Posts by moggy lover

2

Which system of reckoning did Daniel use?

by Doug Mason in

which system of reckoning did daniel use for kings' reigns?

did he use nisan or tishri, accession or nonaccession reckoning?

doug

moggy lover

Most scholars today accept the fact that Daniel would have used the system he was best familiar with and that was the Babylonian system of the Tishri based accession year.

Other Jewish writers such as Jeremiah writing from a Judaean national background would favour the Jewish Nisan based regnal, or non-accession system.

In support of this I can quote "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" by Prof Edwin Thiele. His chapter on "The fundamentals of Hebrew chronology" is particularly informative [Ch 2, pgs 43-60]

This may explain the discrepancy that might appear to exist between the two texts Jer 25:1 and Dan 1:1.

First a brief primer for those on the forum who are unfamiliar with the terms used in chronological research:

Basically there were two systems of counting the reigns of kings as found in the Bible record.

1 The Babylonian system: The Babylonians used a system called the Accession Year System, which basically meant that when a king ascended the throne in mid-year, the rest of that initial year, till the Babylonian "new year" would NOT be his first year, but his accession year. On New Years day, which in was Babylon Tishri 1, he would legally be recognized as starting his reign and from that day what was termed his first year began,

2 The Jewish system simply counted his reign from the time he started his reign. Simple. This was called the "Regnal" year system, or non-accession year system.

Does this make a difference? Yes. Consider it in our modern day context: Suppose Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne on Jan 2, this year. This year period right up till Dec 31,according to the Babylonian system, would not be counted as his first year, simply as his accession year. THEN on Jan 1, next year, he would be counted in Babylon as beginning his first year.

However if you were a Jew, you would already count this year as his first year, and the next year, as his second year. So at times Chronologists, trying to sychronize information found in the Bible, need to take these cultural differences into consideration.

Take Jer 25:1, as an example. There it tells us that in the fourth year of Jehoiachim Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah

But Dan 1:1 describing the same event says: That in the third year of Jehoiachim Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah.

Contradiction? Nope. Simply different ways of saying the same thing.

In this connection, I might just digress a moment and illustrate what I am trying to describe by relating what, in some instances might be an infuriating difference between the American and British/Aust way in counting the floors of a building. I was in the middle of reading a book on the Kennedy assassination, and having grown up on the American system of floor counting as found in books on the subject, I noticed for the first time that this particular author I was reading, stated that the so-called snipers perch was located on the fifth floor of the Dallas Texas School Book Depository. Fifth? I always thought it was the sixth, simply because every book I had read on the subject said "sixth". It was only when I remembered that the author I was reading was British that he had used that system of numbering that was current in British English. Like the pagan Babylonians we are, we don't count the ground floor as the first floor. The next floor above, what to an American would be the second floor, is our first floor. Problem solved.

Probably a poor illustration, however, it may describe the different ways seperate cultures may describe the same thing.

Cheers

38

Is shunning scriptural? At all?

by Open mind in

it's obvious that the jw view of shunning goes way beyond anything called for in the bible.

1 cor 5:11-13 says,(nwt) "but now i am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

for what do i have to do with judging those outside?

moggy lover

I think that two seperate issues are being confused and need to be seperated. The concept of "shunning" as defined in WT theology, is foreign to the NT. That much is certain. Even the WT article that first promulgated the idea, back in 1981, admitted that the procedure developed from the more severe restrictions placed on the Jewish idea of identity, and expounded by the Pharisees and certainly not from the Person who taught the Parable of The Good Samaritan.

However, having said that, it must be admitted that every community of believers, whether social such as a primary school, or theological, such as a church is responsible for safeguarding the moral rectitude of its fellowship. In this instance, the matter of church discipline becomes important. Morality is a prime feature of the Christian faith. It claims to worship the God who IS love, and who has revealed His concern for the sanctity of moral codes of conduct among His worshippers.

Those persisting in violating the high moral standards expected of all, must be dealt with. Effectively. There can be no pussy footing around. And the local overseers, entrusted with the task of protecting the flock, must have a Scriptural basis for exacting divine standards.

