Posts by moggy lover

18

Question for my friends on the other side of the pond

by loosie in

jw
friends

is wanker a bad word in the uk?.

or is it like telling someone there are a goober?.

moggy lover

I have it on the highest authority, [ie my uncle Solli] that poiticians everywhere in the world are, collectively, mass debaters.

Cheers

10

Seola 1878--download!

by Atlantis in

in 1924 it was revised by a bible student (jw) and published under the title angels and women.

it was recommended by the watchtower society in two golden age magazines.. according to the watchtower's view of how the book was written, angels and women is an automatic writing book.

the foreword states that the woman who wrote it was "impelled to write it after listening to beautiful music.

Thanks Atlantis for this rare find. I hav'nt read through the whole book yet, but I have glanced through it, and I must admit I find it oddly fascinating. Sort of part DaVanci Code, part Book of Mormon, but mostly fastasmagorical fiction, it does give us an insight into Rutherford's mental state if he could have endorsed a Bible Student version of it.

I often wondered what the original plot for "Angels and Demons" was. Well, now we know.

Apparently the "Seola" of the title was the wife of Japheth, hence she was Noah's daughter-in-law, and one of the original flood survivors. Her adventures through that tubulent time, where she meets up with, among others, the Devas, angels who materialized into human form, ought to make a page-turning read.

By the way, anyone know if Steven Spielburg has read this? I reckon it would make a terrific special effects movie that only he could attempt. I mean just the flood scene would make Cecil B DeMille's "Ten Commandments" and the Red Sea parting look tame by comparison.

Thanks again, mate.

Cheers

7

Do you recall?

by link in

do you recall?.

can anyone remember when the date of 607 b.c.e.

for the destruction of the temple at jerusalem first appeared in the societies literature?

moggy lover

It was between the years 1879, when the society began, and 1944, that they officially taught the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 BC

The last official mention of that date found in WT literature is in the WT magazine of 1st July 1942.

There was a hiatus of two years when no further mention was made.

Then with the publication of "The Kingdom is at Hand", in 1944, the date was officially changed to 607 BC [see pgs 168,169, 176, 183]

The present publication being studied at the book studies "Revelation Its Grand Climax", makes a half-true statement on pg 105, when it asserts, wih apparent confidence, that this adjustment was made a year earlier in the book The Truth Shall Set You Free" This is only partly true because that same publication split the dates for Jerusalem's destruction in 607, and the start of the Gentile Times in 606 BC, as two seperate dates.

It was only in the next year with the "KIngdom is at Hand" book that the two dates were finally reconciled into the current dating system.

Oddly enough, the "Revelation Climax" puts this adjustment down, not to divine intervention, but to "providence" Come now. Do they believe, like the "pagans" believe, in "providence" ?

Summary: 1879 - 1944.................................. 606 BC.......................... 65 years

1944 - today..................................607 BC..........................63 years

So they have been teaching error for a longer period than they have been teaching "truth" !!!

This same "providence" that the WTS apparently relies on, would have disfellowshipped the first two Presidents of the WTS for teaching error.

Hope this helps

Cheers

20

Maybe this was posted

by mouthy in

before ...but anyway for those who didnt see it( if it was ).

jan15th 06 page 23 of the watchtower.

"because of listening to the devil & not rejecting his lies.the first human pair apostatized.so,then,should we listen to apostates,read theor literature ,or examine their web sites on the internet?if we love god& the truth,we will not do so.we should not allow apostates into our homes,or even greet them,for such actions would make us "sharers in their wicked works".

moggy lover

What's with this sheep and goats? I'd rather be a little pig of God's.

So from all us apostate li'l pigs from down under: G'day you nasty, nasty apostate.

7

Bible Scholar--Christ v. the Christ

by Justitia Themis in

regarding colossians 3: why is there a variance between bible translations, with some, such as darby's and the nwt saying "the christ" and others saying "christ?

" .

justitia.

moggy lover

As Greendawn has pointed out above, there is a subtle nuance of NT Greek grammar that is brought out in the use of the Article with such words as "Lord" and "Christ" and "devil"

Prof Daniel Wallace in his book "Greek Grammar beyond the Basics" [pgs 224-227, in the chapter The Article, its Origin, Functions and Uses"] points out to a usage of the article that is called in grammical parlance, the "Monadic" usage. The word Monadic means "one of a kind" or "unique" and conveys to the reader a perspective regarding the subject matter that the writer is referring to.

