Posts by moggy lover

50

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 8-20-06 WT Study (MURMURINGS) Post 8/20

by blondie in

i will not be able to post this until the evening of 8-20. i worked on 8-27 by mistake and will be out of town until sunday evening.

keep free from murmurings .

"--philippians 2:14 .

moggy lover

Can I murmur at not getting my regular dose of "Comments you will Not Hear" huh? pluuseeze? What?..... not even a drat...?

Drat

Cheers

8

Didn't JW's do the "updating" thing with the Babylon book like the Rev book

by booker-t in

maybe some of the oldtimers might remember, but i seem to remember in the early 1980's that the wts "updated" the babylon the great book where many of the old light was thrown out.

i was a teenager but i remember studying the book again in the 80's and some jw's were upset by the changes.

if they do the same thing with the revelation grand climax book aren't they afraid that those oldtimers might get disgusted and leave the org?

As far as I can recall, this noxious weed of a book was first published in 1963, and was used for the book study programme,which as I recall, we held on Tuesday nights. Because it was a hefty tome, all 704 pages of it, it took 2 agonizing years to finally complete.

In 1981 a second edition was published for newer recruits who had joined the WT movement since the first publication. It was simply a reprint, with no changes in the text or theology.

In 1969, however, another Revelation commentary was published entitled "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" Because some of its statements were far too optuse to understand, I remember having to sit through a District Assy in '70, where an entire evening was devoted to "explaining" some of those statements. However even here no actual printed retraction or correction was forthcoming. Half the audience could'nt understand the bloody explanations anyway, while the other half who appeared to understand, ie, those who actually stayed awake through the ordeal, did'nt give a hoot one way or the other.

I do remember a book that was published in the 70s which did make a major blunder. To the best of my knowledge, it was called: "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached". In this book, among other things, they discussed the parable of the Sower found at Matt 13:3-23. In an unmitigated example of theological lunacy, they mixed up the identities of satan and Christ, giving an explanation that was simultaneously complex and prolix. About a year later, I remember, the WT printed "corrections" in the Kingdom Ministry and we followed this up by restudying those portions of the book. I am pretty certain that we did not restudy the entire book again.

Cheers

49

Confrontation - is it for Christians?

by jgnat in

agapa's quiet admission to "imperfect men" in the congregation inspired me to finish a small bible study on confrontation, and how the early church handled disputes.. (romans 12:18 rv) if it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

(2 cor 13:11 cev) good-by, my friends.

do better and pay attention to what i have said.

moggy lover

I think that the problem that agap37 is having with our explanations to him, is his inability to seperate the practicle aspects of what we are talking about with the applied aspects which are sanctioned by the WTS. When we take a look at his first post, we see that he lists 4 seperate stages that the Bible outlines in the resolving of disputes within any local community of believers.

He stresses the first two points of his list with vigour even backing this up with copious references to WT literature. Having served on various elder committees, I rather suspect that the way the WT applies those first two points is exaggerated at best, cursory at worst. There is a calculated almost pharasaical regard for the ritualized externals rather than a true brotherly devotion for the offender.

But that is not my point here. As AlanF has shown there is a deliberate disregard for the implementation of the next step [listed as step 3 by agapa37] that is of concern to us who were once locked into this system. To quote AlanF again, he has sucessfully shown that the next step is to bring the matter before the church, [congregation in WT lingo] It is here that WT fiat, and not biblical exegesis takes over.

The WT has always applied this, not to the congregation, but the elders in the respective congregation.See Matt 18:17. The most noxious element in this interpretation, is not just that the body of elders in any given congregation suggest a secret conclave, but that they are not independant, freely minded men serving the best interests of the indviduals over whom they preside in Christian charity. The elders in any given cogregation of the WT movement, are nothing more than burerucratic funtionaries, flunkies, even, who owe their position not to the excercising of spiritual discernment, but because they are the ones best positioned to impose the WT imperium in the local sphere.

Elders, being clones of those in authority in the HQ of the WT movement, thus ensure that the interests of the Leadership, and not the local community are upheld. As Jgnat has also indicated, the best way to do the right thing is to do exactly as the Bible suggests, and that to have an open communion between all, so that the different sides may be clearly understood. A free people, freely excercizing the gifts of the spirit can beat a closed system exactingly controlled any time.

Cheers

44

Are You A Born Again Christian Now? If so...

by Mistah MOJO in

if so, are you (pick any and all questions that interest you, ignore the others):.

trinitarian or modalist?

(oneness)?.

moggy lover

Yep

Cheers

50

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 8-20-06 WT Study (MURMURINGS) Post 8/20

by blondie in

i will not be able to post this until the evening of 8-20. i worked on 8-27 by mistake and will be out of town until sunday evening.

keep free from murmurings .

"--philippians 2:14 .

moggy lover

It is patently obvious that to the writers of WT material, words are their stock-in-trade,not to enlighten those of an enquiring nature, but to invoke adulation among the R&F for the elitist and secretive leadership. By a constant and almost mesmerizing stream of repetition, words are marshalled in the service of this leadership for the sole purpose of intimidation and a perceived need to quell any potential insurgency.Through a veil of ambiguities and verbal nuances, the R&F are constantly being reminded of the supposed dangers of independence and insubordination.

These writers appear as a body of coarse men, coarse not in their manners but in their sensitivities. Their theological fluidity masks a cynicism that is not a product of disappointed idealism, but is at once a blatant display of avarice and a pragmatic entrenchment of power.Such men have no real business in the work of theological rectitude. Indeed they reduce its moral credibility by their very words. The pathetic skill they bring to their writing craft is offset by a failure to grasp the overwhelming reality of the truth of the Gospel message.

They see as their paramount need, not an advancement of the Love of Christ, indeed no WT has yet been crafted in the 127 years of WT history, that describes love for neighbour other than in terms of the door to door expansion of the WT message, but a required submission to WT authority. There is by necessity, an unintended irony here. The more the WT writers attempt to repress "murmurings" the more "murmurings" will be created.

This again by necessity, will require more words to be expended in the repressive work of the WT. I suppose in an ingenious sort of way, it keeps them in the writing business.

Nice little earner, lads.

Cheers

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.

moggy lover

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