Posts by Joey Jo-Jo

19

The bible crisis thread

by Joey Jo-Jo in

ill start from the beggining.

i was a non bathtised jw who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth".

i never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth".

Joey Jo-Jo

I will get to that but part of the problem is religion, starting a religion is like digging a hole to the point that you can't get back out.

None of the writers in NT told us which religion to follow but to follow Christ, but which Christ?

19

The bible crisis thread

by Joey Jo-Jo in

ill start from the beggining.

i was a non bathtised jw who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth".

i never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth".

Joey Jo-Jo

Apparently I can only edit posts in a 30 min period, so Ill just post it here.

Ill start from the beginning

I was a non bathtised JW who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth". I never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth". Later I wanted to take the extra step on getting bathtised so I started to take things more seriously, but during my bible study I read books which sparked my curiosity, a more liberal approached, I wanted to see what all sides of religion say and how do they stack up with the Jehovah's witnesses. Long story cut short after reading COC and ISOCF I was no longer interested in the "truth", I read a completely different view of the bible IN ISOCF.

I decide at that time since the bible is God's word then it should be read, no more human reasoning, I wanted to explain the bible to someone and not the other way around, so I have read parts of the ESV study bible, 4 in 1 bible KJV AMP NASB NIV, strongs... etc. I was told in my JW days that all bibles are the same, and ours are the same as KJV but it turns out that they differ, NWT is nothing like the KJV.

What I found about these studies is that the Evangelists are genuinely confused because they use the KJV so they believe in the trinity, the virgen birth and hell fire, other interesting things I learned about the NASB catholics too. What I found after reading books on how the bible came about, it was interesting to know that the old English bibles (geneva and KJC in the 16th century ) were actually based on newer manuscripts with changed words and added texts, which religions based their beliefs, the problem with that is once a religion is establish and a better translation with support of older manuscripts cames out, that religion has no choice but to demonise the other version of the bible/religion.

The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (Textus Receptus / Stephanus / Byzantine Majority / Orthodox Church) and more recently Westcott & Hort rejected it, their research is based on Alexandrian (Nestle, et al. texts based on Vaticanus and W & H publication The New Testament in the Original Greek is used in the NWT, NIV and others.

So what happens when an Evangelist is presented with a bible that uses its NT source from the W & H book? take a guess.

http://www.theshepherdsvoice.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

1 Question

Are all bibles the same? NO

Let me add that I have the Kingdom Interlinear and the Interlinear bible and I never expected the NT original Greek to differ from each book. This is what made me look into all this.

TO BE CONTINUED

19

The bible crisis thread

by Joey Jo-Jo in

ill start from the beggining.

i was a non bathtised jw who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth".

i never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth".

Joey Jo-Jo

Black Sheep: I was using JW lingo, I will get to that.

19

The bible crisis thread

by Joey Jo-Jo in

ill start from the beggining.

i was a non bathtised jw who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth".

i never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth".

Joey Jo-Jo

Ill start from the beggining

I was a non bathtised JW who had spend most of my 30 years in the "truth". I never was too serious about applying myself to it but my mind was set that this was the "truth". Later I wanted to take the extra step on getting bathtised so I started to take things more seriously, but during my bible study I read books which sparked my curiosity, a more liberal approached, I wanted to see what all sides of religion say and how do they stack up with the Jehovah's witnesses. Long story cut short after reading COC and ISOCF I was no longer interested in the "truth", I read a new completely different view of the bible.

I decide that since the bible is God's word then it should be read, no more human reasoning, I wanted to explain the bible to someone and not the other way around, so I read the ESV study bible, 4 in 1 bible KJV AMP NASB NIV, strongs... etc.

What I found about these studies is that the Evangelists are genuinely confused because they use the KJV so they believe in the trinity, the virgen birth and hell fire, other interesting things I learned about the NASB catholics too. What I found after reading books on how the bible came about, it was interesting to know that the old English bibles (geneva and KJC in the 16th century ) were actually based on newer manuscripts, what happened was that this gave birth to religions. TO BE CONTINUED.

20

I can spot JW's a mile away....

by lalaa in

jw
friends

so earlier today i was having lunch with my sister when 3 ladies walked in to the restaurant.

one in her early 20's..one in her late 30's early 40's and the last one maybe somewhere in her 50's.

when i looked up and glanced at them i said to my sister that i bet those are jw's since they were all dressed in service clothes.

Joey Jo-Jo

Good one Moshe, I might use that one some day.

111

Can we understand the Bible without the Watchtower?

by brotherdan in

not according to c.t russell.

in the september 15, 1910 wt he made these shocking claims regarding the 6 scripture studies that he wrote:.

"that is to say, they are not merely comments on the bible, but they are practically the bible itself...".

Joey Jo-Jo

PSacramento wrote: Well, Mel's movie was pretty intense !

So intense that most of the movie was not bible inspired.

59

BrotherDan's POV

by PSacramento in

jw
friends

brotherdan seems to have left and before he did he psoted this:.

so this is goodbye.

thanks for the help in getting out of the cult.

Joey Jo-Jo

Just like a big community, you will have a lot of different personalities with different believes and views, and in the community there are rules, these rules do not undermine who we are as individuals but these rules could be lacking in this forum..maybe not.

I understand Dan's views because once I was reading the KJV and Walter Martin books which he is an evangelist, what I wanted to point to him is that the bible is not a flawless book which you can use Mark to make a point in John (I AM IAM john is the only book in the NT that has I AM), there are 2 versions of Jesus birth and 2 versions of Jesus death, two versions of Judas death, 4 versions of Jesus tomb etc, and most NT uses the book of Mark.

there is a lot of material out there that I think people should read with an open mind, the same when a JW reads an apostate book so should a EX JW on other matters, in the end its our decision and nobody should make that decision for us.

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

Joey Jo-Jo

According to the book Gentile Times Reconsidered there are 17 lines of evidence (both secular and biblical) that points to 586BCE, there is also a review of Furuli's work on the appendix pages that proves all Furuli's theories wrong.

Not only that he proves 607BCE is wrong, but also that the bible is in harmony with 586BCE, Jeremiah, Daniel and others.

89

Thanks and Goodbye

by brotherdan in

jw
friends

i really do appreciate all the help you guys have given me in this process.

but it's time for me to leave.

it was time for me to leave the wt (at least in my mind) when it became damaging to me.

Joey Jo-Jo

Bye Dan and Bon voyage, I'll miss you and that juicy brain of yours. I found a lot of your posts usefull.

Joey (Not my real name, you can never be to carefull with these JW ninjas)

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

Joey Jo-Jo

All my confusion started from the KJV of 1 Tim.3:16 “God was manifested in the flesh, this was the most direct support for trinity however its false because older greek scripts had "He" instead of "God"

According to evangelists trinity is something that could not fully understood it its supported in the bible, lets make it perfectly clear that Jesus or the apostles never said that you most believe in the deity of trinity..never. Hate to say it but JW has some good material about trinity, but I dont agree that its pagan, JW literature are quick to demonise trinity by saying that its pagan because they dont want people to know of all the different greek manuscripts that came from the bible, to the point that scribes were changing things so the bible in a whole could be read in context (not really, its still full with contradictions)