Jump to content
The World News Media

Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member
22 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

*Corrections

These spiritistic practices are not being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.  They have not slaughtered those on the earth or encouraged the masses to succumb to traveling merchants or materialistic goods.

4)  There were ones appointed as judges in the congregation to set matters straight between brothers or whereby certain ones were to be removed from among them.  However, only Jesus would be the one to judge someone's eternal salvation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 8.5k
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jesus always referred to God as Father, which should help us realize there is more than just pronouncing his name in order to know him.  Jesus made mention many times that by accepting him and his tea

Quite agree. Prostrating oneself involves more Prostrate oneself 1. Lit. to lay oneself out in respect or obedience in front of someone or something. Fall down   to drop or to

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said: "yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?" Based on John 5:23: "all may hon

  • Member
1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Instead of being herded as sheep, they wander about butting heads like goats.

This is because they do not have the "Good Shepard" as their master. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an organization. 

 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Words such as "organization", or "governing body" seem to be a big bone of contention when it should not.  These are just descriptive terms.

 do you mean like Trinity and Hell? 

 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Therefore two (2) initials of a website designed for dispensing information about God's kingdom can hardly be considered worship or bowing down to an idol. 

Directing people to a website for salvation IS idolatry, especially when we should be pointing people to Jesus for salvation as the Bible says we should.  

 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

I support the preaching of God's kingdom and if that appears bias with regard to the society or "organization", I certainly do not apologize for their endless efforts toward that goal.

I think your goal and the goal of the society are not one in the same. I was just overlooking at the "text of the day" threads and saw that conveniently the society had not fully quoted a scripture. This causes one to only see what the society wants them to see. Thus the objective is not the same for the follower as it is for the leaders. I can elaborate if needed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
40 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

This is because they do not have the "Good Shepard" as their master. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an organization. 

 

 do you mean like Trinity and Hell? 

 

Directing people to a website for salvation IS idolatry, especially when we should be pointing people to Jesus for salvation as the Bible says we should.  

 

I think your goal and the goal of the society are not one in the same. I was just overlooking at the "text of the day" threads and saw that conveniently the society had not fully quoted a scripture. This causes one to only see what the society wants them to see. Thus the objective is not the same for the follower as it is for the leaders. I can elaborate if needed.  

Hi Shiwii,

The comment about the goats was not directed at the society for we are not wandering about, but well organized in carrying out the ministry work and take care to study with new ones for several years including after baptism.  The remark was a little sarcasm on my part that if there is no organization or structure in place for a congregation or gatherings to receive direction to aid in following through in our ministry, we would be as Jesus said like sheep without a shepherd, or constantly butting heads like goats, not knowing what to do or either arguing tossed and blown about like so much of the world. 

 

Yes, I agree terms like Trinity or hellfire would be describing certain concepts, also like rapture, Lord's prayer, Lord's Evening Meal, Memorial, etc.

 

If you notice, I stated the website is to point people to information about the kingdom and of course there is information about Jesus, the ruler of God's kingdom.  Once there people can learn how they can put faith in Jesus and receive everlasting life by means of him.  We can't get to everyone simply going door to door, so some media will be needed.  I don't think a website providing information about God is wrong especially if they can have access to the Bible and encouraged to read it.  Most churches now also use websites or television to get their message out.  I've visited many of them.

 

I'm not sure I want to get into another round or subject at this point as I really need to catch up on some things and get ready to work the rest of the week.  I'm sure I'll have to restrain myself from answering Witness again.  However as far as scriptures go, we are encouraged to read all the scriptures.  That's why they are quoted for reference.  I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. 

 

Thank you for your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
56 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Hi Shiwii,

The comment about the goats was not directed at the society for we are not wandering about, but well organized in carrying out the ministry work and take care to study with new ones for several years including after baptism.  The remark was a little sarcasm on my part that if there is no organization or structure in place for a congregation or gatherings to receive direction to aid in following through in our ministry, we would be as Jesus said like sheep without a shepherd, or constantly butting heads like goats, not knowing what to do or either arguing tossed and blown about like so much of the world.

