Posts by moggy lover

4

Who Is The REAL Evil Slave?

by mtwtf in

who is the real evil slave of mt.

my venting #7 mtwtf.

while this post is unlikely to achieve anything, just dragging the evil slave out of the shadows and into full view helps vent my feelings.

The point that I find significant and which the Watchtower Leadership has consistently neglected throughout its 133 year publishing history is the use of the unexpressed predicate in this parable. Very often in the Greek NT, the predicate [the verb "to be" in its various grammtical forms] is left unexpressed and is understood in the sentence. For instance, throughout the Beatitudes, the predicate has been ommited, yet the sentence, in Greek is unaffected.

"Blessed ARE the poor....Blessed ARE those who mourn...etc"

And we even find this in Matt 24, in this very parable under discussion. Verse 46 tells us "Blessed IS that slave who if his master...." If this is tenable in verse 48 as well, where the evil slave is mentioned, we then get:

"But if that servant IS evil..." [see NAB, NJB, NLT, NIV etc] which leaves us with an interesting propsition:

There are NOT two slaves, one faithful and discreet [conveniently interpreted by the Watchtower as themselves] and the other evil, [all those who oppose them] but only ONE salve. If he is faithful and dicreet he is commended, but if he is wicked, he is castigated. I think the NLT is the most explicit in this context:

"That servant will be blessed IF his master finds him doing his job when he comes. On the other hand, IF that servant IS wicked....then his master will punish him serverly" [verses 46, 48, 51]

Thus, as The Searcher has pointed out, the same servant is placed in either category, because of the two conditional clauses beginning with "If...." Whenever Matt 24:46 is fulfilled [evangelicals are debating this issue, some say it is past, in 70 AD, and others place it in the future during the Great Tribulation] those called to this responsibility can be of either class.

I think that the Watchtower Leadership, as a result of sullying its collective hand with false prophecies and pretentious arrogance, has forfeited the right to be the faithful servant and has placed itself in the position of the wicked servant fit only for punishment when the Master comes.

12

Eph 6:4 "Mental Regulating"

by BluesBrother in

moggy lover

Excellent point, Leolaia.

If you have not already written your doctoral thesis, what about considering doing it now? Hmmm?

You can write on "The Etymalogical Fallacies of the NWT and the Consequent Distortion in Biblical Semantics - An inquiry into how NOT to translate Holy Scripture". I think there is a compelling need for such literature to make a true evaluation of the NWT. From "torture stake" to "mentally diseased" there are so many words that have been theologically disembowelled of any meaning in Watchtower speak.

Most analyses of the NW"T" fixate on the "a" here, or a comma there, or the word [other] in brackets over somewhere else and so on.

12

Eph 6:4 "Mental Regulating"

by BluesBrother in

moggy lover

As Leolaia has mentioned above, the Watchtower "translators" of the NW"T" [which is another way of saying Freddy Franz] can stoop to blurring the distinction between "etymology" and "application" or "meaning" when it suits their purpose. The way words are used by the speakers of a language determines the meaning of words. In this regard most speakers then, as now, would be unaware of the etymology of the words they used but whose meaning would be accepatble with common practice.

A good example of this blurring comes with the word "Apo-luthrosis" which had a simple meaning in NT times, which even Franz acknowledged. The etymology of the word is "apo" - "away from" - and "luthrosis" - "ransom" which I suppose can literally be rendered as " a getting away [from someone] on the payment of a ransom". Because "ransom" is one of the Watchtower's favourite buzz words, they render this word as "release by ransom" six times, with "release by the ransom [paid]" once, [at Ro 3:24].

However, by NT times, the idea of an actual payment seems to have completely disappeared and the meaning simply came to be "deliverance" [as Franz acknowledged at Luke 21:28]

We see the same tactic here with "nouthesia". The etymology derives from "nous" mind, and "thesia" which Vine suggests could mean "put into". But that is not the way the word was used by the speakers who applied the word in the first century. The emphasis was not on the mind of the person so much, as the action that created an atmosphere of training. As Phizzy mentioned above, the word simply meant to "admonish" or "to train by word" which is contrasted with "training by act". "Training by word" could take the form of an "instruction" or in the face of danger, "a warning".

The word occurs three times in the NT, and Freddy used three separate "translations" to convey the meaning of this word:

1Cor 10:11 - "Warning"

Eph 6:4 - "mental regulating"

Titus 3:10 - "admonition"

Which gives him no excuse. He was aware that the word really meant "admonition".

33

Watchtower REMOVES "Trinity" Booklet---ONLINE! Video

by BlindersOff1 in

another great catch by "the snarky apologist" on youtube......................................................i'm looking for this pdf can anyone give me a link.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihh1_uc9s4.

moggy lover

Does anyone know how many languages the Trinity brochure was translated into? It could tell us how widely distributed it was.

