Posts by euripides

6

doomsday clock again

by euripides in

jw
friends

looks like it just got moved up again.

http://news.yahoo.com/doomsday-clock-moves-1-minute-closer-midnight-230621633.html anyone here remember wt's infamous 'hands on the clock' illustration?

i know this has been mentioned here, maybe a year ago, this thread.

Looks like it just got moved up again. http://news.yahoo.com/doomsday-clock-moves-1-minute-closer-midnight-230621633.html Anyone here remember WT's infamous 'hands on the clock' illustration? I know this has been mentioned here, maybe a year ago, this thread. Wonder if the prophets of doom will use this again to predict 'The End?' What they don't seem to grasp is that it is a clock that does not actually move--in fact it goes backwards sometimes! It is supposed to be about the relative danger of a nuclear incident based on political conditions relative to nuclear capabilities. 1953 was the closest we've moved to 'midnight:'

Really, I think these atomic scientists should find a new symbol of the dangers of nuclear war other than a clock, which is so easily misconstrued--especially by fear-mongerers and the poor people who have to grow up listening to them and their terrifying 'doomsday' rhetoric!

31

Review of Examining the Scriptures Daily 2012 absurdities

by jwfacts in

i just endured the painful process of trudging through the 2012 examining the scriptures daily, looking for interesting quotes.

apart from being repetitively boring, it has managed to squeeze most of the watchtower's crazy concepts into a single book.

the comments concentrate on:.

euripides

Great work, fantastic observations, but...366 quotes this year, no? What was February 29th, a quote from one of the vice lists in Galations or 2 Timothy? Because we all know intercalation is at it's heart demonic and simply a way of worshipping the sun.

euripides

8

What does "Seek Righteousness" mean?

by N.drew in

zephaniah 2:3. world english bible.

seek yahweh, all you humble of the land, who have kept his ordinances.

but, who have kept his ordinances, means their own righteousness.

euripides

I think the larger context of the world of the Hebrew prophet should be borne in mind--to seek righteousness would probably be tantamount to "strive for upright conduct" in the ancient world--and that would include seeking Justice for the poor and oppressed, etc., a popular theme for Hebrew prophets. Seeking righteousness would likely be seen as part of striving for a virtuous life, whether as exemplified by one's business dealings, treatment of family and other people, whether one made apprpriate religious (ritual, Sabbath, Commandments) observations, etc, although the last were not to be stressed over and against the former.

If you want a modern extrapolation, from my own (humble) view at any rate, its easy to see what really helps people and what doesn't--selling them WT and awake magazines (or not selling, you know what I mean), and wasting their time teaching false doctrine is seeking righteousness at all--and it certainly isn't anything done conscious of a reward. It is virtue for virtue's sake, because it is the right way to treat people, and of course, the prophet says it is part of divine command.

I think when anyone starts making some kind of economy of decision-making, or sets conditions (I'll do this IF I get rewarded) then the point is lost entirely. Whether there is a tangible reward that you can point to, at least for modern humanists and egalitarians should be quite beside the point, although I think Christians might disagree. Some people start with the question over right conduct, 'but what's in it for me?' And if they are asking that question, it's not likely that the right conduct contemplates 'seeking righteousness' at all, because it's seeknig a reward.

11

What are the "Hebrew versions" of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to in Appendix 1 of the New World Translation?

by yadda yadda 2 in

appendix 1 of the new world translation is entitled "the divine name in the hebrew scriptures and in the christian greek scriptures "jehovah.

" - hebrew (yhwh or jhvh)".

it says in part: "to avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the christian greek scriptures, always carefully considering the hebrew scriptures as a background.

euripides

Leolaia is right (hi again Leolaia, it's been years, remember me?), using a Hebrew version (i.e. translation) of the New Testament to justify insertion of the Tetragrammaton instead of any textual witness, is completely disingenuous, and not only unscholarly, its the kind of thing that would lose all credibility in any other context. But WT is accustomed to using other people's (sometimes questionable) editorial translation decisions, or relying on Hort-Westcott as a principal textual witness in the first place. Anyone remember Benjamin Wilson's emphatic diaglott? But I'm sure that topic has been covered elsewhere. Like anything, the problem with the WT interlinear is its utter lack of apparatus, and no explanation as to the decisions it makes, and principally that it gives the deceptive appearance of homogeneity of the text, something no real scholar could possibly believe. But a Witness "scholar" (now who's kidding who) thinking they are practicing some useful form of exegesis by referring to the interlinear and then backing it up with Insight on the Scriptures will see just enough to bring on that self-satisfied smugness that allows them to engage in doubletalk at the door or on the platform--something always useful in continuous self-delusion.

