Jehovah`s Witness/Evidently, Eddie has no rebuttal at all...How disappointing!
While we are all anxiously awaiting Eddie to come on here and address the evidence from history/archaeology, and the Scripture, as well as explain his selective use of quotes, we have instead seen him wasting his time trying to divert the issues that he is not wanting to address.
Now, nobody is asking for him to post his rebuttal overnight. I understand that it takes a significant amount of time to gather evidence, just as my posts did. If he needs more time, that is not a problem.
But you would think he would stop WASTING valuable time (both his and ours), by posting more nonsense and repeating himself, instead of getting busy with the issue at hand.
So far, we have seen loads of "straw man and "red herring" arguments, as well as watching him ignore Scriptural points and questions.
Eddie, your games are getting old. You issued the challenge, and claimed you were going to destroy my evidence.
We're still waiting....
I was hoping Eddie’s next reply, would be better than his last one. Instead, it was worse. MUCH worse. The obfuscation continues, I see.
Actually, what Eddie is doing here, was exactly what I always believed he would. I did not believe for one minute, that he was going to refute any of the archaeological evidence that I presented. He cannot dispute any of the findings. He hasn’t even tried. Nor has he addressed any of the Scriptures listed, except for going all to pieces over Exodus 12, and the shape of the cross which was placed above the door, and on the 2 side posts.
And even there on that point, he has now written TWO times, and not offered even ONE alternate explanation for this pattern that Jehovah commanded. Nothing, nada, zero, zilch, GOOSE EGG! Instead, he has joined some of his other comrades off the emotional deep end, and instead has resorted to attacking me, and of course, the King James Bible.
Funny, he opens his remarks by claiming I have ATTACKED him, then he himself proceeds to use the remainder of his “reply”, to attack me. Isn’t that EXACTLY what we have come to see from these people, so many times?…Claiming they are being attacked, and never SHOWING the attack, and then turning right around and attacking the ones they claim are attacking them? Typical, typical, typical….
But bottom line…NO EXPLANATION as to WHY Jehovah commanded the blood to be placed in this pattern. Man, if you can’t even get past the FIRST Scripture, then how do you expect to address the other ones?
Secondly, Eddie continues his normal pattern of ignoring questions. Now Eddie, I have asked you TWICE now, to please provide the reference in the King James Bible, where “xylon”
was translated as “cross”
. You have made this statement to both me, and another questioner. Now, I’m going to keep asking this in every post, until you do provide those references.. I am not going to forget…just ask anybody who has tried this diversionary tactic with me in the past. I have the memory of an elephant, when it comes to unanswered questions.
ONCE AGAIN, Eddie….Where does the King James Bible translate “xylon” as “cross”??
Don’t try ignoring this again, hoping I’ll forget about it. I want to discuss those Scriptures with you, but first, I need to see them.
And while you’re at it, Ed, I would like to add another question to this one. Since you have informed the world that there is no Hebrew word for “cross”, I would like for you to tell us all what the GREEK word for “cross” is, and when this word came into common usage. I will go ahead and give you a Wiki article to help you out, here in a moment….
Now, Eddie is flailing around and trying to keep his arguments afloat, but to no avail. He has the Scriptures, history, and archaeology, against him. He is now reduced to high-strung emotional rants, and personal attacks against me. Of course, it is his own fault for issuing such a challenge to begin with. What was he thinking?
Now, I seldom quote from Wikipedia, however I am going to quote them in this particular instance. For 2 reasons…Eddie himself has quoted from Wikipedia, and also this identical quote was misused by another JW “expert”, Mr. Rando, about 15 months ago, to try and substantiate Watchtower teaching. And this article does ANYTHING BUT, substantiate it.
“Homeric and classical Greek[edit source]
In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole, or piece of paling, "on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."
In the literature of that time it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.
Koine Greek[edit source]
In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 BC and AD 300, the word σταυρός was already used to refer to a cross, as when Justin Martyr said the σταυρός of Christ was prefigured in the Jewish paschal lamb: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross (σταυρός) which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross (σταυρός). For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." The word σταυρός was used to refer to the instrument of execution by crucifixion, which at that time involved binding the victim with outstretched arms to a crossbeam, or nailing him firmly to it through the wrists; the crossbeam was then raised against an upright shaft and made fast to it about 3 metres from the ground, and the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft.
