YHWHtruth

If you were trying to be funny, Mike, it worked! But on a more serious note, you misrepresented my methods of interpretation. However, you have characterized your own quite well, only you do not argue for the same conclusions.

All you have done is attempt to turn the tables on me, and anyone reading this with a fair grasp of the issues should be able to see right through you. But those who don't know the truth about "smoke and mirrors" and who have been duped by the tactics previously outlined, will probably just be happy to know that you wrote "something," even though that "something" hasn't changed since our conversation started.

Mike is the one guilty of using a priori reasoning, and he is trying to cover it up by saying that I am the one using it. I am confident that anyone reading this post can see that his position is not founded in Scripture, and that I object to it based on that fact. I do not assume it is not true and then interpret Scripture from there. Mike, however, assumes that it is true, and on that basis he creates distinctions that do not exist in the Bible, and he redefines terms that are otherwise used in a manner that is inconsistent with his theology.

Max

YHWHtruth

Two similar sounding synonyms are used here: dn`w` un` (n`u w`n`d), “a wanderer and a fugitive.” This juxtaposition of synonyms emphasizes the single idea. In translation one can serve as the main description, the other as a modifier. Other translation options include “a wandering fugitive” and a “ceaseless wanderer”.

(Genesis 4:12) When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its power. A wanderer and a fugitive you will become in the earth."

This curse was to end in his destruction. At the same time the ground was cursed on Adam's account, resulting in its producing thorns and thistles but not in its destruction. (Ge 3:17, 18; 5:29) The curse that Jehovah placed on Cain condemned him to a fugitive life.-Ge 4:11, 12.

He had been a farmer, but the ground thereafter would not respond to his cultivation.-Ge 4:2, 3, 11-14.

Cain went into banishment in "the land of Fugitiveness to the east of Eden," taking with him his wife, an anonymous daughter of Adam and Eve. (Ge 4:16, 17; compare 5:4, also the much later example of Abraham's marriage to his half sister Sarah, Ge 20:12.) Following the birth of his son Enoch, Cain "engaged in building a city," naming it for his son. Such city may have been but a fortified village by present standards, and the record does not state when it was completed. His descendants are listed in part and include men who distinguished themselves in nomadic stock raising, the playing of musical instruments, and the forging of metal tools as well as those who were known for their practice of polygamy and their violence. (Ge 4:17-24) Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day.


Again one fails to read the context!
Now who is wrong? Didn't your teacher's "professor's" tell you to read the subject material before the examination?

Max

Calzaer

Lookit the varmint dance!

Dance, Max dance! Don't actually respond directly to any comments, that would decrease your Troll Score!

Felstorm

All I have to say is "wow".

:banghead:

He just accused Azathoth of what he has just himself done.

I feel sorry for you man. I was told that this happened to Jehovahs Witnesses. I didn't take them seriously until just now.

I'm puttting this one up on Infidelguy's forums for the other guys to pick apart. Maybe I can get a few of them in here. I got feeling that this one is going to get put in a mason jar with formeldehyde and labled as a specimen of prime fishbowl thinking.

And again. Another stoneheaded refusal to look at anything different.

This is classic. I'm saving this bullshit.

You have just said that Cain was fugitive or ceasless wanderer. And I quote, " “a wanderer and a fugitive.” This juxtaposition of synonyms emphasizes the single idea. In translation one can serve as the main description, the other as a modifier. Other translation options include “a wandering fugitive” and a “ceaseless wanderer”"

But he settles down and builds a city? he stops his ceaseless wandering, a curse that was supposed to last until he died. But he builds a city. In his sons name. Come on. Seriously. God cursed this dude to wander around and not have any peace in his life, and the guy defies God and builds a city or villiage or whatever, and then names his son after it! What the hell? That makes no sense.

And who is he buildng a city for? Usually one builds a city because there are lots of people. This is just Cain and his wife and kid. Three people. A cave is needed at most. And the population can't be too great, because one can imagine that only a few generations have passed. So if Cain is off all by his lonesome with wife and kid, and nobody else is supposed to come around him, Who the hell is he building a city for? And if he can't grow his own food, and the only thing that grows from the ground is thorns and thistles. What hell is he eating? You can't go for three days without water. A few weeks at most without food. But he's building a city. And he lives long enough to have Enoch grow up, and his kids. So that means he' got to be hunting and living off something. For people that are supposed to be shunning him or something, and god is supposed to be chasing his ass around so he's not in one place for too long, as per the curse. This makes no sense whatsoever. He seems content enough to try and build a city, for people that don't like him no less.

This is crazy.

I suppose you will try and tell me God is not capable of evil either.

YHWHtruth

From false premises will come false conclusions

Obviously Fel is not going to acknowledge his glaring shortcomings, but they are quite obvious, and I can assure you that the remarks I made, in passing, are far from meaningless; rather, they are entirely accurate in terms of describing Mike's treatment of the issues under consideration. But, again, Fel's immature disposition is one that cannot be taken seriously, especially when he characterizes an eventual reply based on a few passing remarks, that were not even spoken to him. But, as you will see, there is little else for him to grasp onto in hopes of reading his view into the text, and when it comes to explaining his misrepresentation of my material.

Max

Felstorm

Hey if you can't answer my questions. Just say so. There is nothing I haven't asked that isn't unreasonable to try an answer. Are you just simply too afraid to say. "I don't know."? There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know."

And you STILL haven't reconciled my original argument. You've dragged it all off topic. You've attacked me. You have used priori arguments.

You keep coming back to this priori reasoning that anything outside of your theology is wrong and any logical argument outside, no matter how coherent, of your theology is wrong. You may as well just claim godly omniscience yourself and really make a real joke of yourself. Seeing as you have all the "right" answers and all, and anything else anyone says is wrong because, obviously your skills in biblical knowledge are superiour to physical empiricism.

