Jump to content

Guest Nicole

Popular medications linked to higher risk of kidney failure

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Guest Nicole -
Elisabeth Dolewka -
4
829

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Guest Nicole

(CNN)Taking one of the most-prescribed medications in the world -- proton pump inhibitors -- might dramatically increase a person's risk for kidney failure and kidney disease, new research suggests. The study was released Thursday in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

Doctors prescribe proton pump inhibitors, also known as PPIs, to help people who suffer from regular heart burn, ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux disease or acid reflux. They are sold under the names Prevacid, Prilosec, Nexium, Protonix, Aciphex and others. About 15 million Americans have prescriptions for them, although people can get them without a prescription -- so the number who use them is likely much higher.

The medications are popular because they relieve symptoms pretty quickly. It was also thought that they had a low toxicity.

Looking at data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the study's authors found 173,321 people who used PPIs and 20,270 took a PPI alternative known as histamine H2 receptor blockers. The authors, who work at Washington University in St. Louis and at the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the VA St. Louis Health Care System, analyzed data from these patients five years later.

They found that a large percentage of those patients who were taking PPIs were now having more kidney problems than those patients who took the alternative histamine H2 receptor blockers.

Patients who took PPIs had a 96% increased risk of developing kidney failure and a 28% increased risk of chronic kidney disease compared to the patients who took the histamine H2 receptor blockers.

Earlier studies have shown that taking PPIs have been linked to acute interstitial nephritis, also a problem that may be likely to end in kidney failure. A study that ran online in JAMA in January also found a link between PPIs and a higher risk of chronic kidney disease, also known as CKD.

Like this study, it also was observational and doesn't provide evidence of causality, but as the earlier study said, "even a casual relationship between PPI use and CKD could have a considerable public health effect given the widespread extent of use."

Other side effects from taking PPIs include an increased risk of pneumonia, double the risk ofinfection from C. difficile and a small risk of osteoporosis, earlier studies have shown.

The authors of this research suggest that PPIs are overprescribed. Previous research, including a2008 study and others have shown the same. The authors of the new study conclude if a person has a prescription for a PPI, it should be used sparingly and only taken for a short period of time.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/14/health/proton-pump-inhibitors-kidney-failure/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Similar Content

