Is it always this hard to get a Jehovah's Witness to back up their arguments with evidence?
Oh, Schizm! (Daniel 11:35)
by AuldSoul 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Schizm
Just a question for Schizm:
Obviously the verse has to apply to some religion that claims to be "Christian". So which "Christian" religion would it be? First off, it couldn't refer to what is commonly referred to as "Christendom", a religion that's split up into a multitude of denominations. Denominations do not equal UNITY. Surely the group that Daniel 11:35 applies to would be UNIFIED, rather than split apart into various denominations as Christendom's churches are.
Wouldn`t a whole bunch of sects, who base their beliefs on the Bible, be able to say the exact same thing? For example, the mormons would object to being counted as a part of the rest of "christendom". So would many other sects. In fact, they would all claim this exclusivity (that you attribute to the WTS) to themselves, and count you (and the jws) as part of "christendom". The mormons are unified, just as the jws. So are many of the other sects. Please answer this, and AuldSouls questions.The Mormon's don't base their beliefs solely on the Bible. They place their faith in a stupid book called the "Book of Mormon". That pretty much rules them out as being able to claim relevance to the Daniel 11:35 text.
.
-
Schizm
Is it always this hard to get a Jehovah's Witness to back up their arguments with evidence?
So skeptic2 is an atheist. I figured as much!
.
-
kid-A
Well Schizm since you prefer to deal exclusively with ex-JWs, I can confidently inform you, having spent 26 years in your cult of horseshit, that you are a believer in false prophets, charlatans and liars. Once again in this thread you exhibit that predictably boring JW tactic of resorting to ad hominen attacks as soon as you realize you have no justifiable or logical response to a valid criticism of your absurd belief system. Oh, its painful dealing with all that COGNITIVE dissonance, is it not? The slow, but burning realization that your entire belief system is founded on the lies and wacko interpretations of some looney tune from Pittsburgh named CT Russell? The sad realization that you have invested so much of your time and energy, wasting your ephemeral life on promoting the profit margins of a multi-billion dollar publishing corporation?
Auldsouls original post still stands. You have not, nor CANNOT demonstrate ANY biblical evidence suggesting that a Millerite, Adventist splinter group calling themselves the "bible students" in the late 1800s would in any way, shape or form be the chosen "mouthpiece" of your god jehoobie.
Oh, and as for your bible thumping, you can give it a rest now. We all know your precious new world translation is a fabricated pile of mistranslated nonsense created for the sole purpose of promoting the "Watchtower Universe" and its own peculiar "version" of christianity. For any lurkers, please take a look at the facts regarding this translation from http://www.letusreason.org/JW39.htm
The men that comprised the Translation Committee were not even Greek scholars qualified to translate the Bible. These men were: N.H. Knorr, F. W. Franz the 4th President, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel (write to Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, St. Louis, Missouri 63136 for paper documentation). All met together in these translation sessions. The translation committee requested that the names of the translators remain secret even after their deaths (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 258).
Franz was asked in a courtroom in Scotland, "Why the secrecy?" he said, "Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek any glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto." The attorney replied, "Writers of books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?" (Pursuer's Proof of Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham, M.P., P.C., Scottish Court of Sessions, p. 92 Nov. 1954).
In 1954, in a Scotland trial, Fred Franz, then head of the Watchtower Editorial Board, admitted that he himself was the one who had checked the accuracy of the translation and recommended its publication. (Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.)
The following is from the trial transcript: -
(Q): Insofar as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
(A): I have been authorized to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Later, Franz was asked about his own involvement in the translating(Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham
Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.92)
(Q) : Were you yourself responsible for the translation of the Old Testament?
( A ) : Again I cannot answer that question...
Here, under oath, Franz refused to confirm or deny he was the translator of the Hebrew text. Why wouldn't he say that he did not translate the Old Testament? The court also wondered "why" and asked (ibid)
(Q): Why the secrecy?
(A): Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek any glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto.
Why is it the writers of the New Testament books identified their authorship by their names, we know they were not seeking honor.
