Def'd ... put the full reference up when you get a chance ... will ya? At least the article/page number.
I'll find it in my own magazine and we can take a look at what the phrase really meant when taken in context.
-ithinkisee
ithinkisee
JoinedPosts by ithinkisee
-
105
Somethings just not true!
by defd inive been here for sometime now.
long enough to know that some peoples hatred toward th wtbts and some of its members are based on wrong information.
for instance: ive read on hear many times that the wt promotes the idea that everyone whos not a witness are not friend material or will be destroyed at armageddon.
-
-
-
3
Book Study Wk 4 7/25: pg36-40 Tested But True to Jehovah!
by ithinkisee insorry so late people.
getting ready for a road trip and i had my two-post-limit yesterday and was unable to post sooner.. pretty straightforward study this week.
next week they address some "false prophet" issues - very subtley though.. -ithinkisee.
-
-
ithinkisee
Sorry so late people. Getting ready for a road trip and I had my two-post-limit yesterday and was unable to post sooner.
Pretty straightforward study this week. Next week they address some "false prophet" issues - very subtley though.
-ithinkisee
PS: Last week I mislabeled the subject line of the study .... sorry.
Book Study Wk 4 7/25: pg36-40 Tested But True to Jehovah!
*** dp chap. 3 pp. 36-40 Tested—But True to Jehovah! ***
DETERMINED TO REMAIN TRUE TO JEHOVAH
15 The Babylonian names, the reeducation program, and the special diet—all of this was an attempt not only to assimilate Daniel and the three young Hebrews into the Babylonian way of life but also to alienate them from their own God, Jehovah, and from their religious training and background. Confronted with all this pressure and temptation, what would these young people do?
16 The inspired account says: “Daniel determined in his heart that he would not pollute himself with the delicacies of the king and with his drinking wine.” (Daniel 1:8a) Although Daniel was the only one mentioned by name, it is evident by what followed that his three companions supported his decision. The words “determined in his heart” show that the instruction provided by Daniel’s parents and others back home had reached his heart. Similar training undoubtedly guided the other three Hebrews in their decision-making. This amply illustrates the value of teaching our children, even when they may seem to be too young to understand.—Proverbs 22:6; 2 Timothy 3:14, 15.
17 Why did the young Hebrews object only to the delicacies and the wine but not to the other arrangements? Daniel’s reasoning clearly indicates why: “He would not pollute himself.” Having to learn “the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans” and being given a Babylonian name, objectionable though this might be, would not necessarily pollute a person. Consider the example of Moses, nearly 1,000 years earlier. Although he was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” he remained loyal to Jehovah. His upbringing by his own parents gave him a solid foundation. Consequently, “by faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called the son of the daughter of Pharaoh, choosing to be ill-treated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin.”—Acts 7:22; Hebrews 11:24, 25.
18 In what way would the Babylonian king’s provisions pollute the young men? First, the delicacies may have included foods prohibited by the Mosaic Law. For example, the Babylonians ate unclean animals, forbidden to the Israelites under the Law. (Leviticus 11:1-31; 20:24-26; Deuteronomy 14:3-20) Second, the Babylonians were not in the habit of bleeding slaughtered animals before eating their flesh. Eating unbled meat would be in direct violation of Jehovah’s law on blood. (Genesis 9:1, 3, 4; Leviticus 17:10-12; Deuteronomy 12:23-25) Third, worshipers of false gods customarily offer their food to idols before eating it in a communion meal. Servants of Jehovah would have none of that! (Compare 1 Corinthians 10:20-22.) Finally, indulgence in rich foods and strong drink day after day would hardly be healthful for people of any age, let alone for the young.
19 It is one thing to know what to do, but it is quite another to have the courage to do it when under pressure or temptation. Daniel and his three friends could have reasoned that since they were far away from their parents and friends, such individuals would not know what they did. They could also have rationalized that it was the king’s order and that there appeared to be no alternative. Besides, other young people no doubt readily accepted the arrangements and counted it a privilege rather than a hardship to participate. But such faulty thinking could easily lead to the pitfall of secret sin, which is a snare for many young people. The Hebrew youths knew that “the eyes of Jehovah are in every place” and that “the true God himself will bring every sort of work into the judgment in relation to every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.” (Proverbs 15:3; Ecclesiastes 12:14) Let all of us take a lesson from the course of these faithful young people.
