Posts by moggy lover

4

Max Larson's Replacement?

by moggy lover in

does anyone have an inside scoop on who will replace larson as prez?.

moggy lover

Does anyone have an inside scoop on who will replace Larson as Prez?

13

January 15, 2012 WT now on jw.org

by Gayle in

The only real significant change is, I believe, in the cover. Hitherto the covers were a generic pattern with the Watchtower logo of a watchtower on which was surmounted the contents for that issue. There was a certain sense of foreboding about this dark design.

Now the covers are more user friendly with line drawings of people, all with forgettable faces and all enjoying the convivial association of jeeehover's people.

The inclusion of an "archive" section is quaint, but later issues will no doubt clarify.

85

Good to study JW past .... New "Writing Archives" under direction of the Writing Committee

by wannabefree in

yes friends, it is important to understand your rich spiritual heritage as jehovah's witnesses, and so you don't have to look at old publications on your own or refer to worldly sources, the organization is pleased to select for you the history as we want you to have it and you can get it in your current watchtower.. from january 15, 2012 watchtower pg 31-32. the governing body is keenly interested in.

our theocratic history.

in commenting on the.

moggy lover

Hmmmmm....

Something wrong with me downloads, methinks. I can't get this issue.

The jw.org site does not have the Jan 15 2012 Watchtower. The latest they have is Dec 15, 2011.

Where did you guys access it from?

14

Curious: How Does 1 Tim 6:4 Appear in the Interlinear Greek (aka "purple bible")?

by DarioKehl in

we've all seen the line-by-line comparison of john 1:1 with the addition of "a god" when "was god" is visible in the left margin under "theos" in the infamous grimace/barney/grape crush purple bible book.

i'd check for myself, but unfortunately, i hastily rid my house of all things wt in a purging fit while beginning my fade.

and let me tell you, the fire was spectacular!

moggy lover

1 Tim 6:4 in KIT:

"He has been made to smoke, nothing knowing well, but being diseased about seekings and word fights, out of which [things] comes to be envy, strife, blasphemies, suspicions wicked"

In Marshall's Interlinear:

"He has been puffed up, understanding nothing, but being diseased about questionings and battles of words out which comes envy, strife, blasphemies, evil suspicions"

The word in dispute in this context is "noseo" a verb meaning, according to the Complete Word Study Dictionary of the NT [by Spiros Zhodiates]:

"From "nosos" a sickness. To be sick, delirious. It is used metaphorically, meaning to have a sickly longing for something, to pine after, dote on".

The Watchtower rendering of "Mentally diseased" is probably an over translation, made to envision opposers to Watchtower teachings as not just wrong, but also to be wrong due to a mental aberration that refuses to acknowledge the Watchtower leadership as theological supremos in terms of ultimate truth.

Does this word carry a connotation of "mental" ailment in that the person is considered to be clinically insane? Or is it being used purely metaphorically for those who treat the apostle's instructions lightly?

Thayer suggests: "Metaph. of any ailment of the mind, and when used with "peri" [a word meaning "about" as in 1 Tim 6:4 - my own comments] means to be taken with such an interest in a thing as amounts to a disease, to have a morbid fondness for"

In this respect a perfectly good English equivalent for the Greek would be "being obsessed"

Naturally in the hermetically sealed world of exclusive Watchtower values, they have it both ways:

1. When they have an obsession over trivials such as whether Jesus died on a cross or stake, or where a comma should go, or where even the indefinite article is placed, it is theological rectitude.

2. But when opposers rightly excercise the option of presenting an alternative view to Watchtower absolutes, they are seen as being obsessed.

Go figure.

13

Do All 13 Sets Of Lunar Positions On VAT 4956 Fit The Year 588/587 B.C.E.?

by AnnOMaly in

.

moggy lover

It is true that VAT 4956 is a copy of an original document, and the Watchtower leadership has often cited this fact as a reason for questioning its veracity. But this need not be a valid reason, but rather it is a futile ploy to undermine a text that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Watchtower teaching on this subject is utterly false and without any true foundation.

Doubtless there are several archaeological documents, not just of the Bible, but secular notices as well, that are copies of an original, yet no one in their right mind would question these documents simply on the basis of the fact that they are copies. The question that requires investigation is whether the document in hand is an accurate copy of its original.

Several stele or pillars had notifications carved into their columns which were copies of each other. Finding one such stele would be as valuable as finding the one that was supposedly the original.