In the writings of the Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), Plutarch and Lucian, the word stauros is generally translated as "cross", although the passages quoted from the former two do not contain any specifics about the form of the device.
In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament
hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated: "The "σταυρός" (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, σταυρόω, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. The initial letter Χ, (chi) of Χριστός, (Christ) was anciently used for His name, until it was displaced by the T, the initial letter of the Pagan God Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv." Bullinger's 1877 statement, written before the discovery of thousands of manuscripts in Koine Greek at Oxyrhyncus in Egypt revolutionised understanding of the language of the New Testament, conflicts with the documented fact that, long before the end of the fourth century, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135, and may have been of the 1st century AD., the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened the σταυρός to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300), and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11-12. The shape of the σταυρός is likened to that of the letter T also in the final words of Trial in the Court of Vowels among the works of 2nd-century Lucian, and other 2nd-century witnesses to the fact that at that time the σταυρός was envisaged as being cross-shaped and not in the form of a simple pole are given in Dispute about Jesus' execution method.”
Now, I would be remiss, if I didn’t mention Rando’s misuse of this very article. I am providing the link below, where I wrote to him about his attempted deception, and also we can see his scholarly and reasonable answer in his reply, to the issue of his dishonesty.
It seems that ole’ Rando gave us a quote from this very article, but made a little alteration, from the very first statement….“In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole, or piece of paling”
But Rando removed the 2 letters, “BC”
, so that the statement would read….“In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century, stauros meant an upright stake, pole, or piece of paling”
THIS is a prime example of how far these people will go, to defend their doctrine. “Hey, if we can’t find evidence that agrees with us, then we will just ALTER a quote. Problem solved!”
, seems to be the prevailing mentality. By removing “BC”
, he was trying to make it appear as if “stauros”
did not mean “cross”
, until the time of Constatine, which is a LIE. It actually had already come to mean “cross”
, centuries BEFORE the time of Christ.
So, when you see statements from Jws, whether it is Eddie, Rando, Sister T, etc, to the effect of….“The cross was not believed until Constantine made it an official symbol”
, or “The “stauros” only came to mean cross LATER”
, you need to know that this is what kind of shenanigans you are dealing with.
What's more important, Guys? Proving Watchtower doctrine, or telling the TRUTH?
Oh, and incidentally, when I wrote to Rando and pointed out his deception (which he already knew), it really got interesting….One JW tried to claim that I had “edited” the Wiki article to “frame poor old Rando” (even though hundreds of other articles show the same thing), but FINALLY, Rando was prompted to go back into his answer and “revise” it, and ADD the letters “BC”
back where they belong. He was quite content to alter the article....until he got caught. While he may have gone back and revised the article, he cannot go back and get rid of where I quoted his comments in the question TO him.
If this is the kind of deception you people build your doctrine on, Eddie, then I suggest you find a new doctrine.
But that isn’t the worst of it. In fact, just put everything I have just said on the back burner for a moment. BY FAR, the worst part of all of this, is that NOW Eddie G’s main approach is to ATTACK the Bible. Instead of bothering to address the many archaeological and historical findings that I have listed, and instead of addressing the Scriptures that I listed, Eddie now is reduced to attacking God’s Word and accusing virtually all Bibles except the NWT, of LYING.
In his last writing, he tried to dismiss the “experts”. Now, he wants to dismiss all other Bibles. Is THAT what he calls an “effective debate tactic”? I guess that means we should just trust what HE tells us….After all, he himself has already been caught several times giving out false information, and making false claims about the King James Bible. But he is trustworthy?
This is a sure sign of a man who does not have the facts on his side.
Now, I am not wasting my day off of work, responding to every little petty false statement made by Eddie, is this complete failure of a reply of his. I am going to just hit a couple, and show the inaccuracy of his comments.
Eddie: “So Mr. Holland you said in your latest post:
"What's the big deal HOW He died, as long as we understand that He DID die?"
