Posts by Cygnus

40

Do you JW's believe that during the 1000 yr reign that all the dead will JW

by booker-t in

jw
friends

i was wondering especially from some of the old timers out there jw's or ex-jw's that really understand the jw's concept of the reserrected dead during the 1000 reign of jesus christ.

do they believe that the people brought back from the dead will have to convert to jw's in order to live on for eternity?

i know this sounds like a stupid question but i was talking to a jw's elder the other day and he told me that people like my grandmother who was a "devout born-again baptist" would have to study and become a jw's in the 1000 year reign before she could enter into paradise.

Cygnus

The answer is: they have no clue.

What is presented is that there will be a great tribulation, which involves four parts: Jehovah will lead Gog of Magog (Satan) by his jaws to result in the turning of "elements inside the UN" on religion and its destruction, the turning of their attention towards Jehovah's Witnesses, the only organized religion that will survive the assault, and Armageddon, brought on by the massive persecution against JWs described as 'touching the eyeball' of Jehovah himself, turning his wrath against the nations and bringing about Armageddon, which will kill everyone not actively associated with JWs as baptized members, and even some JWs who are not strong enough spiritually will also be destroyed. The destruction at Aramgeddon is permanent and annihilatory.

JWs teach that when a person dies, his sins are erased and he automatically qualifies for a resurrection, whether righteous or unrighteous, JW or not. Some will not be resurrected, including Adam and Eve, the religious leaders of Jesus' day, and Judas Iscariot.

What happens afterwards is the second resurrection and the work of restoring the earth to paradise conditions. How this restoration will be logistically accomplished is never said. The resurrection will be gradual, with the Hebrew patriarchs likely returning firstly, and those recently died early, and everyone else later (so most do not get a full 1000 years of life and teaching). JWs say there will be a gradual return to paradise and human everlasting life (not immortality) will finally occur after 1000 years. Then Satan will be released from his abyssing at Armageddon and mislead a great number of people who have lived for however many of years during the 1000 year reign and they will turn on righteousness and essentially a second Armageddon occurs and they are all destroyed and then faithful humans will live forever (still not immortal though).

That is briefly a description of JW eschatology, however warped it may appear.

Your grandmother would then have to convert her thinking and behavior to whatever JWs decide is righteous and proper after she is resurrected, and also have to pass the final test in order to live forever.

Not much of the basics of these teachings have changed in decades. They all differ substantially from what CT Russell taught. (edited to correct one noticed spelling mistake)

34

Why write a letter of disassociation?

by tfsm in

my question may seem vague but if one decides to leave "the organization", why write a formal letter?

why not just leave and not have any further contact with the witnesses?

is there some legitimate legal reason for this or do people do this because the witness thinking has overtaken their logic?

Cygnus

Well, I didn't write a DA letter. I was asked several times by the elders if that's what I wanted to do, so I realized that by doing so I would just be expediting the process and I wanted to drag it out and waste as much of their time as possible while mocking them (and by extension the organization's policies) as much as I could.

I think Finally Free made a great point in his first post. The JWs expect you to write a letter of disassociation to your former church when you quit it and join theirs. I was born into the religion, so I never had such a need to write such a letter. So why should I feel obligated to write such a letter to the JWs? I mocked their protocol to the point of bringing a DF'd friend with me as my "witness" at my judicial hearing when I got DF'd.

I think it's up to each and every person to decide based on their circumstances and feelings whether to write a DA letter or not.

168

Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

by Mastodon in

someone asked me if i knew anything about that.

oblviuosly i don't, so i'm reaching to all of you in this enlightened crowd to shed some light on this for me.

thanks!

Cygnus

rootcause, I will take your silence and refusal to answer my question directed towards you to mean you don't know and therefore I agree with jgnat: you don't know why you believe what you do. Sad.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Cygnus

This reply is written in haste as football is coming on television soon.

scholar, you're a silly man. That's all I have to say.

Nark, I'm sure there's very rigorous proofreading done of WT publications [edit (see, I didn't proofread!)] and has been for a long time. I know that doesn't logically make FW a scholar, but so what? As said in the foreward of the NWT, it rests on its own achievements in translation, not the supposed qualifications of the translators. Look at all of the PhDs that hooberus and Rex trounce out that are in support of ID. I say "phooey" on someone's supposed doctorate or "qualifications." Do you have a PhD? But I think your posts are extremely intelligent and worthy of thought. Same for Leolaia, and AlanF. And me .

inquirer, Jason BeDuhn's book is pretty old news. I've read the reviews on Amazon before, but thanks. While I've never corresponded with Jason directly, he posted on H2O briefly in 1999 and I was in the middle of it. And I know Stafford and his friends pretty well, so I'm pretty up-to-date with what's what. But thanks, and I enjoyed your other posting.

