One Silly Little Comma = WT Idiocy

by Farkel 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  I commented on Acts 20:26 in the other thread. This is an example of the Deuteronomistic introductory formulae and does not parallel the solemn expression in Luke 23:43. We are dealing with two distinct expressions:

  (1) *(amèn (amèn)) + verbs of testifying and commanding (e.g. diamarturomai)|*legein + "to you/your ears" + "today" (the Deuteronomistic formulae)
  (2) (amèn (amèn)) + legein|*verbs of testifying and commanding + "to you" (the solemnity formula in the gospels)

  The addition of "today" in (1) is nowhere a part of (2) outside of Luke 23:43, in 70+ instances of the expression. The addition of amèn (amèn) is nowhere a part of the Deuteronomistic formulae. The verbs are different; legein does not occur in the OT expressions. So the formulae are quite distinct.
• 

  processor

  THEGREEKLANGUGAGEDOESNOTONLYLACKEXCLAMATIONANDPUNCTUATIONMARKSBUTALSOSPACESANDLOWERCASE

  Hbrw, n th thr hnd dd nt hv vwls, whch mks t dffclt t rd nd ndrstnd.
• 

  Scott77

  bttt
• 

  BluesBrother

  I love the contrast between the irreverent, witty approach of Farkel and the scholarly approach of Leolaia...

  As a dub, I sometimes wondered why, if H/Spirit wrote The Bible, it was not perfectly preserved and clear and unamiguous like the WT books? Why give mankind a guidebook that is vague and keeps people arguing about it's meaning?

  As for the verse in question, I have no expert viewpoint but it seems to me that since J C did not go to heaven that day (dead 3 days and ascended 40 days later) that he most likely did not mean "today,"..It must have meant a future meet up.
• 

  Liberty

  A very interesting point brought out by Farkel in this discussion concerns the post-death status of the thief. Despite the comma or time frame of the promise it seems very clear from the sriptural context that this thief would be with Jesus as a member of the 144,000 according to the internal "logic" of JW cosmology and yet, as I recall, he was always pesumed(by Watch Tower writers) to be among those resurrected to earthly life after Armageddon.

  In common JW parlance I never once heard anyone with the "earthly hope" say that they would be in paradise with Jesus if they survived the big "A" so I think this is evidence of the forced interpretation of the "2 hopes" pushed by the Watchtower Society in their form of culty Christianity. In JW cosmology the thought of a common criminal repenting at death being raised up as a "King-Priest" to rule with Jesus was unthinkable and yet the context seems clear that this is Jesus' promise to the thief and not the promise of being resurrected to life on a paradise earth parted from the spirit Jesus by a physical existence.

  This also brings up another issue, just when did the 144,000 start to be raised up to Heaven? As I recall, the official Watchtower line was after 1914, so even the Apostles had to wait nearly 2000 years to rule with Christ? I think that traditional Christian Heaven concepts fits the scriptures better with everyone who is saved having the same hope of being with Jesus right after death.

  Another problem with JW cosmology is that Jesus would be nonexistant for three days waiting to be resurrected, but I think in traditional Christianity it is assumed that, since Jesus is God, He continued to exist and a part of Him was resurrected back into a physical body three days latter. Hence the thief could be with Jesus that very day, so no cotradiction. I think this all fairy tale stuff anyway but traditional Christianity provides a better fit for the whole fantasy as opposed to the recently made up JW crap.

  I don't remember where the Watchtower says Jesus was during those three days.
• 

  steve2

  I think you're right, but man do I hate it. You can see the lack of originality and creativity in the writing

  department because that style has been present for the past handful of decades.

  My views entirely! The Watchtower's writing "style" has become an unintended purple-prose parody of an older pedagogical writing style that was passe even as sound movies were coming into their own in the late 1920s. The writing department has a stale stock supply of predictable rhetorical flourishes" and oddly phrased statements.

  Without thinking, I can compose a few sentences that would not be out of place in any Watchtower publication and bear the embarrassing stamp of an organization that is increasingly steeped in its own blinded past:

  "Who alone of all people have been divinely entrusted to share with all who will listen the secure and true knowledge of Jehovah's loving arrangements for obedient humans? Why, it is those who identify with and follow his loving direction through 'the faithful and discreet slave'! Oh, that none of us ever take for granted or spurn this fine provision as we move towards the great day of the one true God, Jehovah!" Etc, etc, dreary etc.
• 

  ataloa

  "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."

