Posts by TTWSYF
-
40Lying for 'The Truth'?
by TTWSYF inmy bro introduced me to a concept called 'lying for the truth'.
is that actually something that the watchtower promotes?
talk about a contridiction, i didn't think it could be true that such a practice would be tolerated, but he says so.
-
-
-
20
Is "Lying for the Truth" a real expression among JW's or just something apostates or worldlies made up?
by InterestedOne inalthough i've read some of the "theocratic war strategy" articles, etc., i have heard some on here use the expression "lying for the truth.
" is that an expression jw's say among themselves?
also, does it appear in an article anywhere?.
-
-
TTWSYF
I often refer to lying for the' TRUTH ' tm as that was what my JW brother told me was the term used amongst themselves. He regretted it the moment he let it slip for obvious reasons.
I started a post about it a year ago or so and I couldn't believe the amount of people who came to it's defense. People likened it to a government that lied to it's people to keep panic down or to not give the enemy the right info in order to protect itself and other such nonsense.
Really, what legitimate organization, [business or religion] could have 'lying for the truth' as an operating proceedure?
dc
-
22
Watchtower - simple doctrine for simple people
by jwfacts ini know there are some intelligent witnesses that really research their beliefs, but the more i learn, the simpler and more ignorant watchtower doctrine appears.
that opinion is certainly not helped by some of the apologists that appear on this site.
most watchtower doctrine is a product of the black and white syndrome, where all the obvious shades of grey in between are simply ignored with statements such as "wait on jehovah".
-
-
TTWSYF
My brother doesn't even want to comprehend common sense in his dealings with his old faith [The Church] with his JW faith.
Example - He says 'The Catholics changed so many things hundreds of years ago!'
rebuttal - 'Where is the proof in that statement? Look at the Watchtower's short history. The WTS disregards it's own teachings from 75 years ago. Half of it's teachings are disregarded as an embarrassment that JWs ignore'
End of conversation at that point. He just will not move forward from what is told to him by the WTS. It makes no difference to him that he just keeps lying....lying for the 'TRUTH' tm
respectfully,
dc
-
25
Increase in demon activity?
by Igot2bme inwhen i first started studying i was told that i would notice that the demons would try to stop me from recieving accurate bible knowledge.
well i never really witnessed anything unusual like objects flying through the air, bleeding walls, increased nightmares or something of that nature.
almost all the people that i know who have become baptized have a story or two about this having happened to them.
-
-
TTWSYF
The fear of demons is just another control measure implemented by the WTS.
When your common sense tells you that things here are not right, the WTS will tell you that it's Satan and his demons trying to take you back to the world. Be fearful of Satan, afterall, doesn't the bible say that Satan is the evil god of this world?
Of course, the bible say no such thing as to fear demons or Satan or anyone other than the Lord our God. Scripture mearly warns us to watch out for the devils' snares.
Fear him who can kill the body and the soul. Yes, I'm certain that I read that in the bible somewhere.
respectfully,
dc
-
22
John 1:1
by Ding inmost the nwt translates john 1:1 as "... and the word was a god," not "...and the word was god.".
the reason they give is that the word theos doesn't have the definite article in front of it in the greek.. in his 1982 book, "the jehovah's witness' new testament," greek scholar robert countess looked up all such occurrences in the nt (theos without the definite article) and checked the nwt.. he discovered that the wts only followed their stated rule 6% of the time.. 94% of the time, they translated it "god" anyway!.
-
-
TTWSYF
In the beginning, the Word already existed or the Word was. That to me reads taht the Word was there before the beginning because that's what the bible says.
If the Word was 'a god', then what kind of god was the word?
Scripture is quite clear that there is One God and all other gods are false. What kind of god is the Word?
I say 'True God'
respectfully,
dc
-
177
New World Translation, is it the best bible translation?
by littlebuddy inmy jw elder friend said to me that the nwt is the best translation of the bible and that scholars have said as much.
is this true and is it the best?
are there scholars who disagree?.
-
-
TTWSYF
Aside from the altered renderings of many scriptural verses, the NWT is just a pain to read. It does not flow and make some things appear different than the writers intended.
Quick example of altered texts
Romans 9;5 - {of the Jewish race,} according to the flesh, is Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.