So by organized, you mean changing doctrines and interpretations as the need suits? For example the organ transplant ban and lift, not really knowing who your faithful and humble servants were until recently? and the people of Sodom and Gamorrah being resurrected? Do those changes demonstrate organization and sheparding?

 

"Yes, I agree terms like Trinity or hellfire would be describing certain concepts, also like rapture, Lord's prayer, Lord's Evening Meal, Memorial, etc."

Good, glad to see you do not hold the hard and fast rule among most witnesses. 

 

"If you notice, I stated the website is to point people to information about the kingdom and of course there is information about Jesus, the ruler of God's kingdom.  Once there people can learn how they can put faith in Jesus and receive everlasting life by means of him. "

Isn't that suppose to be the Bible and not a website that you agree misquotes not only scholars but also the Bible? See my answer below.

 

"I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

Would you not deem this as a sort of dishonesty? Especially if it taken out of context to promote a view point of the society? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
38 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

So by organized, you mean changing doctrines and interpretations as the need suits? For example the organ transplant ban and lift, not really knowing who your faithful and humble servants were until recently? and the people of Sodom and Gamorrah being resurrected? Do those changes demonstrate organization and sheparding?

 

"Yes, I agree terms like Trinity or hellfire would be describing certain concepts, also like rapture, Lord's prayer, Lord's Evening Meal, Memorial, etc."

Good, glad to see you do not hold the hard and fast rule among most witnesses. 

 

"If you notice, I stated the website is to point people to information about the kingdom and of course there is information about Jesus, the ruler of God's kingdom.  Once there people can learn how they can put faith in Jesus and receive everlasting life by means of him. "

Isn't that suppose to be the Bible and not a website that you agree misquotes not only scholars but also the Bible? See my answer below.

 

"I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

Would you not deem this as a sort of dishonesty? Especially if it taken out of context to promote a view point of the society? 

My exact words were:  " well organized in carrying out the ministry work and take care to study with new ones for several years including after baptism."  Please don't twist my words. 

As far as different doctrines, I don't expect the society to be totally infallible in their understanding and neither have they ever said they were.  As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land. 

 

I also did not use the word misquote.  You continue to twist my words.  Not including a whole quote does not mean something is misquoted but part of the quote may have filler marks such as  . . .  so and not to take up a lot of extra unnecessary space or a whole page of opinions.  I have done this today several times which it was not any intentional dishonesty on my part.  If I do not use a whole quote or even if I do, I still try to give the website or reference for ones to check it for themselves or the exact Bible verse(s) to look up.  At the same time, it's best to check the original source or reference to get a clear picture of the author's context or opinions instead of just my view, the society, or the views of someone else. 

Also please excuse if I cannot respond, I really have some things to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

P.S.  It's also  hard to get a Bible in the hand of billions of people.  Many have tried and been unsuccessful.  People have easier access to cellphone or iphones where they can download a Bible to their phones to read.  On the website it encourage people to read God's word the Bible or download a copy.   I surely can't understand why people fail to see the effectiveness of a website in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

As far as different doctrines, I don't expect the society to be totally infallible in their understanding and neither have they ever said they were.  

But they require you to believe them as if they were, no?

As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land. 

So what? Does their wrong make the wrongs of the society right?

I also did not use the word misquote.  You continue to twist my words.  

I quoted you, it was you who said "Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

I did not twist your words, you admit that to get the context of the source the society quoted, you must look it up yourself and NOT rely on the society.  

If you think I did misquoted you, then do you feel that it was dishonest?  Is that not what I'm trying to say about the society? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
58 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

As far as different doctrines, I don't expect the society to be totally infallible in their understanding and neither have they ever said they were.  

But they require you to believe them as if they were, no?

As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land. 

So what? Does their wrong make the wrongs of the society right?

I also did not use the word misquote.  You continue to twist my words.  

I quoted you, it was you who said "Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

I did not twist your words, you admit that to get the context of the source the society quoted, you must look it up yourself and NOT rely on the society.  