  Religious interpretations aside, that rendering is idiotic! It's like saying "Truly I'm telling you today, mind you I am not now telling you tomorrow and I am not now telling you next week and I am not now telling you yesterday, you will be with me in paradise." If Jesus was telling that guy something, at what other time than "today" would he be telling him that something?

  I see what you're saying, but some people do speak that way on occasion, to be dramatic.
• 

  Bobcat

  Lots of sentence fragments strung together with "and"

  This isn't bad sentence structure. (It might seem so in English) It is called "polysyndeton." Its reverse is called "asyndeton." It is a rhetorical style. Luke 14:12, 13 provides contrasting examples. Verse 12 uses polysyndeton, while verse 13 uses asyndeton.

  Polysyndeton, in effect, draws attention to all the items connected with a conjunction (and /or). While asyndeton lets the reader or listener moves through the list quickly to get to the 'moral of the story,' as it were.

  I might add too, that "and" (Greek: kai) is a bit more flexible in Greek than in English. Kai can be conjunctive ("and") or epexegetical (explanatory) as in, "thus," "even," "namely," or "to wit." Or kai can be temporal, making a list that is chronological. There are even a few other uses. If you have a copy of Vine's, he has a writeup that goes into detail in the back.
• 

  Farkel

  bluesbrother,

  : I love the contrast between the irreverent, witty approach of Farkel and the scholarly approach of Leolaia...

  Yeah. On more than one occasion, Leolaia has "hijacked" my threads with her dry, scholarly approach. The best example I can relate is that she got most of the credit for my quintessential opus, namely, the Berta and Bonnie thread. By the time she did her dry scholarly and excellent work, the casual reader gave her all of the credit for the work. I guess that is okay because it actually wasn't her fault. She just added to the topic and in fairness she has always given me credit for starting it. Her research is so overwhelming sometimes that it tends to eclipse the original topic.

  In this thread, I wrote what I thought was a clever little topic with, yeah, some wit, and she provided three books of scholarly and mostly boring evidence.

  Killjoy. I was just trying to have some fun and my thread became drenched with stuff hardly anyone reads.

  (Leo: I do love you. You should know tihis after all these years.)

  Farkel
• 

  gubberningbody

  One place that NEEDS a t least a THOUGHT comma is here:

  Mt 25:40 - "Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me."

  In my view he was not speaking of

  "the least of these my brothers" here with the "the least of these my brothers" as those treated well being his brothers so that one would have to

  make a distinction when helping anyone who was naked, sick or in prison as to those in that condition who were "his brothers" and those who were in that condition who were not.

  Clearly Jesus, like his father made it "rain on the just and unjust alike" and that we ought be "conquering the evil with the good" without "partial distinctions".

  This so the address suffix "my brothers" is a favorable judgement, namely that the good behavior he found in them qualified them to be considered "his brothers". (POST Armageddon)

  The unrighteous were not answered in the same way...they were answered with at

  Mt 25:45 - "Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did not do it to one of these least ones, YOU did not do it to me."

  Compare them side by side:

  Mt 25:45 - "Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did not do it to one of these least ones, YOU did not do it to me."

  Mt 25:40 - "Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me."

  "...my brothers" is left off when speaking to the unrighteous.

  To me, this in connection with the scripture at :

  Mt 19:28-29

  28 Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to ? YOU , In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, ? YOU ? who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone that has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive many times more and will inherit everlasting life.

  "the re-creation" is when "the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne"

  (This is POST Armageddon)

  Mt 25:31 Indicates that this is that same time...

  31 “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.

  Dan. 12:1 Indicates that Jesus/Michael stands up BEFORE Armageddon.

  </form>

  1 “And during that time Mi′cha?el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.

  Therefore so these "brothers" are identified AFTER ARMAGEDDON by their previous good conduct. NOT any profession.

  The so-called "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is not a class, but an illustration told to get those listening to ask themselves individually "Am I a faithful and wise servant of my master?"