moggy lover

Joined

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

Posts by moggy lover

• 
  16

  Who is the King of the north? - Rubbish

  by vomit in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  all their mad prophecies can be proven as rubbish history with this one map.

  http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html .

  it shows how the "first" world power struggle over 5000 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hellllow....ducky.......

  Ooops, sorry.... I thought you said Queen of the north.......

  Cheers
• 
  22

  John 1:1 in the KIT, how blind a JW must be to actually believe the WT

  by A-Team in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok, ya know the scripture and all, but there is something that even jws can't even deny.

  in john 1:1, the word god, or theos.

  the lower case word of god, in the greek is qeov, the upper case word is "8eov" (my keyboard doent have that letter as you know) the word god appears twice in this verse, written the exact same way.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hi, Narkissos, my point was to show how the WTS uses its own inferential logic as a funtional substitute for revelatory theology rather than Revelation itself. It is the WT contention that in the NT, the word "theos" [in the singular] whether with or without the article has three seperate meanings: 1 To refer to the One True God of Heb and Christian theology 2 To false gods or gods which imply some form of idolatry 3 To any creature human or otherwise, which by virtue of its "might" or "authority" over others can be termed "god"

  It is this third meaning with which we take issue. Revelation admittedly can be used to identify the first two references to "theos" For instance the term occurs 1317 times in the UBS 4 NT text, and all but 6 can be used for referring to the true God. These 6 - Ac 7:43, 12:22, 28 :6, 2Cor4:4, Phil3:19, 2Th2:7 - all admittedly refer to either a false god or, since they are objects of idolatry, to things regarded such by the user. [Also admittedly, some texts such as Jo 10:33, and Ac17:23, are not always clear and subject to debate. However the point is still that we are simply not clear into which of the two categories to place them]

  However, it is now up to the WTS to show us where a revelatory exposition of Scripture can lead us to accept their third contention. Ie, that the word Theos in the singular can mean what they say it means. Since our interest is in the singular use of the word Theos, it is legitimate to restrict ourselves to this word alone. In fact there is no evidence that anywhere in the 1317 applications in the NT where Theos is used, such a conclusion can be drawn.

  The sole point of reference that the WTS can point to is Jo 10:35, where the plural, Theoi, and not the singular Theos is used. The WTS deliberately blurs the distinction between the Heb Elohim which may be either singular or plural and the Greek Theoi, which is admitted to be exclusively plural. Not finding any revelation of Scripture to back their claim, they then resort to inference, and "logic"

  They reason as follows: Judges in the plural = Theoi

  Therefore it is "logical": that a judge =Theos. This is the point of difference.

  The constraints of Jewish monotheism would never conclude that a judge in the singular could therefore "logically" be called "god" ie Theos, "logic" aside, we must be persuaded by Scripture, and it alone. It is Scripture that must show us that Theos in the singular can have a meaning beyond the two meanings already prescribed by Revelation.What may appear "logical", can if it runs, counter to monotheistic revelation be in fact "human wisdom" Which means that no one, unless He is in fact the True God, or an object of idolatry, can be called "theos" - "theoi" as a collective , yes, because revelation endorses it. But Theos, in the singular, no.

  Rather Jewish monotheism would reason: Judges in the plural = Theoi

  Judge in the singular= a judge

  In the parlance of Greek speaking Jewish monotheism Theoi can indeed have various meanings, but whenever it is used it cannot ever be used with reference to the True God. [Which is the difference between it and the Heb Elohim] Since the plural application always refers to false gods, no Jew, such as the apostle John would infer that the singular can be derivatory from the plural, and thus applicable to the Son. The plural functions, in the monotheism of Greek speaking Jewry, and Christianity as well, as a seperate unit, and it would be inappropriate to derive a singular meaning from it, even on the grounds of "logic"

  Jesus' use of Ps 82:6 was, I believe, not an attempt to justify an extraordinary meaning to the singular "theos" but to deflect a charge of blasphemy laid at his feet by His detractors. Oddly enough He did use the singular, but not for Theos. He applied the singular "Huios" used in this Psalm in the plural - "Huoi" - for these same judges, but significantly only for Himself. Implying, I think that even the term "sons" in the plural, cannot legitimately in the singular be applied to any particular judge. The singular had a specific application, and I think, both Jo 10:36 and the opening words of Hebrews bear this out.