For instance, where "the sun" and "the moon" are referred to at Mar 13:4, it is the writer's contention that what he is referring to are unique heavenly bodies that need our attention.This in contrast to the more generalized statement where "sun" without the article is mentioned at such places as 1Cor 15:41, and Rev 22:5

Similarly, when the NT speaks of "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" it is attempting to identify for us a person with that particular name and title. When however it talks of "The Christ" it is not only identifying the person for us, but is also conveying to us the idea that though there may be several who will come along and call themselves"Christ" - Jesus Himself is unique.

This monadic use is also applicable to the word "diabolos" meaning devil. Contrast Acts 13:10, which does'nt have the article, with, say, Matt 4:1 which does possess the article. The NWT renders both passages with the expression "The Devil"

Col 3 uses the word "Christos" 8 times [Vs 1, 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 16, 24] and the art is used 6 times, the exceptions where the art is missing are: vss 11 and 24.

The difference in both usages are a semantic nuance only, since both refer to the same Person we know as The Lord Jesus Christ.

Of the 60 odd times the expression "ho Christos" occurs, the NWT has rendered this as "The Christ" quite regularly -except on two occasions: Rev 11:15, 12:10. [Compare the Greek/English text of the KIT with the text of the NWT

Hope this helps

Cheers

51

"NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared..." ???

by whereami in

this is for all you scholars out there.

is this acurate?

please show examples were the nwt is clearly wrong.. .

moggy lover

Despite his obvious and weighty scholastic credentials, it ought to be pointed out that Prof Be Duhn is somewhat uncharitable in his assessment of bias on the part of certain, obviously Trinitarian translators. It is his contention, more alleged than proven, that it is because certain translators are Trinitarian that it is this viewpoint that has caused them to translate certain key portions of the NT with a Trinitarian bias. In fact I believe it is the opposite which is true.

It is because there are clear textual implications for the Trinity, and especially for the Deity of Christ, in the NT that translators in fact became Trinitarian. A non Tinitarian dissenter, like BeDuhn, may feel that no such clear delineation exists, because the teaching of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the NT, but the fact remains that the testimony to Christ's Deity exists, and must be confronted, as the Early Christians did.

It is not because translators such as FF Bruce and Prof William Barclay are Trinitarians that they render Jo 1:1 as "The Word was God by nature" but rather, it is because the text itself imposes its authority on the translator by saying "kai Theos ho Logos ain" that forces them to uphold the veracity of Christ's Deity. To invest the word "Theos" with a shade of meaning that belies its very foundation is to invent a post translational argument to suit a preconceived bias.

The impression that Prof BeDuhn conveys though somewhat obliquely, is that all Trinitarians are somehow fire breathing, Bible bashing intorerant zealots, and although these certainly do exist, they inhabit the Taliban wing of extreme right wing Christianity, and represent virtually none of the translators. Like the two men I mentioned above, most translators are mild mannered men, conveyed by a burden to transmit what they firmly believe to be the word of God to the reading public, to the best of their abilities. And the vast majority of Christians, moderate in spirit and perspective, as is myself, realize that they need to embrace these extremists with the equanamity by which they accept non-Tinitarians.

However, having said that, the NWT is itself a product of men who were keen to establish ther anti-Trinitarian bias. In my opinion, the NWT is not a manifestation of the sholastic pretensions of the leadership of the WTS, but it is in fact a reflection of their feeble inadequacies, and collective insecurity. Either unwilling, or unable, to argue their more bizarre theological positions on the basis of standard Bible translations, they resort, on the grounds of bias on the part of others, to pushing a version of scripture which happens to be the very epitome of bias.

There are several non-Trinitarian groups out there, the Christadelphians and the Unitarian-Universalists, among others, who can present substantially intelligent arguments for their viewpoints, without the need to fall back on some idiosyncratic "translation" that represents a cultic opinion.

Indeed I have read translations that can be considered good, and I have read translations that can only be referred to as bad, but I have never as yet read a "translation" that sinks to such a low depth of ineptitude and theological debauchery as the NWT.