COURAGE AND PERSISTENCE WERE REWARDING
20 Having resolved in his heart to resist corrupting influences, Daniel proceeded to act in harmony with his decision. “He kept requesting of the principal court official that he might not pollute himself.” (Daniel 1:8b) “Kept requesting”—that is a noteworthy expression. Most often, persistent effort is needed if we hope to be successful in fighting off temptations or overcoming certain weaknesses.—Galatians 6:9.
21 In Daniel’s case, persistence paid off. “Accordingly the true God gave Daniel over to loving-kindness and to mercy before the principal court official.” (Daniel 1:9) It was not because Daniel and his companions were personable and intelligent individuals that things eventually worked out well for them. Rather, it was because of Jehovah’s blessing. Daniel undoubtedly remembered the Hebrew proverb: “Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:5, 6) Following that counsel was rewarding indeed.
22 At first, the principal court official objected: “I am in fear of my lord the king, who has appointed your food and your drink. Why, then, should he see your faces dejected-looking in comparison with the children who are of the same age as yours, and why should you have to make my head guilty to the king?” (Daniel 1:10) These were legitimate objections and fears. King Nebuchadnezzar was not one to take no for an answer, and the official realized that his “head” would be in jeopardy if he were to go against the king’s instructions. What would Daniel do?
23 This was where insight and wisdom came into play. Young Daniel probably remembered the proverb: “An answer, when mild, turns away rage, but a word causing pain makes anger to come up.” (Proverbs 15:1) Instead of stubbornly insisting that his request be granted and possibly provoking others to make a martyr out of him, Daniel let the matter rest. At the right time, he approached “the guardian,” who was perhaps more willing to allow a little leeway because he was not directly accountable to the king.—Daniel 1:11.
A TEN-DAY TEST PROPOSED
24 To the guardian, Daniel proposed a test, saying: “Please, put your servants to the test for ten days, and let them give us some vegetables that we may eat and water that we may drink; and let our countenances and the countenance of the children who are eating the delicacies of the king appear before you, and according to what you see do with your servants.”—Daniel 1:12, 13.
25 Ten days on ‘vegetables and water’—would they become “dejected-looking” as compared with the others? “Vegetables” is translated from a Hebrew word that basically means “seeds.” Certain Bible translations render it as “pulse,” which is defined as “the edible seeds of various leguminous crops (as peas, beans, or lentils).” Some scholars feel that the context indicates a diet including more than just edible seeds. One reference work states: “What Daniel and his companions were requesting was the plain vegetable fare of the general populace rather than the richer, meaty diet of the royal table.” Thus, vegetables could have included nourishing dishes prepared with beans, cucumbers, garlic, leeks, lentils, melons, and onions and bread made from various grains. Surely no one would consider that a starvation diet. Apparently the guardian saw the point. “Finally he listened to them as regards this matter and put them to the test for ten days.” (Daniel 1:14) What was the result?
26 “At the end of ten days their countenances appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the children who were eating the delicacies of the king.” (Daniel 1:15) This is not to be taken as evidence that a vegetarian diet is superior to a richer, meaty one. Ten days is a short time for any kind of diet to produce tangible results, but it is not too short for Jehovah to accomplish his purpose. “The blessing of Jehovah—that is what makes rich, and he adds no pain with it,” says his Word. (Proverbs 10:22) The four young Hebrews put their faith and trust in Jehovah, and he did not abandon them. Centuries later, Jesus Christ survived without food for 40 days. In this regard, he quoted the words found at Deuteronomy 8:3, where we read: “Not by bread alone does man live but by every expression of Jehovah’s mouth does man live.” Of this, the experience of Daniel and his friends is a classic example.
15, 16. What dangers now confronted Daniel and his companions, and what was their reaction?
