moggy lover

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 797 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by moggy lover

• 
  12

  Rhodes Scholar?

  by Bangalore in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  .

  .

  bangalore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Yes he was. A roads scholar, I mean.
• 
  76

  This is scary we are to put the GB in the same place as Jesus according to the Dec 15 WT

  by life is to short in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i do not know how to scan the wt if someone can it would be great but i wrote it out verbatim .

  i think what the wt says speaks for its self.

  am i missing something and or reading something into what they are saying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  There is a grammatical and theological problem that arises when we attempt to translate the text at Gen 22:18. This is because of the troublesome phrase "rehe thbaraku" which is the third person plural of the verb "Barak" meanining "to bless". The "th" prefix attached to the verb alerts us to the fact that we are dealing with a form of the Hebrew verb called "the hith'pael". And herein lies the problem. How does one translate the "hith'pael" here?

  The hith'pael admittedly defines a reflexive form of a verb, so when used with "bless" it certainly may be translated as "bless themselves" and as a consequence several translations do this. [Cf Rotherham's, Jerusalem, Revised Standard, and at least one Jewish translation the "Tanakh].

  But does this exhaust all discussion of the hith'pael here? If that is so, then why do a very large number of translations, certainly far in excess of those listed, translate the hith'pael here as a passive - "be blessed"? [Cf the NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, HSCB, and a whole swathe of others.] At first glance credence may be given to the argument that this is because these translations are reading back into the text a later Christian ethic based on the NT concept of faith based salvation, and not self-works.

  This does not hold water, however, because there are significantly more Jewish translations who do the same here, that is, treat the hith'pael as a passive. [Cf JPS, Harkarvi, and Leeser]. Thus it appears that there is more that can be said about this Hebraic form. It is true that the hith'pael is the reflexive form of the Hebrew verb, and whereas it it is also true that the passive use is comparatively rare, it is also true that it is not impossible.

  For instance, the hith'pael form of "barak" occurs on four occasions outside of this text in Genesis, and an examination of those translations that insist on a reflexive form at Gen 22:18, shows that at best, that their understamding of this form is in a state of flux and is not set in concrete as the Watchtower would suggest.

  For instance, at Ps 72:17, the JB reversed itself and rendered the hith'pael as a passive here "Be blessed". But by far the most troublesome use of the hith'pael is found at Jer 4:2. The RSV says: "Then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him will they glory". The problem here is that the hith'pael occurs twice: with "bless" [barak] and with "hal'al" meaning to "glory", "boast", "celebrate" etc. Thus to be consistent the RSV should have said "and in him will they glory themselves" Every translation I have read ignores the reflxive form at "halal" here. Except the NW "T".

  The genius who "translated" this verse in the NW"T" has it this way: "They will boast about themselves" which is more paraphrase than translation.

  Again an enormous problem occurs if one is to insist on the reflexive at Lev 14. In this chapter alone, the verb "Taher" meaning to "cleanse" occurs no less than 12 times in the hith'pael, and refers to the cleansing of a leper by the priest. Whereas, technically at least, the verb could be a reflexive, contextually this becomes highly improbable, given that the text clearly informs us that it is the priest who does the cleansing, and not the leper. Thus, the leper cannot at the same time "cleanse himself" if the verb is to be applied to the priest.

  It becomes clear that the hith'pael here is used either as a middle form, "become clean" [as some translations do] or as a passive "be cleansed" [as most translations accept it]. For instance Rotherham has, at Lev 14:14, the following: "The priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed" While Franz in his NW Confection has: "The priest must put it upon the lobe of the one cleansing himself..."

  What is said of Rotherham here can be said of all the other translations uniformily. If anything comes out of this brief research, it is that, at the very least, any argument that insists on a uniform attribution of the reflexive to the hith'apel is tenuous at best. That other factors play a part cannot be ignored. It certainly may be reflexive, but the hith'pael does have, legitimately, other syntactical applications, hence the translation of Gen 22:18 as "be blessed" cannot be ignored, except by those who are blinded by their own dogmatism.

