How Can Jehova's Witnesses Pronounce the Word Thursday?

[savagewind]

"I too look forward to the time when there will be one God and one religion....the same ones they had in the Garden of Eden."

Why? Suppose I don't want to worship your way or your idea of God?

Dead you will be, according to some seemingly rising philosophies. Or, perhaps falling. We do not know yet!

 

[savagewind]

Well, again, "according to Paul"...1 Corinthians 1:10.

We can't but wonder where in the world your audacity has come from to think you know what God meant when God had it scribed "let there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought"! Could the one thought that you worship really have innocently begun as (1 Corinthians 1:9) Jesus Christ is to be the lord?

God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. < that Jesus Christ is the lord of us.

 

[nPeace]

You appear not to know what your book says.

Genesis 1 says

11 And God said, 'Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed [...]' and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kind, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed [...] And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night [...] 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 and God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament to give light to the earth. 18 [...] And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.​

If you want to tell me that this was simply the understanding of the day and place where the story was written, I'll agree with you. But don't pretend it says anything but what it says: there were plants on earth before the sun existed.
Not from the sun. It doesn't exist till Day 4, as the text explicitly states.
Since I don't speak Hebrew, I leave those matters to the translators, who have formidable expertise in Hebrew. And they very solidly agree with what I quoted above.

Tell me, why would you expect the authors of the bible to know modern science? Why would you expect them to write anything other than what they wrote?

I keep asking that question yet not once has anyone answered it.

As for the earth being flat and fixed and central and the sky being hard with the stars &c affixed to it, I assume you've read your bible and already know what it says about their cosmology (as I set out >here<)? As history will tell you, that's what they thought in those days.

It seems that it would not matter how many times it is explained to you, it would not matter. Could it be, you are listening to someone telling you something else, or reading something contrary, which you prefer to accept?
Genesis 1:1 covers the creation of the universe - the cosmos.
Everything else deals with making the earth right for life, and putting life on it.

The text does not explicitly say what you are saying. Where does the text say the light was not from the sun. It doesn't exist till Day 4?
Why do you feel the sun did not exist, till day four? What do you feel was the source of the light?

Why do you expect that science is a recent thing?
What does science mean, that makes it foreign to ancient people?
The reason the writers of the Bible were ahead of modern science, is due to the fact that the author of the Bible is the creator of the universe.

 

[Shad]

Do Newfounderlander JWs get a pass? The accent...

 

[blü 2]

It seems that it would not matter how many times it is explained to you, it would not matter. Could it be, you are listening to someone telling you something else, or reading something contrary, which you prefer to accept?
Genesis 1:1 covers the creation of the universe - the cosmos.

Yes, in terms of Bronze Age cosmology ─ a flat earth fixed immovably at the center of Everything, and the firmament, a hard sky you can walk on and affix stars to (such that, if they come loose, they'll fall to earth), rotating the heavenly bodies around it, just as the bible says ─ and just as our historical knowledge of that era would confirm.

Everything else deals with making the earth right for life, and putting life on it.

Not least because there was no concept of a solar system, let alone deep space, back then.

The text does not explicitly say what you are saying. Where does the text say the light was not from the sun. It doesn't exist till Day 4?

It says the sun ─ the great light to rule the day ─ was created on day 4. Therefore it did not exist earlier.

Why do you expect that science is a recent thing?

Because it is. I'm familiar in outline with the history of knowledge, and I know when we came to understand the various aspects of cosmology. And that history agrees with the science of the bible ─ the cosmology it expresses is the cosmology of its era, exactly as you'd expect.

What does science mean, that makes it foreign to ancient people?

Here yet again are >quotes from the bible setting out their cosmology<.

There are no quotes expressing knowledge of a solar system or of deep space, nothing of the standard model of atomic theory, no concept of gravity as a distinct force, no theoretical chemistry, simply the pragmatics of what works.

Going the other way, the Bronze Age had elementary working of metal, working in stone and wood, in some cultures (from earlier) a good understanding of moving, shaping and mounting very large stones, pragmatic geometry including surveying with ropes knotted at 3:4:5 points, and so on.

But the fundamentals of modern science were laid down by the Greeks, starting with (say) Thales and the Meletians (early 6th cent BCE, with both Bronze Age and Iron Age by then in the past) whence, across centuries, developed methodical philosophy including natural philosophy, which grew up to be science; and (say) the Pythagoreans (late 6th cent, BCE), leading to the systematic mathematics of Euclid. Before the Greeks, there was very little by way of a theory of knowledge anywhere.

