Posts by moggy lover

im new to this forum, most topics up for discussion are usa centric, and thus for us euro,s are boring, like whats on your tv chanels, wtf, who cares what your watching on tv,i dont come here to listen to that, either promote something intresting, or shut the hell up .

moggy lover

S'truth! Blow me down and bugger me chops!! Can't unnerstan' a single bally word you bandicoots are mutterin. English? Ain't heard a single proper word yet. I mean if you blokes were dinkum* yew'd at least learn ter speak Stine* and talk proper, like.

Poms* o' course are a total loss with their plums in their gobs an' all, and Canadians? They doan speak the Queens Lingo, but at least they're family. We here in God's Own Land unnnerstan' - I mean stuck in yer icebox part o' the world - waddayah expect?

But Yanks? Just cause they gott lashings of splosh* and the nookleer bom they strut abaht as if'n they own the world. As a matter of fact, we do. Own it, I mean not the part abaht the bom. I got it straight frum the 'orse's mouth, me uncle Solli. He should know. He's servin time selling deeds to the world to Yanks. I bought 100 shares meself.

Nah. Not Yanks. We threw the buggers outta the Empah 'cause they refused to play God's own game - Cricket. I mean, a bloody stick slung over the shoulder? Lord Grace must be rollin in 'is grave.

Gimme good ole Strine and a billy* an' me an me mate Blue* can go waltzin matilda*.

Hey, Ethel, gettus another beer, pet, and you're doing a great job mowin the lawn, luv. I could help yer but it's me back you see? I gotta lie on the hammock and rest it, like. There's a bonzer* lass.

TRANSLATION:

Dinkum: Genuine, real

Strine: [Supposedly] Aussie English. A contraction of "Australian"

Poms: The English. The word has various derivations.

Splosh: cash, Lashings of: plenty of same

Billy: A tin container used for boiling water to make tea.

Blue: Name given to any red headed man in Aussie. Why "Blue"? It is the penchant for Aussies to talk in opposites. Hence, "lofty" is a small bloke, while a "curly" is bald. Hence "Blue" is considered the opposite of red.

Matilda: A swag, a backpack filled with necessities. To go waltzing matilda is to go walkabout.

Bonzer: Terrific! Smashing etc.

Cheers!

10

Question on Job 14: Does it support, or contradict, the idea of a resurrection?

by sir82 in

a question for all the bible / jewish theology scholars out there..... the wt society has long championed job 14:13-15 as being the earliest reference to a resurrection.

here it is, quoted from the nwt:.

13 o that in she ol you would conceal me, that you would keep me secret until your anger turns back,that you would set a time limit for me and .

moggy lover

Modern Jewish beliefs concerning a resurrection are as relevant to that religion as it is to Christianity, making it a cardinal tenet in both belief systems. In Jewish belief, a time of millennial peace ruled by a messianic figure will usher in a renewed existence, where those counted worthy will be resurrected. However divergences do occur in the two religion's approach to this subject.

The place, for instance of such a resurrection in Jewish thought is not fully constructed. It must be remembered that any teaching of an afterlife is only peripheral in the OT, and would need a further revelation to explain. Whereas Christians believe that they have such a revelation in the NT, Jewish belief had to evolve its understanding through several centuries of post revelatory writings all of which were produced in the intertestamental period.

Although there was a hiatus in divine revelation between Malachi and Matthew of some 5 centuries, the Jews were not left without any written records during this time. Literature in the form of an Apocrypha and a Pseudipegrapha exploded on the Jewish scene at this time, and since much of this literature was apocalyptic in nature, rather than pastoral, much was said about the afterlife.

Thus, the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection evolved into a coherent form only when the Jews entered the period of their history called the Hellenistic era. References to a resurrection are only opague in the OT, with the only positve and unambiguous reference being that of Dan 12:1.

