Amazing1914

Joined

• started 70 topics
• posted 621 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Amazing1914

• 
  9

  WT legal licking its lips??

  by Pork Chop in

  1. social
  2. current

  url: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/13/bagio640m811.dtl

  a former member and longtime critic of the church of scientology has been ordered by a marin county judge to pay the church $500,000 for speaking out against the controversial religious movement.

  superior court judge lynn duryee issued that order in a breach-of- contract lawsuit against scientology defector gerald armstrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Fascinating ... I liked the quote about signing a deal with the Devil. But, in the case of the Watchtower, they weren't even as smart as the Devil to try and get JWs to sign a contract ... I can see the glorius change in new light now ...

  "Truly faithful Witnesses will not be afraid to commit themselves to Jehovah in writing ... after all, God gave his own word in written form - the Bible, therefore, how much more so should faithful Witnesses be willing to sign the agreement that Jehovah has directed his organization to publish to you ... Ahemmmm ... here's a pen, press hard, because the carbons are cheap."
• 
  8

  Read the Aljazeera news site and see things from the Arab's point of view..

  by Elsewhere in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://english.aljazeera.net/homepage

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Aljazeera is one of the world's worst news sources ... much like Tass during the days of Soviet rule. Actually, Tass was more responsible. Nonetheless, it is good to read what they have to say, and remind ourselves that the UK / USA coalition did the right thing.

  PS: The Aljazeera english site is known to be very different from what is actually said in Arabic ... I wonder if e have any Arabic speaking posters who could translate a story to compare.
• 
  16

  Dishonest WTS version of "Presence"

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dishonest wts version of ?presence?

  it is found in strong?s ref.

  rather, matthew used ?parousia?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Thanks Alan,

  I was very impressed by your word on the related thread ... you very nicely took the wind out of Scholar's sails ...

  Btw:

  Scholar - MS, FOBS, Resident moron in training.

  We may also add, ROTC ... Royal Order of Toilet Cleaners.
• 
  111

  The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

  ref.

  related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Ref. related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx
• 
  16

  Dishonest WTS version of "Presence"

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dishonest wts version of ?presence?

  it is found in strong?s ref.

  rather, matthew used ?parousia?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Dishonest WTS version of ?Presence?

  As a courtesy of AlanF, I was directed to the August 15, 1996 Watchtower article, pages 9-14, titled: ?Jesus? Coming or Jesus? Presence ? Which?? This article was also referenced by the poster named ?Scholar? in his defense of the New World Translation use of ?Presence? at Matthew 24:3 ... and hence, the Watchtower?s interpretation of this ?presence? to mean an invisible presence of Jesus second coming ? taught by the Society to have taken place in 1914.

  AlanF: Scans of the August 15, 1996 WT article here: http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p9.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p10.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p11.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p12.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p13.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p14.jpg

  For an in-depth debate Ref. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/69867/1.ashx

  The poster ?Scholar? cited this Watchtower article as a comprehensive treatment of the issues surrounding ?Presence? v ?Coming? and the Greek word, ?parousia.? I was delighted that there would be such an article, and I equally expected it to be substantive ... but, as usual, Watchtower material is on the ?light? side ... in fact, this article was very disappointing. Here are the weaknesses of this article:

  a. The article states: ?... Matthew used a different word, a noun found nowhere else in the Gospels: parousia.? On the surface, this appears impressive to the novice JW reader not familiar with Greek, or not aware of the shifty tactics of the Society?s writers. Yes, the word ?presence / parousia? is not used in other Gospel accounts, which should immediately tell the reader that other Gospel writers had no all-important issue to stress any kind of ?invisible presence? as defined by 20th century Watchtower writers ... the fact that only Matthew used ?parousia? in his Gospel account tells us exactly that. However, there is yet another facet to this. ...

  b. The word ?parousia? or its variations appears a total of 21 times (as found in Strong?s Concordance) in the New Testament (Christian Scriptures) with 18 of these in non-Gospel accounts ... showing that its use is more common than implied by the WTS. While they did not deny its use in other texts, they conveniently omitted that information by stating that it was used in no other Gospel account ... giving the novice reader of their article the impression that its use is unique to Matthew 24. Where else is this word used, and in what context? ... Many of the uses shown below are with respect to Jesus ?coming? or return. It is intellectually dishonest to contain comment on ?parousia? to Matthew 24 without giving due attention to where it is used in other Christian texts.

  c. The following verses use the word ?parousia.? The King James Version (AV) ,and other Bible versions, translates them ALL as ?coming? with one exception found in 2 Corinthians 10:10. The New World Translation (NWT) always translates these verses as ?presence.?