The reason the writers of the Bible were ahead of modern science, is due to the fact that the author of the Bible is the creator of the universe.

So you completely agree with the bible that the earth is really flat, and fixed immovably at the center of the universe, the sky really is hard, you really can walk on it, if the stars come loose they'll fall to earth, and so on?

You surprise me. Still, in a free country you can believe what you like. Even in magic.

 

[Misunderstood]

Exodus 23:13 "“Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips."

So...why do JW's continue to use the word 'Thursday' when everybody knows its named after a pagan god? Every time I hear a JW pronounce the word Thursday, aren't they breaking this commandment? Its is befuddling.

I like Hockeycowboys answer.

But, I could go further and say Seventh Day Adventists worship on the Seventh Day, curse the Catholics for making the First Day of the week the Lords Day, and Sabbath starts sundown of the Sixth Day, so Thursday is the Fifth Day. That's how Genesis calls it anyway.

But really those names mean nothing if you are using them as names for the week or names for planets. When in school we learn those names to be used for days and planets. Kindergartner's will for the most part know nothing about their relationship to a god. Is when it matters is when you use the name to invoke a god for whatever reason. And I am sure most JW's and Christian's will not do that.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, in terms of Bronze Age cosmology ─ a flat earth fixed immovably at the center of Everything, and the firmament, a hard sky you can walk on and affix stars to (such that, if they come loose, they'll fall to earth), rotating the heavenly bodies around it, just as the bible says ─ and just as our historical knowledge of that era would confirm.
Not least because there was no concept of a solar system, let alone deep space, back then.
It says the sun ─ the great light to rule the day ─ was created on day 4. Therefore it did not exist earlier.
Because it is. I'm familiar in outline with the history of knowledge, and I know when we came to understand the various aspects of cosmology. And that history agrees with the science of the bible ─ the cosmology it expresses is the cosmology of its era, exactly as you'd expect.
Here yet again are >quotes from the bible setting out their cosmology<.

There are no quotes expressing knowledge of a solar system or of deep space, nothing of the standard model of atomic theory, no concept of gravity as a distinct force, no theoretical chemistry, simply the pragmatics of what works.

Going the other way, the Bronze Age had elementary working of metal, working in stone and wood, in some cultures (from earlier) a good understanding of moving, shaping and mounting very large stones, pragmatic geometry including surveying with ropes knotted at 3:4:5 points, and so on.

But the fundamentals of modern science were laid down by the Greeks, starting with (say) Thales and the Meletians (early 6th cent BCE, with both Bronze Age and Iron Age by then in the past) whence, across centuries, developed methodical philosophy including natural philosophy, which grew up to be science; and (say) the Pythagoreans (late 6th cent, BCE), leading to the systematic mathematics of Euclid. Before the Greeks, there was very little by way of a theory of knowledge anywhere.
So you completely agree with the bible that the earth is really flat, and fixed immovably at the center of the universe, the sky really is hard, you really can walk on it, if the stars come loose they'll fall to earth, and so on?

You surprise me. Still, in a free country you can believe what you like. Even in magic.

So that explains it. You prefer to listen to misleading interpretations, than to listen to reasonable Biblical expressions and explanations.
Of course you are free to believe what you want.

 

[blü 2]

So that explains it. You prefer to listen to misleading interpretations, than to listen to reasonable Biblical expressions and explanations.

I don't prefer anything. I don't wish to wish any particular reading on any particular script. Instead I approach the books of the bible as I'd approach any ancient document ─ what, when, where, who, why.

They state their own views of science in those documents. The documents are translated by reputable scholars, who very substantially agree on how to put the text into English. Thus we can read what they said.

I gave you that link setting out statements from the bible that reveal their view of cosmology. You appear not to have read them. Or if you read them, you appear not to have understood them.

What they say accords with the beliefs about such matters back in those days ─ as we know from a range of other documents.

If you want to pretend that they magically refer to 21st century science, instead of the science of their place and era, then that's a matter for you. My only suggestion would be that you don't fool yourself about what you're doing.

Personally, I don't believe in magic.

 

[nPeace]

I don't prefer anything. I don't wish to wish any particular reading on any particular script. Instead I approach the books of the bible as I'd approach any ancient document ─ what, when, where, who, why.