Naturally, the Watchtower has made several attempts to trace a doctrine of the resurrection in earlier portions of the OT, but none of these produce any unambiguous testimony, or any that can stand up to close scrutiny. Texts such as Isa 26:19, are hyperbolic rather than revelatory, and even Job 19: 25 -27, made famous by Handel, expresses a desperate hope for the impossible, rather than a yearning for the inevitable.

Jewish [and most Christian] theology does not read a resurrection sequence into Job 14. It is rather a banter between Job and Yahweh, without actually resolving any clear issue.

To Job, as is to most OT theology, Sheol is a place of a continued existence but which is a permanent finality from which there is no resolution. It is for this reason that Jewish belief, in evolving its resurrection teachings, proposed some sort of benign and salvific area demarcated within Sheol, a sort of Elysian Fields, if you will, where any resurrection is effected.

Job 14:12, for instance is a reference, made while Job is still considered alive, to a testifying of God's providential care while still in this existence. Whereas Sheol is permanent, this life is not, and when God calls Job to testify regarding this, he will answer.

Other passages have at various times and in different places in Watchtower literature been quoted to support a concrete OT doctrine of the resurrection, but again these are ambiguous at best. Among these texts are: Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, Ps 16:10, 49:15, 73:24, but the most that can be said about these references is that they allude only to rescue from imminent death, rather than to a resuscitation after it.

24

Adam was by himself for 35 1/2 years and counting....

by dozy in

according to jw bible chronology , adam was created some 6000 years before 1975 & as armageddon hasn't arrived yet , he has been alone for all the equivalent years since then (despite the wtbts claiming that adam was only on his own for just a few weeks or months.).

luckily as a perfect man , he had no sexual desires.... .

adam felt no desires of sex.

moggy lover

I was told, back in the mid-70s, that Adam needed to alone long enough to ponder the meaning of disobedience and the death that results from it. He would see animals around him eventually dying, and from this learn that his fate would be similar.

Musta been a slow learner.

He ourta seen enough beetles [nah, not George Paul, Ringo, and John] and poodles keel off the perch in these three and a half decades to understand this fully, or maybe was waitin' fer his pet elephant to die. In which case, seeing as how they live fer some 100 years, he still has some six and a half decades to run, before the penny will drop.

19

1874

by PYRAMIDSCHEME in

does anyone know the last mention of 1874 in the orgs publications?

i am trying to pinpoint in their own literature when this was changed to 1914. i know the 1914 doctrine came into its "current understanding" around 1941, right?.

moggy lover

I think that one of the reasons for the confusion over when the Watchtower changed over from 1874 to 1914, is because of the different theological perspectives of the two leaders, CT Russell and his successor, JF Rutherford. CTR was obssessed with the Gentile Times prophecy that supposedly ended in 1914. For as long as this date was in the future, CTR had a modicum of credibility. To CTR this meant that the end of the world as we know it, and consequently, with the belief that Christ came "invisibly" in 1874, that his generation was seeing the last days [1874-1914 conveniently made up 40 years which meant the "last generation"]

By 1916, when CTR died, this prognosis had clearly been discredited, and at first JFR scrambled about attempting to justify some aspect of CTR's expositions. JFR did this by extending CTR's datings to 1925, when again, the world as we know it was expected to end. When this again failed, JFR went completely off the rails and began a corrupt process of biblical exposition that saw him delving into some of the most bizarre forms of Bible study.

He left dating things well alone, and the year 1874, though still evidently being upheld by him, was never mentioned in any intelligent way in any of the literature scribed by him. JFR began to see himself and the organization he was reconstructing as the centre of the theological universe and in order to "prove" this, he plundered the Bible to find adequate allusions to support his absurdities. Ruth and Naomi, Mordecai, Job, Jonadab among others, were enlisted to show how he and his organization were thus "fulfilling" Bible prophecy, without the need to resort to dating things.

Much of what he was teaching was so utterly cockeyed, that the Watchtower allowed his books to quietly go out of print as soon as they ran out of their time. Thus, whereas CTR was all for dating things because these dates were still in the future, JFR had inherited a defunct sequence of dates, which, because he was unable to adapt to his new teachings, were therefore ignored.

