Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Electronic Christian Study Program

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:15:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
PS. and that includes access to a reference bible which is a powerful tool for checking out connected scriptures.

http://wol.jw.org...
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 3:08:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2013 1:22:26 PM, Naysayer wrote:
Anyway...e-Sword.

Whatever, it is our choice, as it is for everyone. The truth doesn't suit everyone. It frightens the life out of some, which is ironic since it sets you from from bandage to Satan.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 4:20:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
MadCornish, I can't even find the Bible on jw.org. I just looked - and please note that I am NOT saying that it's not there. It very well might be. I'm saying that I couldn't find it.

E-sword is in most respects an excellent resource, with two exceptions. The commentaries are slanted and unnecessary, and could have just as well - and more accurately - been left out. All one has to do is click on "preview" and look at the commentary on Romans 8: 29-30. That's some explanation they give there, huh? The other is that they could have, and should have, included much more thorough and standard Greek lexicons. Strongs is an abbreviated lexicon, at best - and that's what it was designed to be. I wish they had Liddell, Scott, and Jones - or Thayer's - or Arndt and Gingrich's work. Nonetheless, e-sword is a very good, very useful, very easy-to-use study tool, although I would advise people to be careful on the commentaries.
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 3:29:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I never post nonsense,
LMAO! apart from e.g. the J.w jebus wasn't a 100% human being but (your latest guess!) a morphed supernatural angel called Mikey?

At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
and certainly not random, I am merely pointing out the superior alternative t what you mention.
The J.ws are another Cult proven also grossly inferior to Truth & are repeated self-contradicting buffoons and agents of their Satan!

e.g. -

1. An Angel that worships Jesus
"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they."" Zion's Watch Tower 1879 Nov p.4

2. The Pope and Antichrist
"Michael and his angels"--the papacy and its supporters--fought against the dragon--pagan rulers, etc.,-- and the great dragon was cast out of heaven. Zion's Watch Tower 1879 December p.6

3. Michael was the pre-human jebus
"Can it be that he who was called Michael--Jehovah's chief-messenger--was none other than our Lord in his pre-human condition? we conclude that HE must have been "chief messenger." " Zion's Watch Tower 1883 June p.3

4. The Pope again
"Michael.--- "Who as God," the Pope." The Finished Mystery 1917 p.188

5. Jebus in heaven
Since the 1930's Michael is explained to be the heavenly name for Jebus.

ALL direct from the J.ws fallible Jehovah? LMAO!

At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I am not interested in anything other than what the bible really teaches and certainly at present neither are they.
Another lie from your Satanic lips!

YOU & ALL J.ws are FORCED to believe whatever is contained in the latest Watchtowers, Awakes etc.

Failure to comply with even known spurious teachings, you face disfellowship & subsequent shunning!

Proof of this is contained in the Transcript of the Douglas-Walsh Trial in Scotland 1954 from the testimony of Fred Franz included!

The J.ws demand uniformity regardless of Truth & admit to being a FALSE PROPHET!

Transcript from Douglas Walsh trial - Scotland - 1954
. . . . Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?
A. I agree that.

Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah"s Witnesses?
A. That is correct.


Q. If a member of Jehovah"s Witnesses took the view himself that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erronious and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.

Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?
A. That is correct.

Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think - - -

Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.

Q. Do you call it Christianity?
A. I certainly do.

. . . .

Fred Franz, then vice-president of the Society, also answered questions for the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Q. In addition to these regular publications do you prepare and issue a number of theological pamphlets and books from time to time?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and the semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion of statements of doctrine?
A. Yes.

Q. Are these statements of doctrine held to be authoritative within the Society?
A. Yes.

Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?
A. It is obligatory. . . . . . . . .

The British government counsellor later directed attention to certain teachings that the Society had in time rejected, including some involving specific dates. What, he asked, if someone, at the time when such teaching was promulgated, had seen the error in it and had therefore not accepted it? What would the organization"s attitude toward such one be? The testimony explains:

Q. Did (Pastor Russell) not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?
A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus" Second Coming spiritually.