The facts speak for themselves. The real reason would be that the translators could not be checked since they had no qualifications and anyone investigating this could not find anyone to assume responsibility for the translation.
A shrewd plan indeed.According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983), 50
Not one of the men had ever studied Greek, and wouldn't know the difference between an alpha or a omega. Only three of the five had even finished high school. Of those three only one went on to College. His name was Fredrick Franz, the same man who became the President of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did begin at the University of Cincinatti but only completed two years. He then dropped out of College after the first semester in 1913 because he believed what Russell told him, that Christ was returning in 1914. He does not have even the most basic college degree, and certainly does not possess a degree for advanced study of the Bible. In fact, outside of the Watchtower circle Franz is not recognized by anyone as a scholar.
As M. James Penton, a former Jehovah's Witness and historian, has written, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man-Frederick Franz." M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 174.
The men who make up the "translation committee" were self-appointed men lacking any adequate schooling or background in biblical languages unable to function as Bible Translators. Their purpose was not to translate the Scripture into a modern version of the Bible but to justify their theology to their people and have ammunition against Christianity as it is practiced today.
The New World Translation is a fabrication with no scholarship involved. It was specifically created to make the Bible agree their preconceived theology. It was made for their people to believe WT doctrine and uphold their false belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel not God.
-
kid-A
Is it always this hard to get a Jehovah's Witness to back up their arguments with evidence? Yes, however, the problem is that he HAS no evidence. And any evidence he may find, merely entangles him more deeply in his web of lies and watchtower deception. He is experiencing massive cognitive dissonance right now as his mind desperately tries to cling to his delusional watchtower universe in the face of mounting evidence against his own personal "truth".
-
skeptic2
Schizm says: So which "Christian" religion would it be? First off, it couldn't refer to what is commonly referred to as "Christendom", a religion that's split up into a multitude of denominations.
Score: Rhetoric 1, Evidence 0.Schizm says: At any rate, you're quite wrong about the text applying equally well to just any old religion that professes belief in the Bible.
Score: Rhetoric 2, Evidence 0.Schizm says: However, for lurkers that may be reading this thread that you initiated I'll offer the reminder that the text of Daniel 11:35 is applicable to Christians who are united as a body, rather than divided such as is Christendom.
Score: Rhetoric 3, Evidence 0.Schizm says: And, furthermore, it seems that there's a subtle purpose for the verse concluding with the words "because it [the time of the end] is YET for the time appointed".
Score: Rhetoric 4, Evidence 0.Schizm says: There's much in the Scriptures that require discernment to understand their meaning. You too might try your hand at developing such an ability.
Score: Rhetoric 5, Evidence 0.Schizm says: You're sadly mistaken. JWs stand out as being distinctly different than any of Christendom's churches.
Score: Rhetoric 6, Evidence 0.Schizm says: Is it my fault that you haven't any "insight" regarding the things being said? If you did, you wouldn't be making such a silly request.
Score: Rhetoric 7, Evidence 0. -
Schizm
As I said to you once before, you chose the perfect screen-name for yourself Kid.
.
-
Schizm
I see that you're still experiencing the joys of viewing the results of running your little fingers across your keyboard, skeptic2+atheist. You sure went to a lot of work to merely say that I'm full of bullshit. But what the hell, it was loads of fun pecking on all those keys and see it appear on your monitor, wasn't it. And you just love it when I respond. Ain't it all fun!
.
-
skeptic2
Schizm are you imitating Jesus like all Jehovah's Witnesses should? Is this how Jesus would talk?
-
Schizm
Schizm are you imitating Jesus like all Jehovah's Witnesses should? Is this how Jesus would talk?
What's that your saying there, atheist boy? You're not making much sense. Perhaps if you try again it'll come out right. Want to try? Now don't be nervous, okay? Just place your little fingers on the keyboard and try to concentrate this time.
Is this how Jesus would talk?
If you were acquainted with the Bible you'd know that Jesus used terms that YOU would find fault with.
BTW, how is life as an atheist. No God, no hope! Some life, eh?
.