Posts by moggy lover

6

Bible Riddles-jokes (El Fluffo)

by monkeyshine in

jw
friends

i found this link to a few good bible jokes.

some are childish but funny nonetheless.

anyone have any good ones?.

moggy lover

Did'ja know that Paul had a horse called Izmee? Yep. Its darn tootin' right thar in yer own Bibles.

Did'nt Paul say "Whoa, Izmee" at 1 Cor 9:16?

It gets worse.

During the reign of J Edgar Hoover at the FBI, the Witnesses were called J Hoovers Witnesses

Hang on I ain't finished yet.

Samson was such a great stand up comic he brought the house down

Nope, you aint gittin away that easy:

Balaam was the tallest man in the Bible. Well, he musta been. He done tied his ass at one tree and hell if'n he did'nt strech hisself out at the other tree.Hot Damn! Now thats reel tall ! !

Cheers

50

The "Revelation Book" adhesive cut and paste instruction kit!

by Atlantis in

jw
friends

the revelation book adhesive cut and paste instruction kit!

this pdf-"kit" was sent to us from a friend of ours who is an elder in england who is thoroughly disgusted.

the file is being sent throughout many congregations by email to assist the witnesses with "corrections" for their "revelation" book.

moggy lover

Great work as usual, matey

keep up the good work

Cheers

16

Slight Differance, Big Change Ephesians 4:1-16 and the NWT

by drew sagan in

the discussion of this text is taken in reference to a discussion i had with a jw elder i know.

most of the time the discussion focused on things not even worth discussing, two things did come up i thought i would examine with more detail because something seemed wrong.

one of these things i discussed here.

I have been through the WT CD 04 looking up this quote at Eph 4:8 unfortunately none of the citations listed give an explanation for why Franz insisted on "translating" the dative construction with the expression "in" Most of the quotes listed on the CD adress seperate issues like "we need to be submissive to God's organisation because He has given us this marvelous "elder" arrangement".

In all these citations the common theme is that these "gifts [in] men" are the elders assigned to the some 70 000 WT congregations worldwide. the "Holy ones" in this pastich becomes the R&F which is odd since at the very start of this letter, adressed to the 'Holy ones" [1:1], a reminder is given that they have been assigned a position in the "heavenly administration" [ 1:10]

Eph 4:8 is the only place that to the best of my knowledge the expression "holy ones" is made to mean the R&F. The Dec 1st Wt pg 16 specifically states that the "holy ones" = R&F

Why then this "translation" - "Gifts [in] men"? One can only speculate, but my own feeling is that Franz saw an opportunity here to stress the "theocratic" arrangement, and that elders, in effect appointed by the WTS, can by inference be seen to be provided by Christ Himself courtesy of the Holy Spirit. In other words, among all the men in a given congregation, some are set apart as gifts. So the conclusion is that most of the men do NOT, repeat NOT, get any gifts.

Such a churlish idea is alien to the entire Pauline corpus. In fact the dative construction used here at Eph 4:8 reiforces an idea directly at varience with WT theology. The thing that is distributed is not the men, [among the many some are selected] but the gifts, [among all the men various gifts are given] In this respect, the word "Anthropois" used here, generically can refer to "people" So to [all] the people who are in the Christian assembly, gifts have been given. Some the ability to evangelize is given [hence not all evangelize] to some the gift of the pastorate is given, [hence not all are pastors] and to some the gift of teaching is given, [hence not all are teachers]

To the WT way of thinking this would mean that only some would go from door-to-door, pleading the lack of the gift of evangelism. [In fact given any excuse, all will opt out of the "joyful" work of going d-t-d !!] Hence, I believe, the almost sinister alteration. Strangely enough, by stressing the "elder arrangement" here, when the text clearly does not, referring to all believers, the WTS is acknowliging the existence of a clergy-laity division which they claim to have such an antipathy aganst.

Cheers

6

Writings of Charles Taze Russell

by kirani007 in

for informational purposes, there is a searchable database of the writings of charles taze russell at http://www.ctrussell.us/.

this site has a complete copy of studies in the scriptures, his watchtower articles from about 1897 through 1916 and various other of his works.

just thought you might be interested!

moggy lover

Hi, Kirani 007, thanks for the research and finding this Russell site.The most wonderful thing is that it is E-Sword compatible

I was wondering if you, or any one on JWD could find something out for me? Online on the Internet you can get: 1 All the WTs from 1879 right up to 1916, when Russell died 2 Then you can get WTs from 1920 onwards. BUT: What about those three years in between 1917, 1918, 1919 which are so crucial to understanding the Rutherford inspired coup d'etat and his taking over the WTS as a result. Anyone know where they are aviailable?

