Birds fly, but they don’t like it

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 24, 2014

Evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Emus and moas only look alike. Genes tell a different story.

Huge flightless birds like emus and moas may look alike, but their genes now tell us they are only distantly related. Ancient DNA reveals that birds lost the ability to fly on six separate occasions within 10 million years. It seems the extinction of the dinosaurs created a brief window for big ground-dwelling birds, before large mammals evolved.

and

While we think of birds as flying animals, Penny says their natural state is foraging on the ground. If there are no predators and no competitors for food, it makes sense for them to grow and lose the ability to fly.

So all those adaptations for flight just happened, because of competition in foraging?

Note: Emus have been successfully raised in Canada.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

P-G: A good point, though not always possible. My thought is, one of the meta issues is on patterns of thought, reasoning, holding/changing of views and persuasion, as well as responsiveness to evidence. The above exchange echoes all too many that have happened on scientific evidence and analysis. Taking feathers, from Wallace they have been seen as a structure that strongly points to design, particularly those connected to flight. This has to do with massive irreducible complexity and the vera causa principle of explaining on known demonstrated causes for a class of phenomenon. Likewise, the LOSS of flight capability points to a significant pattern of actually observed evolutionary change, as in typical cases of bacterial immunity or the sickle cell trait. Co-optation faces huge hurdles to get to a set of complex well matched properly interfaced parts to form a functioning whole' patently astronomical odds; again and again. All these point to serious gaps, and yet -- given an a priori commitment that is so often imposed in the name of redefining science -- vera causa gets short shrift and we are in effect told that the dubious happened with the effective degree of certainty of the roundness of the earth. That looks like ideological imposition to me, held on to in the teeth of evidence and stoutly defended by any and every rhetorical means deemed necessary. KFkairosfocus_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

This YEC agrees its no big deal to see flightless birds. In fact almost everry island of size had such birds. Especially with the rails. They just show diversity. Easily they would get big. Nobody should of thought big birds were related just because big and flightless.Robert Byers_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

stay on topic, please do not preaching Christianity here. I wish to see more scientific discussions.peter_G_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Barb:
I cite Greek scholars, some of whom like Vine and Kedar do not even care much for the Witnesses. Yet they both acknowledge the rightness (in Kedar’s case) of the translation of the NWT.
Yet you ignore other Greek scholars. And you ignore the writings of Vine and Kedar that do not acknowledge the "rightness" of the translation of the NWT.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

The Jehovah's Witnesses are defined less by what they affirm than by what they deny. They are primarily opposed to orthodox Christianity. I, on the other hand, accept the majority of the orthodox faith while questioning futurism in general and dispensational premillennialism in particular. Barb, a JW, decided to challenge my preterist position. This brings into question the JW's position. They claim that Jesus returned in 1914. They claim that the generation alive in 1914 would not pass away before the end. Sites on the internet that point out this false prophecy are judged "apostate." Go figure.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Barb:
You cite no scholars, no scriptures to defend your points.
A lie.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Barb:
Why would I take anything from a source that clearly has an agenda?
You mean like the Jehovah's Witnesses? Don't be a hypocrite Barb. You didn't just claim they had an agenda, you identified them as "apostates." You're not judging, are you? Barb:
...in the Bible, it states that God committed all judging of humankind to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now Mung thinks he’s on an equal plane with Jesus.
You're not judging are you Barb? Don't be a hypocrite Barb. How does the Watchtower Society judge who is an apostate and who is not? Isn't the judging of who is an apostate and who is not committed to Jesus Christ? Is the Watchtower Society on an equal plane with Jesus Christ?Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Barb:
You even posted the definition of stauros, which as I noted earlier (along with definitions from Greek scholars) means upright pale or stake.
Mung:
How does it follow from this that Jesus was not hung on a cross. Explain the logic.
Barb:
Based on the evidence from historical sources and the scriptures themselves, it seems like a valid conclusion.
Conclusions are neither valid nor invalid. Validity applies to arguments. How do your derive your conclusion, Jesus was not crucified on a cross from your premise? Please explain the logic.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

