It's been a while :-)

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2018-jan-feb/bible-guidance-relevant/

 

 

 

A topic that is being offered for discussion this month. Some may find it interesting xxx

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next mood swing in 6 minutes
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Message 1 of 487
See Most Recent
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

It's been a while :-)

BS, you said: Not a hypocrte?? Really? To deny that God is the creator,  while he claims to be the  holy father and the bible as Gods word. MMMMMMM 

 

Before you shout down the Pope ......He did NOT deny that God is the creator.  You have not read what he said correctly.  He said that both scientific theories (Big Bang and Evolution) were not incompatible with the existence of a creator

 

Here’s the original comment in context, which makes it clear he neither said nor meant that God was less than Divine:

 

"God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve."

 

 

You said: Thankfully I understand genetics myself, and it does't and can't prove eveolution becauss it is impossible to get something living from something non living.

 

But do you understand what eolution means? As the Pope knows, evolution does NOT mean getting something living from something that isn’t, so your understanding of what evolution means is flawed. First you need life to begin before it evolves.  The mechanism  for natural selection exists, without any doubt, and evolution continues . 

 

 

In other places you have not read what I said, but have assumed I have been referring to JWs when I have not . 

 

You say:  As I have said before JW's are NOT creationalist wE do not follow the belief that God created the earth In 6,000 literal years.

 

Nowhere did I say that JWs believe either that the earth was created IN 6000 years, or that they believe the earth is less than 6000-10000 years old. I mentioned an example of another religious group who do believe this, and many Americans, but I did not mention JWs.

 

But while we are on the number 6000, am I right in thinking that JWs believe that humans, via Adam and then Eve, only came into being around 4000 years BC and that they have an allotted span of about 6000 years earthly existence before Armageddon? I gather that this was to occur during the lifetime of people alive in 1914, but since the deadline of the failed prophecies has passed and nothing happened in 1975, the prophecy has been amended to ‘soon’?

 

So much for the earliest known fossil Homo sapiens found recently that was dated as being 300,000 years old, using 2 different dating methods, 100,000 years older than previously discovered  remains of H.sapiens, of which many exist between 100,000 and 200,00 years old.  A long way off that 6000 years for Adam and Eve, but I suppose that JWs don’t believe the validity of scientific dating methods either? Or are these fossil remains another wheeze planted by God?  

 

With regard to JWs ‘not being creationists’, perhaps you can give me your / Jehovah’s Witness definition of what a creationist is, if it does not mean a rejection of evolution – something I thought that you do not believe in.

 

This definition is what I think it means to be a creationist : Creationists are those who reject modern scientific theories and laws, especially evolution, over their old religious doctrines which they happen to be loyal to.

 

 

You said: I certainly agree that religion ha s got a lot to answer for for the state of this world and its conficts.  But we shouldnt be blaming God. 

 

Who is blaming God?  I didn’t say that.  It’s people who are the problem, who create conflict in the name of religion.  Pretty much what you have agreed

 

 

You said: True christians ignore nothing of the bible

 

What, no alterations or distortions in the New World Translation?  That’s a whole can of worms that I have no inclination to get in to.  Each to our own beliefs and interpretations about what and why the founders of the JWs selected and discarded from ancient biblical texts.

All that we are is what we have thought.
Message 87 of 487
See Most Recent
486 REPLIES 486

It's been a while :-)

As none of the many viewers has bothered to reply, I'll do so, perhaps start the ball rolling?

 

To start with, I have read all the pages in your link.

 

Now the first question comes from the title, the question being "Which Bible"? The Bible has changed down the ages.

 

Some of the historical "facts" are wrong, the dates ascribed to some writings are way out. The way the writer of your link puts things over seems to imply that Genesis was written first. It wasn't.

 

Over the millenia, the majority of people were illiterate and it's said that the many and varied "teachings" were memorised. That reminds me of the old illustration of repetition distortion. "Send reinforcements, we're going to attack, pass it on" being corrupted to "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance". OK, daft saying but relevant and illustrative of what I mean.

 

Now, is the guidance relevant today? Well, yes, a lot of it is if you ignore the blind faith. You can be a good and decent person if you "do unto others....."

 

Compare if you will the Sermon on the Mount to the Sermon on the Plain and the many variations? There are many and varied iterpretations so "which" one do you "accept"

 

It all sorts of leads on to theories and theorems. A theory has yet to be proven and in a way is just a belief. A theorem can be proven like (the best known?)  that of Pythogorus. Just try to make a right angled triangle that disproves that "The square on the hypotenuse is equal the the sum of the squares on the other two sides"?

 

You can theorise this that or the other about the Universe but only some things can be proven as fact. We "believe"....... proving it is harder.

 

Where does "belief" become "faith" and where does such faith become "blind faith"?