"who DOES care HOW Jesus died….it’s the JW position that makes such an issue of it"
First off, I would like to know where he got this first quote from me. Sometimes, even if something reflects somewhat accurately what you believe, you just know that the way it is QUOTED, is not the way you would have worded it. Such was the case in the first quote. I would like to see this actual statement from me? I mean, you DO claim that "Mr. Holland you said"
, and then you proceeded to QUOTE it. Where did you get the quote, Eddie?
I did find the second quote in my last writing (and he actually left out part of it, also), but have not located the first one. It certainly is not in the reply that he claims it was in. Not a huge deal, because it does reflect my feelings on the subject fairly well, but still, I have asked Eddie before not to PRETEND to be quoting me, when I didn’t make the exact statement.
Also, I notice that Eddie says NOTHING to a fellow JW, who basically said the same exact thing. Eddie completely missed the point about my saying he was the one who is “desperate”, in answer to him claiming I was. It is true that I am much more concerned about Christ’s death for our sins, than HOW He died. Any thinking person would be. But Eddie, is OBVIOUSLY obsessed with not just the fact of it, but the “HOW” of it.
So yes, the one who is on the verge of the emotional break-down, is obviously the one “desperate” to prove his point, especially given the fact that he has completely failed to do so, and he KNOWS it.
Now, back to Mr. Hepburn. Now, if I (a non-JW) says that I do not care HOW Jesus died, as long as He did, and as long as my sins are still paid for, then I’m the worst person on the planet.
But when a JW says it, Eddie says nothing. I quote from Mr. Hepburn, who was CORRECT on this particular point, although I was disappointed with some other comments he made in his response. But on this point, we are in agreement. He said….
Brenton: “For me, what Jesus died on is of no relevance. I do not care if it was a plain upright pole or a two beamed cross of some description. Even the Watchtower is NOT DOGMATIC about this. Note this quote from a 1987 Watchtower August 15 page 29 “Jesus most likely was executed on an upright stake without any crossbeam. No man today can know with certainty even how many nails were used in Jesus’ case.”
But according to Eddie, he claims it is a HUGE deal HOW Jesus died. I quote…
“Oh well, I guess I'll just have to answer them for you in order to show the nonsense and the danger of this statement - 'the way Jesus died doesn't matter'.
“That is sad Mr. Holland if not BLIND faith. And to think that you were once a Pastor in your church, teaching people that "IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL how Jesus died"?
(No Eddie, I don’t believe I ever “taught” them its not a big deal. I taught them that Jesus DIED ON A CROSS. Sorry you don’t grasp the point that the instrument is not what is so important, but rather, the MEANING of it).
“But since a lie was introduced in his NAME - thus it is a BIG DEAL. It matters a lot! “
“And to all of those who say that it is not, I hope YOU rethink your position very seriously and carefully because if it IS - you will end up supporting a lie, whether you like it or not.”
“I really hope and pray that you or for that matter those of the same mindset like you Mr. Holland will consider carefully what you're saying because this is a very serious matter if not a dangerous one!”
“If it's proven that Jesus didn't die on a CROSS, IT would mean that what you've come to believe all along, is a lie. Thus the very foundation of your faith (as I said from the very start of this expose') will be shaken to its very core.”
(This is one of the dumbest statements ever typed on a computer! First off, it ISN’T PROVEN that Jesus didn’t die on a cross (another straw man). THAT is what we ALL ARE WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVE, EDDIE! Why the delay?
Second, the manner of Jesus’ death does NOT “shake” anything regarding the “foundation of my faith”, because the foundation of my faith is the DEATH of Jesus Christ. My faith is in Him, not the instrument of death. Not the cross, but the One Who hung on it. And ANY born again Christian would agree with that statement. If Eddie could prove that Jesus died on nothing but a pole (and he obviously can’t), then it would NOT mean “that what you’ve come to believe all along, is a lie”
. What we BELIEVE, and what we PREACH, is that Christ died to SAVE us, and that His blood is THE FINAL payment for our sins. That doesn’t change, nor become a “lie”, as Eddie’s comments try to make you believe, regardless of what instrument Jesus’ death took place on.
Notice how Eddie tries to create a false dilemma? Again, typical JW thinking.
