Posts by Disillusioned JW

23

Turning up The Insanity To 11

by FedUpJW in

so a jw elder acquaintance sent me an email "encouraging" me to return to the organization, including this little nugget of a quote from today's wt session,*** w21 november p. 23 par.

11 how strong will your faith be?

***learn to trust those whom jehovah and jesus trust.

Disillusioned JW

Maybe those actions by some elders mean they are seeing a mass exodus of people from their congregations and are thus trying to get people to return.

11

GB Says You Can Fellowship Without Being Reinstated

by Sea Breeze in

there is another way to fellowship with your loved ones after disagreeing with the wt besides getting reinstated.

all you have to do is fling yourself off a boat and start drowning, says watchtower:.

"suppose, then, a member of a christian congregation boating on a lake were to see another boat containing a disfellowshiped person capsize, throwing the disfellowshiped one into the water where he struggled to stay afloat.

Disillusioned JW

I found the following paragraphs from the same WT article (called "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones", as worded in the "Watchtower Library 1999" CD-ROM) as very interesting. Time sure has changed regarding the WT's stated view on disfellowshiping.

"7 If we imitate our heavenly Father we will remember that he even showed certain considerateness toward the first human pair after their disfellowshiping in Eden, providing them with clothing. (Gen. 3:21) This was an undeserved kindness toward them. As Jesus reminded his disciples, Jehovah God "makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45) The apostle Paul showed that, despite the independent course the Gentile nations took contrary to God's way, Jehovah "did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving [them] rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling [their] hearts to the full with food and good cheer." (Acts 14:16, 17) So, not "mixing in company" with a person, or treating such one as "a man of the nations," does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane."

"21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that "leaven" is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such "leaven." Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one's physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping."

"22 In some cases where a disfellowshiped parent is aged or in bad health and needs care, the son or daughter might feel it advisable to bring such a parent into the home to fulfill proper filial obligations. So, too, Christian parents of a disfellowshiped son or daughter who is no longer a minor might decide to take such a one back into the home due to that one's having a grave health problem or having been incapacitated in an accident or being in a destitute state financially. These are humanitarian decisions that Christian families must make and the congregational elders are not required to intervene where there is no sound evidence of a reintroduction of a corrupting influence within the congregation."

53

New World Translation is not much different other translations

by Abraham1 in

key scripture 2 timothy 3:16 should have been translated as “every scripture inspired of god is also profitable for teaching” like many other serious translations (such as american standard version ; douay-rheims bible etc) as it is what the greek text says.. this is in harmony with the contents of bible and also with the writer paul himself who knew after his departure ‘even from his own number men will arise and distort the truth.’ (acts 20:29-30) for example, verses such as romans 7:19 is such distortion.

such verses cannot originate from real paul who was “holy, righteous and blameless.” (1 thessalonians 2:10) hence paul had the freeness of speech to tell others to be “blameless” like him (1 thessalonians 5:19-23; ephesians 5:24) there are many things in the scriptures which are not inspired such as words of satan, words of job’s wife and his false friends, words of judas, lot’s daughters …etc.

apostle peter never disowned jesus because if he had done so, his contemporaries would have interrupted him when he rebuked jews, saying: “you disowned the holy and righteous one and asked that a murderer be released to you.“ (acts 3:14) his listeners would have asked him “what right do you have to reprove us for ‘disowning jesus” when you yourself have done it first?” all such verses or accounts were later adoptions.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the source I quoted from about Gundry' s wording, the source seems to be saying that Gundry says that in the context of the passage about the flood "that being taken along has to do with judgment at the Son of Man's coming ...Then being left means being spared from judgment." While that might be the case, I think in regards to Mt. 24:40-41 the being taken along means to be taken with Christ to safety.