  BOOK	Verse	KJV / AV	NWT		BOOK	Verse	KJV / AV	NWT
  Matthew	24:3	Coming	Presence		1 Thes.	4:15	Coming	Presence
  Matthew	24:7	Coming	Presence		1 Thes.	5:23	Coming	Presence
  Matthew	24:37	Coming	Presence		2 Thes.	2:01	Coming	Presence
  1 Cor.	15:23	Coming	Presence		2 Thes.	2:08	Coming	Presence
  1 Cor.	16:17	Coming	Presence		2 Thes.	2:09	Coming	Presence
  2 Cor.	7:06	Coming	Presence		James	5:07	Coming	Presence
  2 Cor.	7:07	Coming	Presence		2 Peter	1:16	Coming	Presence
  2 Cor.	10:10	Presence	Presence		2 Peter	3:04	Coming	Presence
  Phil.	1:26	Coming	Presence		2 Peter	3:12	Coming	Presence
  1 Thes.	2:19	Coming	Presence		1 John	2:28	Coming	Presence
  1 Thes.	3:13	Coming	Presence

  Why is it that the WTS translates ?parousia? as ?presence? in every case where the King James and other translations use the word ?coming?? And if you examine the context in each situation, you will see that ?presence? is not always fitting. Why would not the Watchtower NWT take a higher road and use ?coming? where appropriate? Or could it be that they were making an ?all or nothing? use of ?presence? to bolster their case for its use?

  d. The word ?COME? was cited by the Watchtower in its subject article. They said, ?In the first 23 chapters of Matthew, over 80 times we find a common Greek verb for ?come,? which is er-kho-mai.? The Society went on to be sure to distinguish that ?parousia? is a noun, rather than a ?verb.? Notice that they do not cite the word ?COMING.? Why would that be important? First we need to examine the Greek word they cite: Erkhomai. It is found in Strong?s Ref. 1537 and 2064. Yes, ?erkhomai? is a word for "come," as are 69 other Greek words for ?come? or close variations. Examine the references below:

  Strong?s Concordance - Greek Ref. #33, 191, 305, 565, 864, 1096, 1204, 1205, 1224, 1237, 1330, 1448, 1511, 1525, 1531, 1607, 1684, 1764, 1831, 1880, 1904, 1910, 1975, 1994, 1998, 2049, 2064* (*Ref. by the Society) 2071, 2076, 2113, 2240, 2597, 2638, 2647, 2658, 2673, 2718, 2944, 2983, 3134, 3195, 3415, 3719, 3801, 3854, 3918, 3922, 3928, 3973, 4022, 4031, 4130, 4137, 4301, 4331, 4334, 4836, 4845, 4863, 4872, 4905, 4940, 5225, 5290, 5302, 5342, 5348, 5562, 5607.

  NOTE: I will not comment on these references for ?come? as that is a very exhaustive effort. I spent a lot of time going through and finding them and reviewing each to be sure that they are a proper form of ?come? or allow for the word ?come? to be used as a variation.
  

