Posts by moggy lover

31

Did anyone meet brother Ted Jaracz, what's he like?

by jason bourne in

moggy lover

The same unreliable source who spoke to Auld Soul told me that Jaracz is known to have a brilliant mind.............................. until he makes it up !!

I can't confirm this since I never met the man.

Do I look like I'm mortified ???

Cheers

28

If there is no hell what is this?

by Rooster in

"but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.

but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers 21

and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

moggy lover

As the non-JW spouse told his/her marriage mate:

"Waddayamean you don't believe in Hell....where do you think our marriage has gone to??"

Cheers

47

A Fair View of Fred Franz' Translation Abilities

by IW in

i thought these comments on channel c were fair views of fred franz' translation, not to mention a little surprising.

a breath of fresh air.

http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=no&board=main&mode=current&message=21782.

The problem that I have when confronted with the NWT and Fred Franz's ability with the original languages of the Bible is not whether Franz knew those languages competently enough to translate them into English, but rather whether he used his ability to enlighten his readers regarding what the sacred text says, or, if, emboldened by a supposed higher calling, he sought to confuse the issue by interpreting the text as written.

I rather suspect that Franz laboured under the misaprehension that he was some sort of spiritual oracle especially chosen by the God of the Bible to impart a deeper, more protracted wisdom than was generally accessible to other mere mortals who felt called to render the Bible text into another tongue. It is this hubris that is so offensive when reading the subtext that is inherent in the NWT. The writer of the NWT presumed to know, not simply what the text says, a knowledge available to any other translator, but what it means. This evidently was a specialized knowledge conveyed to Franz exclusively by this god he worshipped. Herein, according to the WTS, is the true value of their "translation"

The problem here is that a fine line exists between the rigours of translating, and interpreting, the latter falling under the purview of the exegete, not the translator.By rendering these two disciplines indistinguishable within the text of the NWT, its value is diminished, not enhanced.

At the risk of sounding pretentious let me give two simple examples of what I am describing.

1 The little word "EN" -"IN'' in the Greek NT occurs 2701 times in the text. Yet Franz saw fit to "translate" this two-letter word in 82 seperate ways, some with paraphrastic combinations involving some 12 letters. [Jude 1: the word "en" is rendered "in relationship with" ] When confronted with this anomaly, the typical WT response is to quote other renderings such as the 20Th Century NT. But this, and other translations like it are admitted by their translators to be paraphrastic, not literal, whereas the NWT categorically denies submitting to any paraphrase [Foreword KIT pg 10 1969 ed] Presuming that this renders the text more "understandable" is nonsense, since equally it may be said that it renders it distorted.

2 Franz expressed a deep concern on the part of the WTS to see what was described as the "name" of God "restored" to the NT text. Evidently the Almighty God of the Bible was incapable of transmitting His word down through the centuries without it being "corrupted" He required the office of Franz et al to restore what He was not Almighty enough to do.

Hence the existence of the word "jehovah" in the NWT NT text. I would have had a greater respect for Franz if he had expressed his concern in a consistent way, rendering the Tetragammaton in such places as was indicated by the so-called "J" printed documents. That he did not is a sad reflection on the artful deceit of a man consumed by his own presumed divine mandate. By being selective, and refusing to place the Tetragrammaton in such places as 1Cor 12:3 as sanctioned by J 14, Franz left himself open to the ridicule of dishonesty.

There is not a fraction of a doubt that Franz went to great lengths and took a lot of trouble, not to enlighten the readers of his "translation" but to obscure the word of God.He resorted to angular word usage and banalities so that the doctrinal perversions he purveyed may get a hearing, entrapping the unwary. I was one.

It is this dishonesty, this crass overbearing arrogance that should rightfully discourage any endorsement of the NWT and it main architect, Fred Franz.

Cheers

21

Gilead 42nd Class 1966

by thaisun in

is there anyone out there who was in the 42nd class of gilead and has seen the light?

my name then was vivienne ainsworth.

i would dearly love to hear from anyone who remembers me.

moggy lover

Did you know of, or ever meet Lynton and Jenny Dower from St Kilda, Vic? I was not a Gilead member, but I met them when they were missionaries in India

Cheers

3

Emphatic Diaglott online complete with Greek intelinear text

by cabasilas in

i don't know if this has been mentioned before or not.

i've seen online files of the emphatic diaglott online before but they did not have the greek interlinear text portion.

here are pdf scans of the 1864 edition including the interlinear section.

moggy lover

This is a welcome technical breakthrough for readers of the online Diaglott. Previous editions of this interlinear only provided the English text. But this new edition not only contains the Greek, but retains all of Benjamin Wilson's analytical and textual footnotes which the original printed edition had.