If you think I did misquoted you, then do you feel that it was dishonest?  Is that not what I'm trying to say about the society? 

 

I hope I'm not going to be up all night again.

I personally have never been told I have to agree with everything in every publication whether old or new.  In the meetings, different brothers and sisters will give their understanding of what certain verses may mean which may not be exactly in accord with what's written in a publication and sometimes the elders don't know or ask us to go research it and let them know the next time we meet.

 

Wrong is wrong whether it's the society or those among any of the religions or Christendom, either intentional or unintentional. 

 

I believe this is your statement:  "Isn't that suppose to be the Bible and not a website that you agree misquotes not only scholars but also the Bible? See my answer below."

 

Perhaps it was unintentional on your part to take my words out of context so I won't hold it against you.  If the society lists a quote to make a point, it doesn't make it a misquote such as changing entire words, anymore than I would quote part of a verse for emphasis or to make a point.  However, to get a fuller perspective, it's best to read the original author's full statement to get a better sense of things.  Many Christians or publications quote other references or parts of scripture.  I don't automatically assume they are trying to mislead but I know the verse they quote may not be entirely in the context of the chapter or surrounding verses.  I also don't want to just depend on one source or the society for my infomation, so some quotes (NOT ALL), I look up to make sure I get the full quote especially if only part of the quote is listed.

 

If you are dishonest or the society, you won't be the first.  There are plenty of dishonest persons and prophets in the Bible.  They were still favored by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

I personally have never been told I have to agree with everything in every publication whether old or new.  In the meetings, different brothers and sisters will give their understanding of what certain verses may mean which may not be exactly in accord with what's written in a publication and sometimes the elders don't know or ask us to go research it and let them know the next time we meet.

This is the most vague answer about this as I have seen.  You may not be aware, or you just may be allowing yourself to be unaware, I cannot say. What I can say is that all jw's are to adhere to the societies interpretation without question. If your understanding of scripture deviates from the societies, you are corrected/reproved and if you do not accept the societies view, you are "labeled". You do not have to respond to this portion of our conversation, as you already have, but I cannot accept your answer on this. 

 

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

Wrong is wrong whether it's the society or those among any of the religions or Christendom, either intentional or unintentional. 

 

13 hours ago, JaniceM said:

As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land.

So then what was the point of your statement? Was it not to show just how the wrongs of the society are the same, or less wrong then that of other groups?

 

15 hours ago, JaniceM said:

However as far as scriptures go, we are encouraged to read all the scriptures.  That's why they are quoted for reference.  I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. 

I copied this for reference so we can be clear as to what you did say without digging into the thread. It does seem pretty clear from this statement that you DO see what I am trying to say and admittedly notice that the society has at times quoted out of context. You did not use the word "misquote" but the concept is there.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

If the society lists a quote to make a point, it doesn't make it a misquote such as changing entire words, anymore than I would quote part of a verse for emphasis or to make a point. 

I never said changing words, I said quote out of context by omitting the full quote, thus changing the meaning.

 

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

However, to get a fuller perspective, it's best to read the original author's full statement to get a better sense of things.  Many Christians or publications quote other references or parts of scripture.  I don't automatically assume they are trying to mislead but I know the verse they quote may not be entirely in the context of the chapter or surrounding verses.  I also don't want to just depend on one source or the society for my infomation, so some quotes (NOT ALL), I look up to make sure I get the full quote especially if only part of the quote is listed.

yes, I agree it is best to research the quote. I am in complete agreement. Have you ever found where the society has quoted only portions of something, leaving out information that is in direct opposition to their claim the quote said,  to fit their agenda?

If not, I will give you a perfect example:

In the reasoning book under the section for "cross" there is a quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary and it reads :

"The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376."