Although it is true that no one is saved by his conduct, nor is anyone perfect, it is still expected that all believers would lovingly and freely subscribe to a sense of morality befitting the name of Christ. Persistant defiance of these standards must, inevitably bring divine retribution. The catalogue of sins mentioned in 1 Cor 5:11 clearly testify to the church's outlook on morals. Six are mentioned. Immorality,[ NO CHILD MOLESTORS HAVE ANY PLACE IN A CHURCH COMMUNITY!!! ] covetousness, idolatory, profanity, [both JFR and NHK were well known for their use of bad language, including the ''F'' word] alchoholism [enough said about JFR], and fraud.

If you were a parent with young children, your concern will be the protection that the local church accords them Being exposed to lewdness or profanity is not something to be contemplated. All must understand that there is a line that must never be crossed. Notice however, that the concern of 1 Cor 5:11 is morality, not doctrinal conformity. There is no excuse for imposing a uniform concensus of belief on all members in this passage. Nor is there an indication that such discipline was to be administered in such a way that familial relationships were to be distorted, simply to conform to the doctrinal imposition of a secretive leadership.

The ministry of the church is designed to lead the fallen one to a conviction of sin, and repentance.

It is the sad failure of the WTS to see the real thrust of this passage. In fact only very litte attention is given to moralirty in the WT conception of shunning. By far doctrinal probity is much more in demand. Anyone disagreeing with the anonymous leadership, even in the most trivial of ways is made to feel the pressure of shunning. In fact the latest trend in WT circles to secretly conclude child molestation cases with its accusers is ample proof that the WTS places theological conformity above immoral practices. It seems the leadership will protect you for being a child molester, as long as you subscribe to their unfettered authority. In this way they have grossly misrepresented what Paul was striving to maintain in his letter to the Corinthians.

In fact in my own case, my disassociation with the hedonistic leadership of the WTS was brought about by the shunning of several members of our congregation on the somwhat dubious grounds of "spiritual fornication" whatever that may have meant, when in fact their moral code was perceptably higher than the average member.

So yes - it is scriptural to discipline violators of the Christian code of morality, but whether that includes the WT concept of "shunning", especially within family circles, is much open to question. In fact the legacy of this monstrous practice, as seen in the misery created, the psychological damage perpertrated, and the consequent ruin in human relationships, simply to uphold the unwarrented authority of a deceptive leadership, is damning evidence that it is not scriptural.

Cheers

12

JW converts - what percentage fall away?

by Double Edge in

i got into a discussion today at lunch with someone who years ago 'flirted' with becoming a jw (then 1975 came and went).

i've never been a dub, but what i've gather from this board there are those raised in the religion who after 30-40 years leave for whatever reason.

what percentage of those not raised in the religion, but are converted, become disillusioned and finally leave?

moggy lover

I am not sure if any official figures are available anywhere, but certainly the drop out rate is alarming high. When I was in the movement back in the 50s - 80s, the rate was roughly calculated to be in the region of 33%, with a slightly higher quotient for youths. However the passage of time has not been kind to the WTS, since the defection rate is increasing. Several on this board have in recent times indicated that the rate has in fact passed the dreaded 50% mark, meaning that more are leaving than staying.

I think that the more troublesome feature of this phenomenon to the WTS is not simply the overall numbers, but the quality of those leaving. Most of the best and the brightest have either savvied up to the intellectual dishonesty of the leadership, and are contemplating leaving, or have already left. Leaving behind a somnolent, amorphous tableaux of believers, either incapable of, or unable to, think for themselves. .

One thing that has escaped the understanding of the WT leadership is that an educated, articulate fellowship is an asset to its community. Naturally however this brings dissent, with the consequent need to formulate a theology based on varied but rational decisions.

Several religious groups have suceeded in accomodating these differing views, accepting the silence of definitive scriptures on a given abstraction. Various Baptist churches, for example, allow for either one, two or even three grounds for divorce, all argued cogently from Scripture. Another outstanding example is the broad spectrum of ideas spawned so profusely on this board with no consequent damage to the intellectual acumen of the members.

But the WTS, jealous of its claustrophobic hold that it has on its followers, lays down precisely defined dogma, even in the most trivial of circumstances, thus leaving no room for individualism. I believe that this intransigence on the part of the WTS leadership, along with its self serving rules imposed on the membership is responsible for such a high drop out rate.

Expect the WT leadership to get even more oppressive, and demanding, and expect a bunker like mentality to develop at the top. Expect the drop out rate to accelerate.