 

Where does the belief that blanking a person who decides "the cult" is no longer for them or questions "the cult" is socially acceptable taking all that has been written down the ages and really, is "the cult" itself socially acceptable all things considered and especially so regarding all that has been written? If you accept all that has been written, just where does such blanking occur in those writings without taking a couple of "references" to extremes,  completely out of context or adding to them?

 

 



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 2 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Hello Busty!🙂 I don't think you'll get much in the way of debate on this subject on here...we have done religion to death in the past!

But...in answer to your question, My own view is that there are aspects of the bible that are always relevant. Not the bits that refer to events of the past, but the bits that tell us how to live our lives in a good way, and how to be kind and care for others that we meet along the path of our lives. I haven't read the tracts that you linked to...as it is just another person's take on the Bible.  There are parts of the Bible that are dry and dusty and unbelievable, but there are also parts that are breathtakingly beautiful, and some people who are not necessarily believers still enjoy reading them, so in that sense they are still relevant.

I'm afraid I don't have that 'blind' faith that you have, admirable though it is. It seems to me that the number of atheists is growing, mainly because of the failure of the established church to engage with people. They fail to tell people that one can follow Christian values and be good people without actually being a 'Christian'. I don't attend Church, but in the face of the religion of Islam becoming the dominant religion in this country, I would actually stand up for Christian values, and return to Church, although some might find that hypocritical. Can one be Christian without a belief in God? Now there's a question!

Message 3 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

You can certainly follow Christian values and not "believe". The thing is, Jesus wasn't a "Christian", he lived and died a Jew!

 

What makes for religious disent is that all of them seem to revolve around religious "Laws" and "compulsions" under threat of dire consequences if "The Law" is not followed (religiously?).



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 4 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Of course Jesus was a Christian! He may have been a Jew, but being Jesus Christ himself, then he was the very first Christian.You are correct when you say that one can follow Christian values and not 'believe', but would the established church welcome people who would like to follow those teachings, but who cannot have a belief in any God. I have often wondered how many people who belong to the established Church actually do believe in God, and the concept of Heaven and an afterlife. I also wonder what would happen if we had an heir to the throne who was an atheist? Could such an heir be 'Defender of the Faith while actually not be a believer in the Faith?

I don't think Busty had this kind of debate in mind when she posed the question, but there you go...religion is a mine field!

Message 5 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Jesus was born, lived and was a Jew at his death. It was his followers who began what was to become Christianity.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 6 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19].

Message 7 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

I think many people are not well read and take many things out of contect.

 

The gospels are conflicting and contradictory at times.

 

John the Baptist was a Jew and he baptised Jesus. Some of the followers of J the B later followed Jesus and the sayings of JC were not written down until long after his death. How historically correct are all the writings is open to conjecture leading people to believe what part(s) they choose to believe. Other people choose to believe different parts.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 8 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

The Bible is an interesting piece of literature but as a divinely inspired collection of writings, it does fall rather short.

 

Firstly it was compiled by a group of church leaders using the writings which they considered most represented their point of view and secondly, it is open to many interpretations which would seem quite contrary to divine inspiration.

 

One would have expected a god to have made his word clear for all to understand without any contradictions, his meaning being abundantly plain.

___________________________________________________________
Parents of young, organic life forms are warned that towels can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.
Message 9 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Another "difficulty" was that the original "sayings" were in Aramaic or Hebrew and translations in to Greek & etc were a bit conmplicated by the same or similar words having different meanings. Mix in various dialects and you've got added complications in translation.

 

Some of the Old Testament are/were corruptions of the Tanakh and Torah so how much was picked/chosen/discarded is anyone's guess.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 10 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Although whatever Jesus said in his sermons was most likely in Aramaic it would have been written in Greek by people fluent in both.  Greek had been the "international" language for several centuries, since Alexander conquered the area and was used by anyone considered "educated" for business, legal or literary texts.  Even personal correspondence would have been written in Greek precisely to avoid imprecise translation.  The xenophobic Romans learned Greek as part of their education not just because of their cultural heritage but for the practical reason that it was the language of administration in "The East"  --  the most important part of their empire.

 

If things were altered in translation it's more likely to have happened centuries later when copyists who were not fluent in Greek tried to translate the Greek texts into Latin.

 

The Greek of the time was perfectly capable of transmitting the subtleties of theology.  The original schism in the early church concerning the exact natures of God the father, God the son and the relationship between them were debated at the conclaves of Nicea and Chalcedon in Greek, presided over by Roman Emperors who took part in the debates.

 

What went into the New Testament, or was left out, was quite possibly political or just what suited whoever was compiling the book at the time but the original Greek texts were probably a reasonably accurate record of what was actually said. 

 

 

Message 11 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Smiley HappySorted

Petal
Message 12 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

As a general point, human morality does not depend on religion, it is completely independent of religion.

Religion does however, depend on human morality.