Like Freddy Franz, Wilson, the "translator" of the Emphatic Diaglott, was "largely self-taught" and evidently belonged to an obscure fringe religion called "The Church of God - Faith of Abraham" His original edition was first published in 1864 and soon a copy fell into the hands of CT Russell, founder of the Watchtower movement. His attention was drawn to the peculiar rendering of "presence" for the Greek "Parousia" at Matt 24:3, and Wilson's use of "a god" in the interlinear portion of Jo 1:1 which, to Russell, seemed sufficient reason to back this version.

Using anonymous sources, Russell approached the original publishers and purchased the copyright to the Diaglott in 1902, and as far as I can gather, the WTS published three editions of this work starting in 1902. The final edition came out in 1942.

By 1952 the WTS copyright to the Diaglott ceased and it fell into the public domain. To the best of my knowledge, the Christadelphian church were publishing printed editions, but only for their own membership. Various editions of the online version are available, but previous to the one we are now discussing, only had the English text.

Cheers

8

Learning on the Loo / WT53

by ThomasCovenant in

wt 53 march 15th page 164.

wt53 april 15th page 227.

moggy lover

Good read, TC, and welcome to the board. I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes that the best place to read WT literature is on the loo.Especially if one has a touch of constipation.

Cheers

32

How many times does "Jehovah" spuriously appear in the NT?

by AuldSoul in

we've all heard it, i'm sure.

"well, the nwt has restored the name jehovah where it should have been to start with.

" ever wanted to slap that smugness with an unarguable fact?

moggy lover

Of the 237 occasions that the Freddy "restored" the name "Jehovah" to the NT text, the impression is created that, apart from a few minor exceptions, the "J" sources are direct quotes from some reference to the OT in which the Heb original had "Yahweh". In fact the opposite is true. Of the 237 citations, only 112 are OT references [47.2%] while the majority [52.8%] ie 125 citations, are merely a Freddy insert.

The earliest "J" is J2, published in 1385, which is cited 16 times. The most popular is J7, cited 181 times. Despite its published antipathy against the Erasmus TR text, the WTS has carefully avoided to reveal that all the "J" references are quotations of this text. Evidently we must be made to understand that a text in its Greek original is faulty, but becomes pristine in a Hebrew translation!! [The WT society often reminds us that the TR is "faulty" "defective" etc. this is primarily because of what is termed "the Johannine Gloss of 1Jo 5:7,8 Se for instance the "Reasoning" book pg 423]

I would have had a greater respect for Freddy's "scholarship" had he the guts to use "Jehovah" at 1Cor 12:3, where J14 uses the Tetragrammaton

Cheers

15

Book study and not Bible study and trinity question

by Sacchiel in

one of the things we are studying is how the bible is god's inspired and faithful word.

a paragraph mentioned how we should really study the bible with the aid of their book if we really appreciate the ransom.

at least nobody responded with such words, but instead we should study the bible.. i've got a question, in regards to the passage "but of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, neither the son, but the father only".

moggy lover

Hi Sacchiel. Good question and one that is not exactly new. I used to ask the same question with the urging of the WTS when I was a blind follower of the WTS.And this was back in the mid-70s.

There are in fact several ways in which those who, like me, uphold the uncompromising belief in the Trinity can answer a silly conundrum such as this.

1. If such is the case with the Holy Spirit, the same may be asserted of the WT "god" joehoover. Did he "know" that Adam and and Eve would sin, when he created them? According to the WTS, he did not. It then must follow, with infallible logic, that in that particular moment of time, jojogod was'nt in fact "god" In order to answer this conundrum, the WTS asserts that "god" excercised his ability of witholding foreknowledge, so that it was in fact only when the first pair sinned that joegod knew about it. Evidently this ability that "god" is supposed to have is limited by WT "logic" to the WT god alone. When orthodox Christians use it for the Holy Spirit, the WTS whines about this being a foul.

2. Such a view of the True God of the Bible, who is transendent above all limitations, and who exists in a dimension beyond human capabilty of comprehsion but which is defined as infinity, requiring to "learn" nothing since He is omniscient at all times, is in fact an insult to Him. With their puny limited vision, the WTS has fashioned a pagan concept of god which limits him into a physics defined matrix. This make "god" understandable, but not in fact God.

3. The next thing to say is that theology is not arrived at by the use of conundrums. The Saducees learned this to their cost. Because they used a conundrum which was appently infallible, they refused to believe in the resurrection. [Matt 22:23] Jesus reminded them that they neither knew the "power of God" nor understood the scriptures.

4. Theology is arrived at by reading the revelation contained in Scripture. And the testimony is clear that the Holy Spirit is Omniscient, thus knowing all things at all times. [1 Cor 2:10] If that is so, then why did Jesus evidently omit to mention the Holy Spirit at Mar 13:32?

Well, without going into too many controversial details, suffice it to say that Christians believe that Christ had within His being two what are called "natures", one inherent in His Being, that of Deity, and one acquired at the Incarnation, that of humanity. This latter "nature" limited Him in certain ways. Speaking as a human His ability to divine the specifics of the Holy Spirit was limited, as indeed is the same as all of us. Speaking as a human being do you know where your uncle Charlie is? No? Well do you know if Aunt Ethel knows? No? Welcome to the world of humanity. This was the case with Jesus Evidently at that time He was unaware of whether or not the Holy Spirit knew, because He was speaking as a human being for He had limited acess to this information. Neither did He know this information for Himself. In neither case did it ultimately impinge on either Him, or the Holy Spirit being Deity.

Hope this helps

Cheers

15

The Dreaded Brackets, share your favorites

by drew sagan in

i saw in the watchtower study article this past week there was an amazing 'dreaded brackets' quote which blondie pointed out in here .

christ's loyal "other sheep" keenly await their king's approving declaration: "come, you who have been blessed by my father, inherit the [earthly paradise realm of the] kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.

" (john 10:16; matthew 25:34) accordingly, may all subjects of the kingdom be determined to continue loyally serving christ the king.. .

moggy lover

Here's one from my personal notes. Unfortunately I don't have the Wt article with me.

In the Sept 15, 1983 WT, [have not got a page number however] the Wt quotes historian Paul Johnson as saying "[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion" making him say, by implication that the "true" Christian Church began as a tightly controlled, highly organized system, as represented by 21st C JWs.

Thats the best I can come up with......Sorrrry.

Cheers

17

Jesus Perfect Man

by praiseband in

just wanted to get your input on these thoughts before i shared it with any jw's.

1. how do you view jesus?

2. do you consider him to be the perfect man?

moggy lover

From the earliest periods of Christian history, theologians have pondered the meaning of Jesus' life. There are adequate texts in the NT to portray Him as sinless, hence perfect. There are however another class of Scripture which ascribe the nature of God to him as well. Merging this dichotomy between the human and divine absorbed much of the time and consideration of early Christians.

In this respect, we must needs place in perspective a fundamental flaw that is endemic to WT "reasoning" on this question. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, after two millennia of history, because it fails to see a fully developed doctrinal statement along 21st century lines on the subject of Christology, the WTS concludes that first cent Christians had no perception of the complexity of Christ's nature.

The WTS fails to see the significance of history and how an idea germinates, first in embryonic form before it is given full expression through debate and counsel. A fully developed understanding of Christology [The study of the nature of Christ] did not explode on the 1st C Christian Church, complete with doctrinal formulations locked into a total theological package.

Working with the statements found in the NT, and drawing conclusions from these statements , the early Christian came to cautious conclusions only through gradual increments. They accepted certain foundational truths and progressed from there along clearly defined and delineated theological lines. All along the way, they never lost sight of the basic concept of monotheism, yet they were becoming increasingly aware that the NT expression of God was more complex than they were aware of. Having first absorbed this idea, they then formulated, through measured progression, a vocabulary to accomodate this understanding.

A great deal of work, and much thought was poured out into the structured formulization of the doctrine of Christology. Also, unlike the tightly controlled and dictatorial system that is the WT structure, the early Christians were a community of free peoples. As a consequence, they thrived on debate, and were, or at least became, skilled practioners in the art of polemics.

Debate and discussion was no proof of disunity, as the WTS in its paranoia forces its followers to believe, rather it was a symptom of a living and flourishing association of believers. We today in hindsight, benefit from this.

For instance, the early Christians evolved the notion of the "Hypostatic union" which provided an explanation for the dichotomous relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ. Paul, at 1Tim 3:16, reveals that the union of these natures in the Person of Christ is a "mystery" [meaning that it can be understood only through revelation, not that it cannot be understood] Though above reason and inexplicable, it is yet not incredible.

The bond that unites the nature of God and the nature of the human in Jesus Christ, is not merely physical, as between mother and the unborn infant, or merely moral, as between parties to an agreement, or even fraternal as between brothers, or federal, as parties in a covenant, but it is wholly personal, a union of the inherent nature of God that was Christs because of His Being, and the acquired nature of the human as a result of the incarnation.

It is because of this that early Christians, and through extension, we, today, understand why Christ permitted worship to be effected to His Person, both from human beings as well as angelic beings.The problem that we have when engaged in a dialogue with followers of the WT movement, is their inability to grasp these features of Christology. Insisting on seeing the Deity in uni-dimensional terms as if God were made in our image, they prefer to ascribe only one nature, the human to the Jesus of the NT. They then press the scriptures depicting the Deity of Christ into a preconceived mould that in effect, empties those texts of any meaning.

Cheers