Posts by moggy lover

41

Could You Forgive the Watchtower?

by Ms. Whip in

jw
friends

did that question make you feel anger?

did you automatically say "no way, never?

i've been reading a little bit about what anger, resentment & bitterness does to our health.

if you can acccurately disprove the mathematics in the following i will be at the local kingdom hall first thing in the morning and ask the elders if i may rejoin them in worship.. here is some information i have compiled regarding what the watchtower has printed in regards to the babylonian kings and how the lengths of their reigns can be calculated to arrive at the date of the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar.

if you're like me you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.

as the date for the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar comes up.

moggy lover

The Jews returned in 537 BC??? That is news to me. Where does the Bible say that????

And where does it say that the 70 years was to be the time period of the exile?????

Of course you will find these conclusions in the WT, but nowhere in the Bible. You are perfectly free to believe any cockeyed idea you want to, but to insist that it has a biblical frame of reference is blasphemous to say the least.

I would like to commend the bov-symbol, posted earlier, to you which represents the futile efforts of your, and your masters, "scholarship"

Cheers and have a great [prophetic] day-for-a-year

14

Lil' Kim - Jehovah Reference

by Bstndance in

jw
friends

the rockband thread made me think of something kind of funny.

on the lil kim track "tha beehive" she has the lyrics: "better pray to jehovah, the game is over"

it made me laugh.

moggy lover

I vaguely remember British blues singer Van Morrison singing about the "kingdom hall" in one of his songs

Cheers

27

Has the Kingdom Interlinear Translation been pulled off the shelves

by homme perdu in

i was searching for it at the hall's library and i didnt find a copy.

i also asked the literature department for a copy and they said they werent familiar with the bible.

what is going on?

moggy lover

The first edition of the KIT was released in 1969 with a woefully inadequate printing run. Just half a million copies to serve the then one and a half million WT followers. The "brothers" were told not to take more than a single copy per family.

In 1985, a second edition was published, again with a woefully low printing run. Just eight hundred thousand copies for the whole WT population of 5 Mill. The fact that the printing runs were so low is an indication that the WTS was not really serioius in placing these copies with each Witness in their congregations, let alone with the public at large.[Compare this with the nearly 40 mill publishing run for the NWT] It appears more to be a veneer indicating either to the ignorant or the credulous that the WTS does indeed have adequate NT backing for their idiotic renderings.

The text of the two editions are virtually identical except for the following:

1 For some reason the ' 85 edition stands half an inch shorter, and is more a pocket sized edition.

2 The cover has standard gold leaf embossing, while the earlier one has italic embossing

3 The earlier edition makes use of 21 "J" documents for their "Jehovah" renderings in the NT, while the " 85 edition has 27 such "J"s Not that this makes any difference since these are merely Hebrew translations of the Erasmus TR NT text, which the JWs do not endorse. [Particularly because of the Johannine Comma at 1Jo 4:8]

4 The only change in the text itself is to change the interlinear translation of "Theothes" at Col 2:9. The original had "godship" [small "G"] this has been changed to "divinity" [small "D"]

5 The major change is in the explanations given in the Appendix section. The original ' 68 made pompous remarks about no archaeological evidence for a transverse crucifiction in Bible times. Promptly a report was published in Newsweek and Time magazines telling of the finding of a tomb of a man who, in Bible times WAS indeed crucified in the transverse position. So the offending statement has been quietly excised from the second edition. Other adjustments in the Appendix have also been needed.

The Emphatic Diaglott no longer belongs to the WTS, the copyright having expired in 1982. It is now available in the public domain and various sites, such as "Online Bibles, North America" have it for free download.

Cheers

3

I had a dream

by What-A-Coincidence in

that the wtbts stopped their printing operations and just used the bible .

imagine meetings where the only publication used was the bible?

no watchtower, no kingdom ministry, no song book, no reasoning book, no ministry school book.

moggy lover

Wot? Wot? Wot? NO LITERATURE!!!!

But the literature is the Bible I mean did'nt Charley Chutney, the comical cook, the likely lad who started the WTS, say at one time that the Society's literature was the Bible in arranged form?

Or did he say it was the Bible in disarranged form........?

Cheers

8

Counter arguments for the WT's Jesus is Michael Proof Texts

by lovelylil in

michael the archangel is only mentioned in five bible verses.

revelation 12:7

therefore, here it is saying that when christ comes down from heaven he is accompanied by a loud shout, made with the voice of the archangel, and he is also accompanied by the trumpet call of god.

moggy lover

I recall reading somewhere that the WTS pinched their "reasoning" about Jesus being Michael from the Seventh Day Adventist movement and their early writings. However, the basis for the SDA teaching was that Jesus who is God, [SDAs accept the Deity of Christ] is capable of being simultaneously God and Angelic being, just as He is also God and man at the same time.

