Jehovah`s Witness/Is That Supposed To Be A Rebuttal, Eddie?
If so, then I sure hope your next one is better. Once again, we see Eddie doing his best to confuse this issue, by changing the subject, making outright false statements, and giving misleading information.
Why does he continue to do this? That's for the readers to decide, but what follows, are some more examples of his flawed thinking.
Eddie, I certainly do hope your next rebuttal, is better than this one. This one was very disappointing.
And you wonder why Rita says you “obfuscate”? Your reply to my point in Exodus 13:7, 22-23, is one of the most blatant examples of “OBFUSCATION” that this board has ever seen. I’m still scratching my head over that response, as you apparently completely forgot what was actually said, and you went off on some rabbit-trail about there being no Hebrew word for “cross”, and about some unrelated passage in Deuteronomy.
I quote….”I guess so when one is desperate enough to prove such thing as the CROSS. Sure why not (for your sake)?
But the fact is, the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as "Old Testament" doesn't contain the word CROSS - as in the traditional CROSS (that Christ was supposedly nailed on).
In fact the word for the traditional CROSS (an instrument of death) is NOT even in the Hebrew language.
In fact if such object of implement is being described, the words “warp and woof,” are used alluding to yarns running lengthwise in a fabric and others going across it on a loom.
IN addition at Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, the Hebrew word translated “stake” is ‛ets', meaning primarily "a tree or wood", specifically a wooden post.”
REPLY: Wow Eddie, you must be quite a dancer, judging by the way you danced around the question that I actually ASKED. I don’t recall anybody saying anything about a Hebrew word for “cross” in Exodus 12. I BELIEVE what I said was, that the instructions by Jehovah Himself, were to put the blood above the door and on the two side posts, which was the shape of the cross (FACT).
Furthermore, I gave what I believe is the implied significance of that, and I then ISSUED YOU or any JW, an invitation to provide a BETTER explanation. I don’t see where you offered ANY explanation at all!
Could it just be that you don’t HAVE one? Until which time that you provide one, we will simply have to assume this to be the case.
C’mon, Eddie. Stop obfuscating. You’re ignoring the point, and desperately trying to change the subject. We weren’t talking about a Hebrew word for “cross”, nor were we talking about an unrelated passage in Deuteronomy. Nobody said the word “cross” was used in Exodus 12, so it was a complete waste of your time to even bring that up….I said that the instructions were, to place the blood on the door in the SHAPE of the cross. And then I asked you to explain WHY? Why not at all 4 corners of the door? Why not the top and bottom, in the shape of a torture stake? Why not 3 times on one side, and once on the other?
Why once above the door, and then on two locations on the side? Simple question, Eddie. And I saw NOTHING from you, by way of a real explanation.
AGAIN…Why did Jehovah specify this particular shape? You DO agree that this was a foreshadowing of the death of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, don’t you, Eddie?
Now, I actually appreciate your using the entire quote this time, from Blue Letter Bible. I utilize that site quite frequently myself. Did you just not notice that one of the meanings of “ets”, is “PIECES OF WOOD”, Eddie?
But you know what, this is once again, an attempt to obfuscate. First off, this passage in Deuteronomy has no bearing on the instructions given by Jehovah in Exodus 12, in foreshadowing the death of Jesus Christ. This is merely Eddie’s attempt to appear intelligent, while successfully avoiding the question that was actually asked, altogether. When stumped, just change the subject.
What relevance does there being no Hebrew word for “cross”, or the use of “ets” in Deuteronomy, have to Exodus 12? We know the Passover Lamb was not put to death on an “ets”. We were discussing why this shape was commanded by Jehovah, in Exodus 12....NOT what "ets" means in Deuteronomy. Simply amazing!
Second, we have already shown that neither “tree” nor “xylon”, implies anything about the shape of the object, but simply that it is made of wood….the product of a tree.
Eddie asks….”Now, why did the translators of KJV not use the traditional word CROSS instead of using "tree" for 'ets'?”
