Posts by Disillusioned JW

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

waton, I think you meant verse 4 instead of verse 3.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

My current primary interest in studying the Bible (besides trying to find ways to influence Christians to cease believing in the Bible) might be in treating the Bible as a complex intellectual puzzle. Much of Bible does seem to be an intellectual puzzle to me. There is a fascination for me in solving puzzles of various kinds. Even as a young child I liked solving puzzles, such as jigsaw puzzles, word puzzles, number puzzles, diagram puzzles, and also drawings of mazes (in which one tries find the path from the entrance of the maze to the exit of the maze).

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Folks, years ago (after I ceased nearly all JW congregational attendance [other than Memorial attendance], when I studied the Bible critically and within its immediate context, without using WT explanatory literature) I first got the idea that some of the content of the Gospel of John seems to be out of the proper sequence.

For example, to me chapter 15 (and maybe chapter 16) seems like it belongs in between chapter 13 and 14, or near that point (such as in between 13:35 and 13:36). It seems to me that the narrative is less confusing and thus easier to comprehend, and would be in a much more logical sequence, if the chapters were located that way and that such might have been original placement (though not preserved in any of the known extant copies of the Greek manuscripts). A moment ago I looked up in two commentaries to see if either of them also says such. I noticed that The Abingdon Bible Commentary (copyright 1929) on page 1084 in the discussion of John 13:31-38 says in part the following (I also noticed I had made a note in the margin of that portion of the commentary).

"Mofffat in his translation of the N.T. places chs. 15 and 16 after v. 31a, and it must be admitted that 13:31b-14:31 indicates that Jesus rose from the table, and that the prayer (ch. 17) was uttered as all stood, ready to go forth to Gethsemane; other indications, too minute to mention here, point to some such sequence. Other arrangements have been suggested: the only one which need be mentioned is that chs. 15 and 16 should follow 13:35. ... Peter's remonstrance against any separation leads to the warning of his betrayal. It is placed on the way to Gethsemane in Mk. 14:29, another indication that the present arrangement of the record is not the original and historical." I own a copy of Moffatt's Bible translation and I notice that in a number of places, including in the Gospel of John, that he has sections of scripture rearranged. I don't remember if I first got the idea that chapters 15 and 16 are displaced from reading that translation of the Bible, or entirely on my own. But I know that for many years (including while I was an active JW and for a number of years afterwards) that much of the Gospel of John was very difficult for me to understand. Furthermore, that Gospel was never one I had much appreciation for, for to me much of its content has always (at least in the long dialogues attributed to Jesus Christ) been very difficult to understand and very redundant to me, and thus very boring to me.

I never had great interest in contemplating spiritual concepts (at least prior to me studying the Bible independently); I always preferred to spend most of my contemplative free time on naturalistic concepts. People have told me that the Gospel of John is the most spiritual of the gospels of the NT. Of the four gospels in the NT, the Gospel attributed to Matthew has always been my favorite. But maybe if I were to read the Gospel attributed to John now, it might would be more comprehensible to me than before (since I now know more about the Bible and since I now have greater reading comprehension of the Bible). If I were to read that entire gospel now perhaps it would give me a better impression than what I had before I became a convinced atheist.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Wonderment, I notice also that the footnote refers to Jesus as "a creature". Did the translators consider Jesus to be a created being, or did they simply mean a fleshly being (in this specific case a human being)?

Because of the connotation (or one of the meanings) of the word "creature" I think that atheistic naturalists probably should not refer to living fleshly beings as "creatures" (unless they mean that the universe created/made them), since doing so might give theists and creationists an incorrect impression of what the atheists meant. However we who are now atheists grew up using that word (without even thinking it meant in some cases created beings) and old habits are hard to break.

Wonderment, shortly before you made your reply to me (about the footnote) I decided to look at the Gospel of John to see what it says about the holy spirit. But I decided to do so by flipping open a RV Bible to a random page of that Gospel and read what I see in a random group of verses there. Chapter 14:8 was the one I started reading. I then continued reading through verse 14. Those verses don't mention the holy spirit, but later I continued reading a few verses further and noticed that verses 16-17 refer to the "Comforter ... even the Spirit of Truth" whom I presume is the holy spirit.

Please read John 14:8-12 in the RV or the ASV. Notice in verse 10-11 it says "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" and notice that verse 10 Jesus says "the Father abiding in me". For the moment please read those words literally and ask yourself what they mean in a literal sense. Then please ask yourself if according to the gospel account did Jesus intend that literal meaning. Also consider verse 20 which the account claims Jesus said that his apostles are "in" him and that he is "in" them. Please tell me your thoughts on these matters. We know how the NWT uses the phrase "in union with" in these verses (and note that the NWT also uses the word "remains" in verses 10 and 17) and the explanation that the WT gives of these verses, but is that understanding what the account was meant to convey?

Note the use of the phrase "our abode with him" in verse 23 in the RV and ASV and note that in that verse the 1984 NWT does not resort to saying "in union with" or "remains in union with" or something very similar. Note instead that in that verse it has the exact wording of the RV and ASV in saying "our abode with him". Why did the 1984 NWT say "our abode" in that verse but not "abiding" in verse 10 and not "abides" in verse 17? Was it because the use of it in verse 23 did not (at least in the mind of the WT's writers) conflict with WT theology?

Wonderment and other Christians what do you make of John 14:12-14 in regards to what the account says Jesus said the works his apostles will do (and that Christ will do whatever his apostles ask in his name)? Do you believe that the account is also speaking of what what Christ's disciples in general would do - even after the end of the first century CE? If so, where is evidence of Christians today doing works that the gospels says Christ did - and even greater than that which the gospels claim Jesus Christ did? If atheists were to witness such works wouldn't it convert many of them (especially those who used to be devout Christians) into being believers in God, Christ, and Christianity? I haven't seen such works, though some Christians have personally told me they have witnessed an amazing healing. Furthermore, what do you think of what verses 13-14 say about Christ saying he will do anything his apostles ask in his name? Do you think that today it also applies to Christians in general?

