by IslandWoman 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
The Bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.The "Hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by Jesus. They picked the design.
The "Christian Greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the Christ. They also picked the design.
What kind of men tought you this?
The Great and Powerful Oz:
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Well, interesting take on the canon which you're entitled to. I'll just thus add some critical facts in that regard for the record.
The Bible has it's OWN IMPLIED CANON because the NT Bible writers didn't quote from every single book of the current cannon. So one can sub-divide the present cannon into those APPROVED by the NT Bible writers and those left out. The critical books left out of the NT cross-referencing are SONG OF SOLOMON, ESTHER and ECCLESIASTES (so there goes the "70" reference--sorry A.C.)
In the meantime, ESTHER and SONG OF SOLOMON wouldn't qualify as being inspired anyway. Esther is in historical conflict with EZRA/NEHEMIAH and Song of Solomon is a blatantly pagan book with praises all the forms of the Goddess Artemis and so is definitely not part of the true Bible; both were very late additions to the final canon. So some of us more accurately consider all three books as "apocryphal" with respect to the Bible's own choice of inspired books via cross-referencing.
But then again, I must agree, it does seem up for grabs how the canon came about. Those believingin the the Bible's inspiration thus must do so by FAITH.
Nice post, interesting issue. Thanks!
P.S.I don't suggest you tear SOS, ESTHER and ECCLESIATES out of your Bibles. What I have done is simply clearly mark in black (red is also appropriate) on the first page of the book "APOCRYPHAL BOOK" that way you know it's an apocryphal book and not inspired.Esther has some loose hisstorical value and Eccelesiates seems to give pretty good advice for the most part. Song of Solomon is an abomination of pagan secret doctrine of course, but also helps us understand the "mysteries".
By the way JFR commissioned "Song of Solomon" to be included in the "7th Volume" which proves he was a "Freemason" and dabbling into the mysteries and secret socieities. That's why he and Russell will never be able to shake the reputation for being Freemasons--both were Jews also, by the way (according to some references, Russel for sure!)
Cheerio!
L.G.
Funky,
You asked: Wouldn't it be fairer if he made his existence and intentions crystal clear so that those who "wish to reject Him" can make an informed choice?
I don't think so. An "informed choice" is a decision a person makes in his or her head. However, the Bible tells us that God will judge what is in our hearts. I believe it is because of this that God now provides us with enough evidence of His existence to create faith in all who truly wish to serve Him, but not with so much evidence that even those who do not wish to serve Him would now be compelled to do so.
The Bible tells us that God will one day present so much evidence of both "His existence and intentions" that they will both then be "crystal clear" to everyone. So "crytal clear" that even those who now wish to reject Him will then bow their knees to Him. The Bible calls that day "Judgment Day."
LG,
Simply because the writers of the New Testament did not quote from some of the Old Testament's books does not prove they are not inspired and do not belong in the Bible cannon. Do you know of any New Testament writer who quoted from Revelation? Of course not. Does that prove it does not belong in the Bible cannon?
Your statement that "Esther is in historical conflict with EZRA/NEHEMIAH" is only your own nutty opinion. You say this because to believe otherwise would invalidate your wacky understandings of Bible chronology which you say prove that you became Jesus Christ in 1992. You try to invalidate the chronological information contained in Esther which conflicts with your nutty interpretations of Bible history by pointing out that Esther is not quoted in the New Testament. Of course this means you must also throw out Ecclesiastes and The Song of Solomon,which you then do.
You are not Jesus Christ. You are mentally ill. See a Doctor.
Hi aChristian,
Thanks for the reply. I respect and admire your faith in the Bible, it is something I also had once. I found comfort in the Bible and sometimes still do.
My father died about ten years ago. When he died a part of me also died, so much so that my health suffered greatly. I thought nothing except the death of my children could hurt so much!! For months I really was not living.
When I realized the Watchtower was a sham, a lie, I died again. It may seem terrible to say but for me I would have preferred to go through the death of my father 100 times rather than experience again the shock and hurt and feelings of betrayal I felt when finding out about the Watchtower. I had made them spiritual fathers, something no man can or should be.
But when I realized that the Bible is not what it is proclaimed to be by Christians and Jews, the word of God, that for me was the end. The death of a 1000 fathers would not have compared to the loss of the Bible for me! The Bible was written by men and I had also made those men spiritual fathers, another mistake.
Since 1999 my children and I have experienced loss, little else. Loss after loss.
The words attributed to Jesus, "Nobody is good, except one, God" are for me, true. It is also true that the sun rises and sets and that we all die just as every living thing on earth dies. It is upon these truths that I am attempting to build a new life: 1. God is the Creator. 2. I live on a tiny planet and every 24 hours a new day starts, a chance to make things new or to continue on a new path. 3. I will die, I would like to contribute something positive to others before I do.
The rest I leave in God's hands.
I always enjoy your comments and continue to look out for them here as well as on the C Forum.
Take Care,
IW
I don't think so. An "informed choice" is a decision a person makes in his or her head. However, the Bible tells us that God will judge what is in our hearts.
That's just an excuse to say that the normal rules of logic and reason don't apply to your belief system. If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true, you tell them that it's their "heart condition" that's wrong, that if they truly wanted to believe, they'd be able to ignore the towering piles of contradictory evidence, and do the mental gymnastics you seem to do to make the world fit your belief system.
The Bible tells us that God will one day present so much evidence of both "His existence and intentions" that they will both then be "crystal clear" to everyone. So "crytal clear" that even those who now wish to reject Him will then bow their knees to Him. The Bible calls that day "Judgment Day."Pretending for one moment that your god exists, unless he uses his superpowers to physically subdue me, I would never bow to him. I would rather spend every day of my eternity in hell cursing his existence. But that's just because I have principles.
--
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." -Robert A. Heinlein
IW,
I think you are wrong about the Bible. I have carefully considered everything its critics have said against it, and continue to believe it is the word of God. I'd be glad to discuss this topic in greater depth by E mail.
By the way, I no longer post on Channel C. The person who runs that board was quite nasty to me a couple of times for, as she saw it, promoting my "personal beliefs." In other words disagreeing with her a couple of times. So I said "goodbye." I doubt you would have lasted very long there. : )
Mike
aChristian,
By the way, I no longer post on Channel C. The person who runs that board was quite nasty to me a couple of times for, as she saw it, promoting my "personal beliefs." In other words disagreeing with her a couple of times. So I said "goodbye."
IW
Funky,
You wrote: If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true, you tell them that it's their "heart condition" that's wrong.
To what things are you referring? Maybe the virgin birth of Christ? His walking on water? His turning water into wine? His restoring sight to the blind and life to the dead? His own resurrection?
How could you ever prove definitively that these things did not take place? The only way you could do that is to prove that God does not exist. For "With God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)
You wrote: Unless [God] uses his superpowers to physically subdue me, I would never bow to him. I would rather spend every day of my eternity in hell cursing his existence.
Does that mean I should scratch you off my "Hot Prospects For Conversion" list? : )
aChristian,
Does that mean I should scratch you off my "Hot Prospects For Conversion" list? : )
IW