In some sort of warped sense of logic, the WTS has accepted the conclusions of the SDAs while at the same time rejecting the basis on which those conclusions were drawn.

Cheers

20

Overheard at the June 4 2006 Watchtower Study

by under_believer in

jw
friends

so, even back when i was a true believer i noticed this... .

this watchtower study today, i just got back from, was all about how great the elders are.

what always wigs me out about these things (because they trot this stuff out in a wt study every year or two) is how the elder conducting the study is up there talking about and praising the elders in the third person, saying how great they are, when he is an elder.

moggy lover

Oddly enough, these statements regarding the elders have parallels with adularory comments found in WT literature about the GB. Ever notice how many times statements such as:"We need to be loyal, appreciative, subject to, supine, servile, etc etc to the GB"? Who is writing these articles? The GB! By making a third party reference to these the impression is created that this is a revelation that has come from others outside this group, and hence is all the more imperative to the supremacy of the GB

I would have had a greater sense of respect for the WTS if they clearly, and plainly stated that the R&F should be "Loyal, subject, servile etc,etc, to us" Such honesty would be too revelatory to the poor sods who are the followers, and avid underliners of this literature.

Cheers

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

moggy lover

Hi, HL

In answer to your question: Matt 24:3 is the first of 24 occurences of "Parousia" in the NT text.

If Parousia means an "invisible" presence then Paul must have been invisibly present when he was with the Corinthians !!! [2Cor 10:10]

I know we are drifting away from your post, but indulge me a little. There is an interesting footnote to this verse of the NT, which to the best of my knowledge has not been commented on by the writers of the Wt. This is the only place in the NT where the word Paousia is qualified by an adjective. In other words at 2Cor 10:10, Paul did not just mention his own parousia, but he mentioned the kind of parousia that is involved within the meaning of the word. He said that his Parousia was a "Somatos parousia" where "somatos" here acts as an adjective.

How would one translate the expression "somatos parousia"? Well a few verses later, at 2Cor 12:2, that brilliant greek scholar who could'nt tell a Greek "Alpha" from a leg of pork, Freddie Franz translated "somatos" as "Body" So knowing that "somatos" means "body" thanks to Freddie the Boy Wonder, we can then get ready to translate "somatos parousia"

As a noun the word "somatos" means "body" and as an adjective it means either "bodily" or "physical" Which means then that we can translate this expression as either "PHYSICAL presence" or "BODILY presence" So Paul clearly is telling us that the word "Parousia" is associated with the body, not the spirit. There is nothing invisible either by extension of meaning, or implication in the word "Parousia" and 2Cor 10:10 indicates this. But, and this a big but, take a look at how cleverly Freddie "translated" this expression. It is ambiguous enough to be made to mean anything!!!!

Try telling your wife that you were indeed present in bed last night, only invisibly. see how far it gets you!!

Cheers

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

moggy lover

According to my notes that I have from the days of my misspent youth in the JWs, I have the following quote, taken from the WT of Sept 15 1964, pg 576: "The disciples had no idea that he [Christ] would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible" [To my regret I threw out all my back issues of the WT when I left the movement I only have my notes]

Just to make sure that this was'nt a printers devil that had eluded the sharp eyed censors of the WT, the writers repeated the statement almost ten years later. [Jan 15 1974, pg 50]

Remember that the discussion regarding the "Parousia" of Christ mentioned in Matt 24:3 is in fact an answer that Christ to a question posed by the disciples. They asked: What will be the sign of your Parousia? Now - this begs the question - If the disciples did not know that Christ's Parousia was to be invisible [as acknowledged publically on at least two occasions by the writers of the Wt] then how the hell could they have asked their question with an invisible Parousia in view???

When Christ answered their question , what question was He answering? He could not be discussing an "invisible" Parousia because the idea did not even come up!! He must then have been answering a Parousia that made Him to be visible. [There are only two possibilities: invisible/visible. If one was not being discussed, then it must have been the other!] In effect, then the disciples were asking:" What will be the sign of your [visible] Parousia"? And that was what Christ was discussing.

Was'nt it?

Cheers

12

Things JW's write: "It is reasonable to conclude"

by under_believer in

jw
friends

question for y'all--do you think that the person on the writing committee who writes something like: "it is reasonable to conclude, then, <wild speculation>" suffers any kind of ill effects?

do they momentarily shudder?

do they even realize what they're doing?

moggy lover

Another term I seem to remember from the JFR/Franz years for imposing supposition for fact was "manifest/ly" When something was "manifest" you could bet your boots that either JFR or Franz was introducing a wild speculative idea. On the part of JFR, courtesy of his favourite "spirit guide" one Johnnie Walker, esq.

Cheers