Throughout his life, he had never once conceived his theology in terms of a 1914 invisible return of Christ. Remember JFR had other concerns on his mind. He refashioned the Watchtower organization into his own image by wrenching it away from the more genteel construction first done by CTR. The generaly introspective meditative formula introduced by CTR was replaced by an intellectually dominant set of regulations which now required the ponderous study of every pronouncement made by him to his following.

Whereas CTR had focussed on the "harvest" as his main theological concern, and the soon approaching cataclysm, JFR instead focussed on replacing what he saw as an overly dependent view of Jesus Christ in the organization. Thus, detirmined to "put Christ in his place", he adopted much of the Sacred Name theology, which was becoming prominent at this time, and invented this "Jehovah" perspective, which became a new obssession. He instituted an editorial policy in the Watchtower which would insist on the inclusion of this name in almost every paragraph.

Despising the preaching work himself, he instituted regular ministarions which saw the rank and file requiring to go from door to door, while carrying awkward phonograph machines [which evidently he sold to the rank and file for a neat profit] blaring his stentorian voice.

He refashioned the organization which he inherited into an anti-Catholic fascist system of belief, with his position at the pinnacle unchallenged. He undid the fledgling democracy instituted by CTR in the local congregations, by imposing a dictatorial method of control which saw all elected officials in the congregations disbarred from office, to be replaced by flunkies personally selected by himself and responsible to him alone. With an ironic twist of euphemism, he called this authoritarian control a "theocarcy".

By the time of his death, the Watchtower organization that he bequeathed to his successors no longer bore any tolerable resemblance to that founded by Russell. Dates, which were first manipulated into place by Russell, were ignored, with no adjustments made by JFR.

Thus the literature of the time, if depended on too literally, can be misleading. My own research is possibly faulty, but the last mention I can find for 1874, is the book "Prophecy" published in 1929, where this statement is found:

"The scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874". [page 65].

It must be remembered that if this is indeed the last reference to this date, it by no means indicates that belief in this date was done away with at that time.

It simply means that from then on, JFR totally ignored this date, while still adhering to it.

Someone once pointed out to me that the JFR booklet "What is Truth", published in 1932, mentions the date 1914, albeit with no theological implication or even any regulated analysis of what that date meant. JFR died, still believing [if he believed anything intelligent] in 1874.

It required the perverse genius of Freddy Franz, erstwhile "oracle of God" to reinvent the second presence doctrine, with yet another emphasis on the "Gentile Times" doctrine, which his mentor, JFR had refused to comment on.

As has been noted above, the "Proclaimers" book on page 133, did publicly admit that this change from 1874 to 1914 was effected as late as 1943. That date then must stand as the official date of transition from 1874 to 1914. Nearly three decades after the event.

For a fuller understanding of this subject, a good book to read is "Captives of a Concept" by Don Cameron. A book I have shamelessly plagiarized in this post.

11

Jesus and Satan - Brothers?

by moggy lover in

i am researching some material and would like to get my facts right.

i know that the mormons teach that satan and jesus are brothers, but the question i would like to ask is:.

does the watchtower teach this as well?

moggy lover

I am researching some material and would like to get my facts right. I know that the Mormons teach that Satan and Jesus are brothers, but The question I would like to ask is:

Does the Watchtower teach this as well? Probably even more accurate would be to ask:

Did they ever in their past ever teach this?

The reason I ask this is because of a nagging memory I have going back to the 60s and 70s when I was in the Watchtower. I am pretty certain that the second president of the Watchtower, JF Rutherford actually did teach this, and somehow made a big deal of it. It would be good to settle the issue by someone researching Watchtower literature and finding a quote that either confirms or denies this.

17

Is it Really a Worldwide Work???

by jakeyen in

from 2010 service year.