REPLY: Stupid question. First off, there is nothing in the definition of “ets”, that rules out there being either one, two, or SEVERAL pieces of wood. This is a classic case of a JW trying to pick only the definition that suits him, and ignoring the others.
The second obvious flaw here, is that nobody denies that people have been put to death on upright poles. I believe this has already been discussed in great length, how that “stauros” executions were done BOTH ways, but by the time of Christ, adding the cross-beam had become more common.
The point is not how someone might have been put to death in Deuteronomy….We are discussing how JESUS was put to death, Eddie. Now, unless you want to maintain that crosses were not used as instruments of execution, then your question is shown to be completely irrelevant, and thus, another attempt to obfuscate.
Now, back to Exodus 12, the ORIGINAL topic.…Do you have ANY explanation for why this shape was instructed by Jehovah God, in light of all the historical and archaeological evidence we have seen, that Christ died on a cross?
EDDIE: “What then is to be made of it?
Simple. If you're a true follower of Christ and consider yourself a Christian, avoid it at all cost, no matter what the so called experts say.
NOTE: Eddie is now indirectly admitting that the "experts" are against his position. All this, after trying his dead-level best, to make the readers THINK the "experts" supported his view. Funny thing...The JWs don't hesitate to MISQUOTE the "experts", to show support for their OWN view. But when the "experts" actually DISAGREE with them, then "What do they know, anyway?"
Actually, I agree...the "expert" opinions should not be the final authority. The Bible should. But then, you DID try to use the "experts", didn't you, Eddie? And I pointed out how you had misused them, and showed evidence from the "experts", that your view is not based on the facts at all.
You MUST obey this command:
“Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean; get out from the midst of her, keep yourselves clean, you who are carrying the utensils of Jehovah.”—ISAIAH 52:11.”
Ah, once again, Eddie answers his own question by giving his opinion…Namely, that if a cross ever had a wrong usage, this automatically makes it unclean. Brilliant. Actually, not much to say there, as Jim just had an excellent post proving the fallacy of that argument, even using statements from the AWAKE! to do it.
Uhm, Eddie, it’s the FALSE WORSHIP that is “unclean” and detestable….not the 2 pieces of wood. Just because something is MISUSED, does not rule out any legitimate use. That’s about like saying that if someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, that makes it a sin to own one, or use it to play baseball. Talk about stating the obvious.
Pagans have worshipped just about everything under the sun….nature, animals, trees, rocks, etc.
Do you have an ANIMAL, Eddie? Most notably, a cat? Get rid of IT! Cats were worshipped by Egyptians, have pagan connotations, and are detestable to Jehovah God. At least, if we follow your "logic".
Does the fact that some people worship the EARTH itself, mean that a Christian cannot go to a beautiful place in the mountains, or the ocean, and draw closer to God by simply viewing the awe in His creation? Eddie, have you ever driven up to the mountains, and been awed by God’s majesty? If so, then STOP it! You are being “detestable” to Jehovah….Don’t you know those things have been misused and worshipped by those who “worship the creature, rather than the Creator”?
I assure you, Eddie….We ALL agree that false worship of the cross, or anything else, is detestable. Getting really tired of having to tell you that so many times, because you are stuck in the mud and keep repeating your same lie over and over.
EDDIE WRITES: “I'll try cover as many as I can in the next post so as not to get accused by Mr. Holland of "ignoring this or that because i don't know why or what the answer is". Just hang loose I'll get to all of it eventually including item#5 of my list.
(btw - if you haven't realized it yet and so as not to get flamed, English is not my native language so please bare with me) “
REPLY: Evidently, neither is Greek or Hebrew. Not that this is a problem in and of itself, but it becomes one when you CONTINUE to misrepresent and distort the facts, by ignoring other uses of the word besides the one that you wish to convey, and by making FALSE claims against the King James Bible.