  So, why then did the Watchtower Society cite 2064, ?erkhomai? as though it was a normal selection of the word ?come? and then leave the impression that somehow Matthew selected ?parousia? to uniquely deal with Jesus Second Coming ? thus suggesting that if Matthew had meant ?come? he would have selected ?erkhomai?? The Society argues that Matthew used ?erkhomai? 80 times, and surely would have used it if he meant ?coming? as a verb. HOWEVER, here is something that may have gone unnoticed:

  e. ?Come v. Coming:? The Society used a slight of hand to switch to the word ?come? to suggest a more common form that Matthew could have used. However, when you search under the word ?coming? you find a totally different result in Strong?s. First, examining an English dictionary, you find that there are many variations of the word come. For example, Webster?s New World Dictionary, Second College Ed., C 1978, shows 16 variations, with an additional 40 sub-variations. So, what is the issue between the ?come? and ?coming?? The word ?come? is an intransitive verb, whereas ?coming? is an adjective form of that verb. Therefore, Matthew would not have selected the verb form for ?come? in Greek for use at Matthew 24. Rather, he would either stay with a noun, or have used an adjective.

  Examining the variations of the Greek adjective ?coming? as found in Strong?s gives much different results:

  Ref. #0561: Apenantee ? ?in presence of?

  Ref. #1715: Emprosthen ? ?in sight of?

  Ref. #1725: Enantienantee ? ?figuratively, present?

  Ref. #1726: Enantion ? ?in presence of?

  Ref. #1799: Enopion ? ?literally or figuratively in sight of, or presence?

  Ref. #2714: Katenopion ? ?directly in front of?

  Ref. #3952: Parousia ? ?return, coming, present?

  If Matthew had intended to reflect a thought in line with 20 th Century Watchtower theology, he could and would have selected a verb or adjective to more accurately state this, such as: Enantienantee, meaning ?figuratively? present ? as this would have closely matched current Watchtower theology which teaches that Jesus is in heaven, but is ?present? in the sense that he is now ?active? in earth?s affairs via a Kingdom government. But, Matthew did not make such a selection ? nor did those who translated Matthew.

  Rather, Matthew used ?parousia? which is found in Strong?s as follows:

  Strong's Greek Definition for # 3952 3952 // parousia // parousia // par-oo-see'-ah //
  
  from the present participle of 3918 ; TDNT - 5:858,791; n f
  
  AV - coming 22, presence 2; 24
  
  1) presence
  2) the coming, arrival, advent
  2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise
  the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and
  gloriously the kingdom of God

  NOTE that of the 24 uses of ?parousia? in its variations, 22 times it is preferred as ?coming? whereas it is only used 2 times as ?presence? ? neither of which are used in context with Jesus future return or second coming. [Initially I searched only under one variation of ?parousia? and found 21 uses, of which only one reference in Corinthians shows it used at ?presence.? - see above comments.]

  A related word:

  3918 // pareimi // pareimi // par'-i-mee //
  
  from 3844 and 1510 (including its various forms); TDNT - 5:858,791; v
  
  AV - be present 9, come 7, present 3, be present here 1, be here 1,
  such things as one hath + 3588 1,
  he that lacketh + 3361 + 3739 1; 23
  
  1) to be by, be at hand, to have arrived, to be present
  2) to be ready, in store, at command

  Therefore, ?parousia? is NOT connected with ?invisibility? or a ?figurative? presence interpreted by Jesus' supposed actions as defined by some religious organization! Rather, ?parousia? whether used as ?coming? in the sense of advent, arrival, etc. or used as ?present? in the sense of being at hand, in the vicinity, to have arrived, to be here, deal only with the ?visible? immediate ?coming? or ?visible presence? of Jesus Christ as he returns in glory. He is not working from a ?remote? control panel in heaven, and only ?figuratively? present via active attention.

  Finally, consider this unnoticed fact: The Society translates "parousia" by using the English word "presence." So ... what else is new? Find a good Dictionary and examine the noun "Presence." You will discover that it has nothing to do with some person being in an "invisible" condition at some remote location, figuratively 'present' by the result of his/her actions. Rather, even the English word "presence" is used in the context of being """at""" the location, along side others at an event, to actually """be there,""" being in the immediate surroundings in """close view""" ... especially a person of high station or imposing apearance. [Webster's Second College Ed., C 1978]

  We have no evidence that Jesus Christ has returned in his Glory, his Second Coming, and we have no evidence that he is now judging the living and the dead, nor any of the other ?visible? features associated with his return, a return assuring that ?every eye? would see. Therefore, we have to conclude that it has not happened yet.