Romans 9;5 of the NWT - Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all [be] blessed forever.
Which one is correct? Check with the interliniar.
How about reading it? Quick example of a lack of flow.
1st Psalm reads 'Blessed is the man who walks not in the cousel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
1st Psalm NWT reads ' 1 Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked ones,
And in the way of sinners has not stood,
And in the seat of ridiculers has not sat. 2 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah,
And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night.Reads in an undertone day and night? That sounds like something you wouldn't want to do, doesn't it?
And to answer another point brought up, the answer is NO. No other group or organization uses or endorses the NWT as an accurate rendering of the Holy Scriptures. At least, I don't know of any other group.
respectfully,
dc
1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. -
6
How to get baptised properly....
by strymeckirules inwho today is elegible to baptise others?
i want to get baptised.
but i don't know who is doing it properly now a days.. i thought the jdubs were the correct baptisers, but research showed that the jdubs baptise you to an organization, not to god.. i hated the questions, the time period it took to qualify and the whole bunch of crap.. .
-
-
TTWSYF
Looking at the scripture discribing Jesus's baptism, one could think that you should be over 30 yrs old like Jesus was,......but further scriptural reading would lead one to realize that , he [Jesus] instructed his apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Jesus was not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. When the apostles went out baptizing, [in the Acts of the apostles] they would baptize entire families and housholds and would not require anyone to be 'educated' on the practices and traditions of the apostles.
The JW way of baptizing seems quite different than the scriptural instructions received from Jesus and the scriptures. You may want to read what the bible says about baptisms and find a church that follows what the 1st Christians taught and practiced.
respectfully,
dc
-
123
Translating the NWT in the Shadows
by JuanMiguel innote: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
-
-
TTWSYF
First off, my apologies for going off topic. Tranlsating the NWT in the Shadows is an excellant topic that should be seen with open eyes.
Hello KJW53 and welcome to the board [or welcome again if you recently changed your username], if I may address your latest post [and my apologies for being absent as of late. As I read some of these earlier posts, I cringe.] ...KJW53 wrote
Consider these facts--- God inspired his name to be put into the bible- nearly 6800 times in the ot-Why???? Because God wants his name there--Wicked men took it out and altered Gods word, So out of Love the JW,s put it back, then are condemned for it by the ones who didnt have enough love for God to put it back=reality=
It's interesting to note that the Jews never spoke even Yahwey except on rare occassions. I would concede that their way of using God's name is the most accurate, but that is just my opnion. The 1st recorded use of the name 'Jehovah' dates from the 13th century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book PUGEO FIDEI in the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor 'Yahwey' as the most likely pronounciation. Aid to Bible Understanding [WTS, 1971 884-885.] Now to me, Jehovah is a name that follows the traditions of men. Even the Aid to Bible book acknowledges that YAHWEY is the most likely pronounciation. {Please don't try to rebutt that JW's know God's name better than the Jews}
The ones who didnt have enough love for God are the ones who twisted Gods word centuries ago to fit their new found teaching of a trinity God made up in the councils of catholocism. Its fact-in the first council of Nicea-the holy spirit was not being taught as a part of being God-it was added at a different council-
There are several scriptural contridictions with these statement, I'll be as direct and brief as I can. Of course, it is true that the word "Trinity" is not in the bible, but there are certainly plenty of verses that equate the Holy Ghost to God. ie Jesus raised his body himself [John 10;17-18] The Holy Ghost raised Jesus from the dead [Romans 8:11] YHWH raised Jesus from the dead [Galatians1;1 & Thessolonians 1;10] to name a few. Other verses include [but are not limited to] The Father dwells in believers [1 Corinthians 3;16-17] The Holy Ghost dwells in believers [John 14;16-17] Jesus dwells in believers [1 John 3;24]. A few more verses about the Holy Ghost in scripture. HE loves [Roman 15;30] He can be grieved [Eph 4;30] He has a conscience will [1 Coronthians 12;11] He can be outraged [Heb 10;29] and HE can be blasphemed [Mark 3;29]......Only God can be blasphemed my friend.
Fact-Moses,David,Solomon served a single mono God. You are being lied to and mislead by this trinity teaching.