And it just so happens, that all the facts point to Jesus dying on a CROSS, a fact that Eddie is YET to refute.)
So, for the sake of argument, let's just say that Eddie was correct, that this issue of WHAT Jesus died on, is of such dire consequences...life or death, so to speak. Let's just say that our very salvation DOES depend on that. It doesn't, but for the sake of the point he's trying to convince us of, let's just say it does....
Even if this were the case, and I came to "rethink my position" as to whether or not this issue is of vital importance, the first thing I would do, is examine EVERYTHING I could find in the Scripture, and in history, so as not to risk being wrong. And if I did all of that, and looked at ALL the evidence, I would still have to come to the conclusion that it was a CROSS! Because Eddie has been so unsuccessful in giving us any evidence to the contrary.
These quotes will suffice in proving that Eddie thinks the instrument of Jesus’ death, is a matter of eternal consequences. And to beat it all, he’s wrong on the instrument used. I hope, for his sake, that it isn’t of eternal consequences.
I just have one question….Eddie, does Mr. Hepburn also have “dangerous thinking”, even though he BELIEVES that it was a “stake”, because he doesn’t believe that the issue is of primary importance?
Now, here is another point that Eddie just keeps repeating in every single post, which has no relevance to the question at all.
“As it is, the evidence already presented are undeniable. The CROSS IS of Pagan origin and used in pagan worship in one form or another!”
This is where Eddie is like the guy who’s ship has just sunk in the middle of the ocean, and he desperately tries to cling to one little piece of wood (with NO cross-beam) to stay afloat, only to finally realize that no help is coming. It is almost becoming a joke, to watch him simply repeat like a broken record, this one little point about the pre-Christian/anti-Christian uses of the cross, only to have him never explain how this has any relevance to the question of what Jesus died on.
Also, he is YET to explain why it is that he thinks Jesus died on a stake, while the stake itself has the SAME pagan connotations. Why doesn’t he refute, or even address, this fact, rather than continue IGNORING it? Simple…because it completely destroys his objection to the cross, and he knows it.
Hey Eddie, how about some “UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE” that the cross was NOT in use by the Romans in Jesus’ time, and some “undeniable evidence” from the SCRIPTURES, that Jesus’ hands were held by ONE nail, above His head, on the “stake”?
Stop OBFUSCATING, and give us the evidence! Your procrastination is growing old.
Eddie: “In addition, if it's proven that Jesus didn't die on a traditional CROSS, it would mean that MAJORITY of Bibles out there contained a lie.”
Ah yes, here we go. Now we see what is really behind all of this….Eddie is not a Bible-believer, he is a Bible-corrector.
He also states…“ It would mean that the KJV Bible that you highly treasure has in its pages the lie (since 1611).
“It would also mean that God's Word was changed and tampered with for a long long time.”
Now folks, let’s just use this opportunity to examine a lesson about human nature. We don’t accept that someone is a Bible-believer because they CLAIM to be one. We LOOK and listen to what they say, because they will always betray themselves. Now, Eddie G claims to be a Bible-believer. He is, in reality, a Bible-corrector. Notice that he strongly implies, that ALL Bibles before his NWT, contain “lies”. All of them! Now, that is serious.
He talks about “tampering”, and this is the same guy who carries around a “bible” translated from the vile Westcott/Hort Greek text? Men who were fascinated with evolution, Mariolatry, and did not even believe in the Genesis account of creation? Who used manuscripts which removed large portions of Scripture? And he wants to talk about “tampering”?
He further reveals his approach, in this statement…
“. . . to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)
“On these alone if you're not convinced of the seriousness of such matter, then you have no one to blame but yourself!”
Now do you still think it's not a BIG DEAL and it doesn't matter - how Jesus died?”
His misuse of Scripture here, is nothing short of sickening and blasphemous. I have said in the past, that he is “irresponsible” in his handling of God’s Word. Now, it has progressed beyond that. He is now handling it "deceitfully".