  Amazing
• 
  111

  The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

  ref.

  related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Scholar,

  I have not bothered to respond to the matter of invisibility because it is essential that we understand that the word parousia means prescence or active prescence as defined in lexicography. Unfortunately. posers such as Alan F and his ilk want to redefine this term solely with coming or arrival which is an intellectual fraud.

  The main thrust of this post was to highlight "invisibility" as discussed with a Greek speaking Greek. You fail to cite/quote even one known translation outside the NWT which uses "presence" instead of "coming." ... Why? because they rarely ever do that. Why? Because expert translators understand that the text means Jesus was "coming" again in "visible" glory.

  You EVADE this because it is the "central" theme of why Russell and his Watchtower Society defined Jesus as being "invisibly present" ... to excape the obvious problems associated with failed prophecies. This is why it was so very easy for J. F. Rutherford to change Jesus "Second Presence" from 1874 to 1914 - which he did not do until the early 1930s - because by claiming Jesus returned "invisibly" it makes it easy to engage in a propehtic shell game ... just claim progressive new light, and boom, Jesus glorious return is move 40 years with the stroke of a pen. THAT, is why you are failing to deal with this central issue.

  It is essential that you understand the theological signifcance of parousia before dismissing views of invisibility. The Wathtower publications have provided scriptural reasons for this understanding and these are presented in the Insight Volume 2 under the subject presence. In addition you could read pertinent articles on this subject in TDNT and NIDONTT. You will see in the appended bibliographies to such articles that is a plethora of articles and books in the academic field which deal with this subject.

  My 25 years as a JW has made me well aware of Watchtower theological interpretations ... I am most familiar with the Aid and Insight books and what was said about the word "presence." I understand the theological significance of "parousia" ... and that undestanding is the Watchtower spin trys to make this word apear to mean something that it does not mean ... the Society draws distinctions without a difference, as my associate Mr. Davliakos stated, for the purpose of making it appear that they have a case for "INVISIBILITY" ... which they do not.

  That is why their core doctrine is in shambles ... AND that is why ALL of their teachings and prophecies concerning the end times have proven failures ... because they have hinged their whole Canon on 1914 ... on some "invisible" presence which never took place ... and no wonder that they have had to change their understanding about the Last Generation several times, because 1914 is a false date, part of a false prophecy.

  Amazing
• 
  111

  The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

  ref.

  related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Scholar,

  I would love to see the following Watchtower article. Would / could you scan it and post it here ... or at least cite it so that someone else can scan a copy? You noted:

  The Society's WT article on this subject contains no lies as you allege but simply presents the facts of lexicography that parousia means presence with its connotations of arrival and coming unless of course you intend to produce your own lexicon or Bible transaltion.

  First, you have still EVADED the main point that "parousia" has nothing to do with invisibility. That is the point Mr. Davliakos made. Also, your admission that "parousia" also can mean "arrival" and "coming" demonstrates the point perfectly ... a point made earlier by my Greek speaking friend that "parousia" [presence and coming] are distinctions without a difference.

  Amazing
• 
  45

  To Dubs and Newly Ex-Dubs

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'd like to do a little informal survey.

  i'm wondering how many pieces of literature are actually distributed to the public.

  not how many pieces are reported placed, but actually placed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Well, Farkel ... good thread, particularly because it addresses something we all lived with for many years ... the ever increasing pile of magazines stacking up in boxes in the garage ...