Euripides

5

Is the FRAMEWORK, WORLDVIEW or CONTEXT a key area of Watchtower deception?

by Fernando in

when the watchtower says something it often speaks from a latent/hidden/covert framework, worldview or context.

this made me think of some questions this morning:.

how important is it to first uncover and understand this framework before responding to the picture being presented?.

euripides

By "Framework" I think it is reasonable to conclude you mean "presumptions" or latent assumptions, which can be of many shades. Take the birthday celebrating as an example. Putting aside all of Terry's obvious assumptions inherent in all religious belief, we focus only on WT. It is defended by citing that since only two birthdays (excluding the possible reference in Job, which would not be a negative referent) are mentioned in the Bible, of two rulers, Pharaoh and Herod, and since something bad happened on those days, celebrating birthdays must be wrong. This is reinforced by the (further) so-called argument that Ecclesiastes' negative wisdom perspective of 'day of death better than birth' read literally but quite missing the point, IMO. Now, this method of using the Bible as a limiting tool, as if to say unless it is specifically authorized, but especially if its only occurrences are bad, then you may conclude this is God's way of sending a message about birthdays. That kind of argument is faulty on many grounds, but principally, the flaw can summarized as, Just because something is mentioned in two unrelated contexts, and something bad occurred at that event, does not necessarily mean that that this thing must ALWAYS be bad. Two bad birthdays = all birthdays bad. WT further assumes that these two (disputedly) sole occurrences of a birthday event allow us to conclude some unified coherent 'message' about birthdays, not just birthdays of bad rulers, or wish-granting on birthdays, as if it was the birthday celebration as the cause rather than the occasion. Jesus was executed on Nissan 14, and on Passover, therefore Passover was the cause. No? Well then neither was the birthday. Another example might be 'dogs' in the Bible. They are always described unfavorably or as unclean. Therefore we should not have them as pets. How many assumptions am I making to reach that conclusion?

My younger son wrote a parody article about the Satanic origin of mushrooms, since they should not count as 'vegetation' botanically speaking, and therefore did not occur during any of the six creative 'days.' You get the point--you cannot conclude that these texts represent an exhaustive almanac, but JWs always find exceptions, like 'anniversaries' aren't the same as 'birthdays,' etc etc.

I agree that idetifying logical flaws of arguments does help frame the JW worldview, and does reveal how backwards things are. Sometimes there is an agenda that defines how an arguments will play out. For example, C.T. Russell was deathly afraid of the doctrine of eternal punishment, even though it does seem to be alluded to eschatologically in both Matthew and Luke. Without going into any argument for or against the (ir)rationality of the view, it's being dishonest fundamentally to the text of the bible itself. The JW translation is also an example of this, changing the wording of things to suit doctrinal arguments. That didn't begin with JWs, of course, but it is just another example.

I think you make good observations.

Euripides

20

Young People Ask . . . March 2012 Awake

by sizemik in

i read very little wts propaganda these days, even on-line stuff .

unless it's for a specific purpose.

most of you will identify with that.. i perused this article while checking out something else and was disturbed by the manipulative reasoning directed at jw youths.

euripides

"Houston, I think we have a[n exegetical] problem..."

That use of Isaiah 42:6 and Acts 13:47, if any "young people" bother to look those up expecting to find something, anything, related to them wanting to be popular among their peers, is the ultimate FAIL, at least from a use of bible verses perspective. Exactly HOW does the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah "foretell" Christian/JW (non)popularity, and even stranger, how does Paul's bizarre and edited use of Isaiah in Acts, redacted, either by himself or the author of Acts, to remove reference to the Jewish race, connect with today's teenagers wanting to be liked? Seems like if that is the best they can do to come up with a quote about "popularity," then it's no wonder things are flaking away (yes, they were always flaking, I know) from a religious dogma perspective anyway.

Somewhere there is a subject index randomly keyed to young people ask topics, and these verses fell into the 'popularity' topic. Oh brother...

5

Can someone post Questions From Readers-October 15, 1978, pp. 30-1?

by ithinkisee in

.

i don't have my wt library cd rom with me and i could use the text right now.. .

thanks in advance!.

euripides

Is that same greek word (eudolothutos) also used in 1 Corinthians chapter 10?

The Greek word in 1 Cor 10:14 is eidololatria, idolatry. Eidolothuton is a term which is a derogatory derivation from hierothuton, the ancient word for sacrificial meat. Apparently this concept could only have arisen in Israelite tradition. Sacrificial meat was partly used for ritual purpose and partly eaten. After its sacrificial use it was routinely sold in the market, because food and meat was clearly not as readily available (with relevant storage abilities) as it is today. To be a vegetarian in the ancient world was a radical if not flighty proposition--calories were scarce enough for a life of labor as most people lived. The wealthy and/or philosophers were considered dainty if they were vegetarians. Getting picky about what meat is alright to eat and what isn't must have seemed arbitrary and inconvenient.