Indeed, Watchtower apologists using such "reasoning" would be hard pressed to provide a reason for studying the current Watchtower magazine they have on hand, since it is but a copy of an original which is placed somewhere in the bowels of the Watchtower HQ.

No one has the actual original $ 50 bill printed by the mint. All of us have copies. [Some, like the leaders of the Watchtower have more than others!] Now some of these bills may be fraudulent because they may be counterfeit, but exacting tests would prove this one way or other. If the information available on the bill is incorrect even by so much as a millimeter, then proof is there that it is a fraud. A very good fraud, but fraudulent all the same.

What AOM has done is shown us how this invaluable document has stood the test of the most severe examination and has been vindicated in all its aspects every time. Therefore, whether an original or a copy, the information garnered from its writing is accurate.

It is this issue that the Watchtower and its apologists must address.

14

According the WT, how many comings or returns of Christ are there?

by cyberguy in

according the wt, how many comings or returns of christ are there?

and the follow-up question is: how many comings of christ are actually indicated in the scriptures?

(yes, we can debate for days, needlessly, concerning the 1914-calculus, but the truth is so much simpler than this!

moggy lover

How did we ever believe this, or even come to accept this?

The only way, and it is a persuasive way, for the Watchtower writers to convey this nonsense to their followers is to express their theology in inverted commas. Jesus' coming is somehow different from Jesus' "coming".

Take a dose of paraphrase, add disingenuous argumentation, stew this in a theology of innovative improvisation, garnish with "inverted commas" and you have:

Food at the proper time!

Then as dessert, a bowl of peaches and cream mixed with chicken vindaloo and sushi [its all the same context m'lady]

And to finish of this "proper food" a nice hot cup of invisible Turkish coffee.

Aaaaaaah, I miss those banquets.

9

What is God's Rest? Watchtower Study Articles for 12-25 September

by TimothyT in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman";} </style> <![endif].

in a few weeks i am going to be disfellowshipped for being gay and my dad told me that i may want to read the two study articles coming up in the 15 july 2011, watchtower regarding entering into gods rest.

moggy lover

Much of the theological argumentation on which the Watchtower article is based, derives from a totally idiosyncratic reading of the text found at Gen 2:3. I can find no competent translation that parallels the NW"T" here, and it must be accepted that Freddy Franz's attempt at rendering the Hebrew here is more doctrinal than lexical.

Franz insisted on translating the verb "S-H-aB-ath" here as a complex perfect passive which in turn yielded the expression: "He has been resting". By constructing, quite unjustifiably, I believe, the verb this way, Franz has hoodwinked the rank and file followers into believing that whatever else "God's rest" may mean, it is continuing on till this day. The articles in the July 2011 Watchtower are entirely predicated on this fallacious argument.

Since Yahweh's rest evidently continues on till our day, and since he evidently left the GB in charge of disposing how this rest should effect His people, it evidently means that everything the GB dictates must be accepted without either criticism or verification. That is a bit too much "evidently" for my liking, and methinks the Society doth plead too much, to cover up the inadequacy of firmer revelation.

Every Hebrew grammar I can lay my hands on shows that the verb here is a "qal preterite" which means it is best translated as a simple past in English. This why most competent translations here say "God rested". Indeed the same form of the same verb occurs at Ex 31:17, and here the NW"T" has the word "rested". Thus the same event is related to us in two separate verses, and while Franz was content to use the simple past at Ex 31, he suddenly felt some petulant impulse to use the perfect passive at Gen 2. Talk about consistency!

Do not be in awe of these men, who as leaders of the Watchtower movement, have abrogated to themselves authority that is not theirs to have. Rather than emulating the Christian Saviour, they are displaying that they have inherited, like the Pharisees, their true calling from their father. [Jo 8:44]

Not myself being gay, I am regret not being able to empathize with you, but whether straight or gay, we must all walk the perilous road of human existence according to the light we have been given, and we must all pursue our own purpose in life. You are the captain of your own destiny, and you do not need intolerant men of dubious spirituality and whose hands have for all time been stained with the blood of those innocents who have bowed to their pompous will, to quantify your reality.

All of us must seek meaning in our lives, and the quest for such serenity is what ennobles the human spirit. The quest itself is a journey, not a terminus, and the goal may never be realized in this life. But the adventure is to participate, and live it and to be enthralled each day by it. Cherish the journey and love life in all its manifestations and beauty.