17. Why did Daniel and his companions object only to the king’s daily provisions and not to the other arrangements?
18. In what ways would the king’s provisions pollute the young Hebrews?
19. How could the Hebrew youths have rationalized, but what helped them to come to the right conclusion?
20, 21. What action did Daniel take, and with what outcome?
22. What legitimate objection did the court official raise?
23. By the course he took, how did Daniel show insight and wisdom?
24. What test did Daniel propose?
25. What probably were included in the “vegetables” served to Daniel and his three friends?
26. What was the outcome of the ten-day test, and why did matters turn out that way?
-
45
Did You Usually Feel Guilty While A JW?
by minimus inmy 79 year old mom that has every ailment known to man was going to the bookstudy this afternoon because she felt "guilty" for not going the last couple of meetings due to illness.
i told her it was 95 degrees outside and asked her not to go since she has difficulty breathing.
she decided to do it anyway.
-
-
ithinkisee
Guilt was the only thing that kept me in. Guilt from my mother. She guilted me to the point that I was in so long I began to make deep friendships with others in the congregation.
When I began having questions about being a JW, guilt about being prideful, arrogant, and a faultfinder kept me from researching my doubts all the way through.
It is guilt today that is keeping me from finally revealing how I feel to my wife.
I identify the guilt in almost all the literature all the time now. I have an inner guilt-detector built in now .... but I still let it have some control over me dammit.
-ithinkisee
-
24
Jehoiakim's third year of reign, or 11th year of reign, which is correct?
by VM44 inin daniel 1:1, we read the following (nwt):.
in the third year of the kingship of jehoi akim the king of judah, nebuchadnez zar the king of babylon came to jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.. the watchtower insists on changing the meaning of "in the third year of the kingship of jehoiakim" to "in the third year of the vasselship of jehoiakim to nebuchadnezzar".. jehoiakim had already reigned for 8 years before he became a vassal king for nebuchadnezzar, so the seige according the watchtower interpretation, would have taken place during jehoiakim's 11th year of kingship.. is the watchtower correct here?
is there a way to settle once and for all what daniel 1:1 really meant?.
-
-
ithinkisee
How does that settle it? Can you speak slower for us lay-people?
Let me rephrase: Jehoakim's rule was 610-599BCE correct? What year was jehoiakim taken prisoner and carried captive to babylon? (602?) Oh wait, I get it. The Society has to say it is the third year of his vassalship because the ... aw crap ... I don;t know ... Any pointers? -ithinkisee
-
17
Article from: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (07-20-2005)
by ljwtiamb infeatures
the insular world of the jehovahs witnesses bethel
by sarah ryley ([email protected]), published online 07-20-2005
-
-
ithinkisee
The girl Sarah Kate (she must have got married) was/is a daughter of one of the Bethel doctors. He is the one that stuck his finger up my ass for the "prostate exam".
You know how many of those 19-year-olds nowadays have prostate problems ....
The worst is the "squish squish" in your bunghole from the KY as you head back to your job .... ah ... the memories.
-ithinkisee
-
17
Article from: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (07-20-2005)
by ljwtiamb infeatures
the insular world of the jehovahs witnesses bethel
by sarah ryley ([email protected]), published online 07-20-2005
-
-
ithinkisee
Ha ... one of my first jobs at Bethel was cleaning that dumb DUMBO parking lot. Picking up trash and stuff.
Me and another guy would always try and go together so we could stop at the deli across the street ... sit down and drink coffee. . . .
Hahah ... I guess I was apostate even back then.
-ithinkisee
-
12
ITHINKISEE Update: Nothing to tell.
by ithinkisee ina few of you have asked me via pm how things are going with telling my wife.. unfortunately, nothing has happened yet.
each night i almost get up the nerve to tell her i chicken out.. anyhow ... just thought i would update ... will keep you posted.
thanks all you who have checked in.
