Jehovah's Witnesses

[Natasha2605]

Haha! I told a Jehovah's Witness I was a teenage mum and she walked away from me saying there was no saving some people. She was a complete wacko!

Well that's one way to get rid of them

 

[blinkybaby]

I'm really glad this thread got resurrected, I have found it very interesting reading so thank you to all the posters who have answered questions and put forth interesting views and opinions. I feel I have learnt something today!

One of my friends at secondary school was a JW and I always felt kinda sorry for her, just because her parents were very strict and she was never allowed to date, away from her parents she was overtly sexual and I kind of felt she was acting out against them. But like some have said, not a reflection on the religion, just the individuals. She never celebrated Christmas either, we were in the school vocal chorus and she had to discreetly leave the stage at the christmas concert when the christmassy songs were sung as her father forbade her to sing - fair enough though, if that's what they believe.

I find myself more in tune with pagan beliefs anyway, not an athiest by any means, more of an agnostic, I have tolerance for any belief system.

When a JW comes to my door I am polite and will take any hand outs they give me but I quite enjoy being an agnostic and it will stay this way xxx

 

[LandN]

I havent had any JW's knock on my door yet, but im sure i will do one day. And i will be polite and just tell them i have my own beliefs.

What i dont understand is how they dont believe in blood transfusions (correct me if im wrong, sorry ), like if my daughter needed one i would rather she lived than put a religion first i just dont think thats right why let innocent children die? it really does confuse me, but thats what i think and everyones diffrent. But if i needed a blood transfusion i wouldnt want to leave my daughter in the world motherless that to me would be cruel.

Im not a religious person, i think today religion causes many problems, even though it does help people (my auntie had a bad time, with bad childhood memories, and suffering with cancer and she turned to the church and its helped her deal with it) so as much as it helps alot of people, its not for me and my personal beliefs is that it causes more problems than good.

 

[ShanandBoc]

And I can't for the life of me find where it says that. I am so can't find my way round the bible yet Funny as I was brought up a christian but never actually looked at the spcriputers properly.
xx

This particular assumption comes from the Gospel of St Luke - however it is important to take into account several matters of interpretation AND the fact that Luke's Gospel was written long after Jesus had died and that Luke himself never met Jesus. His gospel was written from interviews with others.

The claim that Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist is in Chapter1 verses 31-36, where Gabriel visits Mary to inform her that she has been chosen. However the wording is actually that she will conceive, not that she actually has - so again, it is open to interpretation

Either way, Luke's Gospel completely contradicts Mathew's Gospel in terms of when Jesus was born:

Luke claims "It happened in those days that a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all that was inhabited. This census first came to pass when Quirinius was governing Syria." when we KNOW that that census took place in 6AD (the Romans kept good records )

Yet Matthew's Gospel claims (Chapter2 v1) "after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in days of Herod the king" .... But again we KNOW that Herod died in 4BC

Vast swathes of the bible are symbolic - you can choose to regard it all as being absolute truth (and then drive yourself nutty by trying to reconcile the sort of inconsistencies above ) or you can 're-translate' it so that it reflects the slant that you want to give it ... OR you can choose to take it as a collection of stories which at the very least have as their basis a firm moral guidance system and at best are individual, subjective accounts of real events - warts, errors and all.

Firstly Matthew and Luke are not talking about the same time in Jesus young life. Matthew is speaking of him being in a house at this time (when the three wise men visited) and being closer to the age of 2, where as Luke speaks of Jesus birth.

Critics widely attack this passage as a blunder or, worse, a fabrication. They insist that this census and the governorship of Quirinius took place in 6 or 7*C.E. If they are right, this would cast serious doubt on Luke’s account, for the evidence suggests that Jesus was born in 2*B.C.E. But these critics ignore two key facts. First, Luke acknowledges that there was more than one census—note that he refers to “this first registration.” He was well aware of another, later registration. (Acts 5:37) This later census is the same one that the historian Josephus described, which occurred in 6*C.E. Second, the governorship of Quirinius does not force us to assign Jesus’ birth to that late date. Why? Because Quirinius evidently served in that post twice. Many scholars recognize that his first term fell about 2*B.C.E.
Some critics say that Luke invented the census to create a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Micah 5:2. This theory makes Luke a willful liar, and no critic can reconcile such an allegation with the scrupulous historian who wrote the Gospel and the book of Acts.
Something else no critic can explain: The census itself fulfilled a prophecy! In the sixth century*B.C.E., Daniel prophesied about a ruler who would be “causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom.” Did this apply to Augustus and his order to carry out a census in Israel? Well, the prophecy goes on to foretell that the Messiah, or “Leader of the covenant,” would be “broken” during the reign of this ruler’s successor. Jesus was indeed “broken,” executed, during the reign of Augustus’ successor, Tiberius.—Daniel 11:20-22.