This can be seen even in the higher echelons of authority. Ray Franz once commented on the fact that most of the skilled wordsmiths who write WT literature, have dropped out, with the result that this literature today is often facile, circuitous, vacuous, and unencumbered with intelligent thought.

Cheers

12

"Roads Caller?"

by watson in

jw
friends

the speaker that gave our public talk today said that the men on the governing body were very smart.

he said that albert schroeder could speak corny greek, and that frederick franz was a "roads caller.

" i know what corny greek is, but i am not familiar with what a "roads caller" is.

moggy lover

Nah, Franz was'nt a Greek scholar, he was a "Geek" scholar. Nathan Gnaw would have had difficulty distinguishing a Greek alpha from a leg of pork, and the bozos currently in the leadership get their information about NT Greek from a cracerjack box.

Roads caller is brilliant, man. Good as J. Hoover's Witnesses?

Cheers

8

Kings of Isreal and 607/586

by GramblingMan in

can someone help me out here, i have been going back and forth with the jw study, regarding 586/607, from reading what has been written here and visiting the library.. i have been able to present what i understand.

now he is saying that the jw also were able to locate the date for the fall of jerusalem based on the kings of isreal.

i serious doubt it, he should me the list of jews kings in the "insight on the scriptures" but could tell me how they arrived at the start date for the 1st king.

moggy lover

For centuries scholars have puzzled over the problem of OT chronology and this includes the dating of the sequence of the Hebrew kings. One of the most difficult issues has been the synchronization of the reigns of the various kings. The sacred text, which evangelical Christians accept as fully inspired, provides much information about these kings and how they relate to each other, but when the information is correlated it still leads to difficulties in interpretation. This is not to say that there is no solution to the problem, simply that scholars are uncertain which solution is the right one. As has been mentioned above, Prof Edwin Thiele, professor of Antiquities at Andrews University has made what is considered to be the most comprehensive study of this subject and has published his research in his book "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" Even he implies that the problems in dating these times are immense.

With a blisstful insesitivity to the real facts the WTS has proceeded along its own merry way, setting its own rules and callously disregards even the fundamentals of historically known data. Lets try and sort out some of the more ignorant of WT speculative conclusions.

1 They first of all pick the wrong termination date for the Hebrew Kings and then simply count back an arbitrarily determined period of years. The termination date they choose is 607 BC for the ending of the Jewish monarchy. This is in diametric contradiction to the well established guidelines maintained by scholars universally, and which have been eloquently proved on this board by many to be 587/586 BC. With angular quotations like "We prefer to believe the Bible rather than secular scholars" they betray their apalling ignorance of facts, since it is these same scholars, evidently spurned by them, which helps establish their favourite date, 539 BC. What they really mean, and what can easily be discerned by those who prefer proof to credulity, is: "We prefer to believe our interpretation of the Bible to secular scholars"

2 Having established a wrong date, and foisting it on their followers as a non negotiable Article of Faith, they then arbitrarily add 390 years to that date bringing up the date 997 BC as the start of the Jewish monarchy. To the WTS, the period of the Hebrew Kings is a period of 390 years and into this period they force the lengths of the various kings to conform. Now thats interesting. Here we have, on the one hand, humble scholars like Prof Thiele who confess to having only an incomplete understanding of all the complex ramifications of OT chronology, while on the other, we have doctrinaire bigots, sitting in supreme isolation in WT HQ, pretentious "scholars" so erudite that they are unable to distinguish a Greek Alpha from a leg of pork, coming up with a neat round figure.

3 So how the hell does the WT leadership come up with that figure? They take a highly interpretive portion of Scripture, give it a spin, ignoring even the basics of biblical hermeneutics, and through the alchemy of legerdermain, they arrive at a conclusion that best serves their interest. The portion of Scripture they choose is Ez 4:1-7. In this object lesson that Ezekiel acts out for the Jerusalem inhabitants, he depicts the period of time that they will be punished for their iniquity. He is asked to lie on his left side for 390 days to depict the iniquity of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for the iniquity of Judah for a period of 40 days. He is then to count each day for a year.

Well,what does all this mean? I dunno, and it does'nt bother me that I dont know, because if I wanted to know, I would wade through the mountain of interpretations on the market today. The point is that the WTS pulls this enactment out of its context and applies it to the period of the Jewish joint monarchy. The Insight book pg 462, says: "A helpful guide to the overall length of this period of kings is found at Ez 4:1-7."