And Eddie, in regards to your above comment, you don’t need to worry nearly as much about what “Mr. Holland” accuses you of ignoring. Yes, you are ignoring quite a large number of things. But even worse, you are continuing to present FALSE and misleading information, which shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Now, I asked you quite clearly in my last letter, to explain why you claimed that “stauros” was used in Acts 10:39. You had to eat crow on that one, and said that you retracted the statement in your next writing. Perhaps. But then, you CONTINUE to misrepresent the facts, and its getting old. Not only were you WRONG when you claimed “stauros” was used in Acts 10:39, you then make another false implication, when you ask…
Now, Eddie needs calling out again, when he makes this statement. He is so intent on attacking the King James Bible (why, I'm not sure), that he is just throwing comments/misleading questions out there left and right. He asks...
“Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above verses while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?
Any idea why?
Your answer Mr. Holland?”
REPLY: Certainly, Eddie. And ONCE AGAIN, I will reply with a question….Since you have gone on record and claimed the KJV has rendered “xylon” as “cross” in some instances, would you be so kind as to provide the references where they did this, so that we can examine them on their own merits?
To be CLEAR…I want you to please post the references in the King James Bible, where they rendered “xylon” as “cross”.
EDDIE G: “Like you Mr. Holland, because you've fully convinced yourself that "stauros" means the traditional CROSS, you have no choice but to defend it no matter what the facts are.
The problem though with this thinking and belief is that you've now put TRADITION above the Bible - which is in contradiction with God's word.”
Then, he goes on to say….
“I guess so when one is desperate enough to prove such thing as the CROSS. Sure why not (for your sake)?”
REPLY: The current strategy from the back-pedaling Eddie, is to now attack me, based on the overwhelming evidence I have provided. This was a very predictable reaction. I am sure it isn’t much fun, having the world see how you manipulated quotes, and intentionally left out pertinent information, and continue to misrepresent the facts.
However, his assertion that <b?“Mr. Holland has no choice but to defend the cross”</b>, is pure hogwash. Here is why….
First off, I have no need to “prove” anything. I am the one who has stated quite clearly, that as a Christian, I do not personally CARE what Jesus died on. As long as His death, and His shed blood provide salvation and the forgiveness of sins, I am quite happy if His death was on a cross, a stake, or whatever other manner that was foreordained by God. Again, it is His DEATH that is important to me, not HOW it happened.
And we all know who is “desperate”, and who DOES care HOW Jesus died….it’s the JW position that makes such an issue of it. Even Mr. Hepburn acknowledges that it doesn’t matter HOW, just that it happened. I agree with him on that point. Eddie, however, is obsessed with his hatred for the cross.
So, there is no desperation or need on my part to prove anything…I am happy either way. If it was a stake and my sins are still forgiven, then praise be to God! But it just so happens, that it was on a cross, and Eddie is giving out misleading information. That just shouldn’t happen.
But again, the first reason why his charge of “desperation” is so absurd, is because it is THEM, not us, who has made this an issue of contention. The person opening their mouth first, and being shown up, is normally the one who comes back “desperate”. And that is precisely what we have seen.
The second reason his comment is absurd, is that I read his misleading posts several weeks ago, and did NOT choose to even address the falsehoods in them, because again….The INSTRUMENT of Christ’s death is not what was important. That only became important later on, when he gave his false information.
My MAIN contention with Eddie G, and the ONLY one that I initially addressed, was his lie about us WORSHIPPING the instrument of death. That comment was made twice, in my replies to Rita. Had I been as desperate as he claims, I would immediately have jumped on the fact that Jesus died on the cross. That issue was actually secondary in importance, to his false claim that we worship it. HOW He died, is a matter that we do have the facts on, and it was a cross, as the evidence has shown. But even if it weren’t, I would be just as happy that He died and rose again.
Again, it is Eddie who chose to start this topic with his nonsense, and then challenge anyone to refute him. There is no desperation on my part to prove anything…I just answered his challenge, and now he is all to pieces about it.
So Eddie, your contention that I “have” to defend the cross, is nothing but a smoke-screen, to divert attention off of the fact that I HAVE proven it, and now you have to try and weaken the evidence that I have presented.
I’d say you are the one who is “desperate”, right now.
Now, are you going to cease with your smoke-screens and your insults to Rita, and ADDRESS THE ISSUE?