2 Corinthians 4:2- "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God"
Hear that, everyone? Do you hear what he is really saying? If you don’t ignore all of the SCRIPTURAL evidence, and all of the historical/archaeological evidence that substantiates the Scripture, and if you don’t immediately accept Eddie G’s evidence from MISQUOTES, and DECEPTIVE use of articles, then you will have the punishment of Revelation 22:18-19 come upon you.
This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at MIND MANIPULATION and INTIMIDATION, because he has been so inept in providing ANYTHING by way of solid evidence for the readers. We have had a steady diet of Eddie’s opinion, quotes from non-Christian sources, quotes taken out of context, with a good mixture of emotionalism mixed in. In addition to that, we have seen several attacks on the King James Bible, based ON lies and Eddie’s own lack of knowledge of the Biblical languages.
But hey, you had better accept it, or you will fall under the curse of the above Scripture.
Actually, I think this Scripture actually just means that we are not supposed to take away, or add to, what THE BIBLE says….not what the Watchtower says. Unfortunately, for this Scripture to have any relevance or condemnation for those who think the instrument is not as important as the FACT of His death, the Bible would FIRST have to TEACH that Jesus died on a “stake” without a cross-beam. Now, if the Bible DID teach this, then Eddie would have a point. It doesn’t. In fact, what we DO have from the Scripture, indicates the opposite.
But hey, I have a question….If the INSTRUMENT itself was so eternally important, then why DIDN’T the Holy Spirit make some UNDENIABLE, and CLEAR reference to it? Surely He knew that the Romans WERE using crosses in that day, so why not clear the whole thing up, by letting us know that Jesus was NOT put to death in the manner that was COMMON during that time?
This is what happens when you come to believe the Bible was written, not for you to GET your doctrine from, but to USE to intimidate others into believing your doctrine, even if it has no solid support.
Eddie’s task is simple, yet monumental. He has to prove a couple of things:
1. That “xylon” means specifically, and only, a “pole”, rather than ANY object made of wood. If a “xylon” is merely a wooden object, then the use of the term “tree” is clearly addressed, because ALL “xylon”s are the product of a “tree”. If its wood, it’s a “xylon”.
2. That a “pole” ceases to be a “pole”, when a cross-beam is attached to it. This is about as intelligent as saying the pole in my back yard is no longer a pole, because I attached a bird house to it. My son built a miniature Fenway Park in our back yard, and even built a fence like the “Green Monster”. When he put up the foul “poles”, he then made a crucial mistake, with eternal consequences…he attached a NET to it. Yet, he still calls it a foul “pole”. I will need to address this error with him.
3. That crosses did not come into common use before Jesus’ time. And this is one that he will not even TRY to prove.
4. That Christians did not believe in the cross until the early 4th century, even though we have numerous proofs from the 1st and 2nd centuries, that they certainly did. Perhaps they can MISQUOTE the “IMPERIAL BIBLE DICTIONARY”, again?
Now, moving on….
Eddie: “But alas and unfortunately, judging from your many posts, I'm afraid there's no point of convincing you. But for the sake of those who are still willing to listen, please consider the following.”
You are correct, Eddie. You will not convince me with emotional rants, and nervous break-downs. You will only convince me with FACTS of history, and most of all, Scripture. So far, you have proven to be a complete failure in this regard. You throw out your half-truths (actually more like 1/8 “truths”), you put on a good display of emotion, and when someone knocks it all out from under you with the facts, you get angry and attack them.
Just like Rita said. You prove her right with every post.
And I seriously doubt if any person who isn’t already decided and already in agreement with you, would still be “listening” to your presentation, because you are not addressing the evidence that has been given against it. Instead, you are becoming angry and throwing a tantrum.
Eddie: “If "Xylon" stands for a "tree" (torture stake - NWT), what makes you think that it is right and acceptable to translate "stauros" into the traditional "CROSS" when describing the same thing?”
Simple….because those 2 words do not always describe the exact same thing, and evidence suggests that Jesus‘ death was on a cross. “Xylon” is a much broader word. Kind of like “fornication” and “adultery”. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. I hope this doesn’t confuse you.
By the same token, ALL wooden “crosses” are “xylon”s, but not all “xylon”s are crosses. “xylon” could be a cross, pole, a wooden shingle, a wooden table, or a wooden canoe. We all know that Jesus wasn’t crucified on a canoe, or an a table. He was crucified on a cross, which was made of wood, making it a “xylon”.