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Wonderment, what you wrote about the word proskyne'o (worship) reminds me what is said in more than one of the translators' footnotes in the 1901 ASV Bible (and maybe in the 1881-1885 RV Bible also). What you said is consistent with those footnotes. The footnotes were in reference to a human performing an act of 'worship' to another human in a way which the scripture portrayed as acceptable to God.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the discussion about Yahweh's holy spirit, I never had appreciation for that concept, at least not in the sense of it being a person, not even when I was a very active JW. For me the concept of holy spirit was purely an intellectual matter which I gave very little thought to. Usually when I thought about it it was only when evaluating whether the Bible teaches that the holy spirit is a person or not.

That is because when I believed in Jehovah/YHWH I didn't think of him needing a holy spirit (as person) to accomplish tasks for him. The OT gives alleged examples of Jehovah having used angels to act as intermediaries for him, including delivering messages to humans, protecting humans, killing humans, etc. I thought that when Jehovah wanted to send an idea to humans he could do so directly without using a conscious holy spirit person to do so as an intermediary. As a result, the WT concept of the holy spirit simply being Jehovah's active force was consistent with that perception of mine regarding God and his dealings. As far as I can recall, other than as a term for God's mood or some other aspect of God's mind or God's intentions, or of God's power in action, the OT hardly uses any of the expressions of "holy spirit", God's spirit", "Jehovah's spirit", or the equivalent. In contrast, the NT speaks of the "holy spirit" a number of times - to such an extent that it is like it is a new biblical concept (relative to what the OT says).

28

Reading the Bible Made Me Leave "The Truth" & Christianity

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

i was looking up a couple of verses the other day in my nwt reference bible the one with larger print, footnotes, cross references, etc.

in my day i was quite a diligent student - the bible is filled with my notes and comments, and i'd already worn out another one earlier.

one of the things that i found surprising as i was reading my notes, was how often they were pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions and obvious lies in the biblical text.

Disillusioned JW

justsomedude do you still visit this web site? I hope so because I wish to say the following to you. I think you should have kept your Bible which had numerous notes in it by you, or I think you should have made copies of the notes before getting rid the Bible. I think that because the notes are important. I have some NWT Bibles which I am keeping because of the notes I made into them, at least until I make copies (perhaps photocopies) of my notes.

By the way folks, I found this forum topic by doing a search on this website using the terms of 'Bible' and 'contradictions'. A big part of the reason I am posting here and thus reviving this forum topic is because I hope more Christians who visit this website will read the posts of this forum topic. The first post of this forum topic and the post by Terry are excellent. I strongly relate to the first post.

The more I study the Bible the more problems I see in it and the more I realize (and am reminded of) how much of the Bible is appalling. It motivates me to resell more of the books I own about religion, including Bibles. When I bought the vast majority of those books I was a Christian with a strong appreciation of the Bible, but now I am atheist who is extremely convinced that no personal God (including Yahweh/Jehovah) exists.

12

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 22 - Biblical Apologists Toolkit

by RunningMan in

over the years, i have run into numerous persons who have attempted to defend the bibles literal accuracy.

these opponents have presented explanations that range in quality from truly inspired justifications to pitifully lame excuses.

for example, when one believer was confronted with the fact that the ancient temple was credited with containing enough raw materials for a building more than a thousand times its size, he replied, "well, maybe it had a basement.

Disillusioned JW

I very recently did a search on this website using the terms of 'Bible' and 'contradictions' and thus found this forum topic. The first post in this topic is excellent. It says important very truths. I hope by me reviving this topic that a number of Christians on this website will notice it and eventually change a number of their views towards atheism.

21

3 Books - Bible Unearthed, 101 Myths of the Bible, and Early History of God

by VM44 in

three books that i hope to read soon.

the bible unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient israel and the origin of its sacred texts (paperback).

by neil asher silberman (author), israel finkelstein ($11.20).

Disillusioned JW

I haven't yet read The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, but I saw a televised NOVA episode (a science program) on PBS about a number of the archaeological findings of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.In the show two Jewish scientists said they had expected to find evidence of the exodus but instead found no evidence for it and they concluded that the exodus didn't happen, but that the Jews started out as a Canaanite people who later adopted belief in Yahweh and who later identified as Jews and later claimed to have made an exodus from Egypt to Canaan. I recorded the show from over the air TV onto a VHS tape.

I saw the show during the time I was an independent Christian (after I had stopped being a believing JW about a year prior to seeing the NOVA show). The archaeology show is excellent and it greatly eroded my belief in some parts of the early Bible which Christians claim are historical. The program is called "The Bible's Buried Secrets" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible's_Buried_Secrets ) for more information. I making this post on this very old thread to attract the attention of people who haven't seen this thread. I hope that Vanderhoven7 and some other Christians read this thread. A year or two after I saw "The Bible's Buried Secrets" I stopped believing in Yahweh, Yeshua, Satan, angels, and demons, and in the Bible's claims of the existence of supernatural beings.

Maybe I will buy a copy of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

By the way, I found this forum topic by doing a search on this website using the terms of 'Bible' and 'contradictions'.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

The article I mentioned in my prior post also says the following. "Alcestis' virtue in taking Admetus' place is admirable in that she not only sacrifices herself for the man she loves but also for the people who depended upon Admetus for their continued well-being. ... In all ways, Alcestis stands as a model for proper behavior."