Q. Do you say, used to be understood?
A. That is right.

Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah"s Witnesses?
A. Yes.

Q. That is no longer now accepted, is it?
A. No.

. . . . . . . .
Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?
A. That is correct.

Q. So that am I correct, I am just anxious to canvas the position; it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation?
A. Yes . . . . . . . .

Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see.

Q. And in the meantime the body of Jehovah"s Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.

Q. Error?
A. Well, error.

. . . .

Q. A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake"?
A. He must accept those.

(Source: Watchtower.observer.org)

Hence ALL you J.ws are mindless drones that must obey whatever crap Bethel belches out until they belch out even the opposite!

Your vindicated mentor & Saviour moi!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 5:09:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2013 3:29:46 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I never post nonsense,
LMAO! apart from e.g. the J.w jebus wasn't a 100% human being but (your latest guess!) a morphed supernatural angel called Mikey?

At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
and certainly not random, I am merely pointing out the superior alternative t what you mention.
The J.ws are another Cult proven also grossly inferior to Truth & are repeated self-contradicting buffoons and agents of their Satan!

e.g. -

1. An Angel that worships Jesus
"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they."" Zion's Watch Tower 1879 Nov p.4

2. The Pope and Antichrist
"Michael and his angels"--the papacy and its supporters--fought against the dragon--pagan rulers, etc.,-- and the great dragon was cast out of heaven. Zion's Watch Tower 1879 December p.6

3. Michael was the pre-human jebus
"Can it be that he who was called Michael--Jehovah's chief-messenger--was none other than our Lord in his pre-human condition? we conclude that HE must have been "chief messenger." " Zion's Watch Tower 1883 June p.3

4. The Pope again
"Michael.--- "Who as God," the Pope." The Finished Mystery 1917 p.188

5. Jebus in heaven
Since the 1930's Michael is explained to be the heavenly name for Jebus.

ALL direct from the J.ws fallible Jehovah? LMAO!

At 10/4/2013 12:43:03 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I am not interested in anything other than what the bible really teaches and certainly at present neither are they.
Another lie from your Satanic lips!

YOU & ALL J.ws are FORCED to believe whatever is contained in the latest Watchtowers, Awakes etc.

Failure to comply with even known spurious teachings, you face disfellowship & subsequent shunning!

Proof of this is contained in the Transcript of the Douglas-Walsh Trial in Scotland 1954 from the testimony of Fred Franz included!

The J.ws demand uniformity regardless of Truth & admit to being a FALSE PROPHET!

Transcript from Douglas Walsh trial - Scotland - 1954
. . . . Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?
A. I agree that.

Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah"s Witnesses?
A. That is correct.


Q. If a member of Jehovah"s Witnesses took the view himself that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erronious and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.

Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?
A. That is correct.

Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think - - -

Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.

Q. Do you call it Christianity?
A. I certainly do.

. . . .

Fred Franz, then vice-president of the Society, also answered questions for the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.


Q. In addition to these regular publications do you prepare and issue a number of theological pamphlets and books from time to time?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and the semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion of statements of doctrine?
A. Yes.

Q. Are these statements of doctrine held to be authoritative within the Society?
A. Yes.

Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?
A. It is obligatory. . . . . . . . .

The British government counsellor later directed attention to certain teachings that the Society had in time rejected, including some involving specific dates. What, he asked, if someone, at the time when such teaching was promulgated, had seen the error in it and had therefore not accepted it? What would the organization"s attitude toward such one be? The testimony explains:


Q. Did (Pastor Russell) not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?
A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus" Second Coming spiritually.

Q. Do you say, used to be understood?
A. That is right.

Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah"s Witnesses?
A. Yes.

Q. That is no longer now accepted, is it?
A. No.

. . . . . . . .
Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?
A. That is correct.

Q. So that am I correct, I am just anxious to canvas the position; it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation?
A. Yes . . . . . . . .

Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see.

Q. And in the meantime the body of Jehovah"s Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.

Q. Error?
A. Well, error.

. . . .