  An excellent article, availabe for download on the web, is: "Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study" by Keith Nigel Gruenberg. Though not discounting the reflexive here, he argues persuasively for the passive.

  Reinforcing this view is the way the ancient versions treat Gen 22:18. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aramaic Targums, the LXX and the Vulgate, all use the passive at Gen 22:18.

  Finally. The greatest interpreter of this text at Gen 22:18, must according to those who believe in the Holy Spirit inspiration of the Bible, be the Holy Spirit Himself. He quotes this verse through Paul at Gal 3:8, and here He unerringly placed the passive form on the verb. The irony is that even Freddy Franz, chief architect of the NW "T" recognized this. Thus what is implicit in the Hebrew is made explicit in the Greek.

  The truly ironic part is that the Watchtower, supposedly a "Christian" system of belief, has to revert to the OT, Jewish tradition, to prove its point while at the same time avoiding and even ignoring the clearer revelation of the Christian NT.

  This is in itself a telling indictment of the Christian pretensions of the Watchtower. They are merely Pharisees, parading about as Christ's Sheep, people about whom Jesus warned us.
• 
  5

  Women of the 144,000

  by cameo-d in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the gospel of thomas (found in a coptic translation at nag hammadi and in greek fragments at oxyrhynchus), for example, presents 114 "secret" sayings of jesus, many of which are rephrased quotations from jewish scripture and over half resemble dialogue which turns up in the new testament.. .

  "saying 114: simon peter said to them, "let mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.

  " jesus said, "i myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  I am sorry but I have no idea what this passage means since I have not made a study of the Gospel of Thomas. Many consider it some sort of Gnostic development of a genunine Gospel tradition that developed during the mid to latter part of the 2C AD. Under those circumstances it could not have been written by the Thomas it supposedly represents. But discussion of this material is a path I don't want to go down.

  I think that confining this discussion to the Watchtower concept of the 144k "anointed" and women is complicated enough. According to the Watchtower the 144k:

  1 Started in 33 "CE" and included every member of those who were called to be believers during the first century AD, supposedly including women.

  2 Further, according to Watchtower, these "anointed" members were all part of the FDS: "The expression faithful and discreet slave refers to ALL members of that anointed nation as a group on earth at any particular time from 33CE till now" [Watchtower Mar 1st, 2004, page 10]

  3 If this refers to all members of the "anointed", and since the primary object of the FDS is to define theology which is to be believed in as definitive, a process that the Watchtower defines as "feeding", the question we need to ask is:

  What part do the female members of this FDS 144k play in this feeding process, seeing that the Watchtower insists on the possession of a penis as a prime requirement for being such a formulator of theology, or in other words, a feeder, not eater, of the "spiritual food". Therefore the female members of the "anointed" during the first century did not "feed" the domestics, they merely ate what was "cooked up" and presumably have not done so in the "modern era either.

  If, by 31st Dec 100 AD there were some 100,000 Christians both male and female, and some 30,000 in the modern era, that would leave just 44,000 to run through the rest of the history of Christianity [some 1779 years, seeing the Watchtower started in 1879] or some 3 a year. [It is estimated that by the end of the first century the Christians made up at least 5 percent of the population of the Roman Empire which was estimated to be at least 20 million, hence they could have numbered at least 1 million. But that is another conundrum for the Watchtower]

  Suppose all three in a year were women? Who then would do the feeding? Or would they all wear hats while doing this? What about our "modern" era? Do any female members of the "anointed" qualify as the FDS? If they do, then how do they participate in this feeding? Are they permitted to write Watchtower Study articles which clearly defines the parameters of Watchtower theology? Evidently not, since all this is left to the male members of the anointed. Writing obscure articles about the Amazon River, taken from reference articles in Encyclopedias, or writing simplistic letters to the "real" FDS does not count.