The "Disciples' Literal New Testament: Serving Modern Disciples by More Fully Reflecting the Writing Style of the Ancient Disciples", Copyright © 2011 Michael J. Magill, says the following in the translator's note. "Matthew 24:41 Or, taken along... left behind. Some think believers are taken, referring either to protection on earth (as with Noah) or in heaven (through the rapture); unbelievers are left for judgment. Others think unbelievers are taken in judgment, believers are left on earth (like Noah)." [See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:39-41&version=DLNT .] According to an Amazon.com web page about Magill's NT book, the following is said about the translator. "Michael Magill graduated Valedictorian with a B.A. in Bible from Biola University. He earned an M.Div. in New Testament from Talbot School of Theology, and received the Robert N. Oliver Award in Systematic Theology. He taught Greek at Biola University and Logos Bible Institute."

53

New World Translation is not much different other translations

by Abraham1 in

key scripture 2 timothy 3:16 should have been translated as “every scripture inspired of god is also profitable for teaching” like many other serious translations (such as american standard version ; douay-rheims bible etc) as it is what the greek text says.. this is in harmony with the contents of bible and also with the writer paul himself who knew after his departure ‘even from his own number men will arise and distort the truth.’ (acts 20:29-30) for example, verses such as romans 7:19 is such distortion.

such verses cannot originate from real paul who was “holy, righteous and blameless.” (1 thessalonians 2:10) hence paul had the freeness of speech to tell others to be “blameless” like him (1 thessalonians 5:19-23; ephesians 5:24) there are many things in the scriptures which are not inspired such as words of satan, words of job’s wife and his false friends, words of judas, lot’s daughters …etc.

apostle peter never disowned jesus because if he had done so, his contemporaries would have interrupted him when he rebuked jews, saying: “you disowned the holy and righteous one and asked that a murderer be released to you.“ (acts 3:14) his listeners would have asked him “what right do you have to reprove us for ‘disowning jesus” when you yourself have done it first?” all such verses or accounts were later adoptions.

Disillusioned JW

I remember that in one thread (I don't know which one on this site) a person stated disapproval of the NWT translation of Matthew 24:40-41 where the phrase "taken along" is used instead of simply saying "taken". From previous reading of other sources (ones critical of the WT and the NWT) I had also come to believe the word "along" should not be used in the translation of those verses. But, today I decided to do a search on the internet to see if any non-JW Bible translations say "taken along" and to see if there is good scholarly support for such a translation. I found some good scholarly support.

https://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_2437-42_commentary says in part the following (the emphasis in the quote is from the source).

"Will be taken (3880) (paralambano from para = beside + lambano = appropriate, receive) means to receive alongside or to take to oneself (into close association). There are two basic ideas - to take or to receive. In this context clearly the meaning is to take with one in order to carry away. Some uses of paralambano are in a positive context (see note on Jn 14:3 below) whereas others are in a negative context (Mt 4:5, 8; Jn 19:16).

Jesus uses this verb in His description of the Rapture in John 14:3 promising the disciples that "if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive (paralambano) you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." Notice the taking conveys a sense of close fellowship and agreement associated with the receiving to Himself. Although NAS translates it as "will be taken" it is actually in the present tense (see Mt 24:41 note below by Gundry) so pictures them as in the process of being taken, a vivid description! The passive voice underlines this "taking" will not be of their strength nor of the choice but is from an external source (i.e., God's angels - Mt 13:39, 40, 41, 49)."

The same web page also says the following (the emphasis in the quote is from the source).

"Robert Gundry adds that "The two instances (Ed: Mt 24:40 and Mt 24:41) each of the present tense in "is taken along" and "is left" are preceded by the future tense in "will be in a field" and "will be grinding." So Jesus uses the present tense to emphasize the certainty of being taken along and being left. They're as good as happening right now. The taking away of people by the flood favors that being taken along has to do with judgment at the Son of Man's coming (compare the separation of the wicked out from among the righteous in the parables of the tares and foul fish [Mt 13:30, 40-42, 49-50]). Then being left means being spared from judgment. The accent doesn't rest on the separation of people in proximity so much as on the occurrence of this separation during the round of daily activities and therefore unexpectedly—unless you're watching. (Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation)".

I then looked for information about Robert Gundry and I found a Wikipedia article about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Gundry whch says he "... is an American scholar and retired professor of New Testament studies and Koine Greek." It also says he "worked under F. F. Bruce." I have a hardcover theologically conservative Bible Commentary edited by F. F. Bruce, published by Guideposts. Gundry's commentary (named in the above paragraph) was published in the year 2010 (decades after the first NWT volume) yet it says "taken along" (according to the above source) and Gundry is an evangelical scholar!