Now here is the interesting bit: They further state: "The two perids of 390 years and 40 years thus symbolized, evidently stood for the overall length of Jehovah's forebearance with the two kingdoms" Whats "evident" about it? On what basis, other than a predetirmined theology, can we connect the lesson of Ezekiel to the overall length of the Jewish kings? Almost all commentators on this portion of Scripture regard the period mentioned by Ezekiel to the period that they will pay for their iniquity. A period of 430 years. [390+40] Since vs 1 of chapter 1 of Ezekiel, is best placed at 597 BC, then 430 years into the future brings us to 167 BC, when, having paid their dues, and with the sucess of the Maccabean revolt, Judah had a king again.

Why 390 years? To me 390 and 40 makes 430 years. So if the WTS is to use this period for the length of the Jewish monarchy, and if the period terminated in 607 BC, the first king must have come to the throne in 1037 BC, which even the twisted minds of the WT leadership can see is absurd. So to solve the problem, again arbitrarily, they simply make the periods run concurrently. Thus in a convoluted logic that makes the Trinty look trite, 390 + 40 is made to =390!

Which brings us to WT chronology. All WT publications will list the first Kings, Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah as beginning in 997 BC [as I said adding 607 BC to 390 years]

Thiele on the other hand lists them as beginning in 930 BC, which means that since the monarchy terminated in 587/586 BC it must have lasted about 344 years.

This is not to say that we can be dogmatic, because others have other dates: The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible lists these kings as 927 BC, and The International Standard Bible Dict gives 931 BC. The reason for the differences is the incomplete information that the Bible gives us for when certain rulers reigned concurrently.

The important thing,however, is that we know when this complicated mosaic of history ended, and despite the Mad Hatter pronostications of the WTS, this date is 587/586 BC

Cheers

8

A proessor's interesing theory on Jesus's resurrection.

by badboy in

jw
friends

professor frank tipler believes that jesus's body decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos,which then converted ito atoms to make up the resurrected jesus.

moggy lover

Hmmmmmm..... Jesus Neutrino? You mean He turned Italian at His resurrection?

mumble< >mumble>.... There goes my theory... I thought He was Welsh myself.........

Cheers

19

A little Fun. If celebrities made up the Governing Body, who'd it be??

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

so who's your celebrity line up as the members of the governing body, and for what reason?

moggy lover

I would recommend the Three Stooges for a start. Larry, Curly, and Moe, at least know more about the Scriptures than Teddy and his mobsters. Which is'nt difficult when you consider that the latter know as much about the Bible as a Samarkhand camel trader. Its easy when you have script writers writing your public pronouncements

Cheers

26

"The Bible in Living English"-1972-Byington/Watchtower--PDF!

by Atlantis in

(download while you can).

steven t. byingtonfrom wikipedia, the free encyclopediasteven tracy byington (birthname "stephen") (december 10, 1869 - october 12, 1957) was a noted intellectual, translator, and american individualist anarchist.

he was born in westford, vermont, and later moved to ballardvale, massachusetts.

moggy lover

Yep, you're gonna need some more ale to pass around! Downloaded and kept safely on my computer. Thanks a million and keep up the good work.

Cheers

13

Speculating on New Rules in 2008 and Beyond

by WTWizard in

i have read on this site about some of the weird new changes ahead for the watchtower society.

the thread www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/115757/1.ashx had a resolution that effectively banned entertainment, and i doubt that any of the witnesses that were present at last summer's assembly where this was presented even realized it.. then i read that they were going to split the watchtower magazine, giving us a public (showcase) edition and a study (kool-aid) edition.

the study articles would not be open for public scrutiny, which means they are going to beat up on the witnesses without anyone on the outside realizing it (i sure hope blondie continues to get her supply of study articles so she can put up those comments you will not hear at the study).. here are some of my predictions of what might come out of this.

moggy lover

Nah, I don't think they'll ban entertainment altogether.

I mean, what can be more relaxing after spending 18 hours in field service than watching a video or DVD of Teddy Jaracz giving his latest 3 hr talk on how to be more loyal to the GB.....or listening to the Bethel choir of amateur singers singing mostly out of tune and in the key of flat, all the kingdom songs.