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

moggy lover

Much of the published statistics are elaborate shams designed more to impress than convey intelligent data. As jakeyen has pointed out, Bangldesh, Pakistan and India are a case in point.

There are just three congregations in Bangldesh all made up of former Christians from different denominations, usually Roman Catholic, and all in the capital city Dhaka. There has been no penetration whatever into the vaster, rural Muslim population. For them the Watchtower is as mysterious as the man in the moon.

Pakistan is just the same, with 18 congregations, again all urban, Christianized and comfortable middle-class.

India is probably slightly better but again with a high preponderance of former Christians in the Watchtower fellowship. When I was there in the early 70s there was not a single Watchtower follower who was not from a non-Christian background. [Again mostly Roman Catholic]. There was a former Sikh, back in the 60s, who became a Watchtower follower, but this was only because he fell in love with and subsequently married a missionary girl.

Even in those relatively well off countries where the Watchtower operates, one could question the effectiveness of their evangelistic work. I challenge any Watchtower follower to line up a sampling of the general public on any street corner in London, Montreal, Sydney, Tokyo, and even in the Watchtower's own backyard, New York, and ask a simple question:

What do the words "Jehovah's Witnesses" mean to you?

The answers you will get will range from:

Are they a new rock group? Aren't they the ones who discovered golden plates or something? Are they the guys who kill their babies by prohibiting blood transfusions? and so on. Anyone who says "They are the only ones preaching God's kingdom"! can be shown to be a Watchtower follower anyway, which is statiscally possible, given a random sampling.

It is truly sad that after 131 years of frantic effort, this is all they have to show for it.

8

Amazing transformation- Slave to Master

by stuckinamovement in

i was looking at another thread and began thinking..... isn't it amazing that the "slave" has put itself in the place of the "master" ?

anyway you look at it, the organization has taken matt.

24:45-47 and twisted it beyond recognition.. witnesses have become slaves of the "slave class" and not of the master.

moggy lover

The trick is to call oneself a slave without in reality being servile. To be the undisputed master without being seen to be so. Like an invisible octopus, to be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously.

Can this be done? Hitler showed us how to do this years ago. Propaganda, mate, that's the way to go.

Watchtower literature, which is the propagandizing instrument used by the "slave," is virtually unintelligible to the average, objective, reader. This is particularly so when one is unacquainted with the semantic distinctivenesss that is so deliberately strewn throughout the pages of such writings.

A skillful blend of the truthful and the extravagant, its balance is weighted in favour of the Watchtower leadership. It is never biblical exposition that establishes the leadership credentials of the "slave" but rather an eccentric interpretation of a little known verse of text. This, coupled with disingenuous argumentation and monotonous and repetetitive temporizing, creates the perfect atmosphere in which to entrench such otherwise unacceptable beliefs.

And the rank and file must really love it, else they would have revolted years ago, when the first examples of Watchtower duplicity became apparent. In fact the literature is intentionally designed, not to enlighten, but to obfuscate, with such literary devises as innovative improvisation and creative dogmatism.

Being soporific, especially on a warm Sunday afternoon, this literature creates a comfortable sense of repose without actually demanding too much intellectual exertion. The polished cordiality, and the feigned interest this "slave" supposedly shows for the fellowship, in fact solicits an attitudinal response where attendance at the interminable meetings becomes required.

Thus, if the "slave" has usurped an authority that is not his to possess in the first place, it has been accomlplished with the passive connivance of the rank and file.

37

If The Watchtower discourages Greek language study, why did they publish the KIT?

by VM44 in

if the watchtower discourages the study of biblical languages, then why did they publish twice, in 1969 and 1985. the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures?.

would this not actually encourage the study of the greek language?.

moggy lover

Actually I do remember that Nicholas Kip article. It was something about "How knowing Greek helped me fall in love with the NWT" or whatever.

Whatever happened to the guy? Anybody know? I was told that he had problem s with the Watchtower leadership and left.

Anybody know more?