From what I read today the translation of "taken along" indicates that the ones taken are taken to be alongside Christ and thus to be saved! Even if the WT chose the translation of "taken along" so they could apply it (in a way which I consider to be incorrect) to mean taken along in field service by human JWs, the phrase "taken along" is an accurate translation nonetheless. Wow!

In reading Mt. 24:40-41 in most translations which say "taken" instead of "taken along" it is hard to determine if the ones being take are taken to a place of safety or are taken to be destroyed (or tormented). But the wording of "taken along" when read in the context of the entire 24th chapter of Matthew and in the context of what the scholar Robert Gundry said about it and in a commentary by Dummelow, clarifies it means (at least to me) to be taken to safety by Christ (or through angels sent by Christ)!

A commentary I have called "A Commentary on The Holy Bible, by various writers, edited by the Rev. J. R. Dummelow M.A." and published in 1935 says the following (the boldface emphasis in the quote is from the source).

"40, 41. The general idea is that, though to human eyes the righteous and the wicked will appear exactly the same, the angels in the judgement will be able to distinguish.

40. One shall be taken] viz. into glory, by the angels. The other left] viz. for reprobation, or punishment. But if the fall of Jerusalem is meant, the 'taking ' means the successful flight from Judaea and Jerusalem; the being 'left' means failure to flee."

I am thus now impressed which the NWT using the word "along" in Matthew 24:40-41. Besides the above example I have noticed other contested controversial phrases in the NWT, which have the same wording as in some non-JW scholarly Bible translations. I thus now mostly agree with HowTheBibleWasCreated's claim of "... every single so-called change the NWT makes has been done by some other translation at some point ...". Lately my opinion of the NWT (at least up through the 2006 Printing edition) has greatly improved as a result of my research about it contested controversial translations of some words and phrases in some verses.

Disclosure: More than 10 years ago I ceased considering myself a JW and even ceased believing in Jehovah God and the Bible. I am now an atheist. However, I still find it interesting at times to study the Bible (in multiple translations) as a work of literature [kind like the way an atheist university professor of a course called "The Bible Literature" might do so, and also the way a professor might study mythology and teach a course in it].

9

Why is it when one person attack you on a forum thread eveyone likes to pile on?

by mickbobcat in

i have noticed this on many many forums.

so i don't have this forum in mind for this topic.

so you may have noticed this also, but many times on threads once someone does an attack or a negative comment about someone, or the way they write or anything else on the thread, everyone else seems to just pile on by reaction not thought.

Disillusioned JW

mickbobcat your insightful comments remind me of what I have noticed typically happens on school playgrounds and in other places where a fight breaks out (including in bars as shown in movies and on television TV shows). In such situations spectators often cheer on the fighters, and sometimes (as in bars as shown in movies, especially in westerns) some of the spectators join in the fighting and even mayhem.

Sometimes teachers (or other adult authority figures, including the WT literature) told young people not to watch playground fights, in order to discourage prolonging the fight (since a lot of times the one initiating the fight is partly doing it to create a spectacle and to get attention and enjoys being cheered on).

I've personally never enjoyed watching such fights, but then (as many people know on this forum) I've been peace loving and a liberal (in many ideological matters) since my early childhood. For example, I've always disapproved of bullying (and of picking on people in a mean way for the fun of it, instead of only in verbal self defense) and of intentionally killing innocent humans and I have always hated violent warfare.

16

Correct usage referring to the organization?

by Vanderhoven7 in

which sentences are technically correct.

1 the watchtower keeps changing its doctrines.. 2. the watch tower keeps changing its doctrines.. 3. the watchtower society keeps changing its doctrines.. 4. watchtower keeps changing its doctrines.. 5. watch tower keeps changing its doctrines.. 6. the society keeps changing its doctrines.. 7. the watchtower organization keeps changing its doctrines.. 8. the watch tower organization keeps changing its doctrines..

