Posts by moggy lover

5

Our journey from Gilead to Bethel ...

by DocBob in

jw
friends

... only took about 15 minutes.

gilead and bethel are towns in maine, right on route 2. from bethel we proceeded to paris and norway (maine).

all in all, it was a nice drive..

moggy lover

As far as I'm concerned you guys can all go to Hell.

That's Hell, Norway, just outside Trondheim.

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

moggy lover

There seems to be a broad enough consensus among scholars regarding the phrase "burnt with fire" They broadly suggest that the "burning" actually referred to the bodies of the those people who had committed this form of incest. The mode of execution in OT times seems confined to stoning, but whereas most others were later entombed, the incestuous sinners had their carcasses burnt. It appears that such burning signified the impossibility of a comfortable afterlife. [See Wycliffe, Henry, Clarke, Keil and Delitzsch, etc]

However there are other views:

1 Clarke [OT Commentary] suggests that this "burning" was in fact a branding with a hot iron to remind both the perpetrators as well the general populace of this particular sin.

2 A particularly gruesome interpretation is provided by the Jewish Targum of Jonathan. It is here suggested that this "burning" involved having molten lead poured down the throats of the guilty ones.

17

The land of Judah still had people on it during the Babylonian Exile

by Doug Mason in

the wts commences the seventy years of the babylonian exile when people from the city of mizpah left for egypt, following the murder of governor gedaliah.

the wts claims that the seventy years could not commence until judah was without a living soul or domestic animal, and that this departure for egypt marked that moment.

their position, however, is not supported by scripture or archaeology.. .

moggy lover

Another comment I can share:

"After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the city continued to be the focal point of the national aspirations of the exiles and those who had remained in Eretz-Israel. Pilgrimages to the Temple mount continued, not only from Judah, but also from Samaria. [Jer 41:5]"

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, article on: Jerusalem, history of. page 591, by B Mazar.

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

moggy lover

Thanks, Missinglink for the trouble. I have been able to download the PDF vcopy of the Dec 15 2009 Wt.

Just another piece of bother if I may be indulged? I notice that I have missed the downloads from the Sept 15, Oct 15, and Nov 15 issues of the 2009 Wt. Could you, or some blessed soul out there help me by providing the appropriate links? That will complete my set of study editions for the year 2009.

Ta, mate.

Cheers.

5

Jason David BeDuhn quotes from Truth in Translation--Part 2

by sd-7 in

truth in translation: accuracy and bias in english translations of the new testament by jason david beduhn, pages 16-17:.

"we return to our example, 1 thessalonians 4:3-6.... "n[ew] w[orld translation]: for this is what god wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have who do not know god; that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter..... "the kjv, nw, and nasb offer very literal translations...as a result,...the nw sounds stilted and wooden...[here, beduhn compliments the nw for using the term "nations" instead of "gentiles"...continues...see?

he's even-handed, whereas my idea of even-handedness involves slapping the wts with both hands an equal number of times...] the kjv and nw retain the archaic english word 'fornication', while the nasb uses the modern expression 'sexual immorality', which is generic enough to cover most possible meanings of the original greek term.".

moggy lover

Jason BeDuhn has made some cogent and generally objective statements regarding the translation of a difficult passage in the NT.

1 "Fornication" is a word that has had its day, and the expression "sexual immorality" is far more intelligible to the growing number of youth who may take to a reading of the Scriptures. Most modern English langiage translations use this expression.

The RSV of 1951 has "unchastity" Some translations strike a moralistic tone: "sexual vice" [Moffat] "sexual sin" [Expanded NT- pub in 2009] The original Berkeley NT [translated by the faculty of Bible Languages of UCLA, Berkley, California under the guidance of Prof Gerrit Verkuyl] of 1945 has "lewdness" but a later revision of 1969 reverted to the the classic "sexual immorality" Other unusual translations: "prostitution" Concordant Lit NT, "Whoredom" Campbell NT of 1951.

2 The way to render verse 5 in particular provides the translator with some distinct problems. This is because Paul here uses two separate words, almost overlapping in meaning, both of them being nouns. "Pathos" means "passion" as a noun, and "epithumia" means, well, passion as well, although to distinguish it from the first word most translators use "lust". So Paul is literally saying, if you take the words as nouns with the second a genetive: "passion of lust"

Rather than render both nouns as nouns, most translators indulge in some sleight of hand, to make the sense more intelligible. Some take the first word as an adjective, as does NIV "passionate lust", the NASV on the other hand reverses the order and has "lustful passion" The Roman Catholic NAB has "passionate desire"

Some translations do preserve both nouns with such renderings as: "passion of lust" ESV, the RSV, and the Roman Catholic Confraternity NT.

The problem is compounded when we consider that "epithumia" translated here as "lust" by most moderns, does not always have an evil meaning. The sense that undergirds this word is one of deep conviction, and may indeed have a beatific significance. Jesus for instance used this word to define his "eager desire" [NIV] to eat the Last Supper with His disciples.

Paul used the word twice, once to describe his "desire" [NIV] to be with Christ on his death [Phil 1:23], and, as well, to see the saints of Thessalonica again [1 Thess 2:17]. However here, two chapters later, it is obvious from the context that there is a suggestion of evil intent present.

3 The use of "nation" for "ethos" is a vexing one, and it depends on what the translator is attempting to do. Either one puts the word into a modern socio-political context, or one preserves the original sense of being that sustained the values of the NT world. One can't unfortunately, do both.

The word "nations" may sound "reasonable" and politically correct, but does not have relevance to the milieu in which the NT was crafted. It is to read into the NT a reflective modern contextual grid. There were no nations in the then known world. Brittania was not a nation, neither were Greece, Gaul, Germania, Egypt, Judea, Asia Minor etc. The Pax Romana was supreme over all, and all were merely provinces within a Super-state.

