No Scripture says that all of Genesis was written by Moses or that any of Hebrews was written by Paul, making the 2 Timothy quote a non sequitur. Those beliefs are therefore not required by inerrancy, which means that they're human tradition.2timothy316 wrote:How is Moses not writing Genesis and Paul not writing Hebrews an interpretation? If a person doesn't believe 2 Tim 3:16. 17 is true than whats the point of wanting to be a Witness at all. So those will be ignored.
If God created the rules of the game such that human beings were a necessary outcome of a process that merely appears to us to involve randomness (or "by accident," as you say), then that also seems consistent with an inerrant (if heavily allegorical) reading of Genesis. If the Bible, as you say, "doesn't go into detail" about how life was created, then the exact details are human tradition again.2timothy316 wrote:As far as evolution is concerned if a person teaches others that life came by accident and not by creation then they would be removed from the congregation. The Bible doesn't go into detail how life was created just that it was created.
Nor is there specific prohibition against any use other than the eating of blood. The reason God gave against eating blood is that the "life" is in the blood. After slaughtering an animal, one must return that life to God rather than consuming it as mere food. I think it within the spirit of the commandment to treat the life within the blood as life as a transfusion surely must.2timothy316 wrote:Acts says "abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood." There is no mention anywhere else in the Bible where these things are allowed in another form.
Now you're question-begging. Use can only be "improper" if it doesn't revere and cherish the life within the blood, which I think use for transfusion must. You and the Faithful and Discreet Slave may disagree with me, but that's a disagreement between human beings with neither side obviously disagreeing with the words of Scripture.2timothy316 wrote:The Bible says abstain so we abstain and if a person is unrepentant in the improper use of blood than they would be disfellowshipped for willful breaking a commandment. We do not search for loopholes in defying Jehovah by making personal interpretations.
2timothy316 wrote:If a person refuses the Bible's prophecy in Daniel 4:1, 10-16 that Jesus became king in 1914 then yes that person would be removed from the congregation.
Seems straightforward. Are you sure you meant those verses?Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all the peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you.
Thus were the visions of my head upon my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was food for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the heavens dwelt in the branches thereof, and all flesh was fed from it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven: and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: let his heart be changed from manâ€™s, and let a beastâ€™s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
I also note you haven't made a particularly strong case.2timothy316 wrote:Take note I didn't quote a single WBTS publication.
Now, perhaps you noted that the last three of those examples have been interpreted very differently by the Faithful and Discreet Slave in the past. If those doctrines are as straightforward as you'd have me believe, then why would such different interpretations be possible by such well-intentioned and learned men?
And as I've pointed out, one can profess the above doctrines and still claim with complete honesty to be treating scripture, not only faithfully, but as inerrant.2timothy316 wrote:The Bible interprets the Bible. It's the only thing we have found that is reliable. Those that do not trust the Bible shouldn't want to be in a religion where the Bible is the center all instruction and direction. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that the scriptures are for setting things straight. If a person doesn't believe this then they are free to move on to a group that doesn't either.
The overall point that I wish to make is that even though you claimed that statements in the Watchtower aren't treated as inspired by God, they can still be considered requirements for salvation.