They state their own views of science in those documents. The documents are translated by reputable scholars, who very substantially agree on how to put the text into English. Thus we can read what they said.

I gave you that link setting out statements from the bible that reveal their view of cosmology. You appear not to have read them. Or if you read them, you appear not to have understood them.

What they say accords with the beliefs about such matters back in those days ─ as we know from a range of other documents.

If you want to pretend that they magically refer to 21st century science, instead of the science of their place and era, then that's a matter for you. My only suggestion would be that you don't fool yourself about what you're doing.

Personally, I don't believe in magic.

Apparently you believe what you want, and choose to believe that those you prefer to listen to are "reputable scholar". How do you determine a "reputable scholar"?
It seems apparent that you don't want to accept that you misunderstand what you read, or the fact that those reputable scholar" may well be mistaken.
I think if they said "something you didn't want to believe, you would oppose them, and question their status as "reputable scholar".
As I said before, feel free to believe what.

I believe in a supernatural being more powerful than you and I. It has absolutely nothing to do with magic.
I understand that persons talk about what they see physically.
I talk about what I see, both physically, and spiritually.

 

[blü 2]

How do you determine a "reputable scholar"?

By repute.

It seems apparent that you don't want to accept that you misunderstand what you read, or the fact that those reputable scholar" may well be mistaken.

Ah, everyone's wrong except you ─ thanks for pointing that out.

I think if they said "something you didn't want to believe, you would oppose them, and question their status as "reputable scholar".

For example?

And as to what they actually say, I might think they were factually wrong in their cosmology, but I'm interested that this was their view and that it conformed to the norms of its place and time (just as I'd be interested if it departed from those norms).

I believe in a supernatural being more powerful than you and I. It has absolutely nothing to do with magic.

I confess I have no comprehension of the supernatural as a distinct realm ─ I've never found an objective test that could distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary. Perhaps you can help me here and provide me with one?

 

[nPeace]

By repute.

So whatever opinions are generally accepted suits you, even if wrong...

Ah, everyone's wrong except you ─ thanks for pointing that out.

I didn't say that. I only ask that you be reasonable and open minded, but you are welcomed to believe and accept whatever conclusions you reach, or whatever you choose to believe.

For example?

Anything opposite. Doesn't matter.

And as to what they actually say, I might think they were factually wrong in their cosmology, but I'm interested that this was their view and that it conformed to the norms of its place and time (just as I'd be interested if it departed from those norms).

Sound like a worldview to me.
If I found an old document which I though was important, I would not allow cultural norms and ideas to influence how I analyze the document.

I confess I have no comprehension of the supernatural as a distinct realm ─ I've never found an objective test that could distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary. Perhaps you can help me here and provide me with one?

Perhaps I can't help you.

 

[blü 2]

So whatever opinions are generally accepted suits you, even if wrong...

I'm not aware of any serious dispute about the English rendering of the bible provided in any of the best-known versions. Perhaps you have a relevant example in mind?

I didn't say that. I only ask that you be reasonable and open minded

I'm wholly open-minded about what they say, since I have no wish for them to say anything in particular.

But when they say it, that's what they say. And I gave you the quotes, which while being real and accurate are somehow unacceptable to you, not because of faulty translation that anyone has shown, but because you find them declaring the science of their time instead of the science of the 21st century.

If I found an old document which I though was important, I would not allow cultural norms and ideas to influence how I analyze the document.

And yet you want to wish on ancient documents a view of science that did not exist in their day.

Perhaps I can't help you.

You too have no objective means of distinguishing the supernatural from the imaginary? That rather reassures me in my view.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not aware of any serious dispute about the English rendering of the bible provided in any of the best-known versions. Perhaps you have a relevant example in mind?

I said opinions, not translations. In other words person's opinions.

I'm wholly open-minded about what they say, since I have no wish for them to say anything in particular.

But when they say it, that's what they say. And I gave you the quotes, which while being real and accurate are somehow unacceptable to you, not because of faulty translation that anyone has shown, but because you find them declaring the science of their time instead of the science of the 21st century.

No. I do not accept misguided interpretation of scripture, that's all.

And yet you want to wish on ancient documents a view of science that did not exist in their day.
You too have no objective means of distinguishing the supernatural from the imaginary? That rather reassures me in my view.

