(part 1.
read proverbs 29:25; revelation 14:6, 7.. (part 2.
) is the good news really from god?1.
Thanks Big A, truly ironic that we get this meat in due season straight from the oven, even before the rest of the slumbering dwarfs!
The brochure seems to be a sort of catechism to teach children. If this is for adults then my estimation of the intellectual capacity of the the average Watchtower follower just slipped several notches.
Thanks again, wonderful as usual.
so where will the money from the sale go?
to support the bros and sisters who have worked so,long at the bethel?
this is to be doubted..
That IS a big surprise. When was this announced?
if you were a jehovah's witness have you "reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by christendom"?.
"from time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of jehovah's people those who, like the original satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...they say that it is sufficient to read the bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.
but, strangely, through such 'bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago...".
Gulp! Me. [Or is it "I"?] Do I get to mount the scaffold now, or do I get a last meal?
Put me down as one of them pesky Baptists.
is there a possibility that the watchtower will be split into two opposing camps at sometime in the foreseeable future?
judging from the past, do we envisage such a scenario happening before our eyes?.
scott77.
I think that the way we are addressing the issue is somewhat out of sync with what Scott 77 is thinking about.
We have been discussing groups that broke away from the WTS, leaving the original system working intact and legally in control of the existing framework that makes up the WTS mechanism. This has happened before and doubtless will happen again. But what is intriguing to contemplate, as Scott 77 does, is whether the actual WTS system collapses into itself! What then will happen to the legal instrumentality that once constituted this unified belief system?
With no actual control body existing, or with what is existing fractured into equally hostile groups, and with each group insisting that the others have seceded, but with no one group in control of everything, it would involve much unseemly and unchristian squabbling, with the different groups fighting over what was once a united form of patronage. Suppose one group, calling itself the "True Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" made a grab for the printing facilities worldwide, while another, calling itself the "Redeemed WBTS" grabbed the real estate, and yet another grasped the finances, but failed to take that which is still held by the US Stock Exchange, and so on, it would leave a right royal stew.
This is not so fanciful an idea to believe, since it has happened before. When HW Armstrong, inventor and Superintent of the World Wide Church of God died, His doctrinal and financial empire was split, like a mutated atomic explosion, and its operating structure was divided into various groups each claiming to be the true inheritor of the HWA legacy.
Actually, for those who receive Randy Watters [Dogpatch] monthly E-Newsletter, he did discuss something like this some months ago. It was speculated that the groups would initially be split more along personal lines than theological. The doctrinal differences would emerge over time as this division evolved. Finding it impossible to get along with each other, the various members of the secretive leadership, mutually agree to divide the lucrative pie among themselves, each then going their separate ways.
And starting all over again.
Whether so drastic a possibility occurs is something we will have to wait and see.
Sic transit gloria.
i can't remember.
don't really care, just something that popped up in my head.
to all the people who are going, i feel sorry for you... ;) i have not set foot in a kh in years!!
Good post, Leolaia, thanks. I could never get the hang of the "Between the evenings" bit.
i can't remember.
don't really care, just something that popped up in my head.
to all the people who are going, i feel sorry for you... ;) i have not set foot in a kh in years!!
You have put your finger on an interesting and perplexing problem which concerns the interpreting of the one text in the OT which nails the time of the Passover. Is it to be observed on the 14th evening of Nisan, or the 15th?
The problem text is Lev 23:5, and the ambiguous reference to "between the evenings". Which evenings? Does it mean the evening of the 14th of Nisan when the Passover lamb is to be eaten [as the Watchtower proposes]? If it is so, then the lamb would have had to killed on the afternoon of the previous day, ie, Nisan 13.
Or does it mean the evening of Nisan 15th? If it does, it must mean that the Passover lamb, would then have to be killed on the afternoon of the 14th and eaten on the evening of the 15th.
The answer is both obtuse and prolix, and remains virtually incomprehensible, especially to someone only marginally interested in the subject. Suffice it to say that Israel, as do most Jews all over the world, eat the Passover lamb on the evening of 15th Nisan, the day [or rather, evening] after that of the Memorial observance of the Watchtower and its followers.
just doing some research on the wt lib cd - - wow, the balls these people have is just unbearable.. .
is not the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures verbose, for instance, in using catches sight of for sees at 1 john 5:16 and undeserved kindness for grace?j.
s., united states.. .