How does it follow from this that Jesus was not hung on a cross. Explain the logic.
Based on the evidence from historical sources and the scriptures themselves, it seems like a valid conclusion.
Barb assured us that there was nothing inferior about the New World Translation and challenged me to show that there was. So I’ve been taking her up on that. But she can apparently dismiss all criticism as from “apostate” sources. How convenient.
Why would I take anything from a source that clearly has an agenda? Really, I expect that your critical thinking skills would be better than that. You cite no scholars, no scriptures to defend your points. You have not answered any points I made in the other thread with respect to the NWT, or the other translations that harmonize with it or utilize the same basic sources for their translations. I cite Greek scholars, some of whom like Vine and Kedar do not even care much for the Witnesses. Yet they both acknowledge the rightness (in Kedar's case) of the translation of the NWT. These are objective sources, Mung, unlike yours. Your sources aren't scholarly and aren't scriptural. Explain why I should take anything they say seriously.
“So why do they call themselves Christians? This is not for you to decide Mung. Yes, it is.
Really? Because in the Bible, it states that God committed all judging of humankind to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now Mung thinks he's on an equal plane with Jesus. Wow.Barb_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

humbled:
“So why do they call themselves Christians? This is not for you to decide Mung.
Yes, it is.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

kf, Thank you for your contributions. Of course, how a Greek word in the New Testament should be translated into English (or any other language) depends on more than a single definition of that word. From the fact that stauros can mean pole or stake, and even apart from whether that was even it's original meaning in Greek, that isn't the sole determinant of how it should be translated, not for an experienced translator anyways (see my post @ 38). Even Strong's has:
stauros: an upright stake, hence a cross (the Rom. instrument of crucifixion)
What you won't hear from the JW's:
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance cross. From the base of histemi; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment)

HELPS Word-studies 4716 staurós – the crosspiece of a Roman cross; the cross-beam (Latin, patibulum) placed at the top of the vertical member to form a capital "T." "This transverse beam was the one carried by the criminal" (Souter).
Now the latter certainly brings to mind specifically your arguments about what it was that was carried and other New Testament references to the cross as something to be borne/carried. And the New Testament also witnesses to the fact that there were nails, plural.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

The New World Translation - "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." -ALEXANDER THOMPSON: (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
Really?
The translators of The New World Translation were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel "Fred Franz was the only one with any knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.] Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all, and only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek. What we have is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine. The Jehovah's Witness Bible
See also: A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE Barb assured us that there was nothing inferior about the New World Translation and challenged me to show that there was. So I've been taking her up on that. But she can apparently dismiss all criticism as from "apostate" sources. How convenient. Barb cites W.E. Vine, but:
The periodic lectures he gave on prophetic and other subjects were designed to guide, protect and help the assembly, and having in mind a wider ministry the townsfolk were invited to attend. Sometimes he would take as a subject some of the present-day heresies whose little coteries of supporters stalk around the cities and towns of our land seeking to gain adherents. He would expose Jehovah's witnesses (see p. 121), Christadelphiansm, with its denial of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and teaching conditional immortality; Theosophists, with their doctrine of universal brotherhood and system of investigation into the mystic potentialities of life and matter; Christian science, representing that God is mind and not a person; Seventh Day Adventists - a religion of Cain, leading the mind away from Christ to a side issue. Having thrust at some of these giants, he would say: "Most modern errors can be summed up in this way: All religions exhibit expressions of the divine - salvation without a Saviour, education without the word of God; spirituality without the Holy Spirit, creeds without Divine authority (see 1 Pet. iii. 15 and Jude 3, 21). Craving for the mysterious increases as faith in the Divine revelation decreases." (W. E. Vine: His Life And Ministry, First Edition 1951, Oliphants LTD, London)
Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Define irony. Barb:
And again, linking to “apostate” websites proves nothing. Only hearing one side of the story makes you look ignorant.
Barb:
You even posted the definition of stauros, which as I noted earlier (along with definitions from Greek scholars) means upright pale or stake.
How does it follow from this that Jesus was not hung on a cross. Explain the logic.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

P: Yes, there are workarounds. KFkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Barb: Unfortunately, you showed an example of the problem above. You narrowed semantic envelope to just one meaning in a context where Thayer was careful to identify two. In addition you ignored historical evidence (I just gave a link that elaborates on that), and the evidence of the textual context and linked physical implications . . . it is so basic I hesitate to call it physics. A plausible wood density is 0.7 or so and as an index a 6" x 4" 6-ft beam weighs about 43 lb, and the general range puts us at ~ 40 - 60+ lb. Jesus carried his cross (until he had to be assisted), which on history implies the cross-beam, not the upright which probably would have weighed in at ~ 150+ lb. The history gives multiple forms, T, t, X, Y, I. Of these only T and t will fit the evidence and of these t better fits. Where, we know a common linguistic practice, metonymy where part stands for whole, etc. And, that crux and stauros can mean the t ot T form at the time. The sign-board above the head, readable from a distance, implies again T or t, with t most likely. Thus stauros does not force reading I and the context and history point to T or t, with t most likely. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