Vis-a-vis "bias," I am one of the "so what" crowd. There are so many Bible translations and so many commentaries you could fill your life just studying Green, Barnes, AT Robertson, Metzger, and modern scholarship. Maybe what set FW off into wanting to produce his own Bible was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He must have orgasmed himself nearly to death with that and its accompanying research.

ANYWAY, keep on keepin' on, JWD posters. This is a great thread. Now it's time for some football!

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Cygnus

Forscher, I just wanted to pop in here real quick and tell you I enjoyed your post very much.

Also, a thought came into my head. English is the language that must be used in order to participate on this forum, according to Rule #8. Scholar, for example, writes poor English. Both his spelling and his grammar are atrocious. English is obviously not his primary language, just as Koine Greek was not FW's. Others on this forum whose primary language is English also demonstrate a serious lack of ability to write it very well. Have you ever noticed that the copies of the Watchtower extremely rarely have any spelling or grammar mistakes (English versions anyway)? My point is, language is darn difficult and if FW really was the principal translator of the NWT, not to mention prolific author of Watchtower books and magazine articles, then I think he did a heck of a job.

13

MY NAME IS EARL

by Cygnus in

last night i downloaded the first two episodes of this show and the last time i laughed so hard was when i watched jay and silent bob strike back, a movie from 2002 which happens to include jason lee who plays two characters resurrected from past kevin smith movies, mallrats and chasing amy.. who else thinks this is the best thing to happen to television since seinfeld got really good?

if you're familiar with jason lee and mallrats, you can see some of his character brodie in earl.

the only thing that disturbed me was when i saw jason lee on carson daly's show and he said some disparaging remarks about movies he's been associated with, which makes me wonder if he's had a major falling out with smith.

Cygnus

Last night I downloaded the first two episodes of this show and the last time I laughed so hard was when I watched Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, a movie from 2002 which happens to include Jason Lee who plays two characters resurrected from past Kevin Smith movies, Mallrats and Chasing Amy.

Who else thinks this is the best thing to happen to television since Seinfeld got really good?

If you're familiar with Jason Lee and Mallrats, you can see some of his character Brodie in Earl. The only thing that disturbed me was when I saw Jason Lee on Carson Daly's show and he said some disparaging remarks about movies he's been associated with, which makes me wonder if he's had a major falling out with Smith. I need to go to Smith's website and see if there's something going on.

ANYWAY, anyone else hip to this new show?

Edited to add: I forgot to mention, Earl's brother Randy is played by Ethan Suplee, who was also in Mallrats as Willem, the guy who couldn't see the sailboat. I'm not explaining any more than that; you either know what I'm talking about or you don't. I wonder if Lee had something to do with casting Suplee, since they worked (however briefly) together before.

32

Are you a "here I am" or a "there you are"?

by Mulan in

jw
friends

a friend of mine read a book about 30 years ago, that said people are basically categorized into two main types.

here's how you define yourself:.

when you walk into a room full of people, do you think to yourself "here i am" or do you say "there you are".. i am definitely a "there you are".

Cygnus

Hmmm.. I'd love it if there were one of those online personality tests I could take to help determine that (caty, her mom and sister, and I have been fond of them). Of course, personal reflection and pontification is the best way to discover such trueisms.

I would like to think people can be a mixture of the two, leaning more one way or the other depending upon environment, circumstance, mood, etc. I think I am more of a "there you are" type only because I am trying to get over my distaste for ignorant and selfish people. For instance, I just woke up a half hour ago and heard a lawn mower outside so I looked at it was my neighbor's adult son mowing my front lawn (they do it for me because they know I can't do it myself and they've seen my 60 yr. old mother doing it sometimes even though I insist she not do it; my mom is eternally and stubbornly altruistic, but my neighbors don't like seeing her doing it any more than I do), so ANYWAY (thank you Chuck Klosterman) I made it a point to go out and thank him a few times and chat a bit. Now, alternatively, that could also be considered a "here I am" moment, as I had motive and desire to make my thankfulness known so he'd be aware of it, and it makes me feel better about myself when I 'go out of my way' to thank people for their charity.

Good posts today to jumpstart my mind. Thank you Mulan for posting this. :)

24

Astounding proof of the existence of God!

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

perry marshall has done what no one else could do -- he has proven that god exists!

he points out that dna is a language -- a message -- and messages always originate with a mind!

of course, it's so simple.

