Posts by Disillusioned JW

9

vaxxed and blood transfusions

by enoughisenough in

some did the vaccines..some didn't...some will accept a blood transfusion, some won't ...here is something to consider if you didn't want the vaccines, but you would accept a transfusion.

i was reading comments from the "world" in under a video i had watched ( see link,) one of the comments ( have to scroll a good ways to find the comments about it ) is to the effect, they don't separate what blood came from those vaxxed and those who weren't ...so if you get a transfusion, you are getting the vaxx tainted blood.

"good health to you".

Disillusioned JW

"FDA News Release: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccines for Use as a Booster Dose" (see https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-moderna-pfizer-biontech-bivalent-covid-19-vaccines-use ).

The news release in part says the following.

"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to authorize bivalent formulations of the vaccines for use as a single booster dose at least two months following primary or booster vaccination. The bivalent vaccines, which we will also refer to as “updated boosters,” contain two messenger RNA (mRNA) components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the other one in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

... The BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant are currently causing most cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and are predicted to circulate this fall and winter. In June, the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted overwhelmingly to include an omicron component in COVID-19 booster vaccines.

... Based on the data supporting each of these authorizations, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines are expected to provide increased protection against the currently circulating omicron variant. Individuals who receive a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine may experience side effects commonly reported by individuals who receive authorized or approved monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

... After 28 days, the immune response against BA.1 of the participants who received the bivalent vaccine was better than the immune response of those who had received the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

The safety of a single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent for individuals 18 years of age and older is supported by safety data from a clinical study which evaluated a booster dose of Moderna’s investigational bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1), safety data from clinical trials which evaluated primary and booster vaccination with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, and postmarketing safety data with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

The safety data accrued with the bivalent vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) and with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine are relevant to the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent because these vaccines are manufactured using the same process.

... With today’s authorization, the FDA has also revised the EUA of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to remove the use of the monovalent Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines for booster administration for individuals 18 years of age and older and 12 years of age and older, respectively. These monovalent vaccines continue to be authorized for use for administration of a primary series for individuals 6 months of age and older as described in the letters of authorization. At this time, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine remains authorized for administration of a single booster dose for individuals 5 through 11 years of age at least five months after completing a primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."

As a result of my reading the above, and noticing it meets my criteria which I stated in my prior post, I will probably get the Moderna Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine as a single booster dose.

16

Is here anyone who would like to understand the Revelation book better?

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

hello friends, i have been writing comments to the revelation book and posted them on my site.

so far i have gone through revelation chapter 1 to 14.. i invite you all to take a look.

https://www.comejesus.net/comments-to-revelation-1.

Disillusioned JW

From a biblical perspective (not a WT perspective), who do you think the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-14 are, and what are your reasons for thinking such?

141

My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze in

a new space telescope launched a few days age that will supposedly be able to see to within 100 million years of the big bang.

wow... only 100 million years from the big bang.

that is pretty early given the 12 billion year age of the universe assigned by scholars who adhere to naturalism.

Disillusioned JW

Here are internet links to articles claiming that the James Webb Space Telescope does NOT disprove the Big Bang.

- https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/ ("No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang: The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos."

- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/big-bang-jwst-james-webb/ ("No, the James Webb Space Telescope did not disprove the Big Bang: Unexpected images of galaxies from the James Webb Space Telescope do not disprove the Big Bang. There are other likelier explanations."

- https://www.iflscience.com/heres-why-people-are-wrongly-claiming-jwst-images-disprove-the-big-bang-theory-65038 ("Here's Why People Are (Wrongly) Claiming JWST Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory: According to an article that's been going around, JWST has found stars older than the universe itself.)

141

My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze in

a new space telescope launched a few days age that will supposedly be able to see to within 100 million years of the big bang.

wow... only 100 million years from the big bang.

that is pretty early given the 12 billion year age of the universe assigned by scholars who adhere to naturalism.

Disillusioned JW

Moments ago I paid a visit to the link at https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait/ which Sea Breeze posted a link to. I notice that the bottom of that web page in conjunction with the About Page says "Mind Matters is operated by the non-profit Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence at Discovery Institute in Seattle." I'm not in a panic about the Big Bang theory.