Cheers

12

(true) God

by elatwra in

i was reading auld souls post on a different thread and i noticed that in 1st chronicles the nwt has the word (true) inserted in parenthesis in front of the word god.1 chronicles 15:25-16:6. and david and the older men of israel and the chiefs of the thousands came to be the ones walking along to bring up the ark of the covenant of jehovah from the house of obed-edom with rejoicing.

and it came about when the [true] god helped the levites while carrying the ark of the covenant of jehovah that they proceeded to sacrifice seven young bulls and seven rams.

and david was dressed in a sleeveless coat of fine fabric, and also all the levites carrying the ark and the singers and chenaniah the chief of the carrying by the singers; but upon david there was an ephod of linen.

moggy lover

There is a sense in which the NWT has attempted to bring out a subtelty behind the original Hebrew wording of the OT and this could be applauded, if it were recognized as a scholarastic usage.

Evidently there are two ways in which the Heb inscribes the word for "God" You have "Elohim" and you have "Haelohim" The second being the same word but with the word "Ha" meaning "The" added.

There are at least two views regarding this as subscribed to by scholars:

1 That the two terms are interchangeable and essentially have no substancial difference in meaning. In other words, their usage is conventional, rather than doctrinal

2 That the "Ha" added signifies a name, hence :"Elohim" as a name. The Darby translation uses the expression "Elohim God" or even "Jehovah Elohim" [Gen 2:4,5 etc]

The NWT however saw another reason. They quote the Zorrell and Semkowski Heb Lecicon pg 54, which says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated with this word Ha Elohim" [See the NWT Reference Edition Pub in 1984, pg 1567] Zorrell and Semkowski translate for an example, Dt 4:35 as: "Jahve is the [one true] God" Unfortunately for the WTS this Lexicon was published in 1940 and others published since have not necessarily endorsed it. For instance the "Theological Wordbook" by Harris, Archer, and Waltke pub in 1980 make no such distinction. [Pg 44]

Also, the word is used for UNtrue gods 8 times in the OT. Ex 22:20 for instance and so the NWT should have translated the word as "An [untrue] God", but instead leaves the word simply as a plural "gods" .

Where their attempt can be seen as ennobling the God of the Bible, I rather suspect it is an example of unnecessary pretentiousness on the part of Freddy Franz.

Cheers

46

Let's All Say "Thank You" To The People Who Run This Site

by Arthur in

jw
friends

i realize that threads like this have been done before, but i don't think that it hurts to do one again.. i personally appreciate this website so much.

it has been an absolute treasure-trove of information, research material, emotional support, and simple enjoyment.

and, it's free of charge!

moggy lover

Thanks Simon. You got a lot o' mates down under. And while we are about it:

THANKS TO ALL THE FORUM ASSISTANTS AS WELL !!!

You keep the lot of us IN line and the humbugs OUT

Cheers

Moggy 'n' Me

7

New Books Without Number of Copies

by GermanXJW in

in the old books of the watchtower they usually always gave the recent number of printes copies.

the convention releases would normally state something like "6,000,000 copies".

i noticed that in the new release it just states "2006 edition".

moggy lover

Incidently, what about the WTs and Awakes? Do they still print the number of copies? And has anyone noticed whether these have gone up or down?

We will need to remember that the Awake has been cut down to one issue a month so if the printing run is the same, it still means that they have halved the print of that mag.

Cheers

21

Why has the BAPTISM Q changed?

by artcritic in

"on the basis of this faith in god and in his provision for.

salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to do.

gods will henceforth as he reveals to you through.

moggy lover

In his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" [pgs 118-121] Ray Franz explores this very problem. In the April 15 1987 WT pg 12, the rationale for altering the baptismal questions was stated as a need to "simplify" matters with respect to the baptism procedure. "Simplify"? what could be simpler than the questions hitherto in use? How could you simplify a matter that was already simple enough even for a moron like me to understand and I took the plunge in ' 57.

The point was that in that WT article, the writers did not mention who the matter was simplified for, and there, my dear Brutus, is the rub. It was'nt simplified for the likes of me and thee, oh no, the WT had a more sinister agenda in mind.

As has been mentioned above, the WTS faced an increasing number of legal suits brought against them by disgruntled former members. They won some of these cases but lost a lot more. Something had to be done to reverse this adverse trend. Enter the Legal Eagles.

