Posts by moggy lover

12

JW converts - what percentage fall away?

by Double Edge in

i got into a discussion today at lunch with someone who years ago 'flirted' with becoming a jw (then 1975 came and went).

i've never been a dub, but what i've gather from this board there are those raised in the religion who after 30-40 years leave for whatever reason.

what percentage of those not raised in the religion, but are converted, become disillusioned and finally leave?

moggy lover

I am not sure if any official figures are available anywhere, but certainly the drop out rate is alarming high. When I was in the movement back in the 50s - 80s, the rate was roughly calculated to be in the region of 33%, with a slightly higher quotient for youths. However the passage of time has not been kind to the WTS, since the defection rate is increasing. Several on this board have in recent times indicated that the rate has in fact passed the dreaded 50% mark, meaning that more are leaving than staying.

I think that the more troublesome feature of this phenomenon to the WTS is not simply the overall numbers, but the quality of those leaving. Most of the best and the brightest have either savvied up to the intellectual dishonesty of the leadership, and are contemplating leaving, or have already left. Leaving behind a somnolent, amorphous tableaux of believers, either incapable of, or unable to, think for themselves. .

One thing that has escaped the understanding of the WT leadership is that an educated, articulate fellowship is an asset to its community. Naturally however this brings dissent, with the consequent need to formulate a theology based on varied but rational decisions.

Several religious groups have suceeded in accomodating these differing views, accepting the silence of definitive scriptures on a given abstraction. Various Baptist churches, for example, allow for either one, two or even three grounds for divorce, all argued cogently from Scripture. Another outstanding example is the broad spectrum of ideas spawned so profusely on this board with no consequent damage to the intellectual acumen of the members.

But the WTS, jealous of its claustrophobic hold that it has on its followers, lays down precisely defined dogma, even in the most trivial of circumstances, thus leaving no room for individualism. I believe that this intransigence on the part of the WTS leadership, along with its self serving rules imposed on the membership is responsible for such a high drop out rate.

Expect the WT leadership to get even more oppressive, and demanding, and expect a bunker like mentality to develop at the top. Expect the drop out rate to accelerate.

This can be seen even in the higher echelons of authority. Ray Franz once commented on the fact that most of the skilled wordsmiths who write WT literature, have dropped out, with the result that this literature today is often facile, circuitous, vacuous, and unencumbered with intelligent thought.

Cheers

12

"Roads Caller?"

by watson in

jw
friends

the speaker that gave our public talk today said that the men on the governing body were very smart.

he said that albert schroeder could speak corny greek, and that frederick franz was a "roads caller.

" i know what corny greek is, but i am not familiar with what a "roads caller" is.

moggy lover

Nah, Franz was'nt a Greek scholar, he was a "Geek" scholar. Nathan Gnaw would have had difficulty distinguishing a Greek alpha from a leg of pork, and the bozos currently in the leadership get their information about NT Greek from a cracerjack box.

Roads caller is brilliant, man. Good as J. Hoover's Witnesses?

Cheers

8

Kings of Isreal and 607/586

by GramblingMan in

can someone help me out here, i have been going back and forth with the jw study, regarding 586/607, from reading what has been written here and visiting the library.. i have been able to present what i understand.

now he is saying that the jw also were able to locate the date for the fall of jerusalem based on the kings of isreal.

i serious doubt it, he should me the list of jews kings in the "insight on the scriptures" but could tell me how they arrived at the start date for the 1st king.

moggy lover

For centuries scholars have puzzled over the problem of OT chronology and this includes the dating of the sequence of the Hebrew kings. One of the most difficult issues has been the synchronization of the reigns of the various kings. The sacred text, which evangelical Christians accept as fully inspired, provides much information about these kings and how they relate to each other, but when the information is correlated it still leads to difficulties in interpretation. This is not to say that there is no solution to the problem, simply that scholars are uncertain which solution is the right one. As has been mentioned above, Prof Edwin Thiele, professor of Antiquities at Andrews University has made what is considered to be the most comprehensive study of this subject and has published his research in his book "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" Even he implies that the problems in dating these times are immense.

