so the invitation was opened to the gentiles

yes revelations mentions tribes, but these are figurative of the ¨spiritual isreal¨ bought from the world.


Again, this is an issue of interpretation. It should be noted too that the time of the writing of this letter was about 40 AD or so. There were gentile Christians, but many Christians were of Jewish ancestry. It is also not known specifically who James was writing to. He might have been writing to Jewish congregations. This James was the brother of Jesus, so he may have had a more Jewish focus, much like the Apostles did.


its not open to interpretation. james was referring to congregations. he wasnt singling out certain memebers



Out of curiosity, are you a Jehovah's Witness, Miriam?


not baptised but possibly in the future



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 
When i left the JHW's at a rather young age, i was already heavy into anyhing that had to do with space and especially the origin of everything. So from ages 10 until i left u start asking those strange "Why are we here?;How are we created?Did god build the stars just for us to look at?,Etc.' questions and i got always the same answers. Always the same thing: look there, read that, ask him.....
There are guys in the Kingdomhall i know, who know their whole bible inside out. Mostly JHW's are quite devoted to Jehovah and alot of them have quite some knowledge from their bible. Myriam makes a great example ( no offence meant there ). And thats their strenght when speaking to people on the streets and at their doors to "recruit" them to join "gods people" .

But with all that said they never could give me a decent answer. I love to discuss religion, origin and heaps of other stuff with the more intelligent JHW's like me Uncle. My Uncle is a Die-Hard JHW, i don't know how u call them but he's one of those leading types they call Kringopziener in Dutch but my translator software doesn't take it. He went to stuff in the USA,Germany,Italy and some congress in Asia . He is one of those guys u can get a decent discussion with and can talk for hours about topics who balance on the razor Faith and he wont even have to quote from his bible to make a point. He even doesn't budge when u trow questions i find up here from James T. Russel's freemasons links at him.

Point i'm trying to make is that i like all of you guys in the world can only guess whats the Origin of Everything. I tend to lean toward a scientific presentation of God and that is simply E=mc² . God is pure energy, everything is energy, so if for arguments sake people want to give the name God to the whole energy in the Multiverse, i really don' mind for all i care u call it "Tweety" . I also tend to go with some arguments from reincarnation in a way that i'm pretty sure my Atoms won't vanish in thin air when i die and wil be used in natural cycles beyond the grasp of my imagination.

And on the God thing: If there really is a god and he judges people on the actions the do on average. I'm pretty confident he'll let me in his playground. And If i don't get in, well thats to bad but i sure not gonna be the only one. And doesn't Revalation somewhere say something along the line that we gonna get a last chance to turn to god in the End? Maybe i'm wrong but thats how i intend to translate my own bible.....



Btw i'm rather stunned by the interest since this is my first BTS-post



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
From the ESV Study Bible Note on John 1.1:


From the Patristic period (Arius, c. a.d. 256–336) until the present day (Jehovah's Witnesses), some have claimed that “the Word was God” merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicates that the translation “a god” is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (“a god”) but rather specifies that a given term (“God”) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (“the Word”). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context clearly indicates that this “God” that John is talking about (“the Word”) is the one true God who created all things (see also John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 for other examples of Theos without a definite article but clearly meaning “God”).


Basically, the JWs, when they translated John 1, inserted the indefinite article in front of God because they didn't see the definite article to show that the Word was God. But, due to Colwell's Rule this isn't necessary, and wrong, because theos is a predicate nominative of the definite subject "Word". So it should be translated God. The NWT was translated with the presupposition that Jesus isn't God, so it was translated as "a god". As I've read, the NWT uses Colwell's rule in other places in the NT, but not here.

Here is a link to an article/essay about the NWT. It includes the names of four men who are known to have translated the NWT.
www.spiritwatch.org...

As far as Jeopardy! calling the NWT the most accurate translation of the Bible, I'll have to take that with a grain of salt, since, game shows have been wrong before.

As for the prophets again, if a prophet was wrong, that's when he was stoned, not not being from God. Obviously though, if the prophet was wrong, he wouldn't have come from God, since God can't be wrong, and by default, a true prophet of God can't be either.

Miriam, what is the scriptural basis for Michael becoming Jesus, especially in light of Hebrews 1.5ff?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
From the ESV Study Bible Note on John 1.1:


From the Patristic period (Arius, c. a.d. 256–336) until the present day (Jehovah's Witnesses), some have claimed that “the Word was God” merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicates that the translation “a god” is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (“a god”) but rather specifies that a given term (“God”) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (“the Word”). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context clearly indicates that this “God” that John is talking about (“the Word”) is the one true God who created all things (see also John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 for other examples of Theos without a definite article but clearly meaning “God”).