One can get round it by using HTML codes for Greek letters: σταυρóς (same for mathematical symbols like √ or ≈)Piotr_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

P: Yes, ligatures, greek, math symbols etc show up while composing but post and bang, ???????????. KFkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Oops, the message box has got a problem with Greek letters. For the question marks, read ho staurós.Piotr_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

If you are interested in the opinion of a lingust who has no personal stake in this business (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) but knows something about Ancient and Koine Greek, it's quite clear, just from the examination of the use of the word by ancient authors, that: (1) Originally ? ??????? meant an upright wooden pale, pole, post or stake of any sort. It was used in such senses from archaic times throughout the Classical period --by Homer, Xenophon, Thucydides, Herodotus, etc. Close relatives can be found in other Indo-European languages, for example Old Norse staurr 'pole, staff'; the word derives from a well-attested Proto-Indo-European verb root meaning 'stand'. (2) In the 1st c. BC it began to be used with reference to an instrument of execution, equivalent to Latin crux (first documented in Diodorus Siculus, and later of course in the New Testament). One could be impaled or hanged on it. An upright stake was its necessary component, but the word could be used metonymically of any construction with such a vertical support. Lucian's figura etymologica (in his "Judgement in the Court of Vowels") associates the stauros with the letter tau, so it evidently could include a crossbeam. (3) There's little evidence either way as regards the crucifixion of Jesus, but if he was tied or nailed to the stauros rather than impaled on it, a tau-like shape makes more sense than a plain stake.Piotr_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

KF:
There is therefore a context to understand that stauros does not necessarily and always denote a simple upright stake. And if it did, the text would never have come to be misread as denoting a t.
But:
PS: Thayer has an apt summary: >> – Original: ???????? - Transliteration: Stauros - Phonetic: stow-ros’ - Definition: 1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one 2. a cross
Yes, it does. You even posted the definition of stauros, which as I noted earlier (along with definitions from Greek scholars) means upright pale or stake.
All this was worked out and noted to you a week ago. You kept silent but resurface a week later as if nothing relevantly corrective has been pointed out.
And I posted relevant scriptures from varying translations that translate "stauros" as stake or pole; neither you nor Mung corrected or showed why those translators were incorrect in their translations. As above--and in the post last week, I showed how various Greek scholars also believe that stauros is to be rendered as pole or stake. Again, neither you nor Mung has attempted to show why these scholars are incorrect in their assumptions or research.
There is excellent reason to understand that, even on a minor point like this, we see the rhetorical pattern, and how it errs. By snipping a point or two out of context then using it in an argument that very well may be persuasive to the casual onlooker. But, which on closer inspection, becomes tendentious at best.
There is nothing being taken out of context. The scriptures and their various translators seem clear on this.Barb_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

F/N: Cf discussion: http://www.aggelia.be/jwcross.pdfkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

humbled @14: Well said.Eric Anderson_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