Euripides

17

Matthew 1:18-25..."the virgin birth"...(seeking exegetical help)

by rick_here in

i've been @ jwdf before, having been "referred" by an ex-jw i met at beliefnet.com.

this person said i'd find some folks here who are interested in the stuff i am.

namely, the "historical-critical studies of the bible" (not to be confused with theological liberalism, per se, which is a specific "movement" within the history of christianity).

euripides

Matthew's Gospel, if indeed Matthew was a tax-collector and the author of this Gospel as traditionally known (which I accept, btw); tax-collectors of that era knew various forms of "short-hand (writing)" which was needed for their job descriptions and performance.

I've wondered if Matthew's Greek might reflect an "abbreviation tendency" and consider this as not only a possibility, but as a possible "key" to understanding his writing (in Greek). I don't want to belabor this point. But I would like to emphasize that centuries-old understandings, based on possible faulty "translations of the Greek" would be unreliable.

If you have further input for rebuttle, I welcome them (please)! As of now I'm unconvinced (agnostic) of traditionanl interpretations of the text. My only "debate" has to do with finding the true exegesis of this passage.

I honestly think you would be better off abandoning this position. There is nothing to suggest through the course of this gospel that somekind of koine "shorthand" has been used, or that publicans of the ancient world would have used such a taxonomy (pardon the pun) or especially that this gospel was written by the disciple named in the text. Unless you can produce further evidence of an 'abbreviation tendency' I would be highly skeptical. In fact, the opposite redactional tendency can be observed if one accepts that this gospel uses Mark as one of its sources, as many scholars contend: it elaborates on stories and information, adding details, rather than abbreviating. Further, the Greek itself is not particularly elliptical, nor is it artful.

What traditional interpretation are you now 'agnostic' about? I believe that the element of 'virgin birth' was probably added to the traditional story circulating about Jesus as influenced by Egyptian virgin birth stories, etc. The text is not particularly ambiguous, in my view. Provide some concrete examples and then each one can be taken in turn.

Euripides

17

Matthew 1:18-25..."the virgin birth"...(seeking exegetical help)

by rick_here in

i've been @ jwdf before, having been "referred" by an ex-jw i met at beliefnet.com.

this person said i'd find some folks here who are interested in the stuff i am.

namely, the "historical-critical studies of the bible" (not to be confused with theological liberalism, per se, which is a specific "movement" within the history of christianity).

euripides

One other thing that is often overlooked is that there are words in the Greek passage (in question) that have no other apearances in Greek literature. And what few there are; we have been dependent on English translations as they have come to us -- without question.

I don't know what you are talking about here. What hapax legomena are you referring to? What words have uncertain meaning?

Euripides

2

Schiavo Case Goes to Heart of Principles of Medical Ethics!

by Voyager in

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1328140.htm .

schiavo case goes to heart of principles of medical ethicsprint friendlyemail storythe world today - monday, 21 march , 2005 12:18:00reporter: edmond royeleanor hall: so, how would such a case be handled in australia?

euripides

Witnesses should be very concerned about the Schiavo case. Thusfar the law has been upheld. But say, just say, it wasn't about a feeding tube but a blood transfusion. Does this woman's husband, as her proxy, have a right to declare that she would not have wanted it? I say yes, and the law agrees with me.

I say this as an ex-Witness who believes that most of their religious ideology is dismissable. However, people have a right to do what they want. So who are these so-called "conservatives" and Federalists who think Congress passing a bill for one person, designed to nullify a state's law and state court's decision, is a good idea? These "errant on the side of life" who are now standing in front of this woman's hospice with huges crosses and pushing their children forward with plastic cups of water to be arrested, to stand up and say, our law (which most people already agree with, by the way) is wrong, you should not have freedom to make this decision? This is already the law. If there were no disagreement in this family, we wouldn't hear about this at all.

Witnesses should pay very close attention to this case, however. The next erosion, if a court or Congress or the governor were to intrusively act, would be to deny people the right to refuse blood transfusion or medical treatment. And then, whatever choice you may hold on to, someone else will decide what's best.

If Terri Schiavo is conscious, what if she didn't want to be a prisoner in a completely broken body? Wouldn't that be even a greater suffering?

In addressing the issue raised in the article above, the courts here in the U.S. have always held that the situation is different in the case of minors, and rightly so. Essentially the wishes of the parents in life and death cases may be overriden if there is a compelling governmental interest, No child sacrifice, in the mind of the law, if you will.

I don't know what the Witness position is on the Schiavo case, I'll have to ask my mother. Any one out there know?

Euripides