Basically, the JWs, when they translated John 1, inserted the indefinite article in front of God because they didn't see the definite article to show that the Word was God. But, due to Colwell's Rule this isn't necessary, and wrong, because theos is a predicate nominative of the definite subject "Word". So it should be translated God. The NWT was translated with the presupposition that Jesus isn't God, so it was translated as "a god". As I've read, the NWT uses Colwell's rule in other places in the NT, but not here.


applying colwell´s rule to john 1:1 doesnt prove that theos must be taken as definite. the rule only says that IF theos is definite it would likely lack the article (which it does), however the reverse is not necessarily true. in other words, lacking the article does not MAKE the noun definite.

the second point is that colwell ignores the obvious distinction that is made by the preceding ¨ton theos¨. the most literal and straightforward translation of the passage is ¨the word was with the god, and the word was a god.¨ (or even ¨the word was like god¨ or ¨the word was divine¨, if you agree with daniel wallace)


Here is a link to an article/essay about the NWT. It includes the names of four men who are known to have translated the NWT.
www.spiritwatch.org...


i looked up the site, only ¨proof¨ i could find was this.


Comparison of Scholarly Qualifications Of NWT / NASB Translators

Although the Jehovah’s Witness leadership desperately wants the names of the New World Translation’s translators to remain unknown (for reasons that shall soon become clear), the names have, in fact, been revealed by former high- ranking members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect (8).


in other words.... ¨i heard from someone who heard from someone that these are the men¨

every website you google pertaining to the identity of the committee will have more or less the same assertion. ¨some former high ranking witness says so¨. then it will proceed to show how unqualified these men were without a shred of evidence that this are infact the men that translated the NWT.

if this is indeed fact, please show the proof.


As for the prophets again, if a prophet was wrong, that's when he was stoned, not not being from God. Obviously though, if the prophet was wrong, he wouldn't have come from God, since God can't be wrong, and by default, a true prophet of God can't be either.


apples and oranges. prophets received their messages directly from a spiritual source. that doesnt happen anymore because there is no need, we have the complete bible. but just like prophets who made mistakes, so can those who read the bible. (see moses and jonah)


Miriam, what is the scriptural basis for Michael becoming Jesus, especially in light of Hebrews 1.5ff?


daniel 12:[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

rev 12:[7] And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

matt 16:[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

hebrews 1:5 doesnt conflict with this. jesus always was and still is god´s only begotten son. ¨michael¨ is likely just another name



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


www.contenderministries.org...


just a few links about Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and the NWT.

if you want to know more, then just search the net for it. there is clear proof of changing words to mean what they want to mean, etc etc.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by one_man24]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


as for Jesus being Michael

www.geocities.com...

would have found more, but got to go eat lunch! and get some actual work done today, lol



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Colwell's rule actually does apply to John 1.1. This is because God is linked to Word in the Greek. This indicates that the word is God, no article at all is needed. No "the", "a", or "no".

I think that you may have missed the point of the link that I provided you. It was more for the "safe" and "unsafe" Bible translations spiel. What was meant by this was that, in the example, when the NASB was translated, there was a team of scholars from multiple denominations. [The same is true for the NLT and the ESV, which I prefer]. This makes the translation safe, because, due to the nature of a team of scholars from multiple denoms, biases get weeded out. The NWT is an "unsafe" translation, much like the JST is, because all the translators were from the same belief background. Chances are doctrinal biases were left in the translation.

I think that you should look at Hebrews 1, Miriam. That chapter says, "to which angel did God ever call Son?" Jesus was called God's Son. God the Father said so. So, if Michael became Jesus, we have a huge problem. Is the author of Hebrews wrong?

You should look into the over use of the name Jehovah. Jehovah is a man made name for God. Not one that he called himself. Also, it wouldn't have been his only name either. God [YHWH] was revealed to have had many names during the OT time. ie, Yahweh-Jireh, El Roi, Yahweh-Nissi, et al.

@one_man
Thanks for those links. Very insightful.

Also, I feel bad for hijacking/derailing this thread. It's purpose wasn't for debating evangelical Christianity versus Jehovah's Witnessism! There are plenty of other threads for this I'm sure! So, I'll take a step back and let this thread return to its original purpose. If you want to carry this discussion on in another fashion, Miriam [or anyone else], I'll be more than happy to. Just send me a "u2u".



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


otcotom- thanks!

and I am also sorry, didn't mean to hijack thread either. adios!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by miriam0566
 


www.lcms.org...


if you wish to discuss the trinity, i already have a thread on it here.

www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566

I wasn't only talking about the trinity, I was talking about jehovah's witnesses in general, and how they add to the bible and change the translations so that the meaning better fits what they want to believe. I have good friend who is a jehovah's witness, and I have gone through this with him. If you are a jehovah's witness, then read all the links. it just might suprise you. then again, if you are a witness, you are not supposed to be reading anything that doesn't exist in the kingdom hall.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Is it true that JW are not allowed to party, drink and be merry?

Also, how do I get my home address off the database of the JW? I've requested many, many times to these visitors to please STOP! Help. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join