Disillusioned JW

"Watchtower" refers to the magazine/periodical of that name and to one of the corporations. The corporation based in Pennsylvania (at least originally) is named "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania". In contrast, the corporation based in New York is named "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.". In at least one copy of the "2006 Printing" edition of the NWT (the first edition of the NWT to exclude single brackets around added words in the scripture text) the Pennsylvania corporation is listed as the copyright holder and the New York corporation is listed as the publisher. I thus believe that Jeffro is correct in saying "The primary corporation is the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania."

24

Snakes walked on legs till the Eden curse Watchtower belief till 1974!!

by Witness 007 in

watchtower 1964 page 352 "....before god cursed it the snake had legs that elevated it off the ground.

god transformed its body so that it ceased to have legs and could move on its belly.".

book "gods eternal purpose"1974 - "god did not put a curse on the whole serpent family...it had only been victimised by satan...".

Disillusioned JW

The story in Genesis about the snake becoming cursed and the WT's early interpretation of it could be interpreted as indicating that the early Semite storytellers had an insight that snakes of their day must have had distant ancestors which had legs - like most reptiles and most other land animals! Such an idea thus can be interpreted as part of the account in Genesis as teaching theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism). I started thinking that when I began reading science books (including biology textbooks and paleontology books) which teach evolution and which say that the earliest snakes (or at least some of their pre-snake reptilian ancestors) had legs!

Likewise the story about Eve (and her female descendants) becoming cursed with painful childbirth can also be interpreted as teaching theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism). How so? Well consider the following. Some anthropology books and articles teach that the reason why human child birth is so painful is because human baby brains (and hence human baby skulls) are so big (at least relative to the size of the rest of their body, in comparison to non-human animal babies). Our high intelligence (relative to non-human animals) is largely due to our relatively large brains (and the way they are structured). In the Genesis story Eve (whom the story says is the mother of all humans living - the Good News Bible (GNB) even says "mother of all human beings") gained immense knowledge as a result of eating fruit of the tree of knowledge (according to some interpretations of the story). [Notice that the main text of Genesis 3:22 in the GNB says "Then the Lord God said, “Now these human beings have become like one of us and have knowledge of what is good and what is bad.[m]" According to the translation of the GNB, Eve and all other humans (or at least Eve and Adam) came to know everything, since according to that Bible, at Genesis 3:22, the translators' note "m" says, "knowledge of what is good and what is bad; or knowledge of everything").]

As a result, the story about Eve can be interpreted as some of the ancient Semites knowing childbirth is painful because human babies have large brains (which enable humans to be highly intelligent, relative to non-human animals). Therefore, the story can also be interpreted as teaching (or at least being somewhat consistent with) rapid evolution of hominids, due to a beneficial mutation (in this case caused by ingestion of a substance in the environment) in a very small isolated population (punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, including an element of allopatric speciation theory of evolution), resulting in the hominid brain becoming much larger and much more intelligent in the human lineage, and with the mutation being passed on to all of the descendants! Wow!

10

Well what do you know gb finally understanding social isolation or shunning.

by Yomama in

jw
friends

update some upstanding jw are experiencing social isolation isnt that what df and da people feel?reap sow karma..

Disillusioned JW

Hi folks I decided to return to posting to this site, so I could participate in interesting discussions about the Bible, the WT, and science. I guess you could say I decided to stop isolating myself from this site (at least some sections of it), since there are some good informative topics on this site. Cheers!

I've 'always' (that is, since my teenage years) strongly disliked Proverbs 18:1 (and some of the the WT's applications of it), especially during my youth. That is because I knew that pursing one's own selfish desires isn't always a bad a thing, at least if by the word "selfish" one means "self interests". You see, as a teenager and as an adult in my 20s and 30s I wanted lots of free time to pursue harmless hobbies. I wanted to spend much less time in JW activities (and even in social activities) so I could "isolate" myself in my bedroom to do the following: study science books and science articles, study books about inventions, perform science experiments (I had an electronics kit and a chemistry kit) and attempt to make scientific discoveries and to invent some things, write computer programs (in BASIC) to perform useful tasks, and to figure out how to make lots of money in the stock market. Science my preteen years the types of people I admired the most, in regards to their intelligence and accomplishments, (and who I wanted to become like, in regards to success) were famous highly accomplished scientists and inventors (such as Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Nikola Tesla, and fictional scientists-inventors in various science fiction movies).