It is true that in Deut 6;4 ,known as the Jewish Sh[c]ma you would read 'Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.' What you [and many others] are omitting is the fact that the Hebrew word for ONE in Duet 6;4 is 'echad'. In Hebrew there are two words for 'ONE'. There is yachid-meaning only one, singular or alone. Then there is 'echad' suggesting a unity of things. morning and evening become "ONE" ['echad'] day, husband and wife became "ONE" ['echad'] flesh. And it is in this writting that the Hebrew scripture are [and have been] written. So right back then the writers knew that there was more to God than what was understood. A 'new light' that didn't change what was there, only added to it.
A teaching of satan,satan transforming into an angel of light.satan posing as God like in all false religions.
I don't think that Jesus was [or is] a liar. Do you? You see, I have had JWs at my door telling me that Jesus never said that Peter was the rock to build a church. I'd have them come in and look at Matthew 16;18 'And I tell you, you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my church' . Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matt 16;19. Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep [3 times], Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would be strong so he could strengthen the other apostles. Even the angels in scritpure acknowledge Peter's authority when an angel tells Cornelious to seek Peter for Christian instruction. When Christ rose from the dead and angel sends a message to Peter and the apostles [2 Peter 1;16-21 & Mark 16;7 respectively] In the Jerusalem Council [in Acts 15] it was Peter who was in charge, even though James was the 'bishop' of Jerusalem at the time. What all this means is that the Catholic faith traces it's history to those moments. The BIble is a Catholic book, they choose the books that were to be in it. If you think that they are wrong, then how could you trust anything in the bible? Pick up a Koran or the Book of Mormon and good luck if that were the case, am I right? Why go door to door with book confirmed by 'pagans'. Because Jesus said the gate of hell would never prevail against his Church, that may be why. There is only one Church in history where it's beliefs and traditions span nearly 2000 years. In Acts 5; 33-39 the rabbi Gamaliel states that if these [Christian] teachings are from God, nothing can stop them, if they're from men, they will disperse . There is no other church that has stood the test of time.
The bishops of Rome are well documents and below are the first 10 [sorry if this is boring to anyone].
Peter [32-67], Linus [67-76], Anacletus [Cletus] {76-88}, Clement [88-97], Evarstus [97-105], Sixtus [115-125], Telephorus [125-136], Hyginus [136-140], Pius [140-155]
Please understand that it is not my intention to insult anyones belief and I don't expect to convert anyone, but just pointing out the scriptural texts that rebut your claims.
Respectfully,
dc
-
31
June 15 W/T - "Should Youths Get Baptised?"
by sizemik inthe above mentioned article caught my eye for a couple of reasons .
.. it is obvious to most observers that the children of active jw's provide a potential "large army" and in spite of the attrition rate of jw youths (around 2/3's i believe), it's a resource the borg are keen to maximise.
there tactics appear to be encouraging baptism at an ever younger age.
-
-
TTWSYF
I think Jesus was 33 yrs old when he was baptized, but in the Christian tradition, whole familys and whole households were baptized. There are several examples in the Acts of the Apostles where 'he and his whole family', or ' she and her entire household were baptized at once'. That makes me believe that children [including infants] were baptized.
respectfully,
dc
-
25
Could recently discovered codices prove once and for all that Jesus died on a cross?
by truthseeker inthis find, if genuine, is significant.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history.
how would the watchtower react if evidence suggests that jesus died on a cross?
this would mean they lied to millions of their members saying that the instrument of jesus' execution was nothing more than a stake, an upright pole.. .
-
-
TTWSYF
Very interesting. Possible proof that the WTS may have to address. I can see it now.......If it is authentic then the WTS will say 'see? The apostasy has started even earlier then we first thought. This is, er, um...new light!'
In other words, just another chance to 'lie for the TRUTH tm .'
WTS publications show Jesus 'on an upright stake because STAUROS in Classical Greek mearly means an upright stake or pale.' Reasoning from Scriptures 1985 pgs89-93
The problem is that Classical Greek hadn't been spoken in [literally] centuries before Christ's time. The Greek being spoken [and recorded] was Koine Greek [a Hellenistic dialect]
In Koine Greek [the Greek of the New Testament] STAUROS means [1] an upright stake with q crossbeam above it. [2] two intersecting beams of equal length, or [3] a vertical pointed stake. according to Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament' Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, 7;572.
respectfully,
dc