  For a couple of years in the early 1970s it was easy to place 10 to 20 magazines every Saturday ... it was just before 1975, and the articles were very pointed about the last days ... and we were excited to talk about it ... but, then by 1975, as the end drew so close ... the public became more cold toward us ... you know the prophecy about love growing cold ... and here is how it broke down for us:

  Order 25 Watchtowers per issue:

  6 for the family study (me, wife & 4 kids)

  2 extra to help out those who forgot theirs for the WT study

  5 for return visits

  2 for Bible Studies ( I introduced subscriptions later when I was sure they were progressing)

  10 for Saturday morning

  Here is how is actually turned out:

  4 family copies were routinely lost until they were found in the box in the garage

  2 extras rarely made it to the hall to help anyone

  3 never made it to return visit because they moved or told me to buzz off

  2 for Bible studies weren't needed because the CO pushed subs, ruining my placement plan

  4 were loaned out on Saturday to a Dub who forgot theirs and given back to me later that day

  4 never placed because people were not interested

  5 ended up in the garage with the other magazines that never made it to the public

  TOTAL 24 magazines not really placed

  1 magazine placed because I am sure I placed one, and I could only account for 24 of 25 magazines.

  However ... about every six months ... I was lined up behind two dozen other Dubs to get to the laundromats, doctors offices, and half-way houses, etc. to drop off a couple of boxes of magazines.

  AFTER ALL THAT ... what really!!!!! gt to me is that Reg. Pioneers were always begging for extra magazines ... particularly the issues I just dropped off at the half-way houses ... and

  When I was Cong Secretary, compiling all that time and magazines and books placed ... the Pioneers did not place all that many magazines compared to what they ordered ... I can only imagine they were secretly selling the magazines for their paper value to be recycled ... this helped pay for their coffee.

  Amazing
• 
  13

  Where is my study copy of the WATCHTOWER???

  by boa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  k, so i'm not really lookin for it so settle down please everyone!.

  but really, am i the only one that would be tripping on watchtowers and awakes and when it came to sunday morning and you had to get your shite together tout de suite , there wasn't the right wt to be found anywhere?!?.

  just me have this happen folks???.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Yes, its all too familiar ... the magazines before and after were always hanging around ... but the ones needed were somehow missing ... we at times went to the Hall and had to borrow one magazine from the Lit. counter for our family of six to share ( my wife and I) while the kids just had to listen in. Oddly enough the following week the magazines would appear, but only to replace the new missing magazines. Maybe God was trying to tell us something.
• 
  111

  The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

  ref.

  related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Amazing1914

  Scholar,

  The lexical facts of the matter is that parousia has the primary meaning of 'presence' followed by secondary meanings as 'árrival' and 'coming'.

  Not according to my Greek speaking Greek, George ... who grew up in Greece, speaking Greek ... and I am still an idiot when it comes to Greek ... except for math symbols in my engineering and research science world ... so I am in no position to argue the point ... my above opening post is about an experience I had arguing as a JW with a Greek expert.

  This gives a secure foundation to the earlier and current understanding of the Lord's invisible presence which can be traced to the nineteenth century expositors and fully expounded by Russell.

  ABSOLUTELY NOT ... not yelling, just empahtic ... the concept of invisibility has nothing to do with parousia ... that much I know ... and likewise the 19th century expositors were nicely dealt with by above posters ... and Russell was in good company with those of the Second Advent movement .. they all were good at doctrinal spin.

  It has been the determination of many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses that the meaning of this Greek word should be subverted to 'coming' aloné which is a gross dishonesty. Such a pitiful attempt is well illustrated in the Appendix of the book by Carl Jonsson- Sign of the last Days.

  No one said it means "coming" alone ... and that is not what Mr. Davliakos stated ... he was arguing that "invisibility" was not involved in the word 'parousia' ... and that the 'coming' or 'presence' in Greek were of little difference with respect to the return of Christ ... e.g. I see you """coming""" up my driveway ... I can say that you are both coming and present ... a distinction without a difference ... that was his point.

  Alan F has also engaged in sloppy exegesis when discussing the disciple's question as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not present for careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts but simply argues his position on the basis of another translation inferior to the NWT.

  I did not understand Alan F was making an unabridged arguement to address "all" aspects to be sure to be fair to the NWT ... he was making a comprehensive statement about "parousia which the Watchtower conveniently leaves out of its studies in misinformation.

  scholar ... BA MA Studies in Religion

  I do not disrespect your degrees in religious studies ... but I must defer to an expert in language rather than an expert in how religions interprets language ... at least for the time being.

  Amazing ... full of BS, filling up with More S ... and Piled higher and deeper.