GOT QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSEWRS PART 1

by tresbella 7 Replies latest social physical

• 

  tresbella

  I have some questions so whoever can; please ansewr them:

  1. I read an interesting article on line that said that the JW belief that God's name was taken out of the Bible is a myth b/c if that was to be the case then every single manuscript that was translated and distributed during bible times had to of been litterally seized in order so that the name could be taken out. The article was quoted as saying "imagaine that..every manuscript all the thousands that were floating around were hand seized in order for this to be accomplished" It also brought out the point that why would the almighty God be able to keep the Bible protected all these hundreds of thousands of years without a single person being able to make it nonexsistent and yet not be able to keep people from tampering with its words? Is this true? If so, why is the society so bent on using the name Jehovah and why isn't in anyone else's Bible?

  2. Is the D'F rule scriptual? I forgot my notes (I'm at the computer lab) but I can tell you that I read a variey of scriptures about christians that were expelled from the christian congregation during Paul's day for various offenses and there is that scripture that one shouldn't even "say a greeting to that person." Am I right in saying that the SOciety is right on this one?

  3. What JW teaching even to this day do you admit is 'the truth.? For example: sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, 1914 (ha ha) etc?

  4. I've always had much confusion with the story of Dinah. The society always made it seem like it was her own fault that she got raped b/c she wanted to go see 'the daughters of the land' and so on. But there is no Biblical account that shows that Dinah was punished for what she had done or even reprimanded. Is it possible the society has taken this account out of context and used this scripture as another form of control esp. among the women of the wt?

  5. O.K here is a big one. The sunday wt was filled with info about be careful about those in the con. and outside who are quoted as being "strangers" the scriputure in John I think that says "do not invite this one in your home" and so on.So basically the wt identified anybody who speaks bad about the wt as a "stranger" and anyone who is a witness is an apostate. What is an APOSTATE! Their defintion is so different then what I found in various encyclopedias.Isn't is simply someone who claims to be a christian but speaks against God. And what about an antichrist? I found a scripure that said that it's 'anyone who says there is no Lord and Jesus christ' or something like that? Am I right? How can anyone believe the society's defintion? It doesn't even sound correct.
• 

  Swan

  3. What JW teaching even to this day do you admit is 'the truth.? For example: sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, 1914 (ha ha) etc?

  I don't know about the other questions, but I think the JW view of coffee breaks during field service is spot on! You can't tell me that during all that time in Rome that Paul didn't have an espresso or two.

  Tammy
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Tresbella, my answers fwiw:

  1. As far as the New Testament (NT) is concerned, it is true. No equivalent of "Jehovah" or the Hebrew Tetragrammaton can be found in the thousands of extant ancient NT manuscripts.

  2. There is no consistent disciplinary system in the NT, but yes there was a practice of excommunication in Pauline (1 Corinthians 5) and Johannine (2 John 9ff) communities. This doesn't mean that the WT is right in making its own casuistic disciplinary system.

  3. None. But I'm not a "Bible believer" anymore either.

  4. Yes you're right, Dinah is not condemned in Genesis 34. Her brothers Simeon and Levi are blamed instead (v. 30; 49:5f).

  5. 2 John 7-11 reads:

  Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.

  Incidentally I was df'd on the "grounds" of this passage, even though the only charge initially levelled at me was that I was "talking too much about Jesus". Go figure...
• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  OK, I will tackle question 1.

  The tetragrammaton (YHWH) was not removed from ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament. It was translated as "LORD" when the first bible translations into English were made in the middle ages. The New World Translation has translated the tetragrammaton as Jehovah. No-one claims that this is likely to be anything like the original pronunciation of the YHWH word, but the Watchtower Society says that it is well known and that is good enough.

  The New World Translation is not the only translation of the Bible which puts the divine name in where the tetragrammaton was in the Hebrew manuscripts. The New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic translation, uses "Yahweh" throughout the Old Testament. This is probably more like the original word.

  Where the New World Translation has gove over the top is inserting Jehovah into the New Testament, not only in passages which are quotes of the Old Testament.
• 

  Narkissos

  Where the New World Translation has gove over the top is inserting Jehovah into the New Testament, not only in passages which are quotes of the Old Testament

  Even inserting Jehovah in NT passages which are quotes of the OT would not be correct, inasmuch as the NT writers obviously did not do so. Many such quotations are only meaningful in their own (NT) context with the word kurios (Lord), especially when they apply to the Lord Jesus.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/74798/1205172/post.ashx#1205172
• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  Narkissos - Thank you for that clarification.

  This thread has died off again - Maybe Tresbella could change the title to include something about underwear.............so I have come back with some references on APOSTATES.

  We have had some good discussions on what the word really means, and how the WT applies it, in these threads:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70622/1.ashx

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/34271/1.ashx

  Simply put, the real definition of apostacy is turning away from previously held beliefs, which could be political or religious. IMO, it has no specific relevancy to rejecting Christianity let alone JWism, although it can be applied to that. Anyone who has converted to JW from another religion is an apostate to their original religion.

  The WTS has imbued the word with all sorts of evil overtones to make followers afraid to listen to opposing arguments. When something is a fact that they cannot disprove, they simply say "Apostate" and it disappears.
• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  3. What JW teaching even to this day do you admit is 'the truth.? For example: sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, 1914 (ha ha) etc?

  None of the above!

  I have yet to see a teaching which is completely unique to JWs. Maybe the 1914 chronology stuff is unique - there are certainly lots of "end-times" religions, though.

  I am still an honest person. Lots of religions teach honesty.
• 

  under74

  "What JW teaching even to this day do you admit is 'the truth.? For example: sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, 1914 (ha ha) etc?" I don't think that theJW teachings you mention here are unique (besides 1914). Many other religions preach the same things. The 10 commandments is Hebrew law. I would say with or without religion it's human nature or the striving for it that makes people not want to hurt each other, make and follow rules, and so on. What's unique about JWs are the extra rules and rigid environment. I read so much about a loving God but when God is used to tear families apart, then what?