  It is now up to the WTS to show us where theos [in the singular] = a mighty one. Without any application of "logic" and based solely on Scripture

  I have also yet to see any scholar who endorses such a view. For instance, BDAG, in their treatment of theos, only apply it in the two ways prescribed above. They do, however, on pg 358, make the interesting observation, based on an ancient 6CAD author, that Roman children of antiquity called their parents Theoi. However there is no evidence that an individual parent was therefore logically referred to as Theos

  Cheers
• 
  22

  John 1:1 in the KIT, how blind a JW must be to actually believe the WT

  by A-Team in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok, ya know the scripture and all, but there is something that even jws can't even deny.

  in john 1:1, the word god, or theos.

  the lower case word of god, in the greek is qeov, the upper case word is "8eov" (my keyboard doent have that letter as you know) the word god appears twice in this verse, written the exact same way.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Without debating the meaning of this text, my point is merely to show how the WTS and several of their apologists such as Nelson Herle, have, over the years, "reasoned" on this matter. Simply because the "Theos" in the final clause is anarthrous.

  1 Back in the 50s their excuse was that they were not unique in their "rendering" since others, going before said the same thing. An example pointed to was the Greber NT, and we know who he was. Over the years others have been brought up. Youngs literal translation, in a footnote says "Lit a God", and Abner Kneeland, not recognized as a scholar also says "a God" as does Greek orthodox teacher Tomanek. Note however that all say "God" with a capital "G", at least indicating that whatever else they meant to say they certainly did not endorse the WT rendering. Both Yg and Kneeland call the Father "a God" at Lu 20:38, indicating in some way, a connection. To Tomanek the "word" was a concept, an "it", because he says, in vs 2, "IT was in the beginning with God" which may have coloured his translation.

  Over the years they have also quoted certain German scholars, significantly translating their renderings back into English thus indicating some sort of backhanded support.For instance Siegfried Schultz's translation of "Ein Gott [oder Gott von Art] war das Wort" is rendered into English by the writers of the 85 edition of KIT as "And a god [or of a divine kind] was the Word'' I have, however been told that a closer rendering of the German original is: "And a God [or God by nature] was the Word"

  2 They have also suggested that the lack of the article in the final clause indicates a shift in meaning for the word "God" making it mean simply "a mighty one" So that John is made to say: "And the Word was a mighty one" Since Jesus at Jo 10:35 called the judges of ancient Israel "gods" in the plural, because they were indeed '' mighty ones'', it then allows this understanding at Jo 1:1 according to the WTS. However, because the judges collectivly [in the plural] are called "gods" none of them individually [in the singular] could ever have announced that he was "A God" That would have been blasphemy. This inability to distinguish the significance between singular and plural has escaped the WTS. The word "theos" in the singular is never referred to a "mighty one" It is always either the true God, or, like the devil or even ones belly, a false god.

  3 The most sophisticated means used to justify the WT rendering of Jo 1;1, is the way they have in recent years, misrepresented reputed scholars such as Philip Harner. Quoting from his "Qualitative Anathrous Nouns" published in the JBL, vol 92, and released in 1973, they rightly point out that he says: "An anathrous predicate preceding a verb, is primarily qualitative in meaning. It indicates that the Logos has the nature of Theos"

  The problem here is that the WTS have completely misunderstood the meaning of Harners use of the word "qualitative" They suggest he is making it mean "Adjectival", hence that the word was "godlike" or "godly" or something similar.Which is certainly not his intention.In that same article of his, which the WT has selectively quoted, he gives the grammarian's definition of the word as follows: "A qualitative noun expresses the nature or character of the subject" [ pg 86,87] The entire point of Harner's article is not to argue against the Word being God, but rather against the point that the Word was God theFather. He is not denying the Trinity, rather he is affirming it over against Modalism.