With a blisstful insesitivity to the real facts the WTS has proceeded along its own merry way, setting its own rules and callously disregards even the fundamentals of historically known data. Lets try and sort out some of the more ignorant of WT speculative conclusions.

1 They first of all pick the wrong termination date for the Hebrew Kings and then simply count back an arbitrarily determined period of years. The termination date they choose is 607 BC for the ending of the Jewish monarchy. This is in diametric contradiction to the well established guidelines maintained by scholars universally, and which have been eloquently proved on this board by many to be 587/586 BC. With angular quotations like "We prefer to believe the Bible rather than secular scholars" they betray their apalling ignorance of facts, since it is these same scholars, evidently spurned by them, which helps establish their favourite date, 539 BC. What they really mean, and what can easily be discerned by those who prefer proof to credulity, is: "We prefer to believe our interpretation of the Bible to secular scholars"

2 Having established a wrong date, and foisting it on their followers as a non negotiable Article of Faith, they then arbitrarily add 390 years to that date bringing up the date 997 BC as the start of the Jewish monarchy. To the WTS, the period of the Hebrew Kings is a period of 390 years and into this period they force the lengths of the various kings to conform. Now thats interesting. Here we have, on the one hand, humble scholars like Prof Thiele who confess to having only an incomplete understanding of all the complex ramifications of OT chronology, while on the other, we have doctrinaire bigots, sitting in supreme isolation in WT HQ, pretentious "scholars" so erudite that they are unable to distinguish a Greek Alpha from a leg of pork, coming up with a neat round figure.

3 So how the hell does the WT leadership come up with that figure? They take a highly interpretive portion of Scripture, give it a spin, ignoring even the basics of biblical hermeneutics, and through the alchemy of legerdermain, they arrive at a conclusion that best serves their interest. The portion of Scripture they choose is Ez 4:1-7. In this object lesson that Ezekiel acts out for the Jerusalem inhabitants, he depicts the period of time that they will be punished for their iniquity. He is asked to lie on his left side for 390 days to depict the iniquity of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for the iniquity of Judah for a period of 40 days. He is then to count each day for a year.

Well,what does all this mean? I dunno, and it does'nt bother me that I dont know, because if I wanted to know, I would wade through the mountain of interpretations on the market today. The point is that the WTS pulls this enactment out of its context and applies it to the period of the Jewish joint monarchy. The Insight book pg 462, says: "A helpful guide to the overall length of this period of kings is found at Ez 4:1-7."

Now here is the interesting bit: They further state: "The two perids of 390 years and 40 years thus symbolized, evidently stood for the overall length of Jehovah's forebearance with the two kingdoms" Whats "evident" about it? On what basis, other than a predetirmined theology, can we connect the lesson of Ezekiel to the overall length of the Jewish kings? Almost all commentators on this portion of Scripture regard the period mentioned by Ezekiel to the period that they will pay for their iniquity. A period of 430 years. [390+40] Since vs 1 of chapter 1 of Ezekiel, is best placed at 597 BC, then 430 years into the future brings us to 167 BC, when, having paid their dues, and with the sucess of the Maccabean revolt, Judah had a king again.

Why 390 years? To me 390 and 40 makes 430 years. So if the WTS is to use this period for the length of the Jewish monarchy, and if the period terminated in 607 BC, the first king must have come to the throne in 1037 BC, which even the twisted minds of the WT leadership can see is absurd. So to solve the problem, again arbitrarily, they simply make the periods run concurrently. Thus in a convoluted logic that makes the Trinty look trite, 390 + 40 is made to =390!

Which brings us to WT chronology. All WT publications will list the first Kings, Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah as beginning in 997 BC [as I said adding 607 BC to 390 years]

Thiele on the other hand lists them as beginning in 930 BC, which means that since the monarchy terminated in 587/586 BC it must have lasted about 344 years.