Cygnus

Wonderful thoughts present by steve, Terry and kid-A. I'm very impressed with this. JWism is so brainless and silly, and yet we were all believing JWs at one time. How far we've come!, eh? I really appreciate your posts and ask if I can save them to disk for future reference.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Cygnus

In concert with the thrust of inquirer's post, I happen to not be able to stand it when people copy and paste from an anti-JW website without giving its source URL and present the stuff as accurate criticism, especially regarding the NWT.

Translation is opinion. The NWT is a translation and not a version. That's why it says "active force" and not "wind." That's why it says "torture stake" and not "cross." That's why it says "before Abraham came into existence, I have been" and not "I am." Those who worked on its translation had as much bias as the trinitarians who came up with the extremely biased New International Version and they are both based on similar texts!

I used to own Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310218950/qid=1128159376/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-5827451-1776129?v=glance&s=books ). It's not a beginner's book by any means and much of it certainly overwhelmed me. I lost interest in biblical Greek a little while ago so I sold my copy on ebay. But if I remember correctly in at least one place it disagrees with Metzger. And when it addresses the NWT and John 1:1 it admits that "the word was a god" is linquistically possible but he rejects it purely and solely for theological reasons. He argues that there's no way John or the Johannine author would have meant "a god" because that implies "polytheism" but the Watchtower has explained what they mean by "a god" and how it is not "polytheistic" at all a million times. At least Wallace was honest enough to explain how Colwell's Rule does not apply to John 1:1 and should not be used to argue that the second THEOS should be rendered in the definite: "the word was God." I have seen a lot of trinitarians still using Colwell's against the NWT & Jn 1:1. Several years ago the "anti-cult" group Watchman Fellowship sent one of their main guys to western New York to conduct a seminar on "cults" so I went to it and the guy argued against the NWT & Jn 1:1 using Colwell's and even passed out a paper to everyone with that argument spelled out. After the formal session I approached him and challenged his (mis)use of Colwell's and he ignored me! Wouldn't discuss it with me. I wish I could remember his name. He ended up leaving that group for some other Christian ministry group, but my point is (time for a new paragraph):

None of these scholars Honesty listed as critics of the NWT are perfect. If you scroll down to the end of this page: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john8.58.htm it says of Mantey:

Julius R. Mantey wrote about William's translation: "Dr Williams' translation possessed unusual and unparrelled merit, not only in the rendering of tenses but...has succeeded in surpassing all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs."
Yet Mantey put down on public record he strongly disagreed with the New World Translation of John 8:58 where "ego eimi" is translated into the English perfect "I have been" while Williams' translation, as can be seen left, translates it as "I existed." Mantey if he disagreed with Williams at this place is totally silent. Why? This raises the serious question about what merit Mantey's criticism has here toward the New World Translation.

Honesty quoted Mantey as an authority who said the NWT was a "shocking" mistranslation. But that's just his own personal biased and prejudiced opinion. And he's certainly entitled to it, but Paul Harvey would want to hear "the rest of the story," as it were.

I actually have a couple of pro-NWT websites bookmarked and enjoy reading them sometimes when I'm really bored. I guess I'm a fan of the underdog. Even some of the 1950 and 1951 Watchtowers are fun to read. I'm speaking of the ones where F.W. goes ballistic defending the NWT and takes on all critics, pulling no punches.

OK it's after 6 already here.. another sleepless night. Time to sign out.

31

Does the sadness ever leave?

by pc in

jw
friends

hi everyone, haven't posted for awhile.. i am probably just rambling tonight( a few glasses of great red wine) so pardon me.

every once and awhile i just have such great sadness that begins to permiate my thoughts.not just for me but for everyone who has walked this path.

i happen to have a pretty great life, but sometimes this deep sadness rises up in me for all the things that might have been.

Cygnus

I've had pretty much a horrific 2005, but it's threads like this one that makes me count my lucky stars, as it were. I'm 33, and one of my best friends who I've known since I was five quit being an active JW not long after I did. Some of my better "worldly" friends from school and from the neighborhood who I couldn't be really good friends with cause of being a Jehovah-Kid are some of my best friends now. My best JW friend of 20 years who has shunned me for over 8 years, well his older brother who never got baptized and quit the religion around 18 years ago works for the neurology institute that treats me, I just ran into him and we exchanged phone numbers. As I've mentioned often, my JW family doesn't shun me, in fact we've never been closer. Yeah I have some reasons to be sad, and pc I'm sure your reasons are valid, but you never know, good things, really good things, could always be right around the corner (instead of Arm-and-getton).