I know that how one reads the text is important. I am not the skeptic picking at it to find fault, so I am not looking to hold on to things that I think support my motive.
I read the text to understand what it is about, and the message being conveyed.
What message do you get? Any at all?
If there is none, why bother with it? No one is asking you to believe it, are they?
It's not like the skeptics pushing their religion and insisting that people believe in modern myths,falsely labeled science.

 

[blü 2]

I said opinions, not translations. In other words person's opinions.

Then you accept the orthodox translations that my argument draws on.

No. I do not accept misguided interpretation of scripture, that's all.

And you say that purporting to find 21st century science in Bronze Age documents is not a misguided interpretation?

I read the text to understand what it is about, and the message being conveyed.
What message do you get? Any at all?

You can tell what message I get from the list of biblical quotes about cosmology. They thought the earth was flat, and fixed at the center of the universe (&c), and they don't hesitate to say so out loud.

why bother with it? No one is asking you to believe it, are they?

I simply hold the view that old documents are interesting and informative and deserve respect. To impose one's own views on them would be to damage the truth.

It's not like the skeptics pushing their religion and insisting that people believe in modern myths,falsely labeled science.

For instance?

 

[nPeace]

Then you accept the orthodox translations that my argument draws on.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you say that purporting to find 21st century science in Bronze Age documents is not a misguided interpretation?

You can tell what message I get from the list of biblical quotes about cosmology. They thought the earth was flat, and fixed at the center of the universe (&c), and they don't hesitate to say so out loud.

I simply hold the view that old documents are interesting and informative and deserve respect. To impose one's own views on them would be to damage the truth.
For instance?

I suggest that your worldview is clouding your vision, and will ever do so till the day you die. Unless...
Your worldview says, there is nothing supernatural, no miracles, etc. Therefore according to your view the Bible cannot be a product of anything supernatural.

That kind of thinking will prevent you from understanding how persons living thousands of years could be ahead in their knowledge of scientific observations.
That's sad imo, because it actually tells me, not only that people think science is a recent invention, but people think that humans got smart in the late nineteenth century, when clearly the opposite is true.

Do you know that a lot of modern medicine is actually thousands of years old? Are you aware that people were closer to nature, studied it, and knew it better than we do? Are you aware that scientific research shows this?

Regarding the Bible, I suggest you are thoroughly mistaken, and it is simply the case that your worldview is the reason for that.
The Bible speaks about the circle of the earth, yet it speaks of the four corners of the earth.
The Bible speaks of the earth hanging upon nothing, yet it speaks of pillars of the earth.
Do you imagine the scriptures were written by people clueless to what they wrote?
I suggest that the ones clueless are not the writers, but the speptics deluded by their worldview.
The Bible also speak of pillars of the heavens. I would be interested to know how you picture that.

The only way you will see things in the Bible in the light they are supposed to be seen, is if you come to appreciate how flawed your worldview is, but since you don't believe in miracles...
Jesus Christ said, If I have told you earthly things and you still do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3:12)
Is this not clear?
How will you ever understand blü 2?
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

Matthew 13:10-16
10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’ 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear.

 

[blü 2]

I suggest that your worldview is clouding your vision, and will ever do so till the day you die. Unless...

Unless I stop reading what the text says, and substitute a pretend reading in which its ancient authors know 21st century science? I fear we disagree on that point.

Your worldview says, there is nothing supernatural, no miracles, etc.

My view is not whimsical or arbitrary.

There is no demonstration of a real god, but worse, there's no meaningful definition of a real god, such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it was a real god or not. The only place where gods are known to exist is in the imagination of individuals.

There is no meaningful definition of 'supernatural', no meaning to the expression 'outside of nature' except 'imaginary'.

There are no examples of magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing; and no reasonable hypotheses as to how magic might work, let alone testable hypotheses. Miracles are a subset of magic, of course.

Again, please feel free to correct me by providing testable hypotheses on how magic might work.

Therefore according to your view the Bible cannot be a product of anything supernatural.

As I set out above, the only intelligible meaning for 'supernatural' I'm aware of is 'imaginary'.

That kind of thinking will prevent you from understanding how persons living thousands of years could be ahead in their knowledge of scientific observations.

But they're NOT thousands of years ahead of the science of their time. They say the earth is flat, is fixed at the center of everything, the sky is hard dome, the stars are affixed to it, if they come loose they'll fall to earth ─ and so on. They have no concept of the solar system, no concept of deep space ─ hardly surprising given their place and time.

