Jump to content
The World News Media

The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?


Jack Ryan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
2 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Hey evening - Not sure what does this all have to do with Greek Scriptures. Kind of focused on the Bible itself, no dramas, so I don't see why all of a sudden we have to go there. I wouldn't call it prove or not, it is more so speculation, but most people don't think it to be true.

Hi again. An example that compares JW’s dramatization of biblical text with “original biblical text” from generally accepted manuscripts (or ... text available as biblical, to be more precise in words) is an indication of how certain past events can be used in a way that "enrich" existing biblical text with a broader account/description of what allegedly happened, and these are words and actions, for which there is no evidence that it really happened. But in the minds and feelings of observers at the JW Congress this will leave an impression given and foreseen by the writer of the modern conversation attributed to characters from the past.
Consequently, the so-called official biblical text of the book itself (with or without certain parts in dispute) gets a new sound. It gets an addition in the form of words spoken by a JW actor that do not exist in the Bible. But after listening to the “biblical drama” these fictional words slowly become an integral part of the beliefs and doctrinal guidance of believers as if they were indeed uttered thousands of years ago and as if they were truly the word of God.

A virtual, "new Greek Scriptures” is being created in the memory of believers, because it will become an interpretation, a description, a picture of events from the past that should become an example of how to live today, because that is how faithful people in the past allegedly spoke and acted. That's the connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Did it ever occur to you that the early scribes may be have been at fault for leaving out this passage, and that God made sure it was replaced, especially for our sake in the last days?  Read it, and notice what Jesus was speaking about in the temple before the event with the adulterous woman took place.  "On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rive

Not a misstep, they actually tried to change Gods “times and laws”. It finishes in Acts 1:7 when “He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” That being said, these men believed they can “calculate” when the kingdom would be restored, they actually thought they had knowledge superior to the original disciples to know these “times and dates” by twisting Daniels 7 times to equate 2520 physical years, changing “times and laws”:

Can someone explain to me, to whom would it have been advantageous to insert that piece of writing ? 'Religions' have always been about control. That piece of writing was concerning forgiveness. Therefore whoever wanted that piece of writing included, wanted forgiveness of sins, as opposed to punishment (by death).  Matthew 9 : 13  The words of Jesus  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy,

Posted Images

  • Member

@Srecko Sostar That is a really great explanation and yes, it proves the dangers of that type of 'teaching'.

We know that people like to have their ears 'tickled', and it seems the GB have found a way of tickling people's ears.

In fact it seems a very dangerous way forward. The idea of moving away from God's written word. Replacing God's word with play acting. We know that the GB speak falsely when they give talks. How much more will these plays be false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I can easily see that …. Perhaps …. The reason it was omitted from the earliest manuscripts is that elements of the first century “church” realized that if forgiveness was so freely given, it would subvert the authority of the rapidly developing corrupt precursor to what would become the Catholic Church. 
It is just a guess on my part, but the Scripture about Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman would subvert the grip the corrupt “Elders” were trying to establish as God’s sole representatives, in the same way that the concept of a burning “hell of torment” did, in reverse.

Perhaps (?) centuries later, this omission was corrected, when those political influences that had the scripture removed were not as strong, and immediately dangerous. 
 

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

The ONLY thing I can see that anybody would gain by spuriously inserting that text is ….. Nothing!

The passage only appeared in later manuscripts, not the earliest Greek ones. Reasons why the Vulgate was mentioned. John 7:53-8:11 was of oral tradition, therefore the consensus was undetermined, and later deemed spurious. The only thing we should consider inspired text is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit - 2 Peter 1:21.

Actually, those who attest to or even add spurious text do have something to gain. This is why Acts 7:59 is also mentioned. Not only were things added or omitted, there were some verses that were altered completely to the point someone reading the text would not notice it, even by a punctuations, which is why I mentioned to @BroRando if he was familiar with the Granville Sharp's Rule, something that can literally be weaponized against any new Bible reader.

 

That being said, whenever there is any form of Bible tampering, there is a gain by some, likewise, with some who alter or twist even the words of church fathers.

 

@Patiently waiting for Truth The reason for these Bible changes/errors was because there is conflict between 2 main parties in Christendom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, Witness said:

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?"

To prepare the way for a new age:

In olden times a glimpse of stocking was look at as something shocking, now heaven knows, anything goes.”

All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say: “After all, we all know that the God of the Old Testament is mean, but truly I say unto you: the God of the New Testament is nice.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago.

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.

All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member


Faith is when you believe something that has some overall evidence but not enough to prove it with a reason and logic, or perhaps even textual dating.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be. 
 

either way, I’m not up and out on much of a limb.

I would much rather err on the side of Mercy, than err  on the side of the Pharisees ….. and THAT is where the rubber meets the road !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Jack Ryan I'm sorry we've all stolen your topic and drastically changed it's direction. 

I get disappointed when it happens to my topics. 

There are no JWs or 'carts' around my area of England, and I haven't had a letter through my door.  

None of my local neighbours have mentioned letters either, but some nearby towns are complaining about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I mean, it would be pollution of God's Word if we were to add to it with something we cannot know for certain if it is true,

That is a good statement for JWs to ruminate on...considering all the failed dates for Armageddon, "this generation" teaching, many other doctrinal failures; and the concept of an earthly organization as the way to salvation.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.

The link @Witness had in her response also proves the point made earlier. No early evidence. She did this before with Mark 16:9-20, even when warned several times. As addressed, if anyone understood 2 Peter 1:21 then they would be very cautious with spurious verses, passages, and apocryphal text.

Early on, many people claim that John, Paul and Enoch wrote this and that, but there is no authorship of such to bring as evidence at all.

That being said, those who claim certain people who are aware of Textual Analytics, even going as far as to call them false for removing passages or verses, they themselves are in error, thus misleading people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Faith is when you believe something that has some overall evidence but not enough to prove it with a reason and logic, or perhaps even textual dating.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be. 
 

either way, I’m not up and out on much of a limb.

I would much rather err on the side of Mercy, than err  on the side of the Pharisees ….. and THAT is where the rubber meets the road !

Correct, as for what is deemed inspired, anything that is very early is what is true, for the authorship of such ones wrote what God has enabled them to write.

Things would have been much more different if there was not fighting or death taking place in the history of the Translation of the Bible.

So essentially, this long fight for the Scriptures, Christians were thrown into, Christians of both camps, so the spirit of the Council, in this sense, still remains at large today. The only difference is you have those of the Islam faith involved, and they themselves are very open about it in the EU, specifically the United Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • 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.