Posts by City Fan

108

"Friendship with the world"

by Schizm in

jw
friends

adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with god?

whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of god.--james 4:4. .

for you who may still believe in the the bible, how do you understand the above text?

City Fan

Schizm,

Surely the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 must be the same as the 'little horn' of Daniel 8?

And out of one of them there came forth another horn, a small one [Rome]

This horn comes out of one of the four horns on the Greek male goat. These four horns were the Empires set up after the death of Alexander, including the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. The 'little horn' cannot be Rome simply because Rome did not come out of the Greek Empire and can hardly be described as 'small'.

whereas the little horn of Daniel 7 arises after Rome has ruled

A common mistake is to think Daniel says anything about Rome at all. What is the last Empire actually named in the book of Daniel? It's Greece. (Daniel 11). The 'king of the north' and 'king of the south' also come out of this divided Greek Empire.

Most people know what Rome did to Jerusalem and its temple in 70.

It's a shame not as many people know what Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes did to the temple in 167 BC.(1 Maccabees 1:57)

CF.

108

"Friendship with the world"

by Schizm in

jw
friends

adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with god?

whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of god.--james 4:4. .

for you who may still believe in the the bible, how do you understand the above text?

City Fan

Schizm

While it's correct to say that the "little horn" equals the 8th king that the Revelation account speaks of

How would you explain Daniel chapter 8 that says that the 'little horn' would come out of Greece? Or more specifically the divided Greek Empire after the death of Alexander the Great.

23

When are JW's going to realise the GB's not writing books anymore?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

when are jw's going to realise the gb's not writing books anymore?

.

jw's have got to be wondering why there hardly any new jw books coming out anymore.and most of the newer ones are just edited versions of old books.

City Fan

Too true Sleepy,

I recently had a conversation with my mother, who stated (in her own words) that the new publications were 'awful'. I think anyone who was used to the publications of the 50's, 60's and 70's must realise how dumbed down the new ones are. I think the dubs of that era actually thrived on prophetic speculation and 'new light'. I know the JW books on prophecy were what first got my mother interested.

They don't really produce these anymore. There was the recent Daniel and Isaiah books but I don't think they speculated much on the future, and now take the view that prophetic fullfillment "becomes known only after the events start to occur." I don't think Freddie Franz or Da Judge would have had any problem giving the 'King of the North' a new identity.

The trouble is now with the internet you can see just how wrong some of the JW predictions have been, which is probably why they no longer produce these kinds of books.

CF.

55

Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible.

by homme perdu in

this past saturday i took a trip to the library to find the answer to the thread subject.

according to what i have read the real pronounciation of god's name is lost because of this jews usually identify god as adonai (lord) as a sign of respect.

scholars substituted yhwh with lord.

City Fan

Schizm,

Narkissos' personal beliefs don't invalidate his argument, that any personal name for god reveals a polytheistic origin. He is arguing that monotheism caused Yahweh to eventually mean 'Lord' or 'God' just as the personal name El became the noun 'god'.

If we take your argument one step further then bible translations should also have El in place of God, El Shadday for 'God Almighty' and El Elyon in place of 'Most High God' etc.

55

Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible.

by homme perdu in

this past saturday i took a trip to the library to find the answer to the thread subject.

according to what i have read the real pronounciation of god's name is lost because of this jews usually identify god as adonai (lord) as a sign of respect.

scholars substituted yhwh with lord.

City Fan

gdt,

That the name of God is... what?

From my studies in this subject I have come to the conclusion that the original creator god of Jerusalem and the Hebrews, especially the northern tribes was 'El'. This personal name gradually became a noun meaning 'god'.
Exodus 6:3 shows that Yahweh appeared first as El Shadday. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 show how originally El Elyon was head of the divine council and Yahweh inherited the Hebrews from him.
"8: When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (El).
9: For the LORD's (Yahweh's) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."
So El divided the people into nations and gave one nation to each son. Each nation had their own national god, chosen from this divine council. I think the idea that god still has a 'people for his name' is as wrong as those ancient tribal beliefs in a divine council and national gods.
Eventually Yahweh came to replace El as the god of Israel, and took on the attributes of creator, divine warrior, storm god etc.
The more I look at the words of Jesus, say in the gospel of Thomas, I see how far removed from the Old Testament view of god his teachings were, and in fact they seem more like eastern philosophy. Why give god a name and human emotions and attributes?
"Tao is eternal, but has no name" (Tao to Ching: 32)