The actual rendering has a bit more to say. I will have to type this out as I cannot cut and paste it, but I will provide you with a link to the entire book online. It has been made readily available in such a way that it cannot be mistaken. I have also gone and physically held this book and seen it with my own eyes. omitted parts are underlined:

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries.Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment. A traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however always even then...  -https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/376/mode/1up

The article continues to talk about a pole that pierces a person from the rectum and up through the mouth. Also it talks about the different shapes used in crucifixion, X, T and the traditional cross.

"But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not precisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus t- and making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered" -  https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/377/mode/1up

 

Now does this sound as if it supports the societies view of the cross or the exact opposite once read in full context? 

It is by these omissions they change the meaning to fit their agenda. That was my point of not fully quoting a scripture, you can make the Bible say whatever you want if you only quote what you want and not what the context really means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This is the most vague answer about this as I have seen.  You may not be aware, or you just may be allowing yourself to be unaware, I cannot say. What I can say is that all jw's are to adhere to the societies interpretation without question. If your understanding of scripture deviates from the societies, you are corrected/reproved and if you do not accept the societies view, you are "labeled". You do not have to respond to this portion of our conversation, as you already have, but I cannot accept your answer on this. 

 

 

So then what was the point of your statement? Was it not to show just how the wrongs of the society are the same, or less wrong then that of other groups?

 

I copied this for reference so we can be clear as to what you did say without digging into the thread. It does seem pretty clear from this statement that you DO see what I am trying to say and admittedly notice that the society has at times quoted out of context. You did not use the word "misquote" but the concept is there.

I never said changing words, I said quote out of context by omitting the full quote, thus changing the meaning.

 

yes, I agree it is best to research the quote. I am in complete agreement. Have you ever found where the society has quoted only portions of something, leaving out information that is in direct opposition to their claim the quote said,  to fit their agenda?

If not, I will give you a perfect example:

In the reasoning book under the section for "cross" there is a quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary and it reads :

"The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376."

 

The actual rendering has a bit more to say. I will have to type this out as I cannot cut and paste it, but I will provide you with a link to the entire book online. It has been made readily available in such a way that it cannot be mistaken. I have also gone and physically held this book and seen it with my own eyes. omitted parts are underlined:

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries.Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment. A traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however always even then...  -https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/376/mode/1up

The article continues to talk about a pole that pierces a person from the rectum and up through the mouth. Also it talks about the different shapes used in crucifixion, X, T and the traditional cross.

"But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not precisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus t- and making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered" -  https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/377/mode/1up

 

Now does this sound as if it supports the societies view of the cross or the exact opposite once read in full context? 

It is by these omissions they change the meaning to fit their agenda. That was my point of not fully quoting a scripture, you can make the Bible say whatever you want if you only quote what you want and not what the context really means.  

Shiwii,

You would have to show me where we have to adhere to every interpretation of scripture or what policy says that.  I have never been taught that.  If at the meetings we give different thoughts on what a verse means no one says that's wrong or you are going to be reproved for saying that.  Of course there are basic tenants of faith we all must adhere to or we would not be Jehovah's Witnesses.  If I suddenly start saying God is a Trinity, that is a against a main tenant of our belief and of course I would get a talking to and if I continued to harass the congregation at meetings and everyone that would listen to me, this would most definitely cause problems.

 

I made my point that wrong is wrong.  Whether is was unknowingly making a mistake or intentionally doing wrong against others.

 

I'm not sure what part of the world you are from but when I grew up in school misquote and taking out of context is entirely two different things.

I looked up the word misquote from two different dictionaries:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/misquote

verb 1.  to quote (a text, speech, etc) inaccurately

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misquote

 

1. to quote incorrectly.

2.  Also, mis`quo•ta′tion. an incorrect quotation.

 

My understanding of misquote is to change words from what was actually stated.  Quoting part of a statement is not a misquote but it may not be in the full context of what the author intended.  I quote parts of references or scholarly opinions all the time.  I don't misquote them just because I want to make my point.  However, if room permits, I try to post other parts of a statement that may not agree with me so people can get enough information to make their own decisions.

 

For example, many Christians depending on how their Bible reads will say, 'I and the Father are one', to support a Trinity.  This is not a misquote but only part of a chapter of verses.  If we go to the Bible and read the whole chapter or book, the context would be that Jesus said he wanted all his disciples to be one, not part of a Trinity.  Therefore, it's best to get the full understanding of what is meant then just one person's point of view or how they use a quote for their viewpoint.

 

Concerning the cross, I've read many articles on it and some writings that said it was in the shape of the letter T or some others say it was just an upright tree.  I know there was probably a large sign above Jesus head so that may have made it look like the letter T.  I'm not sure, I wasn't there.  The most important thing is Jesus died so that we can have life.

 

At some point I'm going to have to leave the forum for I have been on for about 24 hours or more.  So If I don't answer back try to find someone else to talk to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
36 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

You would have to show me where we have to adhere to every interpretation of scripture or what policy says that.  I have never been taught that.  If at the meetings we give different thoughts on what a verse means no one says that's wrong or you are going to be reproved for saying that.  Of course there are basic tenants of faith we all must adhere to or we would not be Jehovah's Witnesses.  If I suddenly start saying God is a Trinity, that is a against a main tenant of our belief and of course I would get a talking to and if I continued to harass the congregation at meetings and everyone that would listen to me, this would most definitely cause problems.

If you need me to dig up something I will, but I think you know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to admit it.

 

38 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

I'm not sure what part of the world you are from but when I grew up in school misquote and taking out of context is entirely two different things.

I looked up the word misquote from two different dictionaries:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/misquote

verb 1.  to quote (a text, speech, etc) inaccurately

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misquote

 

1. to quote incorrectly.

2.  Also, mis`quo•ta′tion. an incorrect quotation.

 

Now you just want to argue semantics instead of the subject. If you must, then it is actually a citation and not a quotation. I can understand why you want to do your best to sidetrack the point, to defend the society. 

 

40 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Concerning the cross, I've read many articles on it and some writings that said it was in the shape of the letter T or some others say it was just an upright tree.  I know there was probably a large sign above Jesus head so that may have made it look like the letter T.  I'm not sure, I wasn't there.  The most important thing is Jesus died so that we can have life.

You missed the point. What was cited by the society was misleading based on what they wanted the source to say and what the actual source said. The implication was that the Imperial Bible Dictionary supported the views of the society, when in fact the opposite is true. This type of practice is throughout the publications of the WT and they have been sued because of misrepresentation before. The dishonesty and misleading is the point I was trying to make about not citing the full text/context.

It matters not if Jesus died on a cross, or a stake or a milk crate, He died for our sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

If you need me to dig up something I will, but I think you know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to admit it.

 

 

Now you just want to argue semantics instead of the subject. If you must, then it is actually a citation and not a quotation. I can understand why you want to do your best to sidetrack the point, to defend the society. 

 

You missed the point. What was cited by the society was misleading based on what they wanted the source to say and what the actual source said. The implication was that the Imperial Bible Dictionary supported the views of the society, when in fact the opposite is true. This type of practice is throughout the publications of the WT and they have been sued because of misrepresentation before. The dishonesty and misleading is the point I was trying to make about not citing the full text/context.

It matters not if Jesus died on a cross, or a stake or a milk crate, He died for our sins.

 

If there's an official policy that says we have to agree with every interpretation of scripture, I would like to see it.  However, I'm in a bit of wonderment and awe as to the obsession with everything the society does and says.  Most churches I went to, you had to abide by their rules, policy or what they believed.  If one church said no pants, we could only wear dresses.  However if the society said men wear ties, it's a major crime against humanity. (smile)

 

Although I'm not quite sure the reason behind the attitude, I can understand why you don't know the difference between misquote and out of context.  I understand how the society will use certain quotes to support certain reasoning on the scriptures, however, I may not entirely agree with them or the author of the quote.  Also, any publisher of documents, their families or agents can sue the Watchtower if they feel their words have been misquoted in any of the publications.  I would think for the most part they have quoted accurately, for if the majority of publications were misquotes of other people's work, the lawsuits would be too numerous for the society to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.