Cheers

20

They question/analyze everything- except the Watchtower

by OnTheWayOut in

jw
friends

many of you were probably the type to question everything or analyze everything, yet .

just accept whatever the wts says.

you broke out of that.

moggy lover

This is not necessarily an uncommon attitude among the followers of the WT movement, even those relatively well educated in secular disciplines of study. I am not exactly sure of all the possible reasons involved in why this has become so, but there are several sites out in e-space that have contrived to investigate this phenomenon.

It is possible that a person with no firm theological convictions, or Christian beliefs, such as I was, do indeed, for various reasons become fascinated with the entire mecanism of the WTS belief system, and are willing to abdicate all spiritual responsibilites to the leadership, possibly in some vague belief that the WTS, simply on the basis of its use of the tri-syllabic word "jehover" has an infallible grip on these matters.

The perception among all in the R&F, as was in my case, is that the WTS leadership is a sort of totemic unit devoted to nothing else but a constant peering into Bible matters, attempting, by some alchemy, to divine its many secrets. Such an attitude is, no doubt, tacitly encouraged not just by the elders in each congreation, but also by the constant, often mesmerizing, effect that interminable meeting attendance encourages. WT study articles are not actually designed to enlighten, but to indulge. They are a sophoritic, lulling the R&F into a sub-conscious acceptance of all its pronouncements, with the resultant degree of lack of dissent becoming entrenched.

As was in my case, I can say, with a certain basis for conviction, that as long as your wife is a constant meeting attender, and remains an undemanding receptacle for WTS influence, she will be unable to be "see" things in an uncritical way.

The WTS leadership is a secretive, manipulative group invested with a mystique that is almost medieval in its character, and being pliant to all their statements is not looked on as being superstitious. As long as she is convinced that the leadership is exclusively a divine spokesman, she will, with equal vigour, oppose anything that assails that conviction.

She will need some mechanism, some trigger, which will unhinge such a deeply held belief. In my case it was when I became an elder. A WTS follower of the first water, I failed to see any need for a critical analysis of the WT leadership's more demanding impositions, for as long as I was in the R&F. When I became an elder, however, and finding myself in the unenviable position of having to impose the WT diktat on others, I slowly, as if awaking from a deep sleep, began to see the gaping flaws in their make up. Having begun, though in a somewhat imprecise manner, this awareness rapidly accelerated, to become, I believe with the approval of God, a full blown realisation of the futility of WT thinking.

Look for this trigger. In the case of your wife, it may manifest itself in some intellectual, or even sociological, dilemma, then watch the process snowball.

Cheers

10

Are the anointed declared righteous? While Great Crowd is not?

by M.J. in

in the revelation bookstudy this week, there was a subtle suggestion of another fundamental difference between members of the 144,000 and the great crowd:.

*** re chap.

9 p. 46 pars.

moggy lover

The WTS has always had a problem with the NT teaching of "Justification" [or "being declared righteous"], and had for years, and certainly throughout all the time I was in the WT movement [57-83], denied the posibility of this teaching to the Great Crowd.

For instance, back in 1966, while serving as a book study conductor, I was confronted with this seemingly dogmatic statement from jhoovers personal "oracle", Freddy the Franz: "The Great Crowd will not be justified, or declared righteous, either now or then as the 144k have been justified" [ "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" pg 391]

At about the time I left, in 1983, a whole generation of WTS followers also broke free frm WT bondage, and thanks be to God, found freedom in Christ, and True Christianity. When we went to our Bibles and discovered its teachings anew, we were astonished to find that that which the WTS was denying its followers, like the Pharisees of the 1st C, [Cf Matt 23:13] was indeed avilable to all, as a free gift, based on this marvelous quality of Deity which the NT calls "Grace" God's grace has opened the way for all who desire it, to be justified in His sight.

But why the problem for the WTS?

They are prisoners of their own theology. They have arbitrarily decided that heaven's gates are only for the 144k There are two things to be said for "justification" in the NT: 1 It is always applied in the past tense 2 It always makes some sort of divine reference, even as far as implying a heavenly abode. For instance, Tit 3:7 says: "Being justified [past tense] by His grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" As far as the WTS Pharisee-leadership is concerned, this "we" only applies to the 144k. Yeah right. The next verse says that it simply refers to "those who believed God" By some mysterious process of divination, this "we" =144k in vs 7, but = the "great Crowd" in vs 8, 9, 10, 11 etc.

