Posts by moggy lover

15

I want to buy my first book about the WT what should I get?

by bohm in

i have already read c.o.c.

and im not really interested in more about the doctrines.. i have read about the book "taking back your life", and mr. bohm has been pestering me about reading the book "releasing the bonds" by steven hassan.. which other books would you recommend?.

love, miss bohm.

moggy lover

Hi, Greenie:

There are several examples that I can give which Penton brings out throughout his book. But I will start with CT Russell, the Watchtower founder. A carefully crafted myth among the Watchtower leadership, and percolating down to the rank and file followers, is that Russell was led by "god" to rediscover the original "truths" of 1 C AD Christianity. Penton points out that all of CTR's teachings, and certainly most of his more important ones, such as 1874, the yearly celebration of the Lord's Supper, and others, actually came from other men he associated with, such as Nelson Barbour, George Storrs, and George Stetson.

On page 17 of the book Penton says: "The practice of celebrating the Memorial of the Lord's Supper once a year on the supposed date of the Passover was learned by Russell from George Storrs. This custom began among members of Storrs' church The Life And Advent Union in the 1860s". Therefore it was not as a result of a careful study of the Bible, but as a result of a precedent established by someone else, that the Watchtower began this observance.

Other teachings of Russell, attributed to divine intervention, such as the "Parousia" of Christ being an "invisible presence" are also examined. This Russell got from Barbour, and Russell continued in this absurdity, even after Barbour himself repudiated this when he realized how silly this was.

Another carefully crafted myth regarding CTR is that the two major schisms that fell upon his movement were the result of "satanic attacks" in an attempt to derail the infant Watchtower movement. Actually, Penton points out that this had a far more terrestial source. As CTR's theology was evolving, he began to construct doctrines that many found bizarre. One was that the words " The Christ" [as opposed to simply "Christ"] referred to the wider body of "anointed" followers of Russell. Many refused such an explanation and left the movement in 1878 and 1881, because they realized that what CTR was teaching was that the "anointed" actually participated in the redemption of mankind.

Later Russell also stubbornly insisted on a version of the New Covenent that became controversial. Several prominent followers felt that CTR was secretly trying to smuggle in non biblical teachings into the movement, and failing to reason with him, left. So, far from being devilish in origin, much of Russell's ealy troubles were of his own making.

11

GB and Field Service a Question for Ex Bethel Boys and Others in the Know

by nugget in

i have got the impression on here that jaraqz and the gb gang don't actually go door to door in field service.

it has aslo been stated that "judge" rutherford, who instigated it, didn't do it either.. is this true?

can anyone confirm it?.

moggy lover

Ray Franz addressed this issue in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom". In the book on page 200 Raymond Franz writes:

"During my experience there [Bethel] several members of the GB only rarely engaged in field service. Indeed, most of them did not attend the Tuesday night Book studies from where this was organized, and thus did not share in group service from those locations. This was particularly true of Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Grant Suiter, Milton Henschel. Many at [Bethel] headquarters were as cognizant of this as I was"

Regarding the question of Rutherford's participation in the d-t-d activity, Franz writes: "There is no evidence that Rutherford himself ever took any part in this door-to-door work. Based on expressions made by my uncle, Fred Franz and others, it appears that when inquiry when made about this, the answer given was that his "responsibilities as president did not permit his engaging in this activity". Thus he could at best say, "Do as I say, not as I do. " [page 192]

"Nor is it ever mentioned [in Watchtower literature] that Rutherford himself did not engage in the door-to-door activity" [page 442].

15

I want to buy my first book about the WT what should I get?

by bohm in

i have already read c.o.c.

and im not really interested in more about the doctrines.. i have read about the book "taking back your life", and mr. bohm has been pestering me about reading the book "releasing the bonds" by steven hassan.. which other books would you recommend?.

love, miss bohm.

moggy lover

Literature specifically designed to be read as information on the Watchtower Society tend to fall into one of two types:

1 Autobiographical 2 Doctrinal/Historical Exposures.

1 Of the former the most eloquent, and well written, I found, has been "Visions of Glory - A History and memory of Jehovah's Witnesses" by Barbara Grizutti Harrison. The late Mrs Harrison was a Bethelite in the 50s and 60s whose disillusionment with the lack of spiritual qualities in an organization she expected to be dedicated to the task of "pure worship" is well recounted in her book. The crisis ridden journey from true believer to sceptic and finally to spiritual renewal, makes for a worthwhile read. Apart from this, a bonus is her superb command of the English language [she was an award winning professional writer of note] The book is an intense, sometimes hilarious, but always moving autobiography of a beautiful lady who found eventual peace with herself, and who went on to become an inspirational writer in own right.

