moggy lover

Joined

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

Posts by moggy lover

• 
  15

  A new religion/cult?

  by roberto avon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a new religion?.

  it has been a while that i didn't post.

  as some of you may know i live in italy and ( maybe ) something curious is happening.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Have these guys reached out to a wider audience by translating their views in other languages like, say, English?
  
• 
  24

  A MODERN FICTION: the lie which became a GOVERNING BODY

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  safe to say, if you walked up to any of the 8 million jehovah's witnesses on earth today and told them the.

  governing body was a fiction, not only would they refuse to believe you--they'd consider you their immediate enemy!.

  what if i told you jw's embrace a mental construct which is at odds with history?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Wow! this is one well researched and written article. Thanks Terry.
  
• 
  19

  Theos and theon

  by SonoftheTrinity in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  oh how dubs will cling to da troof.

  this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.

  i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  It has long been debated whether the translation of "a god" in Jo 1:1c is a legitimate rendering of what John the monotheist had in mind. Scholars, such as Julius Mantey have been misunderstood either for supporting or denying its efficacy.

  1. It must be accepted that both uses of the word in their respective cases refer to the same concept. In other words, God, or Deity.

  2. The word God, in this context cannot be conveniently nuanced by contradictory applications, and thus altering the meanings, one referring to Deity and the other not. And unfortunately that is what the use of the rendering "a god" does. It makes the phrase "with God" in Jo 1:1b mean God as Deity, and the rendering of "a god" of Jo 1:1c as something less than God, or by contextual semantics something that is "non-God".

  3. Thus the rendering "a" god is quite acceptable if Jo 1:1b was made to say "And the Word was with "The" god. But it is not so acceptable if the renderings are said to be: "the Word was with God... and the word was a god" . By using this convenient subterfuge one is tilting the balance in favour of an Arian understanding of the text when it is in fact teaching Monotheism. The kind of Monotheism being declared is in debate, not that the Trinitarian form is wrong and the Monad form is the only one permissible.
  

  4. Harner helped revolutionize our understanding of this grammatical construction and thus went farther than what Colwell did. Colwell was concerned about whether Jo 1:1c made θεος a definite or an indefinite noun. Harner showed that it was neither.

  5. Thus this construction is called "The Qualitative Nominative" or "Predicate Nominative". The NWT faces up to one such text in the same grammatical construction at Lu 20:38, where they say of the Father that He is "a God".

  6. If the Father can be called "a God" in a construction that is exactly the same as that of Jo 1:1c, then one would at least be satisfied if the NWT also called The Word "A God" at that latter verse. This would not be theologically applicable but grammatically permissible
  
• 
  4

  I have two questions about RC Australia

  by bobld in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  1.is this rc only about the wbts?.

  2. why did the gb/fds asked for all the money to be sent to hq?

  ok so they could sent all that money off shore..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  1. The official name for the government probe into child abuse in Australia is:

  The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.

  [Like Canada, the UK, New Zealand and other countries in the Caribbean, Australia is a monarchy, and all government probes into national impropriety are called "Royal" Commissions. In other words they are done under the authority of the reigning monarch who currently is Queen Elizabeth the Second. It is her Royal authority that guarantees civil liberties within the realm]

  As a result of growing allegations of child abuse stemming from the mishandling of children in the protective care of institutions which were supposed to protect the rights of the children in their charge, back in 2012, the Australian government passed legislation through parliament establishing this Commission.

  Since many of these institutions were run by religious bodies, it was inevitable that the base policies of these religions would be probed as well. The Commission however was not restricted to uncovering child abuse in religions alone, but in all institutional facilities as well, whether sporting, political, health, and even state funded organizations.

  It has been on-going since the 13th of January 2013 when the Royal Commission was established. Thus far, such institutions as The Australian Boy Scouts, Swimming Australia, the Roman Catholic Church and its various offshoot bodies such as the St Vincent De Paul Society, The Salvation Army and others have been examined.

  The probe into the Jehovah's Witnesses began on the 20th of July this year. The examination is expected to last about three weeks.

  2. The answer to your second question may have several ramifications, the most important being that since the WTS is a highly concentrated power elite organization, it seems appropriate, to them at least, to concentrate all wealth in the hands of said elite.
  
• 
  40

  Trump is a funny guy. Attacks John McCain

  by James Mixon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the guy don't realize when he attack john mccain he alienated every men .

  and women who served in the military.

  and this is coming from a guy that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hey, go easy on the guy willya? He's at least got one thing going for him. He is what the Washington Post is calling "The Great Unifier".

  Yup. He's the only guy who can unite the Democrats and Republicans. At last they got something they both agree on!!
  
• 
  5

  History of the JW movement in Mexico

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a fairly detailed article on the history of the movement in mexico.

  it's in spanish, but i passed it thru google translate and it does a pretty good job at translating the document.

  it's an article from one of the most prestigious universities in mexico.. being in a predominantly hispanic circuit, we have several brother and sisters from mexico who were witnesses under the conditions that existed back then.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Thanks guys, I got it. Seems like a very good and scholarly article.
  