According to ex-WT follower, David Reed, [Answering JWs Subject by Subject pg149] it was only when we as ex-WT followers began to publish our findings in print, and in the electronic media, that the WTS leadership was finally forced to react.

In Dec 1 1985, they published a WT in which two study articles were featured. These were a potential bombshell, and forced them to admit that "justification" was open to all.

Well, almost.

Forcing a difference into the NT where there is no distinction, the WTS revealed that there were in fact two different "justifications"

1 A justification "for" life [only for the 144k]

2 A justification as a "friend" of God not a son, [hence for the Great Crowd]

1 Lets take a look at the first bit. And tell me if you can see the corrosive, satanic deception that the WTS leadership is trying to pull. In order to justify their view, they turn to Rom 5:18 which Freddy the wunderkind had the conteptable gall to "translate" as: "Through one act of justification, the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life" Simple, right? Here Paul is saying that some persons [called "men of all sorts"] are justified for life [thus implying that Paul was making reference to the 144k].

WRONG!! Paul NEVER EVER SAID suchnonsense.

And do know whats wrong? No not the "men of all sorts" bit. That is rubbish, I know, but that is not it.

Can you believe that the fault lies with this small three letter word: FOR?

I have 114 NT translations in my personal library, both print and electronic, and NOT ONE says "justified FOR life"

They all say "OF life"

In fact, I defy any WT follower to read his own copy of KIT at this verse!!!

No one is justified "for" life. But justification is indeed the means OF life. By translating as "for" Freddy gives us the impression that God makes justification a future possibilty only for "men of all sorts" [Actually, when you read that article, on pg 12, the anonymous writer[s] imply that the RSV agrees with the NWT by translating it too, as "for" Baloney. The "for" in the RSV refers to the noun "men" not "life" RSV says: "justification leads to life FOR ALL MEN"

When a person is justified, he/she has a justification of life [past tense] not "for" life [future tense]

I have always told my students, when studying the NWT, dont sweat the big stuff, but concentrate on the little bits. Words like "to" "for" "at" "in" "as" can so easily be twisted to yield a meaning at variance with recorded scripture. It is so easy to be corrupt when corruption is a way of life.

2 Lets take a look at no 2. At Jas 2:23, the WTS points out that Abraham, by his works was "justified and he was called a friend of God" By this they then infer that he was'nt regarded as a "son of God" only a friend. The problem with WT theology here is that nowhere is "justification" ever revealed as the means by which believers become "sons of God". There is only one way that a believer becomes part of the "sons of God" Paul calls this "adoption" and John calls it "being born again"

The expression "sons of God" when applied to believers occurs 15 times in the NT: Ro 8:14, 15, 19, 23, 9:4, 26, 2Cor 6:18, Gal 3:26, 4:5, 6, Eph 1:5, Heb 2:10, 12:05, 07, 08. Read these verses for yourself and tell me how many times "declared righteous" or justification occurs there. Then write down the number of times that "adoption" is mentioned.

Justification does indeed make one a "friend of God", it does not however, make him/her a son/daughter of God. That is a different, though not necessarily unrelated, teaching.

So, as "friends of God" ALL believers have a justification "of life"

The pity about the vacuous reaction of the R&F of the WT to the NT is that they know so little about it. They are so busy being self-righteous at not believing in the cross, and not celebrating Easter, that they have only the vaguest notions of what the NT REALLY says.

And what their Saviour desires for them.

Cheers

7

Matthew 28:19, 20 "Go therefore ... baptizing them ..."

by AuldSoul in

jehovah's witnesses teach that matthew 28:19, 20 is a requirement of god for every christian, a command from christ to his followers.

every one of jehovah's witnesses is required to proselytize in order to be considered an active and regular jehovah's witness.. however, these verses also say that the teachers must baptize.

jehovah's witnesses only consider baptisms by organizationally authorized persons to be valid, and only after a person desiring baptism meets the requirements of an unscriptural criteria.. how is it contextually possible that jesus intended the teaching to be carried by individuals and the baptizing to be performed organizationally?

moggy lover

Hi, AS, You so rightly have put your finger on the big anomaly in the the WTS's interpretation of this text. If as you point out, everyone has to preach, because Matt 28:19,20 says so, then I would also expect everyone to baptize, since it is part of the same sentence, right?.... Wrong!! According to the marvelous "reasoning" imparted for our benefit, the WTS sees nothing wrong in placing all the emphasis on that first part of Jesus' command. In fact, according to at least one estimate published several years ago, the majority of WTS followers are simply disbarred from baptizing anyone. There was, at aleast at one time, a majority of women in the WTS to the estimate of 55% to 45%. So we have this curious irregularity that has never been satisfactorily adressed by the WTS:

The first part of the command [ie to preach] is for 100% of the R&F [ not the GB of course, they despise the preaching work] while the second part of the same command only applies to at least 45%. Yeah, right. Go figure.