There is also "I was Raised A Jehovah's Witness" by Joe Hewitt, and "Why I left Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. Both are written from a male perspective and reveal the inner struggle that living in a high control, regimented religion affords. Other autobiograhies of note are; ""Held By the Watchtower" by Susan Thorne, "Pilgrimage Through the Watchtower" by Kevin Quick and "We Left JWs - A Non-Prophet Organization" by Edmund Gruss.

2 Doctrinal Exposures of the Watchtower abound in the market today, given that we currently live in a pluralistic society. And rather than give the titles I will recommend certain authors who specialize in certain sub-groups of Watchtower teaching.

If you are interested in reading about doctrinal infractions of the Watchtower as examined from a conservative, Evangelical perspective, the best author to read is Robert Bowman. He writes with clarity, dignity and is never harsh in his critisism. He has published several books on the Watchtower: "Why You Should Believe In the Trinity" "Putting Jesus In His Place - The Case For the Deity of Christ" [co-authored by Ed Komoszewski] and "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses". Other respectable authors of note are:

Ron Rhodes, "Reasoning From the Scriptures with The JWs" and Edmund Gruss. Gruss is a third generation JW who subsequently left the Watchtower. He specializes in the prophetic speculations of the Watchtower: "Apostles of Denial" "The Four Presidents Of the Watchtower" "JWs - Their Mounments To False Prophesy" "JWs - Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation" are specialist reading. Of this same subgroup is "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olaf Jonsson. It is the best exposure of the Watchtower's 607 BC theology available. It is in its latest fourth, and expanded, edition.

If you are a Roman Catholic, you will enjoy reading:"The Gospel According To JWs" by John Francis Coffey, and "Answering HWs" by Jason Evert.

A good place to start looking for this sort of literature is to go to www.freeminds.org web site. Randall Waters, who runs the site, is himself a writer of perception with his own "Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses" book.

Probably the best book on the history of the movement, and a standard in its field, is "Apocalypse Delayed" by James Penton. In in you will find much information that debunks many of the urban legends of the Watchtower that have become streotypical Watchtower mythology.

Hope this helps.

13

Another problem for the WT, Isaiah 44:24

by Chalam in

here's a problem for the wt with their god father and "a god" son theology.. the wt major on proverbs 8 and give the title of "master worker" to jesus and insert the word "[other]" into john 1:3 colossians 1:16 etc.. however, there are plenty of scriptural problems, consider this one.

isaiah 44:24 (new international version) 24 "this is what the lord says .

your redeemer, who formed you in the womb: .

moggy lover

Peacedog raised an interesting point which set me out on a quest to discover why it was that the overwhelming majority of translations that I consulted read the last phrase as a straight nominative "By myself" and why so few, read it as a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] with me?"

The translations that read as a straight nominative included all those which are well read and easily accessible: NASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, JB, etc. including the four Jewish translations currently available: JPS, Tanach, Harkavi, and Leeser. So does the Ancient Roots Linear OT translation. The two that I could find reading as a rhetorical question were: Young's Lit Version, and the Corcodant literal Version.

It appears that this is a textual problem and it depends on which Heb text the translator uses. You can get the Hebrew OT in its original consonant only form, and in the later verbal accented form, arranged by a group of ancient biblical scribes of the 2C BC called Massoretes.

The original reads as a straight nominative: "By myself", but the later accented text, adds a stroke to the word "me". This stroke is evidently called a "kethib" and alters the nominative into a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] by me?" It is thought that the older form of the text is preferable, hence the vast majority reading.

Anyway, this discussion does not change the thrust of this verse. As peacedog stated earlier a rhetorical question is different from an interrogative, in that whereas the latter can elicit two different answers, the former demands only one, to conform to the proposition stated.

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?