At the Time of Jesus’ Birth. Two registrations are mentioned in the Christian Greek Scriptures as taking place after Judea came under subjection to Rome. Such were not merely to ascertain population figures but, rather, were mainly for purposes of taxation and conscription of men for military service. Concerning the first of these we read: “Now in those days [c. 2*B.C.E.] a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria and all people went traveling to be registered, each one to his own city.” (Lu 2:1-3) This edict of the emperor proved providential, for it compelled Joseph and Mary to journey from the city of Nazareth to Bethlehem in spite of the fact that Mary was then heavy with child; thus Jesus was born in the city of David in fulfillment of prophecy.—Lu 2:4-7; Mic 5:2.
Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6*C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W.*Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1*B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2*B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. His second governorship, however, included 6*C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).
So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

Since Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism in 29*C.E. (Lu 3:23), his birth took place 30 years earlier, or about the fall of the year 2*B.C.E. He was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius. (Lu 2:1,*2) Augustus’ rule ran from 27*B.C.E. to 14*C.E. The Roman senator P.*Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, the first time evidently coming after P.*Quintilius Varus, whose term as legate of Syria ended in 4*B.C.E. Some scholars place Quirinius’ first governorship in 3-2*B.C.E. Herod the Great was then king of Judea, and we have seen that there is evidence pointing to the year 1*B.C.E. as the likely time of his death. Thus, all the available evidence, and particularly the Scriptural references, indicate the fall of 2*B.C.E. for the human birth of God’s Son.

 

[ShanandBoc]

The bible is not to just be interpretated, its meant to be understood. Jesus said that we would 'know the truth and the truth would set us free' and that taking in knowledge of him and God leads to everlasting life.

How could we possibly do this if we werent meant to understand, or that we could only interpret? This is why studying the entire bible properly is needed.

So why is it that the 'entire bible' that is used by JWs is not the same as that used by everyone else?

Yes of course there are other versions - I have several different ones myself but all, apart from the New World Translation, are used by a variety of religious groups, whereas the NWT was 'translated' by JW's, by people with little to no education in, or experience of, the original Biblical Languages and mysteriously twists scripture to fit JW doctrine (hence my references to Matthew above - where the JW NWT has inserted additional material in order to justify doorstep proselytizing.
I actually quoted from the king james version, even tho the nWT said the same thing???

There are many translations of the Bible. JW's encourage the use of a variety of them in order to make comparisons and to help students to grasp the real sense of the Scriptures. As you may know, the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So we appreciate what translators have done to put it into our language

The entire bible is the same its just translated into modern english, i quite often use my King James Version to compare and study too. JW publications quite often quote scriptures from other versions, including the King James.

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Why is the name Jehovah used?
It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in*translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into*Hebrew,*in*passages where quotations are made directly*from the*inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864)*contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.
The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6,*26) According to Jerome of the fourth century*C.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280*B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.
Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.

 

[TattiesMum]

Shananboc - you aren't actually thinking about this for yourself .... researching different opinions, reading widely about the subject from a number of different sources .... making up your own mind - you are copying and pasting directly from the JW Official Website

https://www.watchtower.org/e/19981215/diagram_01.htm

Quite apart from the fact that earlier in this thread you actually criticised another member for copying and pasting 'opinions' from the net this is , fundamentally, what I object to about JW practices and preaching - it is, quite simply, learnt by rote with a pat answer for everything Yes, sure you can study the bible, but woe betide you if you come to a different conclusion from the JW prescribed one ... that's not free worship and thinking

 

[ShanandBoc]

I actually researched it on other non JW sites which cited the same thing if you want to look yourself. Research elsewhere about what is stated there to back it up. And if you look the witness site doesnt just give a witness take on it all, it constantly refers to the bible as the source of information, isnt that what this is all about?

https://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate

If you like i can copy and paste the site you took your information from too? Does that mean you are also not free thinking?

You have no idea how much research i have done on various subjects regarding this.....Intrestingly witness publications do the same, refer to the bible obviously, secular history and historians, encylopedias etc.....its not a matter of thats what they say so thats the truth, they use plenty of research and evidence to back it up

 

[ShanandBoc]

When refering to people using the internet earlier i stated that you cant just look at one site and take that as gospel. The statements made about witness and witness beliefs were false and uneducated thats why i encouraged to look to the bible for answers and JW publications to see what they really teach, not the internet

 

[ShanandBoc]

And i guess you knew all this historical information off the top of your head!! come on! Research can be done in many ways.....ultimately looking back to the bible and secular history for answers

 

[TattiesMum]

No .... when I copied and pasted your words into Google and other search engines - The only source which came up was the Watchtower Organisation.

How can you criticise other members by saying "you cant just look at one site and take that as gospel. " when you are doing exactly that??

 

[ShanandBoc]

No, it refers to the bible for answers and secular history. I posted above that the problem with using the internet earlier was that it was using a site to point out witness teachings, rather than actually looking into and finding out what they teach for yourself, and that couldnt be taken as gospel. The points that were made were not true of witness teachings and facts, i should know

I also used these sites

https://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate

https://www.biblesearch.com/articles/article4.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

https://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020818.htm

 

[ShanandBoc]

I havent had any JW's knock on my door yet, but im sure i will do one day. And i will be polite and just tell them i have my own beliefs.

What i dont understand is how they dont believe in blood transfusions (correct me if im wrong, sorry ), like if my daughter needed one i would rather she lived than put a religion first i just dont think thats right why let innocent children die? it really does confuse me, but thats what i think and everyones diffrent. But if i needed a blood transfusion i wouldnt want to leave my daughter in the world motherless that to me would be cruel.

Im not a religious person, i think today religion causes many problems, even though it does help people (my auntie had a bad time, with bad childhood memories, and suffering with cancer and she turned to the church and its helped her deal with it) so as much as it helps alot of people, its not for me and my personal beliefs is that it causes more problems than good.

The reason they abstain from blood, is of course because the bible says to do so (Acts 15:28,29 - where it is grouped in with fornication and idolatary to emphesise its importance)blood is our life force and is precious and shouldnt been shared or taken into the body. Because of JW's there has been much medical advancement in non blood products which can be very effective.....and alot less risky as they dont pose threat of disease etc. So its not putting a religion first its putting gods laws first. And as he is our life giver he knows what is best for us and we also know that we will be in good standing with him when he steps in and brings about the changes this world needs. Worst case scenario if someone was to die, the short life they would gain here and now if they had chosen to accept a transfusion is nothing compared to what lies in store, gods original purpose of paradise on earth free from man made and devil influenced conditions such as death, war, sickness, pollution etc

Unfortunately many wars and atrocities occur in the name of religion, but this has nothing to do with the bible, as this is against gods laws. This is man made.

 

[Serene123]

Death is not a man made condition

 

[TattiesMum]

Well you certainly didn't use the first one, because the link is 'page not found'

And the fact remains that, rather than reading across a wide range of viewpoints and formulating your own, individual, opinion that you can express in your own words - you simply copy and paste, word for word, from the Watchtower Organisation

Feel free to copy and paste my words into Google or any other search engine ... the only site that they will show up on is this one

 

[ShanandBoc]

Originally is was yes, if you look to the account of Genesis and Adam and Eve. We were created to live forever, not die, hence why Jesus came to earth and gave his perfect life as a ransom to eventually buy back what Adam lost, which is eternal life

 

[ShanandBoc]

Well you certainly didn't use the first one, because the link is 'page not found'

And the fact remains that, rather than reading across a wide range of viewpoints and formulating your own, individual, opinion that you can express in your own words - you simply copy and paste, word for word, from the Watchtower Organisation

Feel free to copy and paste my words into Google or any other search engine ... the only site that they will show up on is this one

Sorry i copied and pasted it wrong https://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate.htm

 

[Serene123]

But you had sex before you were married?

 

[ShanandBoc]

Well you certainly didn't use the first one, because the link is 'page not found'

And the fact remains that, rather than reading across a wide range of viewpoints and formulating your own, individual, opinion that you can express in your own words - you simply copy and paste, word for word, from the Watchtower Organisation

Feel free to copy and paste my words into Google or any other search engine ... the only site that they will show up on is this one

Your exact words were taken from this site https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

Other than a few you added on yourself here and there and to the end, you clearly also got this info off the internet, i just didnt bother typing it into my own words, whats the difference? I would have been here all night!

It was a little over my head so i had to look it up but pretty much all of my other posts have been in my words, my own knowledge and ive quoted the bible directly.

Did you not originally get your historical info from somewhere? the internet? a book? of course you did. Just because you changed a few words doesnt make it any different, look at the secular history behind it for the answer, just as the JW site did and then study the biblical history of it too.....its an interesting read

 

[ShanandBoc]

Well i was raised a witness, went and did my own thing for a while and then me and my DH started studying again recently ( he was not religious at all) i was pregnant and we were going to get married anyway but did it a little earlier so we were married before little Elleah came along.

Everyone , including family has been very supportive, they just want to help us do what is right.

Obviously sex before marriage is a no no, but as we are both unbaptized, we were just supported to try and right the wrong IYKWIM. As long as you dont keep on practicing sin willfully, then the support is there to help you along.

But you had sex before you were married?

Using the wacko emoticon is quite rude, without even bothering to read the rest of this thread and asking me about it in a polite way

Read my above quoted post when i was respectfully asked this question earlier.

 

[TattiesMum]

But you had sex before you were married?

Yeah but that's OK because she wasn't a fully baptised member of the organisation and has 'fully repented'

They believe that death, sickness, famine, floods, suffering - everything bad is 'man made' because we, as humans, 'earned it' because Adam and Eve committed the original sin

They also believe that death is just a state of unconcious non existence - no heaven, no hell, no spirits - just ... nothing

BUT - if we all convert to their way of thinking (or perhaps if we're just lucky and God lets us off anyway, against JW expectations), well - THEN we can look forward Armageddon and thenceforth to either forming Christ's 'Government' as one of the 144000 in Heaven or becoming one of the 'other sheep' here on a perfect Earth.

Personally - given the choice between complete oblivion and eternal life surrounded by Jehova's Witnesses, I know which I'd choose