Surveys, experiments, projects, analysis, studies, research, questionaire's, are all a part of a political science if I do this with this person (a number) and this to this group or person than this plus that equal what equations. Masters of math over the people action, reaction, cause and effect.
Watchtower Theology is based on inauthentic foundation: proof texts
by Terry 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Larsinger58
All of the scriptures THAT REALLY ARE inspired are more valuable and authentic than ones that are NOT inspired. But--how can we discern, determine and prove which is which?? We CAN'T!
All the OT books are quoted from except three: SOS, Esther and Ecclesiates. SOS is purely pagan and Esther is not historical. So if you accept the NT their cross-quoting from all the books except from above would be one criterion for determining which books are inspired.
So "inspiration" indeed is linked to those books actually inspired and does not arbitrarily include all the books that the NWT or other Bible's include as being inspired. I considered the inspired canon to be all books in the Bible except the three mentioned above.
Otherwise, it is up for grabs, right? Everyone has their own criteria.
LS
-
Phizzy
Lars, in view of the above points made so excellently by the old geezer, whoops, I mean Terry (65), why should we "accept" the N.T ?
Yours is circular reasoning at its best.
-
designs
steve2- A good friend went to Dallas Theological Seminary and had the same exposure although the seminary did its best to put the right spin on it the facts are pretty overwhelming about what all christian faiths are putting their whole lives into.
-
myelaine
dear Terry...
you said: " NEWSFLASH!! There are no ORIGINALS anywhere; they have been "lost" or destroyed. There exists ONLY copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of....oh, you get the idea."...the bible does tell us that there exists something similar to DNA replication when it comes to these things: 2 corinthians 3:1-5
love michelle
-
Phizzy
Are you claiming Michelle, that because there are believing christians today that proves something ?
"just because an idea is held to persistently for centuries, that does not make it true" Tim Minchen.
-
WTWizard
First, what makes their lousy backing on proof texts so bad is that they require the witlesses to believe them or be cast off. They make a bad doctrine, you can prove it wrong using their own Bible, you still have to abide by and teach the bad doctrine until they themselves change it. Lives are at stake and you are not allowed to cross-reference something or alter a bad doctrine. Thus, if I say something that is false, it cannot do that much damage unless I also restrict people from cross-referencing and correcting the bad parts (and especially if I intentionally misrepresent the bad parts as the truth). Do your own damn research.
Also, who knows whether the Bible itself isn't altogether faulty? Start with Jesus' teachings. Has anyone taken down notes on site? Has anyone recorded any part of Jesus' actual words? No. All they had to go by are memories, all at least 40 years after the fact. Do you remember the fine details about what happened in science class in 1971? Most likely, even if it was your favorite subject, unless you built on it, you forgot most of it. I don't know with this precision what I experience in 1971 and did not record any of it. I might have a good general idea of what happened, even the programs. But I cannot say with precision what happened there. And neither could anyone write Jesus' story accurately 40 years after the fact, with nothing to verify anything.
Add to this the possibility of confusion. Paul started writing things before any of the Gospels, and his teachings had to have corrupted the others' recollection of what Jesus actually said and did. Like the science class, if you had 10 years of instruction that contradicted what you learned in that class, you are going to be confused about what really happened then. These errors add up, and after 40 years they end up being written right in the Bible. That is the same Bible that all religions go by!
Further adding to the mess is that transcription errors happened. Back then, you didn't simply transfer a file from your hard drive to a server, or print out copies off a pdf file that has backups on USB drives and DVD-ROM discs. You had to write each copy by hand, and typos and transcription errors (and belief errors) creep into each generation. Each time it is copied, those errors are replicated, along with additional transcription errors and attempts to fix previous errors (some of which work but usually only make it even worse). Then, the whole book ends up owned by the low-tech version of mass human enslavement--the First Dark Ages. The Catholic church was man's master at that time, and they intentionally tampered with the Bible. Though independent Protestants did try to fix errors, they are relying on guesswork and could easily have only made them even worse.
Given that, how can anyone actually stake their very lives on the Bible's accuracy? Let alone another malicious attempt to corrupt it to fit their own doctrines--and then hand pick texts to "prove" their doctrines. Remember, the witlesses are not supposed to cross-reference anything or disregard bad parts of the official doctrine. They have to stake their lives on the doctrines' accuracy without being able to fix them. If just one link is faulty, the whole doctrine is shattered and will lead to damnation or stagnation instead of salvation.
-
steve2
Even if it could be established that the very original "scriptural" writings exist and can be cross-checked for accuracy and consistency (and that's one big huge IF), the message of the Bible alone is enough to elicit strong condemnation:
Its glorying in genocide, the jealous rages of the one supposed "True" God, the unceasing threatening tone (obey or die), the silly story of Job (hey, ultimately he was "loyal" to his "god" because that "god" claimed to be stronger than Satan - might is right), the elevation of violent blood sacrifice as a means to save wretched humanity and the primitive need to encode special messages in lots of weird symbols. Oh, and the way in which Scripture breeds a infanitle mentality that forever hopes for the return of a Messsiah who is multiple centuries overdue - with each new century breeding a new round of overly-confident believers who assert the Day of Judgement is just around the corner - or more curiously and conveniently is already occurring in the spiritual realm.
-
Terry
All the OT books are quoted from except three: SOS, Esther and Ecclesiates. SOS is purely pagan and Esther is not historical. So if you accept the NT their cross-quoting from all the books except from above would be one criterion for determining which books are inspired.
Well, not so fast!
I can quote from Moby Dick to make a point about Ahab being obsessed and because everybody is familiar with the story---it communicates my meaning. Does this mean all of us regard MOBY DICK AS NON-FICTION? No.
Many of us use 1984 and the BIG BROTHER reference quite often. We don't mean to imply it is a TRUE story.
Jesus could use references to tales passed down from ancient times everybody was familiar with. It does not mean Jesus believed them actual people OR that he was verifying them.
We can quote from the "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree" story to exemplify honesty. But, the story is fiction by a fellow named Parson Weems.
See my point?
-
steve2
All the OT books are quoted from except three: SOS, Esther and Ecclesiates. SOS is purely pagan and Esther is not historical. So if you
accept the NT their cross-quoting from all the books except from above would be one criterion for determining which books are inspired.
Oh, I get it. Too easy I should have known: if I want to bolster my claim that my writings are inspired, I only have to get a later source to quote my writings. Isn't that what most religions do: Cross-quote their earlier literature in an attempt to bolster their claims.