However, interestingly enough, there is another anomaly that the WTS quietly glosses over.

Take a look at the order of the command: 1 Preach 2 Baptize 3 Teach. But notice the way the WTS has perverted the sequence. FIRST they teach you, THEN on "qualifying" after passing a load of questions, [back in my day in the mid 70s we asked 30 qs] they baptize you and LAST they preach to you when you start attending their interminable meetings. This sequence, no doubt, caters to their advantage, because, by filtering out potential dissenters, their baptismal candidates are assured of being loyal WTS followers. However it is not scriptural.

It is then obvious that the command given at Matt 28: 19,20 was an ordinance given to the church as a whole, with individuals within the body being assigned the various tasks described.

Who then must preach?

The NT lays out at least two groups who are singled out for this activity:

1 Apostles: From the information presented throughout the NT we can glean the following characteristics of the "Apostle" : 1 He was not necessarily of the twelve. Paul and Barnabas [1Cor 9:5 ff] James, the Lord's brother [Gal 1:19] Andronicus and Junius [Ro 16:7] are all reckoned as "apostles" 2 The one invariable and necessary characteristic is that he should have seen the risen Lord [Ac 1:22 1 Cor 9:1] 3 He should have wrought the signs of an apostle [2 Cor 12:12 1Cor 9:1] 4 He was to bear witness toJesus Christ, and of all hehad seen and heard , to preach the Gospel[Ac 1:8 1Cor 1:17] 5 To found churches and have a general care fror them [1Cor 11:28]

In the light of point two, we may assume that this group passed away with the death of the last apostle.

2 Evagelists: To facilitate the spread of the gospel of Christ, He Himself raised up some who would be particularly gifted to do the preaching. [ Eph 4:11] Since these are listed along with others who were in positions of leadership in the church, it may be assumed that the evangelists evidently had a measure of authority within the structure of the church.

Now, having said that however, in the light of the corporate command given at Matt 28:19, 20, it does not mean that the others play no role whatever in this activity. It is plain to see that the whole Church, both local as well as General, participates in whatever function one is called, to fulfill the work of preaching the Gospel. One may contibute one's time, talents, abilities, money, gifts of hospitalty, and back up in support of various activities.

To use a modern analogy: Not everyone in the Air Force, or in NASA, flys a plane or explores the astroshere, but those who have been called upon to do so, owe a debt of gratitude to unnamed functionaries, hundreds, and even thousands of whom tirelessly keep the wheels turning, and ensuring that the pilots and astronauts fulfill their function.

The WTS is exactly the opposite. Whereas the entire R&F, with diminishing enthusiasm, are going from door-to-door, preaching the WTS gospel, they are ignored by an elitist, secretive group of bland appartchicks, who, claiming "apostolic" privilege [too busy, too old, too intelligent] refuse to participate.

The so-called "love for Jehover" encouraged in others, is prominently missing in the WTS leadership. This self-serving leadership have no "love for jehover", only a lust for power and authority that such an affirmation provides.

Cheers

28

Does God mind being called the wrong name?

by Gill in

since it is a well known fact that god's name is definitely not jehovah, but this was a name only in 'operation' for the last few hundred years thanks to a catholic monk, doesn't the very jealous, bad tempered god of the ot mind being called, in effect, 'fred' when his real name is 'george'.. i would think that call anyone by a knowingly incorrect name is rude, rude, rude, so how does this bad tempered, psycopathic, mass murdering god of the ot feel about this transgression on the part of the wtbts/jehovah's witnesses!!????.

not too pleased, i would guess!.

moggy lover

I have it on the highest authority, namely, Uncle Bernie the baker, that back in the bad ole days of the 60s when J Edgar Hoover ruled the roost at FBI HQ in Washington, that WT followers were called:

J Hoover's Witnesses.

Cheers