Besides that, to be brutally frank, the NT does make a distinction between two ethnic groups, The Jews and Gentiles. Paul often distinguishes between the two [Acts 13:46] and even between Christians and Gentiles as here at 1 Th 4:5. While there was an instinctive attitude of prejudice among the Jews, which sometimes, unfortunately carried over in the Fellowship of Believers, as in the case of Peter and those called "Judaisers", Paul strived to show that the two divisions of humanity recognized by the Bible were to be bonded forever into One Fellowship. This was made possible, Paul says in Eph 2:14, by the blood of Christ "Who destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" Now the Gentiles, as Christ's other sheep were to be one flock, with their Jewish counterparts.

Thus the enduring work of Christianity which vaulted over prejudice, and made possible a sublime unity of division within a world of prejudice, is actually lost if the translator doesn't alert the reader to this basic pattern of subliminal apartheid.

13

W.T. legal dept. exposed!

by koolaid-man in

if you have never listened in to the six screens conference call you don't want to miss saturday night nov.7 ,2009 7p.m.est.

just when you thought you heard it all, along comes more evil that the watchtower org.

is hiding behind.

moggy lover

So....where is V, by the way? Doesn't he make videos any more?

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

moggy lover

The trick about 607 BC is first to acknowledge that the date is not mentioned in Scripture, in fact no date according to our calendar is so mentioned. The reason is because the people in Bible times had a different dating system to ours. We simply have to deal with what is supplied by the text and to transcribe that to our modern dating system.

Instead of saying either in 607 BC or in 586 BC...etc, what the Bible does say is: "In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar ...." [2 Kings 28:8] So the question arises: When was this 19th year?

Well, there are two schools of thought.

On the one hand there is the entire body of scholarship from every single university and scholastic institution in the world, which says 586/587 BC [Dont be too concerned about that forward slash. That's because the Bible uses two dating systems called regnal and succession years, and we aren't sure which the Bible is using at the text of 2 Kings 25:8, but the difference is only that of six months] and then there is the Watchtower, which says 607 BC. Why this stubborn inclination to hold on to this discredited date? Because this date conveniently leads to 1914 AD, a date pivotal for current Watchtower theology. When the Watchtower drops 1914, they will drop 607 BC. Betcha.

How can you tell which is the right date? Well, again there is no simple 6 second sound bite, like on TV where we can say one way or other. It takes some thinking and calculation. First, the time period we are talking about is called the Neo-Babylonian period. If you looked up Doug Mason's site that he refers to above, you will see that he lists, according to the historical information available to all, the 5 kings who made up this period. They reigned for a total of 66 years [count 'em] ending in 539 BC.

Now if this period ended in 539 BC, which is a year that the Watchtower agrees to, then when did this period begin? All you have to do is add 66 to 539, which leads to 605 BC. That means that this Neo-Babylonian period began in 605 BC which is the year that Nebuchadnezzar became king.

If 605 BC was his first year then when would his nineteenth year be? Again just count back 19 years: 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597, 596, 595, 594, 593, 592, 591, 590, 589, 588, 587 586 BC. Got it? It is so simple and so enlightening that even a child should be able to grasp it.

The Watchtower on the other hand resorts to subterfuge, obfuscation, prevarication, discrediting, circular rationalization, assumed illogic, retrograde cognition, [which is also called "proving that which is assumed". If you assume something you can easily "prove" it. Even a flat earth.] and other fallacious forms of so called "reasoning".

They also use pious platitudes along with imperious pontifications to try and hijack the subject. They will use buzz words like "But evidently this"...and "evidently that" As Deut 18:22 says of false prophets [who make unjust profits]: You must not fear such men!

55

To the "Believers" - A Sincere Question...

by AGuest in

to: "non-believers" (i am speaking to the "adult" among you as there are some who simply won't be able to resist... and you know who you are), i would like to ask that you please refrain from commenting, if you would be so kind.

if possible, it would be greatly appreciated if you would hold your comments for another thread, please.

thank you... and may you have peace!.

moggy lover

Your question assumes two things and these make your question loaded in favour of your own personal creed.

1 We do not "choose" to put faith in the Bible, but we do put faith in Him who is the substance of our faith. Jesus Christ. [2 Tim 1:13] The Bible is an extension of such faith but is not the substance of it. The Bible does not save nor does a study of it do so. Only Jesus does. [Jo 5:39]

As Christians we accept the fact that none of us has the Absolute Interpretation of Scripture, hence we accept a variety of interpretive ministries in those parts of Scripture that are not contingent on salvation, although, on those parts that are there is a remarkable and harmonious amity.

We believe, despite its problems, textual, and polemical, that the Bible contains the Word of God, and is inspired and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. [2 Tim 3:16] But nobody becomes righteous by either reading or studying the Bible as if it somehow possesses Talmudic complexities that need to be divined. Righteousness is a gift [Rom 5:17] that is miraculously given to believers who have faith in Jesus Christ. [Ro 3:22]

2 You further imply that instead, believers ought to put their faith in "The Holy Spirit, who is the Son of God, and the Holy One of Israel". This sounds like a complicated system of Oneness Theology which sees The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit as one person.

I do not intend to go down this road, but suffice it to say, that faith in Christ implies faith in the Father and the Holy Spirit equally, though Scripture portrays them as separate Persons, or centers of consciousness. We have faith in the Father as the Originator of salvation, in Christ as the Means of it, and the Holy Spirit as the Enlightener of salvation. There is no rivalry for our faith in heaven.

14