• 
  5

  History of the JW movement in Mexico

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a fairly detailed article on the history of the movement in mexico.

  it's in spanish, but i passed it thru google translate and it does a pretty good job at translating the document.

  it's an article from one of the most prestigious universities in mexico.. being in a predominantly hispanic circuit, we have several brother and sisters from mexico who were witnesses under the conditions that existed back then.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  How does one get a translation of the above article?
  
• 
  6

  The Divine Name KJV?

  by problemaddict 2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  please....this fb link that every jw in the world seems to be commenting on.

  it needs some responders.

  please take a look.. just search for "the divine name king james bible".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  An odd thing I have discovered, only by accident, and not by any objective scholarship, is the use of semantics when it comes to the application of the Tetragrammaton in theological discussions.

  The Watchtower, and its apologists, such as they are, use the expression "Divine Name" when this subject is broached.

  All other groups, who are unconnected with the Watchtower indicate a preference for the expression "Sacred Name". Indeed the movement that first coagulated around this controversy, members of whom were Churches of God followers instituted what is now generally referred to as the Sacred Name Movement.

  This movement began in an embryonic state around the turn of the last century with the name Yahweh first appearing in the first decade of the 1900s. At this same time the Watchtower was more concerned with insisting that the world as we know it would end in 1914.

  I have a copy of one of the SNM Bibles. It is in fact called the Sacred Name KJV.
  
• 
  8

  Is there a difference between being pardoned or acquitted

  by Ucantnome in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the new world translation of the holy scriptures (revised 2013) at romans 6:7 it uses the word 'acquitted'.

  in the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures (1985) it also has 'acquitted' and in the greek word for english word translation part in has 'has been justified' .

  the insight on the scriptures (1988) under the heading declare righteous page 803 talking about the original greek words that are translated as justify and justification and can be translated as declared righteous and pronounce righteous it says,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  I think the basic problem here is the way Watchtower theology construes the expression "died" at Ro 6:7. In this view, Paul is making reference to the literal, fleshly death that persons experience at the termination of life. Such a death wipes away the stain of sin, and like a prisoner who has done his time and paid his dues, he no longer has to account for those sins, despite the fact that he has not repented of them. Simply the physical act of death is enough to absolve him, or "acquit" him as the NW "T" has it.
  

  In this view, a person who dies in sin, need have no further worries about its application, because when he is resurrected, his life is wiped clean and he is raised to life, to sin anew. Thus a person who, in the Watchtower sense has been resurrected into the post Armageddon world must now be judged on what he does with his future, and the new sins he commits. I believe this view to be wrong because:

  1. Death does not wipe away the effect of sin. Only the blood of Christ does this. While in this life one needs to accept this provision by a conscious decision, else he will "die in his sin" and its effects remain for all time.

  2. What sort of "death" is Paul talking about?. In this brief section Paul twice refers to "having died". In verse 2 Paul talks about us who are "dead to sin", and in verse 8, he speaks of us who "died with Christ", and both, like verse 7, in the past tense. The "death" that Paul is referring to, then, is something in our past, while we are still alive in the present.

  Humanity, according to Paul has one of two options:

  In the present we can be alive to sin, but dead to God. Or

  We can be dead to sin, and alive to God. Which is his preferred option.

  The word "acquitted" used here by the Watchtower translator[s], is interesting. As mentioned above the word is closely allied to the concept of "justification" or "declaring righteous", but most translators feel that that the analogy of slavery is pertinent. A slave owner had authority over a slave only while the latter was alive. But once that slave was dead, the owner no longer exercised any authority over him.

  Paul's analogy seems to be that once we are dead to sin, while we are physically alive, sin has no authority over us. Like a corpse is incapable of reacting to physical stimuli, so those who are dead to sin, remain [or at least struggle to remain] immune to its blandishments.

  NEB: "He is no longer answerable to sin"

  NJB "He has finished with sin"

  TEV: "Free from the power of sin"
  
• 
  8

  Holy Spirit question

  by TweetieBird in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  does the new world translation ever reference the holy spirit as a "him"?

  if not, does it refer to it as an "it"?.

  thanks!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  The WT writers insist that the reason for this is because of a grammatical necessity. NT Greek is not a sex-gender receptive language like English, it is rather, an analytical one which references nouns according compartmentalizations called "declensions".
  

  Now the result of all this effects pronouns. Any pronoun modifying a neuter noun would have to be "it", whether the sex of the noun is feminine or not. Hence the word for "child" in Greek is παιδιον a neuter noun. The pronoun that modifies this noun is therefore "it".

  Compare two interlinears, the first is KIT and the second is McReynolds at Matt 2:21 where the Child referred to is Jesus:
  

  Το... παιδιον και την μητερα αὐτου
  

  The child and the mother...... of it
  

  The child and the mother of ....Him.

  So, whereas the KIT has no qualms in calling Jesus an "it", most other interlinears refuse to do so.

  The same thing happens at John 16. The original noun referent is "parakletos" which is a masculine noun. Thus, according to the NW "T" any pronoun modifying it must be masculine:

  KIT again [Jo 16:7]

  Παρακλητος..............πεμψω..........αὐτον

  paraclete................I will send........him

  Thus, as far as the NW "T" is concerned, it is not the Holy Spirit who is called "him" but this masculine noun "paracletos". They do not believe that by using "him" here, they are endorsing the idea of personality being ascribed to the Holy Spirit.