A few failed prophecies from the Old Testament
The Return of Joseph and Mary from Egypt
And he [Joseph] rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord has spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt will I call my son."
The Old Testament passage Matthew was quoting came from the book of Hosea. Let us look at that passage in its context:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.
It takes either a very gullible person, or someone who is bent on believing no matter what, to actually believe that the passage in Hosea above relates to Jesus.
* In the first place the passage was in past tense ( "I called" as opposed to Matthew's "will I call"). Thus Matthew had tweak the Old Testament passage ever so slightly.
* And in the second place it is not even a prophecy at all.
The whole passage talks about the calling out of the Israelites from Egypt as narrated in the Pentateuch. Thus my son in this passage meant the whole Israelite nation.
The portions clearly could not be applied to Jesus (who was sacrificing to Baal and burning incense to idols on the way back from Egypt? Joseph? Mary? Jesus?) yet the passage is obviously an organic whole. This is also another example of a prophecy taken out of it's context in order to fit something that CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE.
Herod's Slaughter of the Children
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted because they were no more .
Let us look at the relevant passage in Jeremiah:
Thus says the Lord:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentations and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children:
She refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are not.
Thus says the Lord:
Keep your voice from weeping,
and your eyes from tears;
for your work shall be rewarded,
says the Lord:
and they shall come back from the land of the enemy.
There is hope for the future,
says the Lord, and your children will come back to their own country.
***Note that here we have another case of taking a quote out of context. This time the whole sense of the passage has been changed. As Jeremiah 31:17 showed Rachel's children, far from being slaughtered, will come back home. Seen in this context it is obvious what is meant by the phrase "they are not" in Jeremiah 31:15. It means that her children are at the moment not physically present in their homeland, they are in the land of the enemy where they shall return. Thus Matthew had given a meaning to Jeremiah 31:15 that it did not have.***
***Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem(THE HUGE CONTRADICTION)**
The passage supposedly prophesying Jesus birth is found in the book of Micah.
But you O Bethlehem Ephranath, who are little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler of Israel
Of course both Matthew (2:1) and Luke (2:4-7) mentioned that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus, while we do not doubt that both Matthew and Luke claimed that Jesus was born there, how certain are we that this is actually historical and ACCURATE??
The accounts of how Bethlehem became the birthplace of Jesus in Luke and Matthew contradict one another. This is a crucial first step; for if the two stories contradict one another, then at least one of these must be false.
Other passages imply Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus
The tradition of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem surfaced late (close to 100 CE) and is not found in the earliest gospel Mark (circa 70 CE) nor in the epistles of Paul (circa 50 CE). It is important to appreciate this time frame. It is as though a story about something that happened before the first world war (i.e. before 1914) only surfaced today (2001 CE).
THE ACTUAL QUOTES AND EXPLANATION!!!
Both Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. But the ways both gospels connect Jesus' birth to that Judean town are contradictory and immediately arouses suspicion.
* Matthew made Bethlehem the home town of Mary and Joseph from the beginning.
* Luke made Nazareth their home town and they had to move to Bethlehem because of the census.
* Other earlier traditions speaks against Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus.
* The reason why Bethlehem was the place chosen by later tradition (and used by Matthew and Luke) was that it was prophesied in the Old Testament.
n Matthew, the impression we get is that both Mary and Joseph were already living in Bethlehem during the time of the annunciation and the conception:
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea...
Note that no mention is given of any travelling between Joseph taking Mary home as his wife and the birth of Jesus. In fact anyone reading the nativity story in Matthew alone will conclude that Joseph and Mary were natives of Bethlehem as is confirmed by the passage below (after the flight of Joseph and his family to Egypt):
When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth
Especially in the view of the earlier passage, the one above gives definite proof that Joseph wanted to return to his home town of Bethlehem but was prevented from doing so by the fact that Archelaus was the new tetrarch. His making Nazareth a home came after this.
In Luke, however, we are told that both Mary and Joseph were living in the Galilean town of Nazareth before the annunciation:
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
So Luke makes Mary and Joseph natives of Galilee. The event that made them travel to Bethlehem was the Roman census under Quirinius. According to the evangelist, the Roman census require everyone to register in the town of their ancestor. Since David was from Bethlehem, Joseph had to travel Judea to register himself.