  It becomes obvious that the Watchtower "definition" of the FDS as members of the 144k is ill-conceived. I propose they will have to redefine this by saying:

  " The expression faithful and discreet slave refers to all male members of that spiritual nation as a group on earth at any given time"

  Since the primary object in having an FDS is to conceive theology for the rank and file, and since women are disbarred from this, such a redefinition becomes imperaritive.
• 
  28

  WT Jan 2011 - Grieving Holy Spirit Defined?

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  could alex do?

  he might lovingly approach.

  steve again and lay bare his fault.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  What the Watchtower is in effect encouraging is the breaking of confedentiality even among close associates. There is nothing that must come between the Watchtower followering and the leadership. Keeping confidences is evidently one way that one "grieves" the Holy Spirit. Like an invisible octopus, they want to be everywhere, but to be seen not to be so.

  Of course, one may ask how on earth one can make electricity sad? Keeping to the word "grieve" and straining a metaphorical meaning out of it, avoids any need to actually show how this can be done to an inanimate object. What the Watchtower is doing is making the word "grieve" mean "resist". Hence a Watchtower follower who does not accord with Watchtower dogmatics can "resist" ["grieve"] something that evidently animates the organization but which cannot be grieved.

  It is as clear as mud.
• 
  4

  CD Library

  by ZeekOsbourne in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  out of curiosity, i have the cd library of the watchtower from 1950 to 2007 and the awakes from 1970 to 2007. i've heard that there is a watchtower cd rom that starts from 1930 and beyond with many publications such as the " the golden age, the consolation and the awakes " .

  is this another secret elder info only type of rom or can it be requested from the wbts?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Each year, as newer CD Roms are issued, the Watchtower adds the current year's information to the end, but consequently they lopp one year off at the other end.

  This means that the later the year for the CD that you have, the later is the information at the beginning. If you really need to research the earlier volumes then you will need to pick up some very early CDs. As CJ has suggested the one for 1996, perhaps.
• 
  27

  Ok, so the WT isn't a prophet...

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ...lets just say the witnesses are correct in their assertion that the gb are not prophets and subsequently are not under deuteronomy's definition of a false prophet.. this begs a question for me.. when, in god's entire scheme throughout the bible, did he run things without a prophet?

  when did he run things with leaders who didn't speak for him?.

  -sab.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Eh? Wassat?

  Did yew say the Watchtower was a profit?

  Damn right.
• 
  6

  How may of you are following the common wealth games??

  by on the rocks in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Count me in.

  Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi !!!

  To anyone other than an Aussie this expression is virtually incomprehensible.
• 
  41

  What Super Powers does Ted Jaracz have in heaven now??? Any?

  by Witness 007 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so congrats ted your a "king and preist" in heaven ruling with jesus, so.....how is this different to his bethel job?

  he can"t smite me for showing disrespect.

  does he sit there and take down names for armagedon?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  So, what am I hearing? Is Jaracz dead? if so when?
• 
  45

  My Memories of Bethel in the Franz Era - part one

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  food was passed from one side and if you were #10 you may not get too much to eat!

  when i finally did, she was not at all interested.

  but i was lucky it didnt work out, for she never would have left the watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Fabulous stuff Randy.

  This should be made required reading for anyone contemplating life in the Watchtower.

  Do tell us more [he asks hopefully, wagging his tail like mad]
• 
  6

  New Jeremiah Book Question

  by Ultimate Reality in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if anyone has this book, could you please quote or scan whatever section covers jeremiah 25 and the 70 years issue in that chapter?.

  some in my family thought that a new jeremiah release would answer my 'questions' about the 70 years interpretation.

  now, i am sure they will be happy to hear about this book, thinking that 'jehovah has provided the food at the proper time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Ta, mate, now I am enlightened.

  So we are going to be told that there are two overlapping generations? Why not three?

  What happened to ole CTR and his bunch? They became anointed BEFORE 1914, and many lived to see the time of Uncle Joe Rutherford. Thus we have THREE overlapping generations who are merged into one nebulous organism, the first of which is being ignored as if it was never there.

  If the Russell generation is jettisoned, how does the Watchtower justify its existence today?