Seriously, Man, you need to do some more research into what “xylon” means. And this is also why I asked you to tell us the GREEK word for “cross”. I will be anxiously awaiting your reply to that one.
But the easy answer to Eddie’s false dilemman, is that there is nothing about it being a cross, that eliminates it from being a tree, or a pole. AGAIN, this is completely in harmony with what we know was the manner of HOW crucifixions were carried out, ANOTHER point that Eddie has done his best to try and ignore having to answer.
So, for good measure, I think I’ll ask it again….Eddie, if the historical evidence is true, and there were stationary poles at the commonly-used execution sites, then why would a cross-beam being attached, do either of the following?….
1. Change the fact that its still a “pole”?
2. Cause a contradiction between “tree”, and “cross”?
Instead of continuing to IGNORE these points, and just keep on repeating yourself, you need to ANSWER them.
Eddie: “If on the other hand you say yes (like Mr. Holland is expected to do), would you drink a cup of cold sweet clear water that has a drop of poison in it?
I hope not. But any Bible that contain a lie especially a deliberate one is enough to put your very salvation into grave danger.
Oh, but you say, 'the KJV translated it correctly. Our scholars said so. Our experts said so. Who are you to question them? Why the KJV was produced by thousands of people for over hundreds if not thousands of years, how dare you question their knowledge.”
Okay, we once again see Eddie’s approach, is to try and CAST DOUBT on the Word of God. Seems like someone else tried that, way back in Genesis chapter 3.
Personally, I think I'll base my salvation on the premise of the Bible being TRUE, than it containing a "lie".
Rather than tear this false argument into shreds like I’m tempted to do, I will merely contrast the difference between Eddie and myself, and our approach.
Eddie’s contention, is that ALL Bibles up until the NWT, contained “lies”. He said so. To my knowledge, there are only FOUR “bibles” that do not use the word ’cross”, including the NWT. And of the other 3, ALL of them were published AFTER the NWT. If there are any others prior to the NWT, I am not aware of them.
So, Eddie believes that ALL Bibles up until the NWT, were lying.
Now, my approach is different. Yes, I do believe in the corruption of most of the translations, but I do NOT believe that God left His people without His Word for all those centuries. I base that belief on the Scripture itself….
Psalm 12:6-7- “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Now, either He did, or He didn’t, honor this promise. I personally find the notion that “only the originals were inerrant”, to be ludicrous. This implies a God that inspires His Word in the beginning, but can’t keep up with it. The God I serve promised, not only to give us “pure words”, but to “KEEP” and “PRESERVE” those “pure words for ever”.
So Eddie, when the premise you are left with, is to imply that all Bibles up until the 20th century were LYING, then you lose….Plain and simple. Again, history, archaeology, and Scripture, all stand against your position.
And in contrast to Eddie G, my position is that we DO have God’s Word, we HAVE had it, and the Bible was not LYING until the “wonderful” NWT came along to rescue us.
Think about it…If what Eddie is saying is true, then people for the past 19 centuries, have “believed a lie” with eternal consequences. They are not really saved, because they too believed Jesus died on the cross. For THAT MATTER, even early JWs were not okay either, because they TOO taught that Christ died on a cross, and even featured it on their publications. Again, that is…IF this issue really means our salvation.
Its not my position that is “crumbling”, my friend. Its yours. Your own leaders made the comment years ago, that later discoveries would strengthen support for the “stake”. On the contrary, later discoveries have validated the cross.
Your claim that my argument is “crumbling”, and that I can’t do anything about it, was comical. I don’t have to do anything…you haven’t even ADDRESSED my arguments, or the evidence, yet. All you have done for the past several posts, is to change the subject, and create diversions. You have not answered questions, even regarding your OWN statements about the King James Bible.
Eddie does what so many before him have done….The come on here with their blatant disregard for the HONEST use of facts, then they challenge others to refute them. When they are refuted, they then attack you, and then claim “victory”, even though they never did actually address the evidence against them. When you ask them for Scriptures on just about any given topic that supports their view, you will normally get “They have already been listed, so there’s no point in listing them again”
, when they were never actually listed.