The legal brains behind the WTS, probably paid a lot of dough to come up with a solution, found a loophole they could exploit. The US Supreme Court defined the parameters from which a religion had the right to exercise its authority over its adherents. It said that every religion had the "right to create tribunals for the enacting of decisions concerning controversial questions" and that this religious function acted as an "ecclesiastical government for all individual members within the general association" and their adherence connoted an "implied consent to this government"

If, on entering this association, the convert was forced to acknowledge this "implied consent" then any future act of dissent could be viewed as rebellion against a "government" The religion then had the right to dispose of these ones just as any secular government dealt with traitors who had taken a pledge of alliegance to that government. The baptismal questions, since they did not make any reference to any religious authority left the matter open for a dissenter to voice an opposing opinion.

So, now, like a pledge of allegiance to an authority, that is subscribed to as being binding as an oath, the revised baptismal questions make it clear to the new convert that he vows allegiance, not just incidently to jehover and jezzzuz, but to the ORGANISATION. If he sues, or threatens to, the WTS attorneys mail the malefactor a bulky package in the form of a legal brief wherin they cite the above Supreme Court quote, which permits the WTS to act as a "government" and "ecclesiastical court" They then remind the potential dissenter of his "oath" in baptism. So rather than face a potentially damaging court procedure, they invite the person to formally disassociate themselves.

This has indeed stanched the hemorrhage of legal defeats and certaintly "simplified" matters for the legal dept !!!

Cheers

14

What's your favorite Watchtower Quotes?

by drew sagan in

i'm building up a collection of watchtower quotes that i'm going to be printing out in order to talk with my wifes family (sometime in the future but i don't know when).

just want to be prepared.

so what are some of you favorite jw quotes?

moggy lover

Hi, Drew, I'm not entirely certain that this is what you are looking for, but my favourite gem has always been this little gem first published in 1986 in the book : "Worldwide Security under the Prince of Peace"

In a clumsy attempt at rationalizing the embarrasing idea [for the WTS, that is] that Christ is termed the "Everlasting Father" at Isa 9:6, this is what they write: "In such a way the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ will become the heavenly Grandfather of the restored human family" [Pg 169, par 19]

So, evidently, in the New System, when all is said and done, and we are all perfect - living in unutterable bliss in a paradise earth - we will begin our prayers with: "Our Grandfather, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name......."

Cheers

23

What Christian religions do not believe in a burning hell?

by jwfacts in

i am interested in finding out if christianity still teaches a burning hell.

it is my understanding that they are starting to drop this teaching as just a figurative place.

is that true?.

moggy lover

From the scattered bits of information in the Bible the following facts can be gleaned about the place known as Sheol/Hades:

1 It is a place Eccl 9:10 [NWT] It therefore is a spatial unit located somewhere, in a dimension hiterto unknown to us [Most of us look down when making reference to it]

2 It has gates Isa 38:10 These are naturally as literal as Sheol itself, but are not physical. Hence the allusion to Christ as the One having the "keys" of Sheol

3 It is a place of darkness and gloom Job 10:21, 22; Ps 143:3 Evidently light which is a physical reality does not penetrate there

4 Nevertheless it is in some way also a place where the denizens can converse and hassle one another, even recognizing newcomers.They are able to make moral judgments on each other. Isa 14:9-20; 44:23; Ez 32:21;

5 Hence it is a place of concious existence but lacking in "spiritual" values Ps 6:5

6 There are evidently at least three levels in Sheol since we know of it having a "lowest part" Dt 32:22

7 The inhabitants are disembodied spirits called, in the Heb "Rephaim" Jewish Tanach: "Shades" Prot NKJV "the dead" Cath JB "ghosts" Isa 14:9

8 Somehow these disembodied spirits are capable of experiencing such senses as "pain" Job 26:5: and "torment" Lu 16:23 The Heb word used in Job, "chool" evidently means the physical pain experienced in childbirth. However the source of this pain, whether internal or externally generated is not described

9 While the Bible does make reference to those in Sheol/Hades as experiencing "humiliation" and "contempt"- Dan 12:2 - the reference is to a period future to their existence in Sheol/Hades

In none of these passages is any reference made to "fires" as a source of the sensient experiences felt by the dead

However fire is associated with a seperate and eternal existing location which is still in the future. The palce termed Gehenna in the NT. Evidently at the end of the Millennium, Sheol/Hades will be emptied of its non physical inhabitants who, as a result of adverse judgment, will then be clothed with physical bodies and if qualified to be associates of satan and his angelic hordes, be thrown into these literal and physical fires

Cheers