That's sad imo, because it actually tells me, not only that people think science is a recent invention, but people think that humans got smart in the late nineteenth century, when clearly the opposite is true.

Spiritualism? Seances? Have you ever been to a seance and noticed how effortlessly, how invisibly, you can manipulate the glass? The only problem is when someone else is doing the same and you quickly exchange little grins (or grimaces).

Regarding the Bible, I suggest you are thoroughly mistaken, and it is simply the case that your worldview is the reason for that.
The Bible speaks about the circle of the earth, yet it speaks of the four corners of the earth.
The Bible speaks of the earth hanging upon nothing, yet it speaks of pillars of the earth.
Do you imagine the scriptures were written by people clueless to what they wrote?

Those are variations on a theme. I noted another one in that list of quotes I linked for you, that the earth is flat like a plate / flat like a table.

I suggest that the ones clueless are not the writers, but the speptics deluded by their worldview.

Undelude me. Give me the information I lack.

1. How is a real god defined, such that we can objectively determine whether any real candidate is God or not?

2. What makes [it] a god? What is the quality 'godness' that objectively distinguishes a real god from a non-god?

3. What does 'supernatural' mean as an adjective applied to the real world (other than 'imaginary')?

4. Where is there a testable hypothesis as to how magic works (hence how miracles work)?

 

[nPeace]

Unless I stop reading what the text says, and substitute a pretend reading in which its ancient authors know 21st century science? I fear we disagree on that point.

My view is not whimsical or arbitrary.

There is no demonstration of a real god, but worse, there's no meaningful definition of a real god, such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it was a real god or not. The only place where gods are known to exist is in the imagination of individuals.

There is no meaningful definition of 'supernatural', no meaning to the expression 'outside of nature' except 'imaginary'.

There are no examples of magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing; and no reasonable hypotheses as to how magic might work, let alone testable hypotheses. Miracles are a subset of magic, of course.

Again, please feel free to correct me by providing testable hypotheses on how magic might work.

As I set out above, the only intelligible meaning for 'supernatural' I'm aware of is 'imaginary'.

But they're NOT thousands of years ahead of the science of their time. They say the earth is flat, is fixed at the center of everything, the sky is hard dome, the stars are affixed to it, if they come loose they'll fall to earth ─ and so on. They have no concept of the solar system, no concept of deep space ─ hardly surprising given their place and time.

Spiritualism? Seances? Have you ever been to a seance and noticed how effortlessly, how invisibly, you can manipulate the glass? The only problem is when someone else is doing the same and you quickly exchange little grins (or grimaces).

Those are variations on a theme. I noted another one in that list of quotes I linked for you, that the earth is flat like a plate / flat like a table.
Undelude me. Give me the information I lack.

1. How is a real god defined, such that we can objectively determine whether any real candidate is God or not?

2. What makes [it] a god? What is the quality 'godness' that objectively distinguishes a real god from a non-god?

3. What does 'supernatural' mean as an adjective applied to the real world (other than 'imaginary')?

4. Where is there a testable hypothesis as to how magic works (hence how miracles work)?

What do you consider a testable hypothesis for the supernatural?
When you say the earth is described as flat like a plate, or table, do you mean, like this...

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you consider a testable hypothesis for the supernatural?
When you say the earth is described as flat like a plate, or table, do you mean, like this...

The most important test that one can do scientifically is one that would refute the idea if it was wrong. So the question is if the World was a plate what should we not observe? I can name a few things. Can you think of any?

 

[blü 2]

What do you consider a testable hypothesis for the supernatural?

If we assume for the moment that the supernatural refers to something not imaginary then I have no concept of what it could be. But when you provide me with a definition of this not-imaginary supernatural, it will only be a satisfactory definition if it allows us to derive from it an objective test for whether any particular thing or phenomenon is supernatural or not.

As I indicated, in fact I have no useful concept of a non-imaginary supernatural, so I don't even know where to start.

 

[blü 2]

What do you consider a testable hypothesis for the supernatural?
When you say the earth is described as flat like a plate, or table, do you mean, like this...

It was all set out in those quotes I gave you.

16. The earth is flat, like a table.
Isaiah 11:
12 And he will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.​

yet that view coexists with a slightly different view:

18. The earth is flat, like a plate.
Isaiah 40
22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;​

Either way, the world is flat; and as you know from your readings of history, that's what they thought in those parts in those days.