39

Did becoming a JW influence you to give up something you enjoyed ?

by smiddy3 in

when i was a teenager a younger fellow workmate was involved in the sport of judo.i got interested and went along to a number of sessions and took to it like a sponge to water ,and as a sport i was happy participating in.. not that much longer another workmate was getting re-activated in the religion of jw`s.

which i had never heard o before and then got interested in that .. conflict : was judo a sport that was compatible with j.w beliefs?

sadly i decided it was not and stopped any further involvement.. to this day i resent that decision i made back then .and i`m 82 years old now.. it was a sport i was comfortable doing and i enjoyed it.and i gave it up because of the religion .who knows what i may have achieved had i continued with it.

Disillusioned JW

Since I was raised from infancy as a JW and was thus practicing the religion since very early childhood (until I cam to doubt and disbelieve it), becoming a JW didn't cause me to give up something I enjoyed. But practicing the JW religion resulted in me avoiding doing things which I thought I would enjoy and/or otherwise consider worthwhile. For example prior to getting my own home I didn't go on dates and I never went to prom (but my mom said it is up to me if go to prom or not; she also said it is up to me if I join the high school track team or not). I didn't read literature promoting atheism or non-JW forms of Christianity, and that made it much harder for me to see problems with the JW religion, Christianity in general, and the Bible.

Since I was busy with JW meeting participation (including giving talks), preparing for JW meetings, and with field service, I had less time available for doing what I liked (such doing science experiments and trying to make inventions, studying science and technology, and pursuing other hobbies).

Despite being a JW In my final year of high school I do join the school's science club and the school's computer club. I played a little chess.

Regarding aluminum cookware, at some point after age 40 I came to think it is probably less healthy to use that kind of cookware. That change in view was a result of what I read on the internet (but I read conflicting information about it). As result a number of years ago I replaced my 'nonstick' aluminum skillet with a stainless steel skillet, but I still use nonstick aluminum cooking pots, aluminum cookware lids, and an aluminum large spoon. Nearly all of the aluminum cookware was given to me by JWs (from a congregation I attended at the time) as housewarming gifts.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

TonusOH regarding the article called "How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian" it might be helpful for Christian evangelists to read it. But I think it was written by an atheist (or an ex-atheist) partly since some of its statements reflects the atheistic viewpoint (but perhaps it was written by a Christian who was never an atheist). For example it says the following.

"It would be logical for a caring, loving God to allow non-Christians into Heaven if they were kind people who did lots of good works.

... Consider why the person is an atheist. Different atheists have different reasons why they aren't religious. ...

They think there's no logical reason to believe in God. These people are driven by logic, so convincing them to base decisions on faith is unlikely to work.

... Consider whether your arguments are rational or faith-based. Someone who has based their decisions purely on rationality is unlikely to be swayed by emotional reasoning.

... Don't try to debate about logic or the Bible. Believing in God is a fundamentally illogical choice because you are choosing to have faith in a power beyond what you know. It's a leap of the heart. It's best to acknowledge this and focus on the emotional power of faith.

Warnings ...

Be warned that when approaching the subject of religion with atheists (especially with an eye to conversion) that many atheists you are likely to meet were brought up in or around the Christian faith. Many once believed, honestly and wholeheartedly, were actively involved with their church and held as true all aspects of the faith. In time these ex-Christians, through personal reasons came to a place where they did not hold the beliefs anymore and turned away from them. Frequently they had questions in their religious life and beliefs and went seeking answers, some in discussions with their priest, pastor, peers, and some studied the Bible, studied philosophy, religious history, comparative religion, and science. You may believe you are bringing them a fresh and bight message of good news, one they are unaware of, but they may have a greater academic knowledge of their ideas of their subjects than you do of yours. Such questioning leads to them to dismissing their faith. Some have a background not only of a Christian faith but also have information about a large number of other religions, philosophies, history and science. Also, if they have lived it, they know what it was like to be a believer in church, and had experienced the light and love of God. Many openly admit they miss the clarity and community/cultural aspect of church and Christianity, but believe that to feign a belief simply to re-gain that, would be hypocrisy for them. And, as atheists, they find it hard to pretend. So be careful, and think more than twice before attempting to convert your atheist friend. Talking with your friend on the subject of God and faith just might open questions you can't readily answer, and might cause confusion or doubt.
"

9

vaxxed and blood transfusions

by enoughisenough in

some did the vaccines..some didn't...some will accept a blood transfusion, some won't ...here is something to consider if you didn't want the vaccines, but you would accept a transfusion.

i was reading comments from the "world" in under a video i had watched ( see link,) one of the comments ( have to scroll a good ways to find the comments about it ) is to the effect, they don't separate what blood came from those vaxxed and those who weren't ...so if you get a transfusion, you are getting the vaxx tainted blood.

"good health to you".