25

Watchtower 2011 July 15 Study Edition: Are all study editions like this?

by Tuber in

so during my research on the wts, i stubled across a link to the july 15th watchtower.. .

http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/w_e_20110715.pdf.

i'm assuming that the study editions are the ones that they only give to members/ those who attend meetings.. .

moggy lover

Nope. They aren't all like that.

Some are worse.

33

How many times was Christ begotten?

by GOrwell in

in light of all the recent trinity threads, how many times do you think christ was begotten?.

moggy lover

The issue of the "begetting" mentioned at Hebs 1:5, revolves around the understanding that both Jews and Christians give to Ps 2. Undoubtedly both groups, back in the 1st Century AD at least, considered the second Psalm Messianic although attribution for its writing was acknowledged to be Davidic.

According to HH Rowley writing in his "The OT and Historical Study" page 167, this excerpt from the second Psalm was sung to an Israelite monarch at the time of his coronation, which was an investiture that included a ritual process of anointing. Thus the writer of Hebrews does not have a literal act of being born in mind when making use of this Psalm, but some sort of relational interface that included an investiture as King.

In almost staccato fashion, and in several powerful opening clauses to his letter, the writer cites seven OT passages, all designed to declare unequivocally, the pre-eminence of the Son over the angels. The citation in verse 5 is to point out that no angel, no matter how elevated in stature, was privileged to call God "Father" and whereas, collectively they could be called "sons of God" in the plural, the singular form "Son of God" was the exclusive possession of Him who was the Pre-eminent One. Like Christians who must express their relationship to God the Father only as a plurality - "our Father" and never "my Father" - so also the angels have the same constraint.

When then, was The Son officially declared to be the monarch, to have this second Psalm apply to Him? The writer of Hebrews is not specific, so we are forced to resort to exegesis. The most commonly held view is that this occurred at the resurrection of Christ in the light of Rom 1:4, and Acts 13:33.

I have consulted the older version of the Watchtower CD Rom, [2004] and could not find anyintelligible comment by the Watchtower leadership. Either this verse escapes them, or, they are so wrapped up in making Matt 24 say whatever it is they want it to say, that they simply can't be bothered getting any meaning congruent with their theology out of this text.

5

Anyone know of a list of the 540+ variants?

by aristeas in

last year (oct.) the society of biblical literature (sbl) published a new greek text of the new testament, called the sbl edition.

its editor is michael holmes, a prof. of biblical studies at bethel college in st. paul, mn.

he had previously published a number of greek editions with english translations of the apostolic fathers (af, basically the church fathers who most immediately followed the apostles, usu.

moggy lover

Prior to reading your post I had never heard of either the SBLNT or the ECM texts. On downloading the text itself, and going into its introduction and method of preparation, my initial conclusion was that the editor, Michael Holmes was preparing an updated version of the WH text since he based his own text on that original. While still holding to that conclusion I am prepared to acknowledge that he also has some original conclusions to contribute.

I neglected to see the appendix and I agree that we do see here some variations in the SBL and UBS/NA. In James for instance, SBL agrees with UBS/NA at 2:4, but not at 2:14,16; 4:12, 5:4. While most of these are grammatical minutiae, [such as the use of the definite article at three of these texts] the last one does have significance.

The point at 5:4 is to determine what James is accusing his readers of:

1. Is is of "holding back" [aPHU-sterew] their wages or

2. Is it of "defrauding" [aPE-sterew] them of their wages?

Originally WH concluded that the better reading, attested to by the Sinaitic and the Vatican texts [both 4th century] was the former. But the UBS/NA committee, realizing that both preserve a single text type, preferred the latter reading because of its wider attestation of several text types. [Alexandrian, 5th century, PS044 8th century, TR, and other minuscules from the 4th century onward].

ECM has agreed with UBS/NA against WH/SBL.

Also one thing I did not know was that the text behind the NIV is an individualistic, eclectic one made up of several variants of other texts. I always assumed that the NIV was based on UBS4/NA.

If you are waiting for the publication of the completed ECM text to compare the two, I am afraid you will have a long wait. It is slated for release in 2085 in 19 comprehensive volumes involving thousands of pages of text!! I am glad that I won't be around, not only because of a lack of bookshelf space, but also, at 70, I won't have opportunity to plow through all that voluminous material.