 

The Bible actually teaches nothing that isn't already inherent, the idea that somehow religious belief, particularly Christianity, is needed to be moral is a falsehood pushed by those who wish to assert authority and control.

 

Also Christianity with the New Testament cannot be separated from the Old Testament which can hardly be said to show great moral examples with its stories of authorised slaughter, revenge on the innocent, slavery etc.

___________________________________________________________
Parents of young, organic life forms are warned that towels can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.
Message 13 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Look at it logically? Really, Jesus was talking to the people on many occasions but was anyone there taking notes in Greek? Why would they do that? Let's face it, they wouldn't.

 

At the time (very early CE) there were many who were coming out with all sorts of stuff and Jesus was just one of them so why take notes at the time?

 

Being generous with logic, even if the accounts were written during the first century CE, they were still written "from memory". As with everything, say something often enough and people accept it, right or wrong.

 

As with UFO's and crop circles, people believe what they want to believe..........



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 14 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

There is also a matter of who could say what went on when Jesus was supposed to have been alone.

___________________________________________________________
Parents of young, organic life forms are warned that towels can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.
Message 15 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

I agree, we should look at it logically and part of the logic is the historic context.  I've followed some of the similar discussions and both sides have seemed to miss out the context and only looked at the subject through 21st century eyes.

 

I think that there are two points where a lack of context has led you to false assumptions.  

 

You said that as the original "sayings" were in Aramaic there would be problems of translation into Greek.  I doubt this because at the time the society was effectively bi-lingual.  Greek was the "official"  language of business, law etc.  Education would have included learning Greek as a necessity for "getting on" in the world.  Both Jesus and most of his audience would have had at least a working knowledge of Greek and he could have peppered his sermons with Greek words to explain exactly what he meant.  Most of his audience wouldn't have found this sort of borrowing at all unusual.

 

You ask " Was anyone taking notes in Greek?  Why would they do that? Let's face it, they wouldn't."  Again I agree with you, they wouldn't.  But because they didn't need to.  Although they were bi-lingual and semi, if not fully literate they relied on the written word far less than we do.  Writing was far more difficult in their time than ours and they relied on their memories far more.  To assume that their memory was likely to be as faulty as ours often is looking through our eyes, not theirs.  They didn't rely nearly as much on the crutch of notes for accurate recall.  I would say that with their better trained memories they would be able to pass on what was said quiet accurately, especially if it was important to them and at the time the question of the Messiah was important.

 

As you say "At the time (very early CE) there were many....... Jesus was just one of them, so why take notes.....".   That's very important context.  From Egypt to Antioch the whole area was anticipating the arrival of a Messiah.  Augustus had been hailed as "sebastios", the saviour by the Greeks in the area.  Antony and Cleopatra had named their children Helios and Selene to try to get on the band-wagon and there were numerous other contenders.  We can't make any sense of the rise of Christianity, or its relevance today, by looking at it in isolation only within the context of its time.  

Message 16 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Jesus lived and died a Jew so as well as Aeamaic he's have spoken Hebrew too. Whether he'd be fluent in Greek is less likely although he might have had some knowledge of it.

 

When he'd be addressing his "audience", who do you think he was mostly speaking to? They'd be mostly Aramaic/Hebrew speakers therefore he'd have been speaking to them in a language in which he and they were fluent.

 

Yes, Greek was "common" within the Roman Empire as such but.... the language of the (mostly illiterate) people was Aramaic.

 

Is it likely that Jesus mostly addressed Greek-fluent literate scholars? = No.

 

It's asking a lot to expect illiterate people of that time to have perfect recall of what was said to them unless it was just oft-said "prayers". Long and rambling "lectures" wouldn't have perfect recall but a few "important" points might be long-remembered.

 

As to the long anticipated arrival of a Messiah, well, is it any different from the long proclaimed end of the World? Say it often enough and it'll get believed? The end of the World is coming...... but it's a long time off yet.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 17 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Hi all 🙂
We'll I must say thank you for replying. I held off from reading and replying because I really thought that I would get a negative response and just the usual ridicule, how mistaken I was. Xx

Of course there are one or two points in a few posts I would correct or put my opinion on but really I think those are probably known, and you are stating yours but otherwise it was all I could have asked for a discussion on the topic I posted. Thank you. Xxx

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next mood swing in 6 minutes
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Message 18 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

To continue the thoght, very relevant.

 

With respect the articles within need to be read. xx

 

 

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no6-2017-december/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next mood swing in 6 minutes
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Message 19 of 487
See Most Recent

It's been a while :-)

Didn't mean that to sound rude, I am sorry but I ran out of edit time.

 

 

I was trying to say.

 

 

With respect the articles within need to be read for the points of relevance (I was making) to be noted.  xx  Woman Happy

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next mood swing in 6 minutes
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Message 20 of 487
See Most Recent