This is not to say that we can be dogmatic, because others have other dates: The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible lists these kings as 927 BC, and The International Standard Bible Dict gives 931 BC. The reason for the differences is the incomplete information that the Bible gives us for when certain rulers reigned concurrently.

The important thing,however, is that we know when this complicated mosaic of history ended, and despite the Mad Hatter pronostications of the WTS, this date is 587/586 BC

Cheers

8

A proessor's interesing theory on Jesus's resurrection.

by badboy in

jw
friends

professor frank tipler believes that jesus's body decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos,which then converted ito atoms to make up the resurrected jesus.

moggy lover

Hmmmmmm..... Jesus Neutrino? You mean He turned Italian at His resurrection?

mumble< >mumble>.... There goes my theory... I thought He was Welsh myself.........

Cheers

19

A little Fun. If celebrities made up the Governing Body, who'd it be??

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

so who's your celebrity line up as the members of the governing body, and for what reason?

moggy lover

I would recommend the Three Stooges for a start. Larry, Curly, and Moe, at least know more about the Scriptures than Teddy and his mobsters. Which is'nt difficult when you consider that the latter know as much about the Bible as a Samarkhand camel trader. Its easy when you have script writers writing your public pronouncements

Cheers

26

"The Bible in Living English"-1972-Byington/Watchtower--PDF!

by Atlantis in

(download while you can).

steven t. byingtonfrom wikipedia, the free encyclopediasteven tracy byington (birthname "stephen") (december 10, 1869 - october 12, 1957) was a noted intellectual, translator, and american individualist anarchist.

he was born in westford, vermont, and later moved to ballardvale, massachusetts.

moggy lover

Yep, you're gonna need some more ale to pass around! Downloaded and kept safely on my computer. Thanks a million and keep up the good work.

Cheers

13

Speculating on New Rules in 2008 and Beyond

by WTWizard in

i have read on this site about some of the weird new changes ahead for the watchtower society.

the thread www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/115757/1.ashx had a resolution that effectively banned entertainment, and i doubt that any of the witnesses that were present at last summer's assembly where this was presented even realized it.. then i read that they were going to split the watchtower magazine, giving us a public (showcase) edition and a study (kool-aid) edition.

the study articles would not be open for public scrutiny, which means they are going to beat up on the witnesses without anyone on the outside realizing it (i sure hope blondie continues to get her supply of study articles so she can put up those comments you will not hear at the study).. here are some of my predictions of what might come out of this.

moggy lover

Nah, I don't think they'll ban entertainment altogether.

I mean, what can be more relaxing after spending 18 hours in field service than watching a video or DVD of Teddy Jaracz giving his latest 3 hr talk on how to be more loyal to the GB.....or listening to the Bethel choir of amateur singers singing mostly out of tune and in the key of flat, all the kingdom songs.

Cheers

9

"Jehovah" in the NWT OT

by Doug Mason in

once more i look to the jwd brains trust for assistance and information.. over the years, much has been discussed and written on the wtss use of the jehovah in its nwt translation of the christian greek scriptures (new testament, or nt).

[page 343] the divine name jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the tetragrammaton and in some one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation.

what do these tell us about the translator of the nwt ot?.

moggy lover

All the oldest and best MSS of the Hebrew Bible have, on every page, beside the actual text of Scripture, which is usually arranged in two or more columns, a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the "Massorah" There are two types of Massorah. Those on the upper and lower margins are called the Massorah Magna or "Great Massorah" and those in between the columns are called the "Massorah Parva" or "Lesser Massorah".

Evidently this word "Massorah" is derived from a Hebrew root word "Mas'ar" meaning "To deliver something into the hand of another" so as to commit it to that person's trust. the implication being that the information contained in these two "Massorahs" contained information necessary to those who were entrusted with preserving the text of Scripture through the process of copying. Most of these notes, or Massorah placed in and around the text were textual in nature, sometimes even counting the number of times a certain letter occured in the text, so that a future copyist may allign the text exactly according to the source material he was using.

