Thanks. I shall fix.
Thanks. I shall fix.
It's weakness is the R&F weakness to admit to the public at large they are witnesses. I found this out the hard way recently the guy that outed hadn't told anyone at work he was a witness, now they know. The R&F know this is all BS and try to hide the fact they are JWs becuase they are affraid to questioned on things and what and why they believe what they believe. I don't know of to many other religions with this problem. In fact must people don't have a problem saying what they are if nothing else than being general. Witnesses can't do that.
Now I on the other hand I have no problem saying I am an ex witness and why.
I guess my eureka moment came some years ago when I realised that the Bible is a piece of ancient literature, not the word of God. This enabled me to look at it from outside, to enquire about the community and its culture at the time each piece was written.
Each item was written for the immediate community using their concepts and idioms.
The victor writes the history, and this is true of any literature - it is a mistake to think that the Bible should be read literally - I suggest an investigation into Jewish mysticism (kabbalah) and numerology will show that. Even the Gospels are structured literature, not literal verbatim accounts.
Even to the most recent centuries, few people could read and even fewer could write. This was so for the ancient Hebrews: writing as a form of communication was limited to the small number of scribes of the upper class. Even king Josiah had to have the scroll read to him. The vast majority, the powerful People of the Land in particular, viewed written communications with suspicion (Jer 8:8). Thus when we read their writings we are seeing only one point of view: the Hebrew writings are often tainted by the scribes at Jerusalem whose desire was to have all high places destroyed (which were permitted under Mosaic Law) and have all worship centred in their city with their god, Yahweh. Little of their opponents' voices is clearly found, inasmuch as they were amalgamated during the Persian period into the form we now have.
Another issue that needs to be faced is: Who decided which books would make up the sacred Scriptures? What were their motives? Their criteria? Did they make mistkaes? Were they biased? - with the books of the NT the evidence is quite clear. So the study of the canonisation process comes to the fore.
Yes, the other "elephant" I identified is "What happened in 1919".
I shall check. Thanks.
Thank you for your help!
I have corrected my mistake. Please let me know if I have it right now.
Doug: I have corrected my mistake. Please let me know if I have it right now.
BTW, you also have a PM.
I saved your PDF and enjoyed reading it over the last few commutes to work. You laid the points out nicely and it was easy to understand, great work.
Funny, in all my time as a JW I never realised that Paul's descriptions were of the same event reported in Acts. The discrepancies in the accounts are very interesting, and good ammo for discussing the so called authority of the GB.
Thanks again for a good read!