Q. A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake"?
A. He must accept those.

(Source: Watchtower.observer.org)

Hence ALL you J.ws are mindless drones that must obey whatever crap Bethel belches out until they belch out even the opposite!

Your vindicated mentor & Saviour moi!


The usual load of rubbish from you I see. Not even worth replying to.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:07:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anna: "By the way, I looked at Heb 11: 1 out of curiosity in the New World whatever-it-is:

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

Totally wrong. Heb 11: 1 does not teach that faith is an expectation anything, assured or not. And Heb 11: 1 does not teach that faith is the evident demonstration of anything, seen or unseen. About all I can say is that the NWT did not teach an untruth in rendering the passage."

MCB: "Really?

Hebrews 11:1
YLT(i) 1 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

Hebrews 11:1
ASV(i) 1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1
KJV(i) 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Even your own preferred translation disagrees with you. Every one of those, and others as well, speak of assured hopes which is the same as assured expectations. If it is assured, you expect it, simple as.

But of course, as always you know better even than God.'


Anna: The KJV has it absolutely correct:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

I had already stated that, as you may note from this statement copied and pasted from the prior post:

"In that case, the old KJV hit it right on the money - and the American Standard missed it. The ASV does not state a mistruth at all: it simply changes the point of the passage slightly. That's why one needs more than one translation, and it is also why one needs a grammar and lexicon."

The whole point was that the little jw.org site doesn't even have a correct Bible, a concordance, a lexicon, and Greek grammar. Zilch. Yet you say it is for "serious Bible students." Pffffffffffffft.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 5:05:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2013 2:07:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: "By the way, I looked at Heb 11: 1 out of curiosity in the New World whatever-it-is:

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

Totally wrong. Heb 11: 1 does not teach that faith is an expectation anything, assured or not. And Heb 11: 1 does not teach that faith is the evident demonstration of anything, seen or unseen. About all I can say is that the NWT did not teach an untruth in rendering the passage."

MCB: "Really?

Hebrews 11:1
YLT(i) 1 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

Hebrews 11:1
ASV(i) 1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1
KJV(i) 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Even your own preferred translation disagrees with you. Every one of those, and others as well, speak of assured hopes which is the same as assured expectations. If it is assured, you expect it, simple as.

But of course, as always you know better even than God.'


Anna: The KJV has it absolutely correct:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

Which in essence is exactly teh same as the NWT says.


I had already stated that, as you may note from this statement copied and pasted from the prior post:

"In that case, the old KJV hit it right on the money - and the American Standard missed it. The ASV does not state a mistruth at all: it simply changes the point of the passage slightly. That's why one needs more than one translation, and it is also why one needs a grammar and lexicon."

The whole point was that the little jw.org site doesn't even have a correct Bible, a concordance, a lexicon, and Greek grammar. Zilch. Yet you say it is for "serious Bible students." Pffffffffffffft.

For the serious bible student, yes, and in fact it does have a concordance, though it doesn't call it that. The search bar does that job , but also, part of the Reference bible is a concordance "Bible words indexed".

The point is that it is for serious bible students, not for linguists, though the footnotes give you meanings for any particularly important words.

After all scripture does tell us not to get involved in disputes over words, despite the fact that sometimes I have stupidly let you draw me into such petty arguments.

It is teh essence of scripture that matters not the detail of teh words, especially since they have been translated and either deliberately or, sometimes unintentionally corrupted by those who believe in that worst fo false Gods, the trinity.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 5:57:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for" is not "now faith is the substance of things hoped for"

The NWT has faith being an "expectation". The KJV has faith being the "supporting structure" or "underpinning" or "foundation" - the SUBstrata. That's what "hupo" meaning: sub or under. Faith is "that which stands under" the things for which we hope. That's all the passage says. That's what hupostasis means. It does not mean "assured expectation".

While faith may well be the "assured expectation" - and indeed it is - Heb 11: 1 doesn't teach it. I said the NWT doesn't teach an untruth on the passage. It conveys the wrong shade of meaning to it.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.