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
Luke's version is historically suspect for many reasons. While there was nothing unusual per se about a Roman census (in fact Josephus corroborates the fact that there was a census in Judea when Quirinius was governor of Syria), the method of taking the census, by herding everyone to register in the towns of their ancestors, is unheard of in the history of the Roman Empire.
The Roman censuses were always taken for economic purposes, to determine the amount of taxable income of the residents of their provinces. The Romans had always taken the census at the place of residence and not in their ancestral hometown.
Furthermore, the census, if conducted in the manner described by Luke, was extremely impracticable: each and every Israelite will have to recall the residence of their ancestors who lived when Joshua partitioned the land of Palestine among the twelve tribes, i.e. an event that occurred more than one thousand years before the census!
And finally why would Joseph haul Mary along with him to Bethlehem, when she was already in an advances stage of pregnancy. The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about one hundred kilometers and would have taken an exhausting ten days or so on donkey-back. The fact that Mary was not even required for the census further compounds this problem.
In short, Luke's whole scenario is unconvincing and , especially his description of the method of the Roman census, without any historical support.
Our suspicion as to the basic unhistorical of the account of the birth in Bethlehem is further aroused by the fact that apart from the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, there is no evidence elsewhere in the New Testament to support it. We find in Mark, the oldest of all the gospels, passages that seem to imply the birthplace of Jesus as Nazareth in Galilee:
He [Jesus] left that place and came to his hometown...
The original Greek of the words in Mark 6:1 is patrida autou which means one's homeland, native country or hometown. Thus there is no reason to quibble with the translation provided by the NRSV. The whole section covered in the early chapters of Mark show Jesus preaching in the towns and villages of Galilee. So Mark 6:1 is telling us that Jesus' hometown, or native place, must be a town in Galilee. In the first verse referring to Jesus in Mark, this is how he was introduced:
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Anyone reading these passages in Mark, without any references to Matthew or Luke will doubtless conclude that Jesus was born in Nazareth in Galilee. Furthermore we find that in all the three synoptics, Jesus was henceforth referred to as "the Galilean" or "the Nazarene" with no further reference being made to his birth in Bethlehem.
There is even one passage in John where, had the evangelist been aware of the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem would certainly have inserted it here:
Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?" So there was a division in the crowd because of him.
Surely John would have shown that the Jews' doubts were based on their own ignorance about Jesus ancestry and place of birth had he believed that Jesus was of the house of David and born in Bethlehem. The above passage strongly suggests that John was relying on a tradition about Jesus that included neither the descendents from David nor the birth in Bethlehem!!!!
Assuming, of course, that Luke does not have the audacity to invent his whole account of the Nativity, it is probable that both Matthew and Luke received different and, perhaps still amorphous, traditions regarding the birth of Jesus. For instance, it is possible that the tradition stated only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not how his parents got there. Thus both Matthew and Luke simply added details to the story as they see fit. Could this tradition of the birth in Bethlehem be based on historical fact? It is not impossible, of course, that the tradition could have been grounded on historical fact. But I think it unlikely. For one thing it obviously reached both evangelist in different or indefinite forms, had it been historical one would expect more "meat" in the story. Secondly the birth in Bethlehem supposedly fulfilled an Old Testament passage. This is explicitly stated in Matthew:
When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet...
Matthew was quoting from Micah 5:2. What is wrong with this? Let us listen to what theologians Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong said in their book, Who Was Jesus?:
So our first principle of historical criticism must be: be wary of any details in the gospels which have close parallels in the Old Testament.
The reasoning is simple. The early Christians, not having access to information about the early life of Jesus and not knowing where he was born, searched, or rather ransacked, the Old Testament to look for references to Jesus. And having found the verse in Micah concluded that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem. The fact that the birth in Bethlehem fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy, therefore makes the whole tradition of doubtful historicity.
I REST MY CASE...IT'S ALL BULL**** FOLKS. PERIOD.
Paul and Lyfe's BASIC ARGUMENT;
The Bible contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.
WHY THEY ARE WRONG;
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:
1. Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
2. Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
3. Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
4. Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
5. Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.
There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.
2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; Jonah 3 gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.
3. The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not. For example:
* Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
* Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.
4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too (Prophecy Fulfilled n.d.).
5. Divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8). Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith (John 20:29).
To touch on Archaeology as well...
1. Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.
If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.
2. Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:
* The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001).
* The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002).
* There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002).
Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions.
Bimson, J. J. and D. Livingstone, 1987. Redating the Exodus. BAR 13(5): 40-53.
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman, 2001. The Bible Unearthed, New York: Free Press.
Miller, Laura, 2001 (7 Feb.). King David was a nebbish. Salon.com, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Moorey, P. R. S., 1991. A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Westminster/John Knox Press.
Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
So Jesus being said to be the Image of God does not mean he is actually God. He is one that closely,or exactly RESEMBLES God. Still, not God. And the first definition would explain how Jesus can be a creation of God and be his exact image or likeness.
- A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
- Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
- One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle.
- To make or produce a likeness of: imaged the poet in bronze.
- To mirror or reflect: a statue imaged in the water
You have yet to even try to explain how Jesus is said to be as your Bible puts it "the firstborn over all creation". This implies Jesus had a begining. I think it's noteworthy to mention that only Jesus is here being stated as the firstborn of all creation, and not the Father and Holy Spirit also.
In fact, the evidence would weigh against your understanding of these scriptures, in favor of JW's standpoint that Jesus is not God, but his only begotton Son, who is the closest to his Father's likeness or image. Also, the FIRSTBORN over all creation, meaning he was created by someone. Just like the Bible says. Also, the fact that God can't die (Habbakuk 1:12) and Jesus did, should ring the alarm.
Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there.
- Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.
- Of illegitimate birth.
(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as "sons of God." (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)
If Jesus is God, then how could spirit-anointed Christians be said to be his brothers, and his Sons?
(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.
5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be "the first and the last," which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression "apostle" is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title "Alpha and Omega" applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
I think you tend think that the 3rd definition is the only definition of a prophet. All prophets of Jehovah exibited definition #1. This is how come JW's are not false prophets, because we speak purely of the will of God, and not of ourselves. Also, your argument of our predictions being wrong, so we're wrong is a bit dogmatic. Why? Well because even the early Christians had wrong expections and had to be corrected. Examples.
- A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
- A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
- A predictor; a soothsayer.
1 Cor. 13:9, 10: "We have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with."
Prov. 4:18: "The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."
The apostles and other early Christian disciples had certain wrong expectations, but the Bible does not classify them with the "false prophets."—See Luke 19:11; John 21:22, 23; Acts 1:6, 7.
Nathan the prophet encouraged King David to go ahead with what was in his heart regarding the building of a house for Jehovah’s worship. But later Jehovah told Nathan to inform David that he was not the one who would build it. Jehovah did not reject Nathan for what he had said earlier but continued to use him because he humbly corrected the matter when Jehovah made it plain to him.—1 Chron. 17:1-4, 15.
But more power to you. Good talk, and good day!
Freedom comes not from GOD, but humans who ascribed this to be a good idea. From the very same humans that ascribed religion, even though its a bad one. If GOD is the granter of rights...how come different countries have different numbers?
America has 10...not counting the amendments
Britian has 13
Canada I believe has 13
And some countries you have NO RIGHTS AT ALL...
Kind of GOD hands out unequal numbers of rights?? And then no rights at all?
Humans made them up. Because any RIGHT can be easily taken away by another group. If rights were so fundamental to human beings from their Creator..such could never be taken away. Humans have privileges NOT RIGHTS.
And God does not make the rules in this world. People do, under Satans influence. That is why again, the world is so messed up.
Jehovah's rules are in his Bible. Those that live by them, lives by his rules. And those are the ones he governs.
I know about both freedom and imprisonment. I know because I took the time to think about how I lived. I don't think I'm free, and I've never met a grown person who is. The point is that what we can do is strive to be free, despite the inevitable stumbling that will occur.
Being free is a challenge, it takes work, and there are always obstacles to overcome. When that obstacle is something like the bible, or any number of other books and teachings, the obstacle is often not seen as the cage that it is cage, it's seen as a haven. Really, what you live in, when blindly, and exclusively involved in a faith, is a golden cage.
The golden cage is beautiful, to you, as well as to many outsiders. Most of those who resent your existence in that cage merely want to move you to a new cage, one that's golden to them. It takes someone who strives for truth to see that a cage is just a cage, a prison, gilded or not.