Sometimes, as Narkissos has said these notes were doctrinal in nature when it was perceived that the text, in its original may have implied some degree of disrespect to Yahweh. There are 134 passages where the ancient copyists of the Sacred Text, the Sopherim, said that they emmended the text to replace the Tetragrammaton with "Adonai" because they felt that the original reading threathened the integrity of Yahweh's soverignity.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr David Ginsburg, who was born in 1831 in Poland, and who emigrated to the UK in 1841, after his conversion to Christianity from Judaism for his tremendous labour over the ancient Hebrew text. Although he died in 1914, he is still regarded in the UK, at least, as the greatest scholar on the Massorah ever. It is he who listed all the 134 occurences of the Sopherim Emmendations.

If you take a look at the Hebrew text as we have it today, at Josh 7:8, it would read, in English as "O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned [their] backs before their enemies" [NASV] this is because the text says "Adonai" but the Massorah, in the upper margin will have a note saying: "This is one of the emmendations of the Sofferim" thus suggesting that the original reading may have been "YHWH" at this verse. Assuming the emmendation to be correct, the NWT in contrast, has "Excuse me, Jehovah" I rather suspect that it was precisely because of such applaing translation skills, that the Sopherim may have removed the Tetragramm from here. They hated the idea of such human familiarity with the Deity.

It is not possible to determine the extent of the ancient copyists accuracy in their emmendations, and Ginsburg himself made no comment on such veracity, as a result, all translators feel that the text should be rendered as to how it has been preserved till today. That is why translators today say "Lord" not LORD at Josh 7:8. There is one edition of the KJV, however, published in the late 19th C by a renegade extreme Dispensationalist, named Ethelbert Bullinger, whose edition reads like a Massorah, considering his notes, which actually reads as "LORD" here. The similarity in quotations between Bullinger's edition and the NWT makes it certain the Franz had this volume before him.

It is beyond the scope of this limited post, to list all the 134 emmendations, but here are some:

Num 14:17, Josh 7:8, Jud 6:15, 13:8, 1K 3:10, 3:15, 22:6, 2K 7:6, 19:23, Isaiah 3:17, 3:18, 4:4, 6:1, 6:8, 6:11, 7:14, 7:20, 8:7, 9:8, 9:17, 10:12, 11:11, 21:6, 21:8, 21:16, 28:2, 29:13, 30:20, 37:24, 38:14, 38:16, 49:14 etc. The complete list of 134 emmendations is available in the NWT with References, pg 1563. If you dont have acess to this volume, pm me and I'll send you the complete list. You will have to promise your wife that you'll wash the dishes for at least a week though!

In addition to emmending the text from YHWH to Adonai in 134 places, Ginsburg found 8 additional places where the ancient copyists emmended the text from YHWH to "Elohim" These were at: Ps 14:1,2,5; 53:1,2,4,5,6. Most translators will read "God" here but Franz "restored" the Tetramgamm making these texts read "jehovah"

To be frank, I don't know why Franz bothered bringing out an interlinear NT, when his argument would best have been served by bringing out an interlinear OT. He could have had a field day with his copious notes justifying his renderings, rather than relying on special pleading as he had to resort to in his NT.

Cheers

28

Is. 2:2 My analysis..what's yours?

by NewTruth in

so, here's the scripture:.

2:2 in the last days, the mountain of the lord's temple will be established as chief among the hills, and all nations will stream to it.

many peoples will come and say, "come, let us go up to the mountain of the lord, to the house of the god of jacob.

moggy lover

My own personal feeling is that prophecy is a subject that is best left alone, or at least, left in the hands of those professional theologians who are willing to stick their necks out, on the line by interpreting prophecy. The lessons learned from the WT experience of Bible prophesying should have taught us that this is a hazadous occupation, at best.