Disillusioned JW

Actually the mRNA injections designed to fight the Covid-19 virus are indeed vaccines, for they are designed to get the human body to recognize the virus and to build up an immune response fight to the virus. The injections do indeed create an immune response in the body and thus are injections of a vaccine. It is utterly incomprehensible to me how anyone adequately informed about the injections could conclude the injections are not vaccine injections.

I've taken the two main doses of Moderna's Covid-19 mRNA vaccine and the initial booster shot of the same vaccine. But I don't plan on getting another booster shot of a Covid-19 vaccine. Perhaps I will get another booster shot if it is optimized to fight a recent strain of the virus, or is in some other way more effective than the other versions of the Covid-19 vaccine which have already been produced. As far as I can tell, I have never had the Covid-19 disease (unless I contracted it before the first Covid-19 vaccines had been produced) and I have not had any detected adverse reactions to the vaccine injections, other than temporary soreness at the injection site at the times of my first two injections.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Disillusioned JW

I consider the 1953 NWT translation of Judges 14:3 as “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes" as OK (though awkward) considering the awkward word order (for English) I often see in the KJV, RV, and ASV Bibles, in their literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek sentence structures. When I see "“Her get for me" I think of "Her, get for me" or "Her! Get for me" (as an emphatic statement) with the idea of Samson pointing to the woman when he says "Her". I thus agree with Wonderment's explanation of why the 1953 NWT in verse 3 said "Her get for me" and the suitableness of that wording.

Isaac Leeser's Bible says "This one take for me". Notice that the same NWT edition in verse 2 says "... and now get her for me as a wife." The possibility of saying "Get her for me" in verse 3 thus possibly occurred to the translators of the 1953 NWT but they specifically chose to say "Her get for me" for some reason". Perhaps was to avoid infringing on the copyright of the 1917 JPS translation of the Bible. That Bible in verse 3 does say "Get her for me" and in verse 2 it says "now therefore get her for me to wife."

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Disillusioned JW

A moment ago I noticed that careful four years mentioned about the JB and possibly the NJB using a raised dot. I wish I had noticed that earlier, since that I would not have bothered to make my post about that feature, and thus would have saved some time.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Disillusioned JW

Wonderment, I remember a non-Christian Jew at a congregation of Humanistic Judaism telling me that biblical Hebrew is a story language (a language well suited for telling stories?). Today I searched for information about it being a picturesque language and I thus found the web page mentioned at https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/philosophy-of-the-hebrew-language.htm . It is quite interesting, but the ancient Hebrew way of thinking of matters is very strange to me (a Western style thinker, instead of an Eastern style thinker). I wonder though if the article has some inaccurate interpretations.

Wonderment, when I read certain passages of the OT, especially when I compare Jewish translations of certain passages with Christian translations of the same passages I get the impression that the biblical Hebrew language is less precise and more ambiguous than Greek and English. I also get the idea biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means "of" and the meaning has to be inferred by the context. Are these impressions of mine correct?

For example the phrase "Yeshua ben Yoseph" literally says "Yeshua son Yoseph" but is understood to mean "Yeshua son of Yoseph" ("Jesus son of Joseph"). Right?

For another example, consider translations of the latter part of Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in a number of Jewish translations and in a number of Hebrew texts). In the Jewish translation by Isaac Leeser it (at 9:5) says "... and his name is called, Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace". In the 1917 translation of the Jewish Public Publication Society it (at 9:5) says "... And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom". That translation has the translators' note of "That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace." The meanings of these two translations are very different for the first one says he is named counselor of the mighty God whereas the other says his name (the meaning of his name) merely proclaims that God the Mighty is wonderful in counsel.

The 1939 Christian translation by Goodspeed and Smith called The Complete Bible: An American Translation translates the passages in a similar way as the above mentioned Jewish translations. It translates the passages as '... And his name will be called "Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace." '

The 1992 Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha translates the passage (in 9:5) as "... and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.".

The Catholic 1991 New American Bible (NAB) translates the passage as "... They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace." The translators annotation/commentary of that Catholic Bible says the following.: "God-Hero: a warrior and a defender of his people, like God himself. Father-Forever: ever devoted to his people." Notice that regarding "God Hero" it says "like God himself" instead saying he "is God".

The 1901 ASV Bible translates the passage as "... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The translators' note says "Or, Wonderful counsellor" (in regards to "Wonderful, Counsellor") and "Heb. Father of Eternity" (in regards to "Everlasting Father"). A number of other Christian translations of the Bible have a very similar wording of that passage.