PS: Thayer has an apt summary: >> - Original: ???????? - Transliteration: Stauros - Phonetic: stow-ros' - Definition: 1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one 2. a cross a. a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves b. the crucifixion which Christ underwent - Origin: from the base of G2476 - TDNT entry: 16:32,1 - Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine >> This hows that stauros speaks of stake, and particularly of that gibbet we call the cross, which was known to come in several forms, t, T, X, Y and I as typical ones. As shown, the context of the NT makes plain that it is t or T, with the placard over his head making the traditional t moist likely. Mung's remark on how polarisation is provoked, gives a rhetorical context.kairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Barb: Again, pardon me but no. The abuse of Greek -- a common enough failing -- is an illustration of a wider problem of failing to read in light of literary and historical context. We know that metonymy exists, by which an associated or partial reference stands for the whole. Holland for Netherlands, England for Britain [Scotsmen particularly object!], hands on deck for sailors, the Crown for Her Majesty, and more. There is therefore a context to understand that stauros does not necessarily and always denote a simple upright stake. And if it did, the text would never have come to be misread as denoting a t. Whether religions or whoever used cross-like symbols is irrelevant. In that time and place, the cross was the worst form of gibbet, for the lowest class of criminals. For Jews, a man hanged -- crucifixion being a particularly cruel form of hanging -- was accursed. That is why Paul states, turning shame, disgrace and folly on its head:
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [ESV]
In short we see here a Divine inversion, an irony that turns the despised into the greatest hope, and even treasure; with echoes of a condemnation of man's tendency to abuse the seat of justice, martyring the innocent and just but letting the guilty free. Then, turned into our great hope of redemption. And as I pointed out a week ago, there are several good reasons why the argument raised by WTTBS is not correct: 1 --> Crosses were known to be T, t, X, Y (this last the fork of a tree often). 2 --> Thomas speaks of the nails in Jesus' hands, immediately implying T, t, X or Y. 3 --> The text indicates Jesus carried his cross, which normally referred to the cross-bar. A Calculation on reasonable dimensions and density of wood put the cross-bar into the 40 - 60+ lb territory, but the upright could easily have been 150 or more lbs. 4 --> The cross-bar could have been -- barely -- carried by a man horribly whipped, the upright no way. Eventually Simon of Cyrene had to be forced to carry it. 5 --> The cross bar immediately puts us to T or t. 6 --> The placard, which reasonably had 2" letters and 20 - 30 characters in three languages, would have been a significant item, requiring fairly serious nailing: 24 - 30" across, maybe 12" high, ~ 1/2 inch or more thick wood. 7 --> Most consistent with the traditional t, and superposed on a T, would have effectively resulted in a t. (Remember, as crucified in the place of a ringleader, the placard was very important.) 8 --> All this was worked out and noted to you a week ago. You kept silent but resurface a week later as if nothing relevantly corrective has been pointed out. 9 --> Where, frankly, this is a part of a wider pattern of seeking to discredit and dismiss the teachings of the historic Christian faith that so often comes from sects that seek to set up polarising distinctives. 10 --> There is excellent reason to understand that, even on a minor point like this, we see the rhetorical pattern, and how it errs. By snipping a point or two out of context then using it in an argument that very well may be persuasive to the casual onlooker. But, which on closer inspection, becomes tendentious at best. 11 --> Now, I am not saying this by way of attack, but to invite a more careful re-examination. In this test case, that will lead to the conclusion that cross is a well-warranted rendering of Stauros, the Greek equivalent in the context of a gibbet, to Crux . . . cross. KFkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Mung won’t let it go:
Not really, no. But I do have a problem when they start pushing their false doctrines and their publications that spread those false doctrines.
Then you have a problem. Because the Witnesses are certainly not going to stop preaching and publishing simply because you don’t like it. I suggest you learn to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with you. And that not only includes the Witnesses but other non-Witness historians and scholars as well. And again, linking to “apostate” websites proves nothing. Only hearing one side of the story makes you look ignorant.
Torture stake. The rendering of the Greek word stau•ros?, meaning an upright stake or pole, such as the one on which Jesus was executed. There is no evidence that the Greek word meant a cross… That claim is simply false.
From my post at 19: The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word stauros? “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.” There is another Greek word, xylon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xylon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like stauros, xylon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.” Other authorities agree with what the Witnesses have published regarding the translation of the word “stauros”: The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1907 and 1942 editions, under the term “cross” states that Christ is “generally believed” to have died on such a cross, that at best it is only “by general tradition” that the matter is established. As for religious authorities, one states: “The accounts of the manner of the crucifixion being so meager, any degree of certainty is impossible.” [Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 1, p. 957.] And another tells that “no definite data are found in the New Testament concerning the nature of the cross on which Jesus died. It is only the Church writers after Justin Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture.” [New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 313.] And concerning the terms stauros and crux we are told that ‘stauros properly means merely a stake.’ “In Livy [Roman historian shortly before Christ’s ministry] even, crux means a mere stake.” “The Hebrews have no word for Cross more definite than ‘wood.’” [Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 508.] “Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers.”—The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878. That Christ did not die on the traditionally shaped cross is also indicated by the testimony of the catacombs. Thus Dean Burgon, in his Letters from Rome, wrote: “I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.” Mons Perret, who spent fourteen years doing research in the catacombs of Rome, counted in all a total of 11,000 inscriptions among the millions of tombs. According to him, “not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.” Among the signs that do appear are the dove, a symbol of the holy spirit; the lyre, a symbol of joy; the anchor, a symbol of hope and the fish. Why the fish? Because the letters of the word “fish” in Greek are the same as the first letters of “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” [The History of the Cross, Ward.] A point Mung brought out in another thread: the apostle Paul states that Christ became a curse to those under the law by being fastened to a xylon, since “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake [xylon].” Paul was there quoting from the law of Moses, which required that the bodies of executed criminals be fastened to a tree or stake as a warning and which meant that they were cursed by God.—Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22, 23. It’s not a mistranslation. The word xylon is accurately translated in both scriptures. A like example is found relative to one of the decrees of Cyrus, which warned that anyone refusing to obey, “a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it.” In the Greek Septuagint Version the term for timber here is xylon. Again, not a cross but a simple straight beam.—Ezra 6:11. In fact, even to cherish the instrument on which Christ died does not make sense; it is utterly incongruous. Rather than being venerated it should be loathed and abhorred. Who would think of kissing the revolver that had been used by a murderer to kill one’s loved one? It is just as senseless to bestow affection on the instrument on which Jesus met a cruel death. Thus Maimonides, the Jewish scholar of the twelfth century, tells us that the Jews viewed the torture stake as a disgusting thing. [Exercitationes contra Baronium, I. Casaubon, 16, An. 34, No. 134.] So, Mung, are all these secular, non-Witness scholars wrong in their interpretation and translation of the word stauros and xylon? Are you claiming to have more (or greater) biblical exegetical knowledge then all of them? Remember, some of these authorities published their works long before the Witnesses produced the NWT (in 1950).Barb_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Philippians 3:18 (NWT):
For there are many — I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping — who are walking as enemies of the torture stake* of the Christ.
* The note:
Torture stake. The rendering of the Greek word stau·ros?, meaning an upright stake or pole, such as the one on which Jesus was executed. There is no evidence that the Greek word meant a cross...
That claim is simply false.Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Cross of Christ
Those who follow the teachings of the Watchtower Society eventually develop a fierce antagonism for the terminology and visual representations of what they consider an “apostate” Christian Church. Clear examples include the calling of their meeting facilities “Kingdom Halls” instead of “churches” and divisions of the Bible “Hebrew and Greek Scriptures” instead of “Old and New Testaments.” However, Jehovah’s Witnesses despise no Christian symbol as much as the cross, which they call pagan and a phallic symbol. The Watchtower’s contempt for this symbol of Christ’s atoning sacrifice is one of its “revised” revelations. At its inception in 1884 and for more than half a century, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society held the cross in high esteem. Many of the sect’s publications during these early years contained references — some with vivid illustrations — of Christ’s death upon a cross. The Society’s early symbol, a cross and crown, was featured on the cover of each edition of The Watch Tower magazine. Founder Charles Taze Russell’s pyramid monument at his gravesite in Pittsburgh’s Rosemont United Cemetery bears the image, a testimony to the Society’s former esteem of what it now calls pagan.
Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