    • By The Librarian
      Erythropoietin and iron supplements have been used for 30 years to treat anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease, but erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can only be safely used to increase hemoglobin levels to 11 g per deciliter. Roxadustat, a member of a new class of drugs called hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, stimulates erythropoiesis and regulates iron metabolism. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, results from two Phase 3 randomized, clinical trials in China suggest that roxadustat may be beneficial for patients with chronic kidney disease. During the 26-week trials, 154 patients with chronic kidney disease not receiving dialysis and 305 patients undergoing long-term dialysis were randomized to receive either roxadustat or epoetin alfa (or a placebo for patients not receiving dialysis). Hemoglobin levels increased and hepcidin levels decreased in both groups of patients receiving roxadustat. Furthermore, roxadustat increased transferrin levels while maintaining serum iron levels and attenuated decreases in transferrin saturation levels. However, patients taking roxadustat were more likely to have hyperkalemia and upper respiratory infections. Allowing hemoglobin levels to be normalized, roxadustat may transform the treatment of chronic kidney disease. Ongoing clinical trials are monitoring roxadustat’s use over longer periods and in other populations.
      References:
      Chen N, Hao C, Peng X, Lin H, et al. Roxadustat for anemia in patients with kidney disease not receiving dialysis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019 Chen N, Hao C, Liu BC, Lin H, et al. Roxadustat treatment for anemia in patients undergoing long-term dialysis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019 Kaplan J. Roxadustat and anemia of chronic kidney disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Read more: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a12240756/selena-gomez-kidney-transplant/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      It’s long been thought that certain over-the-counter and prescription anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, are safer than other pain-relievers. However, a new study found that these drugs actually might not be that great for your kidneys and heart when used long-term.
      Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), such as Advil and Motrin, are commonly used to relieve joint pain and headaches, and are also used in higher doses for people with chronic pain. A certain type of NSAID — COX-2 inhibitors — were originally found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, while also being easier on the stomach, Timereports. As a result, two COX-2 inhibitors were removed from the market, with only celecoxib (or Celebrex) remaining.
      Yet, a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that celecoxib doesn’t cause more heart events than ibuprofen and naproxen. In fact, celecoxib may actually lead to fewer kidney problems, according to the study’s lead author Dr. Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic:
      “I would have never guessed these results. The whole world has been saying for a decade now that if you must take an NSAID, you probably ought to take naproxen because it’s the safest. We just don’t see that in these results. In almost every measure, ibuprofen looks worse, naproxen is intermediate and celecoxib is the best.”
      The heart risks associated with ibuprofen and naproxen don’t necessarily apply to those who just use them as short-term fixes, according to the study. So at this time, there’s no need to toss your ibuprofen or naproxen if you only use them every once in a while.
      http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/new-study-reveals-ibuprofen-and-naproxen-health-risks.html
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Dana Edson was talking with a friend from her church in Kerrville, TX. Her friend’s son was in need of a kidney transplant. Edson offered to be tested to see if she was a match for Mark Ridgaway, whom she’d never met.
      Ridgaway had been given a kidney transplant from his mother 16 years ago, but he was in need of another transplant and had been on a wait list for over a year. It turned out that Edson was match, but instead of donating a kidney to Ridgaway, Dr. Osama Gaber – director of the J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center at Houston Methodist – asked her to enter a swap program.
      She agreed on one condition: “I wouldn’t want to give my kidney if Mark had to wait three years for his, and that’s when (Dr. Gaber) gave me the guarantee that Mark would get his the same day as I gave mine,” says Edson. 
      When it was all said and done, Edson’s willingness to enter the program resulted in a six-way kidney swap. 71-year old Rudyne Walker was the last of the six to receive a kidney. She was in stage five renal failure when she received, Edson’s.
      “I got from Dana a kidney that is young and vigorous and excited about life. I haven’t had a kidney like that in 40-years. It moves me when I’m not ready to go,” said Walker.
      In order for a recipient to receive a kidney, they must have a donor willing to enter the swap program. Kellie Canaday worked with Walker at Exxon. Canaday had offered to donate a kidney for Walker but they weren’t a match. Maria Coronado ended up receiving Kellie’s kidney.
      Juan Coronado shed 30 pounds to help his wife. Maria had been dealing with dialysis for two years. Juan’s kidney went to Steve Miller, whom Coronado had never met. Miller had been battling with diabetes for 43 years and like Ridgaway, was in need of a second transplant. 
      Olivia Miller wanted to help her husband, but she was not a match. So instead she helped Esmerelda Guerrero. Guerrero and her husband Cesar are Jehovah’s Witnesses from New Mexico. They had been turned down in their effort to receive a kidney transplant for Esmerelda because they refuse to have blood transfusions. Fortunately for them, Houston Methodist is one of a select few hospitals that perform bloodless transfusions.
      “We have a program for Jehovah’s Witness transplants. We do actual lung transplants with Jehovah’s Witnesses. So, we give them hormones to raise their blood count, we prepare them differently for the transplant,” says Dr. Gaber.
      While Cesar didn’t provide a kidney for his wife, he was still able to help. Felix Rodriguez received Cesar’s kidney. Sandra Izquierdo wanted to help her brother, Felix, but couldn’t because she wasn’t a match. Instead her kidney went to Mark Ridgaway.
      Six donors and six recipients, all thanks to the kindness of strangers, though they all consider themselves family now. Dr. Gaber says months of preparation went into performing the “six-way” organ swap. “You actually need 12 operating rooms and it is hard on the hospital because of the complexity, you don’t want to make mistakes. The kidney needs to go to the right place,” said Dr. Gaber.
      With more than 1,400 people on the Methodist kidney transplant wait list, the hospital hopes more people will participate in the program.
      http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/08/01/162583/houston-methodist-performs-six-way-kidney-swap/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Clint Smith, at home in New Orleans, had a procedure that altered his immune system to allow his body to accept a kidney from an incompatible donor. It “changed my life,” he said. Credit William Widmer for The New York Times
       
      In the anguishing wait for a new kidney, tens of thousands of patients on waiting lists may never find a match because their immune systems will reject almost any transplanted organ. Now, in a large national study thatexperts are calling revolutionary, researchers have found a way to get them the desperately needed procedure.
      In the new study, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, doctors successfully altered patients’ immune systems to allow them to accept kidneys from incompatible donors. Significantly more of those patients were still alive after eight years than patients who had remained on waiting lists or received a kidney transplanted from a deceased donor.
      The method, known as desensitization, “has the potential to save many lives,” said Dr. Jeffery Berns, a kidney specialist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and the president of the National Kidney Foundation.
      It could slash the wait times for thousands of people and for some, like Clint Smith, a 56-year-old lawyer in New Orleans, mean the difference between receiving a transplant and spending the rest of their lives ondialysis.
      The procedure, Mr. Smith said, “changed my life.”
      Researchers estimate about half of the 100,000 people in the United States on waiting lists for a kidney transplant have antibodies that will attack a transplanted organ, and about 20 percent are so sensitive that finding a compatible organ is all but impossible. In addition, said Dr. Dorry Segev, the lead author of the new study and a transplant surgeon at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, an unknown number of people with kidney failure simply give up on the waiting lists after learning that their bodies would reject just about any organ. Instead, they resign themselves to dialysis, a difficult and draining procedure that can pretty much take over a person’s life.
      Desensitization involves first filtering the antibodies out of a patient’s blood. The patient is then given an infusion of other antibodies to provide some protection while the immune system regenerates its own antibodies. For some reason — exactly why is not known — the person’s regenerated antibodies are less likely to attack the new organ, Dr. Segev said. But if the person’s regenerated natural antibodies are still a concern, the patient is treated with drugs that destroy any white blood cells that might make antibodies that would attack the new kidney.
      The process is expensive, costing $30,000, and uses drugs not approved for this purpose. The transplant costs about $100,000. But kidney specialists argue that desensitization is cheaper in the long run than dialysis, which costs $70,000 a year for life.
      Although by far the biggest use of desensitization would be for kidney transplants, the process might be suitable for living-donor transplants of livers and lungs, researchers said. The liver is less sensitive to antibodies so there is less need for desensitization, “but it’s certainly possible if there are known incompatibilities,” Dr. Segev said. With lungs, he said, desensitization “is theoretically possible,” although he said he was not aware of anyone doing it yet.
      In the new study, 1,025 patients at 22 medical centers who had an incompatible donor were compared to an equal number of patients who remained on waiting lists for an organ or who had an organ from a deceased but compatible donor. After eight years, 76.5 percent of those who received an incompatible kidney were still alive, compared with 62.9 percent who remained on the waiting list or received a deceased donor kidney and 43.9 percent who remained on the waiting list but never got a transplant.
      The desensitization procedure takes time — for some patients as long as two weeks — and is performed before the transplant operation, so patients must have a living donor. It is not known how many have someone willing to donate a kidney, but doctors say they often see situations in which a relative or even a friend is willing to donate but is incompatible.
      “Often patients are told that their living donor is incompatible, so they are stuck on waiting lists,” for a deceased donor, Dr. Segev said.
      In recent years, an option called a kidney exchange has helped some in this situation. Patients who have incompatible living donors can swap donors with someone whose donor may be compatible with them. Often, there are chains of patient-donor pairs leading to a compatible organ swap.
      That process can be successful, said Dr. Krista L. Lentine, the medical director of the living donation program at the Saint Louis Center for Transplantation, but patients often still cannot find a compatible organ because they have antibodies that would reject almost every kidney. In those cases, “desensitization may be the only realistic option for receiving a transplant,” said Dr. Lentine, who was not involved with the study.
      Dr. Jeffrey Campsen, a transplant surgeon at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center who also was not a study investigator, said his group focused on exchanges and had been fairly successful. But he also comes across patients whose donors do not want to participate. “There is a hurdle if the donor and patient have an emotional bond,” he said.
      The new data showing the success of desensitization “lets people get behind it,” Dr. Campsen said, adding, “I do think it is something we would consider.”
      Mr. Smith, the New Orleans patient who went through desensitization, had progressive kidney disease that slowly scarred his kidneys until, in 2004, they stopped functioning. His sister-in-law, Allison Sutton, donated a kidney to him, and he had a transplant, but after six and a half years, it failed. He went on dialysis, spending four days a week hooked up to dialysis machines for hours. It was keeping him alive, he told his friends, but it was not a life.
      Then a nurse suggested that he ask Johns Hopkins about its desensitization study. “I was like, whatever I could do,” he said. He discovered that he qualified for the study. But he needed a donor.
      One day, his wife, Sheryl Smith, was talking on the phone to a college friend, Angela Watkins, who lives in Augusta, Ga., and mentioned that Mr. Smith was praying for a donor. Mrs. Watkins’s husband, David Watkins, a judge in state court, had been friends with Mr. Smith in college and the two wives, also college friends, had kept in touch over the years.
      Mrs. Watkins told her husband about the conversation, and they asked themselves if they should offer to donate.
      “We talked and researched and prayed,” Judge Watkins said. Finally, he said, they came to a conclusion. “We have a moral obligation to at least see if we would qualify.” And he thought that he should be the one to go first. If he did not qualify, his wife could be tested.
      Mr. Smith warned his old friend that donating was an enormous undertaking. “He said, ‘You can’t grasp what you are doing.’ I heard him but it didn’t register,” Judge Watkins said. “I told him, ‘I have something you need, so what’s the big deal?’ ”
      Of course, it was a big deal. Although Judge Watkins had prepared by getting himself in top physical shape, it still took about six months to recover from the operation.
      That was four years ago, and Mr. Smith’s new kidney is still functioning and he is back to his active life, forever grateful to his friend.
      “Every night,” he says, “during my nightly prayers with my wife, I thank God for bringing David and Allison to me and for giving me the gift of life.
      “But for David giving me this gift, I would still be in that dialysis chair.”
      Correction: March 9, 2016 
      Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the role of Dr. Krista L. Lentine, the medical director of the living donation program at the Saint Louis Center for Transplantation, in the study of kidney transplants. She was not involved.
      Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/health/kidney-transplant-desensitization-immune-system.html?ref=health
  • Forum Statistics

    61,681
    Total Topics
    114,539
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,509
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rosjes128
    Newest Member
    Rosjes128
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials....  
    • Yes. Just watched it. I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it. When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
    • Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels. Good point! I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council. Probably it is sometimes. But the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world have drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.
    • The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said: Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time. From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT).  A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus: (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine. (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins. Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.) We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time." Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses: (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in: Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not: Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.  
    • Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.) But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility.  This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place. When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater back out with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.    
    • I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1). I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found: *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures *** At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that! Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925. Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914. I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss. You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings. I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.
    • I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"? (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)        
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • 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.