Sometimes in the old literature the WT said Jesus didn't have a beard because he was a young man (began his preaching at age 30, according to the Bible), but many males are capable of growing a beard at age 20 and even younger, and Jewish biblical law said Jewish males are not to cut the hair on their face!
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
37
Biblical Anachronisms in JW Literature
by neat blue dog inin a recent post ffghost made a comment about how they're always inserting modern concepts into biblical narratives to make it relatable to jw's organization.
here are some that come to mind:.
- the capitalized term "governing body" when referring to the older men in jerusalem (really just another group of christians that paul outspokenly disagreed with and didn't look to for approval).
-
-
-
10
Science news articles supporting biological evolution, including by discoveries of fossils
by Disillusioned JW in"a billion-year-old fossil of an organism, exquisitely preserved in the scottish highlands, reveals features of multicellularity nearly 400 million years before the biological trait emerged in the first animals, according to a new report in the journal current biology by an international team of researchers, including boston college paleobotanist paul k. strother.." see https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/528947 and https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals for details.. the first article listed above says the following.. "the microfossil, discovered at loch torridon, contains two distinct cell types and could be the earliest example of complex multicellularity ever recorded, according to the researchers.
the fossil offers new insight into the transition of single celled organisms to complex, multicellular animals.
modern single-celled holozoa include the most basal living animals and the fossil discovered shows an organism which lies somewhere between single cell and multicellular animals, or metazoa.".
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Besides the above article about a discovery by researchers at the University of Haifa there is an article about an earlier published study involving plant evolution. That earlier article is called "Study Challenges Evolutionary Theory That DNA Mutations Are Random: Findings Could Lead to Advances in Plant Breeding, Human Genetics" (see https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-challenges-evolutionary-theory-dna-mutations-are-random ). It says in part the following.
' “We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome,” said Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences who is lead author on the paper. “It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant. It’s a totally new way of thinking about mutation.”
... Sequencing of those hundreds of Arabidopsis thaliana plants revealed more than 1 million mutations. Within those mutations a nonrandom pattern was revealed, counter to what was expected.
... Instead of randomness they found patches of the genome with low mutation rates. In those patches, they were surprised to discover an over-representation of essential genes, such as those involved in cell growth and gene expression.
... The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.'
These findings are amazing!
-
10
Science news articles supporting biological evolution, including by discoveries of fossils
by Disillusioned JW in"a billion-year-old fossil of an organism, exquisitely preserved in the scottish highlands, reveals features of multicellularity nearly 400 million years before the biological trait emerged in the first animals, according to a new report in the journal current biology by an international team of researchers, including boston college paleobotanist paul k. strother.." see https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/528947 and https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals for details.. the first article listed above says the following.. "the microfossil, discovered at loch torridon, contains two distinct cell types and could be the earliest example of complex multicellularity ever recorded, according to the researchers.
the fossil offers new insight into the transition of single celled organisms to complex, multicellular animals.
modern single-celled holozoa include the most basal living animals and the fossil discovered shows an organism which lies somewhere between single cell and multicellular animals, or metazoa.".
-
-
Disillusioned JW
News article: "A study by the University of Haifa researchers claims not all genetic mutations of human genes are randomized, challenging neo-Darwinism" (see https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101 ). It in part says the following amazing thing.
"For the past century, an assumption central to Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory is that mutations are random and accidental and that natural selection favors such accidents. In an article published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Genome Research, researchers have found the first evidence of non-random mutations in human genes.
Using a new and innovative method, the researchers - led by the University of Haifa's Prof. Adi Livnat - have managed to prove that the rate of generation of the human hemoglobin S (HbS) mutation which protects one from malaria is higher in people from Africa in contrast to people from Europe. In other words, the mutation is not random but rather exists preferentially within the population of Africa where it is more needed."
... ' "Contrary to the widely accepted expectations, the results supported the nonrandom pattern," the University of Haifa announced. "The HbS mutation originated de novo not only much faster than expected from random mutation but also much faster in the population (in sub-Saharan Africans as opposed to Europeans) and in the gene (in the beta-globin as opposed to the control delta-globin gene) where it is of adaptive significance."
These results effectively contradicted the commonly-held random mutation belief held by Darwinists.
“The results suggest that complex information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations impacts mutation, and therefore mutation-specific origination rates can respond in the long-term to specific environmental pressures,” said Prof. Livnat, whose study was funded by a grant given by the John Templeton Foundation. “Mutations may be generated nonrandomly in evolution after all, but not in the way previously conceived. We must study the internal information and how it affects mutation, as it opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived.” '
This is extraordinary. Two weeks ago I really doing research in a large branch of local library about what are possibly the main causes of macroevolution and if it can happen rapidly. I was researching articles from the early 1980s (some of which I read from microfilm and others from digital online archives). In two of the articles a scientist (Peter Williamson) had meticulously examined numerous fossil layers and discovers numerous step by step transitional fossils, showing speciation taking place rapidly (compared to length of geologic times) and the environmentally stressful conditions which triggered it. I was reminded of it when I read the above article. The articles were from 1981.
-
23
Turning up The Insanity To 11
by FedUpJW inso 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 inthere 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 inkey 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 inkey 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 ini 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 inwhich 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 inwatchtower 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!