  [ I acknowledge with gatitude, my use of Prof Robert Bowman and his book "JWs Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John", whose work I have shamelessly plundered for this material. Thanks Friend]

  Cheers
• 
  30

  Do you understand the ransom?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  because i am a christian i accept the ransom with a leap of faith but undrstanding it is beyond my imagination.

  i cannot justify torturing and killing the innocent, but that is only my thinking.

  god must have good reasons for what he does.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Nope. But I can still say "Thank you"

  Like I can't understand the mystery of life, but I still thank my parents for being so in love that they had meeeeeeeeeeee.

  Cheers
• 
  5

  12.06 KM and the "spirtual banquet" served by Jehovah

  by rassillon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in concert with the previous post about the revelation book changes (and changes in general) i would like to add a few comments and reasoning points from the december 2006 our kingdom ministry.. (first) on page 1 under the heading "do not lose the love you had at first" paragraph 2 states: personal study and meeting attendance: what caused us to develop love for god and neighbor when we first learned the truth?

  was it not all that we learned about jehovah from our study of the scriptures?

  (1 john 4:16, 19) therefore, so that our love "may abound yet more and more," we must continue taking in accurate knowledge, digging into "the deep things of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Thanks Rassilon [you have'nt got his sash, by the way have you?] for that timely reminder of whats in the latest KM. The WT leadership must really be in dread of losing their membership since they constantly keep bringing up this issue of renewed awareness of the WTS and its authority, to keep the R&F on hanging on.

  Nice point they bring out about 1Jo4:16. I don't mean the text, I mean the "spin" they put on the text, without actually quoting it. Their way of looking at this text is to state, quite categorically, I might add, that it is through the study of WT literature and meeting attendace that we first learned to gain a love for j.hoofer. Hmmmmm... I wonder where the text says, or even remotely implies this.

  Apart from the fact that 1Jo 4 is applied to "anointed" Christians exclusively, [vs 7 calls them "born of God"] nowhere is either the words "study" or "meeting attendance" mentioned. However something indeed is mentioned. By simply reading the preceeding verse we realize what this is. Confession.[ Publicly saying "I believe"] Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, [not a son of God] will find that God enters his/her life and actually in-dwells him/her [1Jo 4:15]

  The sad part about the WTS is that they teach that loving God is a natural process that can be wrought simply by certain physical acts like study, filling out a door-to-door report, meeting attendance and so on. Unfortunately it is not so. As 1Jo 4:15 shows, it is in fact a supernatural process.

  Just as a simple act like saying "I do" publicly, enables one to have a privilged relationship with a partner involving the deepest of intimacy, so, simply saying to anyone listening, "I believe" is sufficient to have a deep and in-dwelling relationship with Deity. That is all that John is saying.

  You don't have to say it a thousand times, you don't have to go d-t-d saying it, and you dont even have to say "I have studied so much that I understand" You don't have to go to any particular church. Nope. None of these things are mentioned in that verse.

  God's plan of salvation is so simple, yet it is so enduring and deep, that the only reason it escapes many [like the WTS] is because someone has blinded their eyes [2 Cor 4:4] This way of salvation is in fact the "deep things" of God.

  So much more fascinating to follow prophetic speculation, and to be in awe of a self serving bunch of arrogant jerks whose knowledge of the "deep things" of God is questionable to say the least.

  Thanks again

  Cheers
• 
  11

  re book :Crisis of conscience

  by winnie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone have a copy of franz's crisis of conscience secondhand or new they would consider selling (in australia) or know where i can get one?.

  thanks.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  The Ozzie distributers for "Crisis of Conscience" is a store called "KOORONG Books" and they have seven stores throughout NSW. Here are their locations and phone numbers, you can decide which area is most convienient for you:

  1West Ryde [Main Store] 9857-4477

  2Penrith 4727-4477

  3Port MacQuarie 6584-4977

  4Armidale 6772-2622

  5 Newcastle 4929-3160

  6 Gosford 4322-1238

  7 Tamworth 6766-3883

  Originally published in 1983, the book has been such a huge bestseller that the publishers, Commentary press have had to urge Ray Franz to bring out updated editions. The latest is the 4th edition, published in 2002, which in addition to having the most up-to-date information available at the time, also has a most welcome index at the back, making research so much easier. The first two editions sadly lacked this feature

  The price for the paperback is $37.95 and the Hard cover $46.95

  Franz's second book "In search of Christian Freedom" is currently not available in Australia but can be purchased dirctly from the publishers or Freeminds.com

  Secondhand copies could be anywhere and it would take a quick lookaround to locate. Elizabeth's in Sydney largest of the second hand booksellers may be able to locate a copy for you. However if you are going to spend a little money getting a copy, your best bet would be purchasing the latest 4th edition

  Hopes this helps

  Cheers
• 
  17

  How do you view the Bible?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i think that the bible gives hope and comfort.

  i also think that the bible is a good book without me saying too much.

  but is it a product of god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  As an evangelical Christian, I suppose my view of the Bible approximates that of the WTS.

  I believe it to be the inerrant word of God, a product of Divine Revelation, with the message of salvation to all human beings everywhere. Everything we know about Christianity, and its Founder, we know as a result of Revelation. The message contained therein is for all, accessable to all and capable of moving people to supreme heights fo faith.

  I believe that, although it has been miraculously preserved, the means by which this has been done is through human handling. Thus although it has a Divine Message, this does not mean there are no questions regarding its preservation. Textual variation, historical valences, and the accumulation of physical evidence through such applications as archaeology, is part of a spiritual, and not mechanistic, heritage.

  There is much we do not know, and probably will never know about the sum of its message, but this is another evidence of its origins. Although the message in it is simple enough for a child to understand, its details have enough information to keep even the most skilled of scholars intrigued. It is NOT an organisational book, given to a select few, sitting imperiously in some ivory tower in New York to interpret to their hearts content.

  Neither is it an instrument of power to wield over a following kept in ignorance of its contents. Where debate about its meaning is supressed. It is in fact a book of freedom, liberating in its force, and powerful enough to expose any hypocrisy.

  And although there are basic notions contained in it that are foundational to salvation, there is much in it that is also capable of multiple interpretations. It plumbs the depths of a moral dimension. In other words, the Bible will not teach you how to be a heart surgeon, or a taxi driver, but it will teach you how to be a good heart surgeon, or taxi driver. If it does not then it the person, misaplying its message, and not the message that is at fault.

  Cheers
• 
  28

  child getting baptized

  by Cindyrenee in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  nine year old grandson studying to be babtized.

  any thoughts on this??

  i think it is insane.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Pity there is'nt a law against such monstrous behaviour.

  I was 15 back in 1957 when I was baptized, and now, in retrospect, I feel that I was way too young to make such a major commitment in my life.

  Cheers
• 
  10

  "Babylon The Great Has Fallen"-God's Kingdom Rules!--+QB--PDF!

  by Atlantis in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (+qb--stands for: plus question booklet).

  "babylon the great has fallen" god's kingdom rules!this is a very large file of 710 pages with maps and total index pages included.

  chart of dates see pages 682--690.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Right on Atlantis! Actually I knew you'd come through in the end.!!

  Gawd.. This book brings back memories. Sordid memories, of course, but memories nevertheless. At a hefty 703 pages, this book still holds the record for being the largest book studied by the R&F at their book study meeting.

  You young ' uns out there have no idea what we had to go throgh to digest this book. It took us a full two years to go through the entire thing. Two years ' 64 and ' 65 totally absorbed in this muck. The only reason I think I endured it was because I must have really loved the WTS !!

  Incidently, when did Babylon the Great fall? Well, according to the book, it was in March 1919, '"When the prison doors were forced open, and out they came", ie, the WTS directors, including JFR et al who were released at that time from a detention that had lasted 9 months.

  Thanks for coming through, and well done mate. accept my congratulations on ajob well done.

  Cheers
• 
  44

  What XMas Present Would You Like This Year???

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one thing that jws do, whether they were "strong in the truth" or not is accept presents.

  even if they don't "celebrate" thanksgiving, they'd still take the turkey from the employer.

  if someone sent out a birthday gift or christmas present, a witness would still take but never givein return.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  moggy lover

  Hmmmm..... Gooood question.

  Howabout a real honest to goodness solid gold cadilac.

  That I can place on my computer. Or hide in my safe. Oooops don't have one.

  Nah. I think Blondie's idea for a fully paid convention, [in Paris, maybe?] sounds just fine.

  Cheers