Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V 221 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar


    Post 11707

    Oh Supreme One. Now you have admitted that you could have written up a much better crtique, more scholarly in fact so Why not do just that. The Society in its Study Edition has published for all mankind a thoughtful study of the Olivet Discourse. You say that you have available further detailed information for your critique so then you can provide an Addendum which would contain References to the scholarly literature in order to prove your claims. Perhaps you would like me to assist you in this matter for I am able to provide a list of points that demand proof from you or evidence that you recognize that some of the sugjects are very contentious. Let us then see who is the pseudo-scholar.

    scholar JW

  • watson

    I think this Scholar guy is just "V" punking you guys!!

  • BizzyBee
    'celebrated WT scholars' does not mean they do not exist.
    The identity of this group must remain anonymous so Alas I cannot assist you as to there identity.

    Just curious - WHY?

    BTW - In my long experience of JWs and WTS - the scholarship is embarrassingly thin. How is it that you, as a scholar, do not see this? I am truly amazed..................

  • boyzone

    Good question Buzzy Bee.

    Why cant we check the credentials of these "celebrated WT scholars"? And why are they "celebrated" if nobody knows who they are? Surely you must know who they are Scholar, to trust them so completely? Their reputation is of paramount importance in this. Without their identity why should anyone even consider taking the WT seriously?

    If the author of Mein Kampf was anonymous, I could call him "celebrated" too if I wished. But because I know his name, I also know he was a despotic, murdering madman with delusions of grandeur. Therefore I can decide whether to accept his agenda-loaded works as "truth" or not.

    As a self-appointed Scholar yourself, surely you would not accept as "truth" writings from an anonymous source would you?

  • Leolaia
    Now you have admitted that you could have written up a much better crtique

    You have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I never said anything about the quality of my critique -- I was explaining to you that the essay was never intended to be what you construe it to be. This might come as a big shock to you, but people tend to express themselves differently to different audiences and in different situations. This is an internet message board with a broad audience, not an academic journal, and it was never my intent to write as I would in a journal. I could have simply made an argument from authority and simply cited what one scholar or another says and left it at that (which is how the Society usually makes its argument when it appeals to secondary sources), but no, I went directly to the primary sources and explained from the texts themselves why the Society's interpretation is ill-founded, specifying the evidence and logic used in my criticism (giving, as usual, all the relevant sources I used). For the purpose of my post, that accomplished my purpose. Giving a thorough survey of the literature and showing how one scholar or another has expressed similar views is what you would do in a journal article but it is unnecessary for the kind of informal, lay-oriented discussion that I intended to write.

    The Society in its Study Edition has published for all mankind a thoughtful study of the Olivet Discourse.

    LMAO, you are so predictable. Even without addressing the exegetical issues, the sloppy logic is all over the place -- referring to the parousia as implying an "extended period of time" comes seemingly out of nowhere, arguing that the "generation" must include the anointed somehow inexplicably morphs into a claim that generation only includes the anointed (without addressing the evidence formerly cited in favor of the 1995 view), etc. And the exegesis assumes a host of equivalences without demonstrating or even discussing why they should be assumed. Oh and aside from a few footnotes deferring a discussion of relevant points to their other publications, where are all the "references to the scholarly literature" in that article? You think a post in an internet message forum must be written at the level of an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the "thoughtful study" published as an article by the Society is not subject to the same standards?

    I am able to provide a list of points that demand proof from you or evidence that you recognize that some of the sugjects are very contentious.

    Demand proof? My goodness, don't you know that real scholars assess arguments by determining the degree to which one argument or another best accounts for the evidence (that is what my post endeavored to do, i.e. showing how the Society's interpretation is less felicitous to the evidence than other explanations)? They don't insist that the only acceptable arguments are the ones that can be proved conclusively.

    And I already said that in giving my analysis of the texts, I was not presenting it as the only analysis or view in the literature. I was giving it as my take on the matter. Whether or not a matter is contentious, what counts is how well an interpretation is supported by the relevant data. If you feel that the Society is better supported on a given point, discuss that. Otherwise you are not offering anything of substance.

  • hamsterbait

    What I say to Scholar I say to all of that ilk.

    Just two words.

    One is a verb, the other is a preposition.


  • dawg

    Scholar... I've read your comments and if you have a masters degree from any University then it must be unaccredited.

    How can the WT idiots have the guts to say this?....15) "Those without spiritual understanding today have felt that there has been no "striking observableness" with regard to the sign of Jesus' presence".

    What freaking idiots! Their own words condemn them.

  • oompa

    Scholar there are many parts of the Bible I do not care for, but do kind of like this:

    (1 Corinthians 1:26-27) 26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame;

    This pretty much sums up the need any explatnation about "generation." The Jews of Jesus day could only understand it as common men....NOT SCHOLARS. Geneology meant a lot to these people, which is about generations of people....great grandpa, grandpa, pa, son. You bore me..................oompa

  • justhuman

    Very nice comments...I just can believe how do the Greek JW's eat this interpretation of "light". Specially when it comes to the explanation of the word "parousia"...

    I mean parousia means presence, so how can it be an invisible one!!! How can someone be present and at the same time been invisible, but again he is present for those who did seen him coming invisibly, but the rest of the world didn't see Jesus invisible presence!!! Only Russell did and a banch of american fools dressed in white robes and they were waiting for Jesus to come but visibly, and since He didn't come they change their mind and said He came invisibly, and only they have seen Him....

    Boy the leadership of the WT are NUTS...a banch of old pathetic False Prophets, loosers, a banch of thieves...that's what they are

  • Mary
    Well it is not what I would choose myself either at this point Mary, but really who is to say that a "normal life" is objectively better than what Witnesses have chosen? If they really believe it right up to the end (of their lives or indeed of "the system of things", take your pick) then who is to say that was not a satisfying life? I personally recoil from the presumptuousness of that stance.

    It depends on what someone wants out of life. For example, my eldest sister is still a Dub and is quite happy with her life. She never had any desire to go to university, she's always saved her money and has paid into her company pension plan, has a wonderful husband and a good circle of friends at the Hall. She thinks there's too many meetings and doesn't really enjoy Service, but she's willing to do it in order to "keep in".

    I have no problem with any of this simply because she doesn't shun me and if she's happy with her life, then power to her. I'm not saying that every single person in the Organization would be happier if they left, because there are those that wouldn't.

    What I do have a problem with is that by the Governing Body dangling "the End" as a carrot in front of the R&F for over a hundred years now, they deprived many people of some of the normal aspects of life such as going to university, saving for a home, getting married, having children, paying into a company pension etc. Most Christian religions make some assertion towards "Armageddon" but they don't tell their members to put their entire lives on hold because it's so close. They get on with their lives and I believe that's the point Leolaia was making.

Share this