I don't want freedom from God: truth, reality, the true supreme force of the universe, something that's important to me above all else. I work to maintain freedom, and it's a constant struggle, against myself and the rest of the world, and wish humanity would be free, from false, crippling religion. And it's more than the book, it's the psychology of it all: ego tripping on who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, lack of real values and morals, lack of human responsibility. Look at what you said about Satan leading us to be evil, lyfe. You probably believe Jesus and God will eventually solve everything, so much so that you probably refuse to involve yourself in world issues, "Jehovah is going to end this system of things, very soon." The fact is that we're evil because of our traditions and cultures, most of which we follow blindly, "because my parents raised me that way." We need to follow real values, with intelligence, sensitivity and understanding, return to our natural state of existence, geographically speaking. We can't apply the lifestyle and culture of the ancient Hebrews to contemporary living. To do so, creates confusion and destruction, as is evident.
The world is designed for those who are evil, most of whom belong to temples, synagogues and churches. It's funny how you never hear about an atheist pedophile ring or about atheists allowing their wives to die in labor, as a result of refusing to allow her a blood transfusion. It's funny how the prisons are mostly full of observant Christians. I don't consider myself an atheist, but I see atheists as being one step closer to just being human, nothing else/less, except in the eyes of the brainwashed.
Ignore reality, and ignore truth, that which reveals all: the truth of everything, regardless of what you'd like it to be, but, if you're a liar and a blind follower, it silently defines you as well: the truth would be that you are a liar and a sheep. Someday, people everywhere will lament the fruits of how we've carried on.
Truth is supreme to everything. If it's true that God exists, he would be subject to TRUTH. Whether you're right or wrong about God is subject to truth, no matter what you believe. While the Hebrews ignored 90 percent of the world, truth was in the southern and western hemispheres. Truth is something that every atom is involved in creating, it's based on the momentum of trillions of actions, it's a force, not a man or spirit, though those may be involved in fulfilling outcomes.
Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 04, 2008 at 12:46.
Well looks like..
Anything completely new comes from nothing. Coming from nothing is the definition of creation. Otherwise, you're talking about a continuation.
The only one who can rid the earth of this influence is Jehovah. You can choose to keep searching elsewhere for truth if you wish. But it will prove to be like trying to catch the wind with your hands.
Galatians 5:22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law
If everyone lived by this would the world not be a much better place?
1 John 5:19 We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.
This is why Jesus told HIS disciples to stay out of the world as he was, because Satan is it's ruler. That means those involved in the world are knowingly, or unknowingly under his influence. Because he is this worlds ruler.
Oh, Hitler, Stalin, Athiests.
2 Corintians 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
According to your logic, MLK, Jr., a martyr for a cause greater than himself, is under the power of Satan.
As for your definition of God, it's completely different from mine: I believe that truth, as a tangible force, is God. I know that truth holds all mysteries, as well as that which is revealed to us, in its silent supremacy over everything. There's a truth, even to the JWs, and that truth is that they're liars, manipulators of their flock and false prophets. There's a truth to Christianity, and truth, the supreme force, does not care, since it does not act or react like a man, contrary to what the bible says, what you believe. Truth does not judge, it exists based on what we create in the world, collectively. Until we realize this real spirituality, and stop delegating the future to invisible men, we will continue to suffer.
This is why I can't wait until I'm free from this world. I'm not interested in your paradise, which isn't real. And you shouldn't even talk about the truth, "the truth will set you free." You don't even care about the truth. Truth doesn't set you free, you set you free. Acknowledging the truth doesn't set you free, unless you surrender to it.
It's an insult for you to even talk about truth, when you rely on watch towers and New World Translation bibles. Do you really think that, even if your God and Jesus are divine, that everything about them, the world, mankind, is in one book? Do you think truth is frozen to your book and to your organization's false prophecies? I'm not surprised to hear this from a member of an organization that claims that only people who join them can be saved, as if truth flows directly to, and from, the kingdom hall. What nonsense!
Waiting for the spin job in 3... 2...
Truth is absolute. It only has one avenue. Lies, have a million. Lies have philosophy. Truth is factual and absolute. Jehovah's word has been absolute. Mankind's search for it, and it's limited philosophical views, not so much.