Right now, Eddie, you are acting like a guy who has just been beaten and kicked around in a boxing ring, and is bloodied to the point that he can barely even stand up, and then proclaiming to the crowd….“Hey everybody, did you see how I whipped that guy? I sure did break his hands with my face, didn’t I?”
C’mon, give us a break. You have answered NOTHING, in regards to the evidence presented. All we have seen is more “straw men” and “red herring” arguments from you, with a couple of “ad hominem” attacks for good measure.
But I’m not finished showing the problems with this statement from Eddie…
Oh, but you say, 'the KJV translated it correctly. Our scholars said so. Our experts said so. Who are you to question them? Why the KJV was produced by thousands of people for over hundreds if not thousands of years, how dare you question their knowledge.”
Now Eddie, do not take your trip to the wood-shed (“xylon”-shed) by Ron, out on me. Okay? The truth is, he was correct…The King James had the best scholars of the day, divided up into committees, which each went back over the work done by the other committees. I could give you some great facts about the translators, but that is for another time and another place. Let’s deal with YOUR translators here in a moment.
But he, once again, uses a false premise. Nobody has told the readers “not to question”. Except Eddie, and other JWs, that is. I can produce statements from Eddie himself, indicating that to question the WT, is an affront to Jehovah God Himself. Do JWs “question” the teachings of the WT, and remain in good standing?
Actually, I think we SHOULD question anything, except the Scriptures. That is why I’m not a JW. I did not use to be at my position on this Bible translation issue, nor do I fall out with others who use other versions. But I arrived at it QUESTIONING what I was being taught in Bible college, and by preachers on the radio. And at the end of the day, I had to decide if I would believe God’s promise to “KEEP” His Word, or not. I decided to.
But your attacks on the KJB have NOTHING to do with this topic…nothing in the least. You STILL have the archaeological facts to dispute, and even the other versions realize that Jesus died on a cross, also.
But Eddie, you wrote….“Why you're own NWT is quite new and was produced by unknown people. You can't compare it with the KJV”
That is correct, Sir…you do not want to embarrass your NWT, by comparing it to the KJB.
However, you are also incorrect, when you assert that your NWT was produced by “unknown” people. No, they WANTED and TRIED to remain “unknown”. But the fact is, the ARE now known. And it would have been better had they remained unknown, because their credentials have been found to be lacking. Only ONE had any training in the Biblical languages at all, and his training was not sufficient for the task at hand. Not to mention they used VATICAN manuscripts from the Westcott/Hort text, which was a bad move.
And you want to talk about “tampering”, and lack of credentials? Just let me know, Eddie….That is, if we can ever get you to address this issue of the cross, and the evidence that has been presented.
One final thing from Eddie’s “reply”, that I wish to point out…
Eddie: “Sure "Nobody said the word “cross” was used in Exodus 12”.
Then why did you attempt to change the subject, and talk about something that wasn’t even said? Another of your diversionary tactics, which NEVER work?
“No, but you IMPLIED that it was used, Mr. Holland.”
Along these same lines, you said…“So if you knew that the word CROSS wasn't there, then why IMPLY that it's there?”
Actually, Eddie, you are making another false statement. Also, you illustrate ONCE AGAIN, that you cannot read and comprehend the simple statement in front of you.
I did not once SAY, or IMPLY, that the WORD “cross” was used in Exodus 12. This is another of your “straw man” arguments. I said the SHAPE of the cross, is implied, by a simple reading of the verse.
And you STILL have not adequately answered this FACT. I left the door wide open for you to offer a “better explanation”, and you didn’t have the sense to walk through it. Instead, you went off about “ets”, the lack of a Hebrew word for “cross” (which was never the point), and did everything BUT address the issue.
Again, this is typical of what we have seen from you, and will no doubt continue to see from you.
Now, once again….Are you, or are you not, going to address the evidence that has been given? Your position only crumbles further, with every post that doesn’t address anything, but instead, consists of emotional tantrums.
Also….WHERE are the passages in the KJB, that translate “xylon” as “cross”.
Please do not make me have to keep asking you these same questions….