Cheers

9

"Jehovah" in the NWT OT

by Doug Mason in

once more i look to the jwd brains trust for assistance and information.. over the years, much has been discussed and written on the wtss use of the jehovah in its nwt translation of the christian greek scriptures (new testament, or nt).

[page 343] the divine name jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the tetragrammaton and in some one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation.

what do these tell us about the translator of the nwt ot?.

moggy lover

All the oldest and best MSS of the Hebrew Bible have, on every page, beside the actual text of Scripture, which is usually arranged in two or more columns, a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the "Massorah" There are two types of Massorah. Those on the upper and lower margins are called the Massorah Magna or "Great Massorah" and those in between the columns are called the "Massorah Parva" or "Lesser Massorah".

Evidently this word "Massorah" is derived from a Hebrew root word "Mas'ar" meaning "To deliver something into the hand of another" so as to commit it to that person's trust. the implication being that the information contained in these two "Massorahs" contained information necessary to those who were entrusted with preserving the text of Scripture through the process of copying. Most of these notes, or Massorah placed in and around the text were textual in nature, sometimes even counting the number of times a certain letter occured in the text, so that a future copyist may allign the text exactly according to the source material he was using.

Sometimes, as Narkissos has said these notes were doctrinal in nature when it was perceived that the text, in its original may have implied some degree of disrespect to Yahweh. There are 134 passages where the ancient copyists of the Sacred Text, the Sopherim, said that they emmended the text to replace the Tetragrammaton with "Adonai" because they felt that the original reading threathened the integrity of Yahweh's soverignity.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr David Ginsburg, who was born in 1831 in Poland, and who emigrated to the UK in 1841, after his conversion to Christianity from Judaism for his tremendous labour over the ancient Hebrew text. Although he died in 1914, he is still regarded in the UK, at least, as the greatest scholar on the Massorah ever. It is he who listed all the 134 occurences of the Sopherim Emmendations.

If you take a look at the Hebrew text as we have it today, at Josh 7:8, it would read, in English as "O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned [their] backs before their enemies" [NASV] this is because the text says "Adonai" but the Massorah, in the upper margin will have a note saying: "This is one of the emmendations of the Sofferim" thus suggesting that the original reading may have been "YHWH" at this verse. Assuming the emmendation to be correct, the NWT in contrast, has "Excuse me, Jehovah" I rather suspect that it was precisely because of such applaing translation skills, that the Sopherim may have removed the Tetragramm from here. They hated the idea of such human familiarity with the Deity.

It is not possible to determine the extent of the ancient copyists accuracy in their emmendations, and Ginsburg himself made no comment on such veracity, as a result, all translators feel that the text should be rendered as to how it has been preserved till today. That is why translators today say "Lord" not LORD at Josh 7:8. There is one edition of the KJV, however, published in the late 19th C by a renegade extreme Dispensationalist, named Ethelbert Bullinger, whose edition reads like a Massorah, considering his notes, which actually reads as "LORD" here. The similarity in quotations between Bullinger's edition and the NWT makes it certain the Franz had this volume before him.

It is beyond the scope of this limited post, to list all the 134 emmendations, but here are some:

Num 14:17, Josh 7:8, Jud 6:15, 13:8, 1K 3:10, 3:15, 22:6, 2K 7:6, 19:23, Isaiah 3:17, 3:18, 4:4, 6:1, 6:8, 6:11, 7:14, 7:20, 8:7, 9:8, 9:17, 10:12, 11:11, 21:6, 21:8, 21:16, 28:2, 29:13, 30:20, 37:24, 38:14, 38:16, 49:14 etc. The complete list of 134 emmendations is available in the NWT with References, pg 1563. If you dont have acess to this volume, pm me and I'll send you the complete list. You will have to promise your wife that you'll wash the dishes for at least a week though!

In addition to emmending the text from YHWH to Adonai in 134 places, Ginsburg found 8 additional places where the ancient copyists emmended the text from YHWH to "Elohim" These were at: Ps 14:1,2,5; 53:1,2,4,5,6. Most translators will read "God" here but Franz "restored" the Tetramgamm making these texts read "jehovah"

To be frank, I don't know why Franz bothered bringing out an interlinear NT, when his argument would best have been served by bringing out an interlinear OT. He could have had a field day with his copious notes justifying his renderings, rather than relying on special pleading as he had to resort to in his NT.

Cheers