I can understand this. Because you have been told this kind of stuff continously by WTBTS.

mike_decock

The tone of my post was humorous although the content was serious. Your a priori interpretations are so predictable. Your interpretations are blinded by your theology. I do not "interpret" a text to fit a specific theology by looking for semantic loopholes. I take it at face value and let it speak for itself.

You're accusing me of using a priori reasoning solely based on the fact that my interpretation is different from yours. Anyone reading your posts can see that your position is necessitated by your theology.

Neither do I. I take scriptures at face value. If it's good, I admit it, if it's flawed, I admit it. You are assuming that is is true and theologically consistent and grind down those square pegs into your round hole theology.

I'm an atheist, silly. I have no theology :P. You're the one jumping through hoops, seeking semantic loopholes to fit each word into your a priori interpretations.

-Mike...

YHWHtruth

Fel, though, never really proves here how it is that we "serve the Watchtower directors". True, we have our "leaders" that provide spiritual guidance, but, this is Scriptural:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Heb 13:17 REB
"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you." Heb 13:7 REB
"Greet all your leaders and all God's people." Heb 13:24 REB


Were the first century Christians guilty of serving two masters? After all, did not Paul say "Imitate me" (1 Cor. 11:1)? Were not the Israelites instructed to follow Moses, even above the rejection of this from pious others? They were not "serving two masters" in the sense indicated at Matthew 6:24 because that Scripture was never meant to be taken this way. Money (Mammon) was something that worked in opposition to righteousness, as 1Tim. 6:10 says, "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." NASB
Therefore we have a contrast, like the one at 1 Cor. 10:21, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons as well; you cannot have a share at the Lord's table and the demons' table as well." NJB

The Nelson Study Bible adds:
"No one can serve two masters because a time will come when they make opposing demands. Jesus advises us to invest our future with Him by giving of ourselves; mammon encourages us to collect material objects for our present enjoyment."
Part of investing our future with Jesus is by becoming part of the structured ekklesia that he instituted:

"The foundation of the ekklesia are clear in the Synoptic gospels. Jesus formed a group of disciples and followers. Of these disciples, He demanded personal attachment to Himself, even at the cost of seperation from friends and family indeed,...This group received from Him the mission to gain other followers who would grant him the same personal allegiance...Against this background the use of the word ekklesia (congregation, church) in Mt. 16:18 is clearly identified with this group which Jesus himself formed and which He commanded to to be continued by His disciples after His departure." Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, p. 134.
Part of the functions of this ekklesia was the excommunication of certain members, a practise that was "instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18)" [Smith's Bible Dictionary]. Are we in a church that is adhering to Christ's demands on us, or are we setting our own bar of what is proper servitude to Jesus, and then using that to determine whether others are deprived of our unique "thinking abilities." Truly, it is Fel, and others of like-mind that have decided in their own mind that they are the by determining that others that do not think like them could not possibly be. If by the term "serving" Fel denotes some fanatical devotion, then exactly how is this proven? The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses would never admit to serving any so-called "director", and never would such be asked for.

"The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) " [February 15, 1981, page 19]

Just recently, Milton Henschel, one of Fel's "Watchtower directors" passed away. When I mentioned this to my wife, she did not even know who this was. When I mentioned that he was once president of the Watchtower Society, she asked me who it was now. I did not know. Yet, I live in a part of the USA that builds monuments and names streets after religious leaders like John Wesley, the Reverend Billy Graham, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. But only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out for "serving two masters" by Fel's definition. I regularly talk religion to church-going people that are ignorant of the contents of the Bible, and will only puppet what their pastor tells them to believe...but only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out for "serving two masters" by Fel's definition.

Here is another example of creating confusion due to ignorance of the facts and issues involved.

Max

YHWHtruth

Fel wrote

Is this not blatant hypocrisy and a biased viewpoint? How frigging blind do you have to be not to see that? They discredit EVERY other Bible scholar and in the very previous paragraph suggest using their literature as Bible supplements, as if they are the only authority on Bible scholar information.

So let me get this straight:


Many persons think of Jehovah's Witnesses as persons subservient to the "Borg." Discredit which scholars? Interesting how you discredit scholarly work that many people post to you, isn't this like the Pot calling the Kettle Black?

Do you see the conflict?" The anti-JW who is loyal to his own beliefs will always be ignorant of the facts involved and create an embarrassing and contradictory situation for himself. You see what happens when you draw a line in the sand that you are crossing yourself?

On a similar notion, I received an e-mail from an individual who wrote:


The WBTS will not allow their members to read any literature not published by their sect. They will not allow any other bible to be studied at home or in church other than the NWT. These are undeniable facts. It seems like you are searching for the truth and that is why you continually show disregard for the WBTS rules.

Strikingly similar to Fel's Position. Like I mentioned to him before, the misinformation wagon keeps rolling. The only "undeniable fact" is that people want to believe the worst about Jehovah's Witnesses. The WTS also prints the King James Version, The American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, The Bible in Living English, and I have also received from them, the New English Bible, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and others have been available. I often use other Bibles in my ministry, sermons (talks) and service.

I also own hundreds of books on theology and New Testament history and grammar, a passion shared by many of my brothers. Yet we are criticized, THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMMMM!

Max

mike_decock

Yeah, those fugitive, wandering city-builders . You utterly failed to address my comment. You just spouted out a bunch of irrelevant semantics.

Again you failed to respond to my comment.

You and Yawheh. You failed to address the comment and Yahweh's prediction that Cain would be a fugitive and a vagabond was wrong.

It doesn't matter how well you've read the subject material if you don't answer the question and drivel on endlessly about irrelevent minutiae.

-Mike...