55

Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible.

by homme perdu in

this past saturday i took a trip to the library to find the answer to the thread subject.

according to what i have read the real pronounciation of god's name is lost because of this jews usually identify god as adonai (lord) as a sign of respect.

scholars substituted yhwh with lord.

City Fan

jgnat,

Wouldn't Jesus have spoken Aramaic? (Matt 26:47)

4

New U2 album - song called 'Yahweh'!!!!

by City Fan in

having been a huge u2 fan ever since around 1982 i still eagerly await their new stuff.

i remember being told to throw out the 'war' album by my jw parents because it was about war.

it took about a week to explain to them that it was actually an anti-war album!

City Fan

Having been a huge U2 fan ever since around 1982 I still eagerly await their new stuff. I remember being told to throw out the 'War' album by my JW parents because it was about war. It took about a week to explain to them that it was actually an anti-war album!

Anyway, their new album is out soon and I noticed track five is a little song called, errr, YAHWEH!!!

My dad actually likes 'Beautiful Day' from the last album, I think mainly because it's the theme song for the main football program here in the UK. At this rate they'll soon be his favourite band! Come on U2 - release something my parents will hate and I can feel young again.

'After the flood all the colours came out'......

I've edited the title of the thread because the album is called 'How to dismantle an atomic bomb', not 'Vertigo'.

61

Pastor Russell and 1914

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

1. russell did not believe that 1914 marked the "beginning of the end" as do jehovah's witnesses.

rather, he pointed to 1799 for that (i.e., see zion's watch tower for nov. 7, 1893, page 24: in commenting on the discovery of the rossetta stone he states: "[the point is that 1799 was the very year beginning the time of the end when many would run to and fro and knowledge be increased.

' dawn, vol iii, chapter ii--editor]" .

City Fan

RR

I don't have a problem with the date. The nabonidus tablet is the only "proof" of 587

I am constantly amazed that people can believe in nonsense like 607 when they obviously have done no research at all into why scholars choose 586/587 as the correct date. If you don't look into these things properly it's just 'blind faith'. The Nabonidus Chronicle cannot be used to date 539, 587 or any other date. Please do the research.

CF.

27

The destruction of the first temple

by Soledad in

and they ... put out the eyes of zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of bronze, and carried him to babylon.

and in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king nebuchadnezzar king of babylon, came nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of babylon, to jerusalem.

and he burned the house of the lord [the temple], and the king's house, and all the houses of jerusalem, and every great man's house burned he with fire.

City Fan

And therefore the 'weight of scholarship' would dismiss 607 as absurd?

27

The destruction of the first temple

by Soledad in

and they ... put out the eyes of zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of bronze, and carried him to babylon.

and in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king nebuchadnezzar king of babylon, came nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of babylon, to jerusalem.

and he burned the house of the lord [the temple], and the king's house, and all the houses of jerusalem, and every great man's house burned he with fire.

City Fan

Soledad,

Chronology for the 6th century BC is indisputable. There is so much archaeological and astronomical evidence for the period that no scholar questions the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586/587 BC.

Looking at that website I'm still not sure how they come up with the date 422BC. It looks like the usual 'pagan records can't be trusted compared to the bible record' argument. It seems to be arguing that just because the bible only says 4 Persian kings ruled then that must be fact. A simple explanantion for this is that the bible simply doesn't mention any of the other Persian kings.

Scholar,

Scholars prefer 586

No they don't. Some scholars prefer 586 BC, and some prefer 587 BC. You know this so why the lie?

Bible Students traditionally propose 607

I presume you mean The Bible Students who are apostate from the JWs. I've posted before how the bible itself supports 586/587. Here's one such post which you said you would reply to but never did. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74549/1199790/post.ashx#1199790

CF.