It is hard to assess the correctness of the NW"T" here in the two cases you cited. Verbosity was a characteristic of Frederick Franz, the chief architect of this [per]version of Scripture. It has in fact been estimated that the Watchtower Bible is almost one third larger than other English language translations. [Compare Ro 13:1 where the NW"T" uses 30 words to say the same thing that NSAB does in 25]
In 1 Jo 5:16, the word "horaw" is used in the aorist tense, and in the subjunctive mood. The main thrust of the subjunctive is to indicate that the action of the verb is possible, depending on contextual nuances, [hence our English "might" "should" "could" etc], but in main clauses or in purpose clauses, then the action does take on a more definite nuance. Thus in the aor subj, the emphasis should be on the mood of the verb, rather than the punctiliar or single action usage.
The same construction as used at 1 Jo 15:16 occurs 4 other times, and in NONE of these has the NW"T" used the expression "catch sight of".
At Lu 2:26, the aor subj is "translated" as a perfect - "had seen"
At Lu 19:4 - it is made into an infinitive in the English "to see"
At Jo 8:56 it is made into a participle, "seeing" and
At 1 Cor 8:10 is is "translated" as it should, that is, a subjunctive - "Should see"
Compare the KIT translations at each of these verses.
I think the point that John is making at 1 Jon 5:16 is that a possibility may occur, when a disciple could, or might see his brother sinning, in which case he need do something...
As far as ""undeserved kindness" is concerned, it is not necessarily wrong, but may not capture the entire range of meaning inherent in the word. It does not necessarily point to God's "kindness" or even that it is "undeserved". It is a word of blessing based on the immutable characteristic of God's love. Hence it is better translated as "favour", and God's favour is not undeserved so much as it is unmerited, or unearned. We cannot earn the favour or blessing of God, it is a free gift. Hence if one feels the need to unpack the term "Grace" which is perfectly adequate to express the Greek, then "unmerited favour" is probably better.
I rather suspect, however, that Franz's need to use "undeserved kindness" was not so much to pay attention to "accuracy" as it was a result of his own personal prejudice. It is a word much favoured by Evangelicals, whom Franz despised, hence his "purer" alternative.
if a person walked up to you one day and started telling you what to do, how to do it, and threatening you if you refused, wouldn't you immediately ask them by what authority they had such a right?
wouldn't you want to see a badge?
credentials?
Self interest.
not that i have any intention of attending, but would somebody be so good as to post the date for the memorial "celebration" this year?
.
quendi.
Christians have always paid deference to the Jews in the determining of the day of Passover. The date is calculated on the basis of some complex interpretive conclusions from certain crucial texts in the Pentateuch. This means that there has always been a difference of opinion over whether the Passover is to be celebrated on the night of 14 Nisan or the night of 15 Nisan.
Whereas the vast majority celebrate this on 15 Nisan, [April 6], there has been, for several centuries going back to about 120 AD, a group who believed this should be held on Nisan 14. These ones came to be known as quartodeciman believers [believers in the 14th day] and the controversy came to known as the Quartodecimanian Controversy.
While the debate has largely been resolved over the centuries in favour of 15 Nisan for the Passover, quartodecimanian believers have persisted in isolated pockets in some Middle Eastern Christian communities. When the Watchtower started, Russell, who received his once-a year observation of the Lord's Supper from his Adventist forbears such as George Storrs and others, was a regular 15 Nisan believer, and this continued into Rutherford's reign.
However, when Franz came on the scene, and rose to prominence as the chief theologian in the Watchtower stable, he soon showed himself to be a qurtrodeciman and in the late 1940s the date was moved forward one day.
my family often spoke well of milton henschel.
i left when knorr was still president.
looking at the flimiest of personal infos for gb members, i noticed that henschel became president and then was demoted and don adams became president.
My understanding is similar to what sir82 said. By 2000, the GB were given legal advice to rearrange the structure of the Watchtower Organization, because of the legal cases mounting against them. They could, if it came to the crunch, be legally responsible for any doctrinal aberration that was published by the WTBTS. [Similar to the "mentally diseased" absurdity of last year].
The advice was to relegate the position of Watchtower president to a largely ceremonial one, exacting no real power, while the real power remained behind in a nebulous, hermetically sealed body that was all but impenetrable to public scrutiny. This body was to be legally removed from the WTBTS, while at the same time invisibly still controlling the whole shebang.
Thus if any such legal action was taken, these men could always say: "Who us? Don't know wha' your'e talkin' about. We didn't write that stuff".
Even Don Adams who was "kicked upstairs" to keep this position warm could say, "Sorry mate, don't ask me, I don't write this stuff".
This stratagem worked, and now, anyone suing the Watchtower for anything, finds himself in a minefield of legal ambiguities that requires a mind numbing set of complexities to unravel.