I feel that if there is a prophecy mentioned in the OT, which has clearly been fulfilled, then there simply is no need to trace any further meaning in that prophecy. This applies to such a prophecy as that mentioned in Dan 4, regarding the "seven times" Since the Bible itself has said that all the prophecy was fulfilled in king Nebuchadnezzar, to then give it a further meaning, as the WTS does, making it pertinent to our times, no less, is patently absurd. In my opinion, of course.

In prophecies such as those that may have more than one meaning, the first having been fulfilled in the past, then the second meaning must rest on Scripture alone. As Doug mentioned earlier, if no NT writer has indicated a fulfillment in a certain time frame, then to make that second application fit into a theologically moulded framework, supporting a preconceived teaching, is false and smacks of cultism. This may apply to such a prophecy as Matt 24. If it does have a fulfillment beyond the timespan of Christ's words, then that second application must have a Bible approved interpretation. If the last Bible writer, the apostle John said nothing about when that second application was to be, then we can confidently be assured that the Bible canon has left that second application in the future, awaiting an authoratative interpretation by the Lord Himself at His Second Presence which is still in the future. There are those who regard all of Matt 24 having been fulfilled. Thats fine and part of legitimate Bible interpretation. There are others who feel that there is another fulfillment in the future. Well, thats fine as well, whether one agrees with that or not, because that too, is legitimate Bible study.

The exception comes when one applies that second application to our own present time, casting around for modren anecdotes to fit into this preconceived mould. As the examples of such as Herbert W Armstrong, or the WTS, who see themselves in that setting, have taught us, this is dangerous and ultimately futile. It is cultic in thinking. It also requires credulity, and not faith to accept.

The same is with the prophecy at hand, Isa 2. Oddly enough, I don't see any "first" fulfillment in either Isa himself, or in later Israelite history. It must therefore have a fulfillment futute to Isa. When? Dunno.

Reformed theology sees the "last days" as stretching down from the day of Pentecost, since many NT writers understood their times as in some way the "last days" - Isa 2 may therefore belong to Church history, or at least the 1C AD for its fulfillment.

Dispensational theology sees the last days as still in the future, involving the Millennium. If this is so, [I am a dispensationalist myself] then Isa 2 must have a millennial fulfillment with some form of future Israelite assendancy being outlined. If again, this is so, then the details await further, authorative clarification.

But to give it a present day application, complete with out-of-context other prophecies from other parts of the Bible, having no connection whatever is again cultic. Personally, I would avoid such a perilous and uncertain understanding. One never knows.... one may begin to see oneself in Scripture, as Russell, Rutherford, Franz and Armstrong did.

And look where it got them

Cheers

6

Heard any good anecdotes a JW?

by tioga joe in

i got a chuckle out of one of the past messages that related the story of a person in desperate need praying to god for help just as a jw knocked on the door.

i had heard that one myself, too.. so it got me to thinking about "jw anecdotes" we all have heard.

one i heard from my visiting witness was during a "study" on how we must obey god's word even when man's word says not to.

moggy lover

I am not entirely sure that this is what you are looking for, but here goes: It concerns an incident that occured to me while going boor-to-door, several years ago. I was a young 'un then and living in India, where I was born of mixed British-Indian parentage.

Anyway, there I was, with this elderly missionary lady, and we happened to call on a door that was opened by this rather portly, magnificently bewhiskered Sikh gentleman. In deference to the missionary, I allowed her to have this first call, and so she began her WT pitch. In a rash attempt to explain herself in Hindustani, a language she was ill equiped to handle, and casting around for an appropriate analogy to illustrate her point, she dramatically unfurled her umbrella, a constant companion I might add, and quoted: "God is our knickers that we need to get into to gain his protectionl!"

To my embarrasment, and the understandable bewilderment of our householder, I quietly explained that, quite inadvertantly, the lady had mispronounced the word for umbrella [chatri] using instead the word for ladies underwear [chadi]

Damned if the old coot did'nt take a stackful of WT mags, labouring no doubt under the misaprehension that somehow by reading them he could get into the Almighty's panties.

Now lets see... if I hold the mag this way.... and lift my right leg that way.....

Cheers