51

April 15, 2013 Watchtower - p. 22-26: Organization-Obsessed Much???

by sd-7 in

there's a study article "make sure of the more important things", and in no uncertain terms the article makes clear that "jehovah's organization" is the most important thing.

the term "organization" or "jehovah's organization" is used a whopping 24 times in the article, including a subheading titled: "follow the example of jehovah's organization".

i thought organizations were entities, but that sort of subheading makes it seem like the organization is one giant person whose example we can follow.

moggy lover

It is truly surprising that the rank and file are not embarrassed by such blatant attempts at intellectual seduction.

Can it be that they are unable tell the difference between teaching by instruction and indoctrinating by propaganda?

51

April 15, 2013 Watchtower - p. 22-26: Organization-Obsessed Much???

by sd-7 in

there's a study article "make sure of the more important things", and in no uncertain terms the article makes clear that "jehovah's organization" is the most important thing.

the term "organization" or "jehovah's organization" is used a whopping 24 times in the article, including a subheading titled: "follow the example of jehovah's organization".

i thought organizations were entities, but that sort of subheading makes it seem like the organization is one giant person whose example we can follow.

moggy lover

Where do I get a copy of this magazine? It is not on the official Watcchtower.org website. There the magazines go only upto the March 15 edition.

35

Do the GB 2.0 Travel First Class? What Do You Know About That?

by Scott77 in

i know bethelites have signed a vow of poverty and recieve about $100 monthly stipends.

however, when it comes to air travel, does the governing body of jehovah's witnesses aka watchtower society in new york state (gb 2.0) travel first class?

what do you know about that?.

moggy lover

I am told, although I have no personal knowledge of this, that the GB members tend to be rather frugal in their habits and in their staying at hotel accomodation. The WBTS foots the bill. But they do have access to a credit amount that is not disclosed, and which can be quite generous.

This has not always been so, however. The last of the flamboyant leaders of the WBTS was Nathan Knorr, and he always travelled first class, and insisted that the society book two seats! Evidently he hated travelling with anyone beside him, so he kept the set next to him while he sat by the window.

He was also quite the man about town and a blatant sybarite. He enjoyed Saturday nights at the Broadway theatres, where he had special seats set aside for himself and any guests he had. He also evidently had a yacht donated by a Watchtower Follower, where he entertained suppliers for Watchtower material. All entertainment paid for by the Society.

14

Aussie Christmas...beach bakini's barbie boardshorts beer...anyone like that?

by Witness 007 in

moggy lover

Didja say 27 degrees F??? What I would'nt give for a 27 degree F Christmas! Where I am, in Perth, the temperature climbed to 102 degrees F, and the heatwave has continued into its sixth day with temps over the 100 mark!

Phew!

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

moggy lover

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic here and are placing conclusions on Jonsson's words that were certainly not originally intended.

1. He does not say that the 70 year period of Jer 25:11 ran from 609-539 BC. He concedes that it may have done so, but it could just as easily have been a typical Middle Eastern figure of speech current at the time for an approximation of 70 years. If the period began in 605 BC and ended in 539 BC then we have a period of some 66 years which as I said is an approzimation. The point is that no one knows the exact date for the starting point. Not the Watchtower, not you.

2. The contention behind Jer 25:11 is misplaced by you. The emphasis is on what the two statements made in that text mean, and what the Watchtower makes it mean. According to the NAB translation, Jer 25:11 says:

"This whole land will be a ruin and a desert. Seventy years these nations will be enslaved to the king of Babylon"

Jonsson's contention is that the Watchtower reads this text as: "This whole land will be a ruin and a desert [for] seventy years. These nations will be enslaved to the king of Babylon". The "seventy years" mentioned here answers the question: "How long will the nations be enslaved to Babylon?" and not, as the Watchtower interprets it, "How long will this whole land be desolate?" The first sentence has no time limit, the second does.

As one can see, despite the fact that Jer 25:1 makes it clear that Judah and Jerusalem are being addressed, it is equally clear that, as far as verse 11 is concerned, the nations around about are included in a specific time period [70 years] and prophecy [enslavement].

3. The Neo-Babylonian conquest under Nabopolassar, actually began in 612 BC, when Nineveh, the capital of Assyria fell to the invading Babylonians. The inhabitants were enslaved, but the Assyrian Empire barely survived by moving its capital to Harran. By this defeat, much of Assyria's fighting force were enslaved in Babylon. But in 609 BC the Assyrians suffered another major defeat and Harran was captured by the Babylonians.

Assyria was now so weak that it no longer could fight off the Babylonians without allies. The capital was again moved, this time to Chargemish, and here in 605 BC the final Assyro-Babylonian battle was fought. The inexorable tide of Babylonian conquest was riding athwart the entire ME area. Nothing would stop them. The Assyrians and their Egyptian allies lost, and Assyria disappeared from off the map. Suffering the same fate it had meted out to others.

4. The use of the prophetic element in Jer 25:11 is both post positive as well as future. And not just one way as you suggest with your Hebraic techno-babble. By 605 BC elements of Jeremiah's prophecy had already began its fulfillment, but the major portion, still future, would stand as a sign of Judah's continuing apostasy till 539 BC.

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.