In 1918, Rutherford exclaimed in a series of public lectures, "Millions now living will never die!" This was related to his prophecy that the resurrection would commence on earth in 1925, with the return of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to earth. This article provides quotes regarding this failed doctrine of Rutherford, and shows how in recent times the Watchtower dishonestly presents this historical episode.
1925 and the Watchtower teaching that Millions now living will never die!Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Barb:
Wow, Mung. You really have your knickers in a twist over the fact that there’s a Jehovah’s Witness posting here, don’t you?
Not really, no. But I do have a problem when they start pushing their false doctrines and their publications that spread those false doctrines.
Documentation on the Watch Tower Society's prophecies regarding the '1914 generation' -- "The Generation That Will Not Pass Away" -- and how the Society modified and eventually abandoned those prophecies. 1914 GENERATION" Prophecy Proves False
Mung_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

With respect to fossilized feathers: the claim that birds evolved from reptiles with scales slowly turning into feathers is not found in the fossil record. Evolutionists point to the fossil of an ancient bird called the Archaeopteryx, which had teeth and a long bony tail, and claim that it is a “missing link.” However, a number of critical aspects are ignored. Reptiles are cold-blooded and often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and are among the most active creatures on earth. Flight depends upon many coordinated factors being present at one time. It is noteworthy that Archaeopteryx already had fully developed wings perfectly feathered (not scales half developed into feathers), and had special feet equipped for perching. The relative proportions of the head and brain case are those of a bird and are quite different from those of reptiles. So, Archaeopteryx did not evolve from a reptile to a bird. The book Integrated Principles of Zoology notes that “Strangely enough, although modern birds possess both scales (especially on their feet) and feathers, no intermediate stage between the two has been discovered on either fossil or living forms.” To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way. Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers.Barb_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply