Posts by Ingenuous

9

Rev. 20:5: "The rest of the dead..." an ADDITION?

by Ingenuous in

i've just finished reading c. t. russell's "divine plan of the ages".

he makes a comment about revelation 20:5 in a footnote: in this verse, the words, "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" are spurious.

they are not found in the oldest and most reliable greek mss, the sinaitic, vatican nos.

Ingenuous

Leolaia - I wanna be like you when I grow up! Your exegetical posts always send me running to the dictionary - a good thing, in my opinion. I especially get excited when the word isn't there. (I had to look "epanalepsis" up on the 'net.)

If we treat v. 5a as a digression, there is no epanalepsis in v. 5b which picks up the theme without any smoothing (which makes v. 5a look like an interpolation). But if we treat v. 5b-6 as a digression, the reference to the "completion" of the thousand years in v. 7 functions exactly as an epanalepsis picking up the reference to the "completion" of the "thousand years" in v. 5a.

This is also pretty convincing to me, even if it's not considered "hard" evidence.

Interestingly, Russell's footnote goes on to detail his opinion that an ad hoc, attaining-everlasting-life-through-Christ attempt to harmonize the "rest of the dead" quote wouldn't be contradictory to scripture, though he plainly views that section as an addition of a commentator. To me, mixing and matching various flavors of "resurrection" in Revelation just makes the whole discussion a messy free-for-all - but, then, that could be my lack of sophistication talking.

What references do you guys turn to for your exegesis? I'd like to start working on my own library. Don't tell me you have all this stuff memorized, or I'll jump off the nearest tall building.

24

APOSTATES Have RABIES??

by orangefatcat in

jw
friends

were any of you aware that in the mind of ct russell, apostates were considered this as stated in the october 1 wt .

"they seem inoculated with madness, satanic hydrophobia [rabies].

some of them smite us and then claim that we did the smiting.

Ingenuous

I've been reading C. T. Russell's works. While he was far (far!) from perfect, one positive characteristic he did have was that he didn't use the term "apostates" the way JWs do. He didn't slap the label on those who disagreed with him or who didn't want to become Bible Students. I would take his words at face value, not as code for "anyone and everyone who disagrees with us."

In the interests of keeping myself honest, I looked up the magazine in question. The first quote in the OP came from an article dealing with those who opposed the Society, not by simply disagreeing, but by using specific underhanded and dishonest means of doing so. [http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r4482.htm] Specifically, violent disagreements were erupting over the identity of "that servant" in Matt. 24:45. (Interestingly, nowhere in the article is it suggested that this be identified as Russell.) Concerning those who disagreed, the article states:

From the first we have urged that this subject be not allowed to produce contention or bitterness of spirit. Let each reach his own conclusions and act accordingly. If some think that they can get as good or better provender at other tables, or that they can produce as good or better themselves--let these take their course. All who feel dissatisfied with the spiritual food which our great Master has privileged us to send broadcast to every nation should certainly be looking anywhere and everywhere for something better. Our wish for them is that they might find something better. If we were dissatisfied ourselves, or if we knew where something better could be obtained, we certainly at any cost would seek it. And how could we find fault with others for doing what we ourselves would do? Rather let us bid them God-speed in their search for something more satisfactory.

While clearly believing the Society was publishing "spiritual food", they didn't insult the intelligence of those who felt they needed to look elsewhere via an ad hominem attack. The article doesn't even label those who disagree and leave "opposers."

It isn't until nastiness rears its head that the description of some as "opposers" is employed. The vitriol and unreasonableness perceived in the actions of such ones is likened to the madness of rabies. The full paragraph containing the first quote reads:

But while we are willing that others should go anywhere and everywhere to find food and light to their satisfaction, strange to say, those who become our opponents take a very different course. Instead of saying in the manly fashion of the world, "I have found something which I prefer; goodbye!" these manifest anger, malice, hatred, strife, "works of the flesh and of the devil" such as we have never known worldly people to exhibit. They seem inoculated with madness, Satanic hydrophobia. Some of them smite us and then claim that we did the smiting. They are ready to say and write contemptible falsities and to stoop to do meanness.

The word "apostate(s)" doesn't appear in this article. Actually, it doesn't appear anywhere in the Oct. 1, 1909 magazine, so I'm unsure of the source for the second quote.

24

A 'concerned friend' coming for coffee at 1:30 - HELP!

by GoingGoingGone in

jw
friends

i just got a phone call from a really good friend of mine.

her husband is an elder, and a good friend of my husband's.

well, sunday my husband had the public talk in our kh, and they took him to lunch afterwords.

Ingenuous

I got a beautiful "goldfish" look: goggling eyes and open mouth.

Hey, Nina - My goldfish told me to tell you they're insulted - especially the $90 one!

30

How I am dealing with "The Bible says you have to go to all the meetings!!"

by Check_Your_Premises in

here is the basic approach i am going to use.

my wife is a newly dunked dub, and my kids have been hearing the propaganda for about 3 years now.

i figured out it was a cult about 6 months ago.

Ingenuous

CYP, nice summary.

Going to the Bible itself is oh-so-important. My Dad accused me of adding words to a scripture when we were discussing a point of JW doctrine. He was basing his accusation on what the literature had told him the scripture said. I found a Bible and - Well, lookey here! - it said exactly what I'd told him it did. (I admit, I dumped the 'good girl' routine for the first time in my life and really enjoyed that little dig )

M.J. also has a good point, maybe something for you to consider later: a discussion about where in the Bible it says we have to obey the rules and regulations of a particular organization to gain God's approval and salvation? Again, it's a matter of finding actual scriptures in context. When you read scriptures like Galatians 3 - talking about obeying man-made "law" as well as Mosaic "Law" - it becomes clear that the actual scriptures and their context are damaging to much JW dogma.

104

Hot News-New GB members

by truthsetsonefree in

jw
friends

hey ya'll, t was announced this morning at the breakfast table that there are two new members of the governing body.

they were formerly "helpers" or "given ones.

" anthony morris raised a family and then went into the traveling work.

Ingenuous

Thanks for the article, Richie.

I remember reading this, though it doesn't seem like it was 13 years ago. I would have been 15, almost baptized for a full year. I remember studying this article and seeing no logical parallel at all between the non-Israelite returnees and the GC, much less the groups they arbitrarily picked out to compare to certain men among the GC. I didn't understand why they dropped the "slaves" and "singers" part, but now I see that giving those groups equal consideration would have meant the possibility of putting women into positions with responsibility. And how do you tell a Nethinim from a plain old "other sheep?" (Is this just begging for a punchline???) Only for the briefest of moments did I entertain the thought {Bad JW! Bad, Bad JW!!} that this was just a way of dancing around the fact that they wanted to start using brothers from the GC in positions that were only supposed to be occupied by the "anointed." And when I read this:

Finally, after the demise of Babylon the Great, all 144,000 ‘sealed ones’ will be in heaven for the marriage of the Lamb. (Revelation 7:1-3; 19:1-8) But now the other sheep must go on increasing.

I felt my stomach drop. I had thought, up til then, that the system would end once the "anointed" were in heaven. After all, they were supposed to go there to rule as "kings and priests" over those of us with an "earthly hope." We had been taught for a long while that there would still be "anointed brothers of Christ" on the earth during the Great Tribulation. This seemed to be a loophole that allowed the possibility of "this wicked system" carrying on for who-knew-how-long while the 144,000 just lounged around in heaven for no good reason.

But like the good JW (and kid) I was then, I pushed it all aside with the, "Well, someone in Brooklyn understands it, so I don't have to" clause.

21

Resurrected state?

by MidwichCuckoo in

''for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor women be given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven'' (matthew 22 v 30).

i was taught that this scripture means that the resurrected will be unmarriageable.

(i state what appears to be the obvious, as i have since heard that god would be cruel to disallow the 'reunion' of a happy couple separated by death).. as i understood this scripture to mean the resurrected would be celibate, it made sense to me that they would not have the appearance of 'survivors'.

Ingenuous

OK, Gill, I walked right into that one.

BTW - The reason I focused on the "neither can they die anymore" part is because those who read Revelation and surmise that there will be a group resurrected to earth also conclude that those earth-bound people are subject to the "second death" - eternal destruction. That would make the earth-bound resurrected ones different from the heaven-bound resurrected ones.

21

Resurrected state?

by MidwichCuckoo in

''for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor women be given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven'' (matthew 22 v 30).

i was taught that this scripture means that the resurrected will be unmarriageable.

(i state what appears to be the obvious, as i have since heard that god would be cruel to disallow the 'reunion' of a happy couple separated by death).. as i understood this scripture to mean the resurrected would be celibate, it made sense to me that they would not have the appearance of 'survivors'.

Ingenuous

Another version of this account is found @ Luke 20:34-36:

34 Jesus said to them: â€œThe children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are Godâ€™s children by being children of the resurrection.

It's telling that Jesus said these resurrected ones cannot die and that they are "God's children." This makes me think Jesus is talking about persons resurrected to heavenly life, as opposed to those who would live on earth. Heavenly life was the "one hope" Christians were supposed to share in common (Eph. 4:4), with them putting on immortality upon their resurrection. (2 Cor. 5:1-4 and such.)

Didn't the Org recently do some backpedaling on the "married resurrected" issue?

22

BLOOD --giving or taking

by m. kirov in

jw
friends

so now that you've left the cult, have you ever given or taken blood?

have your opinions and/ or beliefs in this area changed?

much to my suprise, one of my very good freinds who is not out still feels the way he was trained to feel.

Ingenuous

rebel8:

The cannibalism thing cracks me up. If putting something into your body is the same as eating it, then I've been eating tampons for years.

That is too funny!

9

Rev. 20:5: "The rest of the dead..." an ADDITION?

by Ingenuous in

i've just finished reading c. t. russell's "divine plan of the ages".

he makes a comment about revelation 20:5 in a footnote: in this verse, the words, "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" are spurious.

they are not found in the oldest and most reliable greek mss, the sinaitic, vatican nos.

Ingenuous

I've just finished reading C. T. Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages". He makes a comment about Revelation 20:5 in a footnote:

In this verse, the words, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" are spurious. They are not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek MSS, the Sinaitic, Vatican Nos. 1209 and 1160, nor the Syriac MS. We must remember that many passages found in the modern copies are additions which do not properly belong to the Bible. Since commanded not to add to the Word of God, it is our duty to repudiate such additions as soon as their spurious character is established. The words indicated probably crept into the text by accident, in the fifth century; for no MS of earlier date (either Greek or Syriac) contains this clause. It was probably at first merely a marginal comment made by a reader, expressive of his thought upon the text, and copied into the body of the text by some subsequent transcriber who failed to distinguish between the text and the comment.

Does anyone have - or know where I can find - more info on this verse? Is there a translation available which is free of scriptures assumed to have been added after the close of the canon? Or (considering how unlikely that may be) at least a comprehensive reference noting alleged "additions"?

15

the society is "encouraging" chinese converts to go back to china to preach

by in a new york bethel minute in

my mother told me this at dinner tonite.

has anyone else heard of this?

she didn't know if the work was still under ban there, and neither do i. but either way it's pretty stupid.

Ingenuous

I could see this being true especially if the Org-sponsored classes for teaching the r&f Chinese aren't going as planned. I attended a Russian class in one congregation - this one group was responsible for handling the preaching work in Russian for the entire state. I get the impression that, as zealous as they are, after years of study within the group, very few are able to carry on a conversation comfortably. Encouraging native speakers to return to their homeland may be one way to work around the difficulties in creating fluent speakers out of those whose first language is English.