-
-
ithinkisee
MJ:
I'm not making it a big production. In fact, I am being (and plan on being) very low-key about it. I just have a rough framework in place. Most importantly I have just been trying to make sure I have "most" of the off the wall non-sequitor rebuttals JWs come up with.CYP:
Good points ... especially when my father-in-law elder comes around. I actually think he will seriously contemplate what I have to say, but I won't be surprised if he runs through the stock answers first as a test. With my wife, like I said, I just have a rough framework in place. Most importantly I have just been trying to make sure I have "most" of the off the wall non-sequitor rebuttals JWs come up with.iQuit!:
I am planning on working the timing out right. I have purposely left all my books out (Interlinears, additional Bible Translations, etc) so she can see I am up to something. Having a zillion bibles and reference books out isn't "me" ... so I am sure she knows something is up. I am trying to get her to ask what I am looking at.To All ...
Thanks again for the support and feedback. I know if I don't do something soon you all are gonna get tired of me whining on this board ... heheh.
Don't worry ... the pressure is GOOD.
-ithinkisee
-
14
WT Society's infinite wisdom on Rev. 5:10 (barf alert)
by ithinkisee inwhat a pile of crap (especially the closing sentence after their lame interpretation): .
*** w60 6/15 pp.
383-384 questions from readers ***.
-
-
ithinkisee
What a pile of crap (especially the closing sentence after their lame interpretation):
*** w60 6/15 pp. 383-384 Questions from Readers *** Questions from Readers•
In the statement at Revelation 5:10, "they will rule as kings over the earth," why does the New World Translation use the word "over," while other translations, such as the King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay and Diaglott, use "on"?—J. D. J., U.S.A.The New World Translation at Revelation 5:10 renders the Greek preposition epí in connection with the earth as "over" the same as it renders the identical preposition followed by the genitive (possessive) case as "over" in Revelation 9:11 and 11:6. "They have over them a king." "They have authority over the waters." Thus you see that this preposition followed by the genitive case does not in every instance have the meaning of "upon" or "on." This preposition, epí, followed by the genitive case, may refer to place in answer to the question, "Where?" and may thus signify "upon, on, in, at, near," but it may also refer to a position as above or as denoting pre-eminence. Thus we read at Matthew 2:22 that Archelaus was king "of" or "over" Judea, and at Ephesians 4:6 that God is "over" all. Also, it may refer to one’s being over a business or an office, as at Acts 6:3, where we read of the apostles searching out seven qualified brothers to "appoint them over this necessary business." See also Acts 8:27; 12:20.
So in Revelation 5:10 it refers to being over the earth as rulers, not being exactly on the earth, because the rest of Revelation as well as other texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures show that Jesus Christ and his joint heirs of the Kingdom will rule in heaven, which is the throne of God, whereas the earth is merely the footstool and therefore not the place for the glorified Christ to rule. Consistent translators who render things contextually will therefore render this expression in Revelation 5:10 as "over the earth." Thus the Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton renders the verse: "And have made them into a Kingdom and priests for our God; and they will reign over the earth." See also An American Translation by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. P. Smith.
The above instance drives home the truth that the Bible cannot be properly translated without knowledge and understanding of the purposes of God.
-ithinkisee
-
12
ITHINKISEE Update: Nothing to tell.
by ithinkisee ina few of you have asked me via pm how things are going with telling my wife.. unfortunately, nothing has happened yet.
each night i almost get up the nerve to tell her i chicken out.. anyhow ... just thought i would update ... will keep you posted.
thanks all you who have checked in.
-
-
ithinkisee
A few of you have asked me via PM how things are going with telling my wife.
Unfortunately, nothing has happened yet. Each night I almost get up the nerve to tell her I chicken out.
Anyhow ... just thought I would update ... will keep you posted. Thanks all you who have checked in. Unfortunately I don't have time to respond individually to each PM, but I will later this week.
Thanks again,
-ithinkisee
-
15
Naturapaths (sp?)
by DelTheFunkyHomosapien inare jw's allowed to see one.
as far as i can tell they seem to have pagan origins?
-
-
ithinkisee
Of course Naturpath is ok. JWs all know that all doctors are arrogant pricks and full of themselves. Doctors don't know anything.
Greek scholars and historians also don't know anything. Greek scholars and college educated historians are full of themselves .... that is why JWs have their own bible.
Scientists also don't know anything. They are arrogant and full of themselves. That is why JWs have all those creation books to prove them wrong.
-ithinkisee