Adhering to Proverbs 18:1, at least as sometimes interpreted/'explained' by the WT, hinders people from attaining successful careers in science, in inventing/engineering, in business, in sports, and in other areas. You see, to become successful people need to spend a lot time (often by themselves) to study, to contemplate, to experiment, and to practice. Adhering to Proverbs 18:1, at least as sometimes interpreted/'explained' by the WT, also hinders people from spending an adequate amount of time in critically examining the claims of the WT to see if some of the claims are erroneous. Since decades ago, I have thought that the human writer of Proverbs 18:1 wrote Proverbs 18:1 in part to keep people mentally trapped in Judaism and in continuing to practice Judaism, by trying to prevent Jews from having enough time by themselves to think about their religion independently.

If I hadn't been so active as a JW (due to the guilt the WT produced in me when I wanted to pursue personal 'selfish' intellectual interests (instead of JW meeting attendance and WT study and preaching) I probably would have done more study about evolution (from science publications) and realized as a young person that evolution is true.

11

Oregon to go permanent on face masks. More will flood out of the communist state.

by mickbobcat in

the liberal idiots and useful fools who follow are going and going and going.

now they are trying to make masks permanent.

at some point people are going to revolt.

Disillusioned JW

Corrections: I now notice that my prior post had multiple typos in it, but I hope readers knew what my intended meanings were. I was in a hurry to complete the post while at a public library.

Update: Since early childhood I have been a naturally predominantly risk averse person, the primary exception being my attempts to make a lot of money quick in the stock market.

Goodbye everyone. I have decided that I have gained probably all of the significant utility (on topics of interest to me) I can from this website (primarily the evidence that the WT/JW religion is false and that it appears to now be in decline). I also dislike a significant portion of the content on this site. Therefore, I have decided that this post will be my last one on this site and that it is now my endeavor to no longer visit this ultraconservative site which favors conspiracy ideas. I thus now intend to cease all association/fellowship with this site, though there are a number of good people on this site. Bye.

31

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of JWs don't care if the end is near.

by mickbobcat in

i was in the cult for years about 40. fourth gen born in cult member or for me ex cult member.

i have seen so many cult members who don't seem to really care if the end is near or not.

they are much more concerned with the idea that this is their social network and they need and or want it just the way it is.

Disillusioned JW

Hi Abraham1, your link of (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext) has a problem. Both times in this thread when you posted the link the final ")" got accidentally included into the link, thus preventing the link from loading the page. However, after I deleted the ")" then what remained of the link worked. [I wasn't able to load it until a short while ago, after I discovered the cause of the problem.]

The article partially supports what you said about the Covid-19 vaccines not making a difference - but only in some contexts. The article also says the Covid-19 vaccines provide some degree of protection in some regards. The science journal article article in part says the following (I have added some boldface for emphasis of statements saying the vaccines provide some protection).

"Interpretation

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.

...

Introduction

...

Vaccination was found to be effective in reducing household transmission of the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) by 40–50%, 1 and infected, vaccinated individuals had lower viral load in the upper respiratory tract (URT) than infections in unvaccinated individuals, 2 which is indicative of reduced infectiousness. 3 , 4 However, the delta variant (B.1.617.2), which is more transmissible than the alpha variant, 5 , 6 is now the dominant strain worldwide. After a large outbreak in India, the UK was one of the first countries to report a sharp rise in delta variant infection. Current vaccines remain highly effective at preventing admission to hospital and death from delta infection. 7 However, vaccine effectiveness against infection is reduced for delta, compared with alpha, 8 , 9 and the delta variant continues to cause a high burden of cases even in countries with high vaccination coverage.

....

Discussion

...

Our findings help to explain how and why the delta variant is being transmitted so effectively in populations with high vaccine coverage. Although current vaccines remain effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination alone is not sufficient to prevent all transmission of the delta variant in the household setting, where exposure is close and prolonged. Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant."