Posts by Earnest

16

New Light On Blood

by freeman in

jw
friends

in order for meat to be blood free, as the jews and the early christians would have understood it, one has to cut the neck of the animal and let its heart pump the blood out.

not hit it over the head like they do in the slaughterhouses today.

also you have to remove the veins and arteries starting at the neck working down.

Thank you for the additional information you provided about soaking meat in cold water and salting it to draw out all traces of blood. You suggested that the Torah, the five books of Moses, contains these instructions and specifically mentioned "some place around Leviticus 11 and Duet 14 in an English Bible". Neither of these chapters make any reference to blood at all but there is reference to removing the blood elsewhere in these two books.

You suggested that I should try a better translation to that which I am currently using so I have checked up the relevant scriptures in the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament which I use for study purposes.

Leviticus 17:13,14 (NIV):

"Any Israelite or any alien living
"and-man any from-sons-of Israel or-from the-alien the-one-living
among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten
among-them who he-hunts animal wild or bird that he-may-be-eaten
must drain out the blood and cover it with earth,
then-he-must-drain blood-of-him and-he-must-cover-him with-the-earth
because the life of every creature is its blood.
for life-of every-of creature blood-of-him in-life-of-him he
That is why I have said to the Israelites,
so-I-said to-sons-of Israel
'You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life
blood-of any-of creature not you-must-eat for life-of
of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it
every-of creature blood-of-him she all-of ones-eating-him
must be cut off.'"
he-must-be-cut-off"

Deuteronomy 12:16,23,24 (NIV):

"But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground
"but the-blood not you-must-eat on the-ground you-pour-him
like water."
like-the-waters"
"But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life,
"but be-sure! not to-eat the-blood for the-blood he the-life
and you must not eat the life with the meat. You must not eat the
and-not you-must-eat the-life with the-meat not you-must-eat-him
blood; pour it out on the ground like water."
on the-ground you-pour-him like-the-waters"

Deuteronomy 15:23 (NIV):

"But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground
"but blood-of-him not you-eat on the-ground you-pour-out-him
like water."
like-the-waters"

As you see quite clearly, these scriptures refer to "draining out the blood" and "pouring it out like water". There is no reference at all to soaking it in cold water or salting it to remove every trace of blood, let alone any suggestion that we must remove the veins and arteries.

You make reference to the Talmud, the oral tradition of the Law, and it is possible that this is where you get your ideas about soaking the meat. There are two talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud and a lot of other material besides. I was not able to find a passage that fits your description so you will need to cite chapter and verse so we can consider whether it is even relevant. You see, while the talmud does contain oral tradition it is not necessarily binding as it will often just be a commentary on what various rabbis say about a passage of scripture. Jesus certainly didn't feel bound by oral tradition.

So while the suggestion you made was food for thought, when it came to biting the bullet there was not much to chew on.

Earnest

"Beware the Jub-jub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch." - Rev. Charles Dodgson

49

God is editor of the WT

by Earnest in

jw
friends

in an earlier thread reference was made to a court case in which fred franz stated that jehovah god was editor of the "watch tower".

as this quotation is often used to support the allegation that jws believe the wt is inspired of god i thought it would be of wider interest to provide the relevant court record for general consideration.. the court case itself was in 1940 and was olin moyle against fred franz and others and the wtbts.

just so that you know who is who, hayden covington was attorney for the defendants and walter bruchhausen was attorney for the plaintiff.

Earnest

My intention in supplying the full context of the court record was not to attack or defend the testimony that Fred Franz gave. It was to allow those without access to the court record to judge for themselves just what he meant when he said that God became the editor of the Watchtower.

However, refiners fire asked me to speculate why Fred Franz said that Rutherford was one of the five members of the editorial commitee designated in Russell's will, when he wasn't. Of course I cannot be sure, but when Russell specified that an editorial committee should take charge of Zion's Watch Tower on his death, he said :

In addition to the five named for the committee I have named five others from whom I prefer that selection should be made for any vacancies in the Editorial Committee...The names of the Editorial Committee are as follows:
WILLIAM E. PAGE,
WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH,
HENRY CLAY ROCKWELL,
E.W.BRENNEISON,
F.H.ROBISON.
The names of the five whom I suggest as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee are as follows: A.E.Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo.H.Fisher (Scranton), J.F.Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar.

In the month after Russell's death, both W.E.Page and E.W.Brenneisen resigned from the Editorial Staff and were replaced by J.F.Rutherford and Robert Hirsh. As a matter of interest, W.E.Page resigned because he was not able to take up residence in Brooklyn and E.W.Brenneisen resigned because of family responsibilities.

So, although Rutherford wasn't one of the five that Russell specified, he was mentioned in Russell's will and he did become a member of the Editorial Committee on Russell's death. As it does not seem that Fred Franz had a copy of the Will at hand it is no wonder he thought Rutherford was included.

Adonai438 referred to an example in the trial in which Nathan Knorr claimed inspiration for the Watch Tower. Angie, this is another instance of selective quotation. You quote as follows:

Q: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: In fact, it is set forth as God's Word, isn't it?
A: Yes, as his word.
Q: Without any qualification whatsoever?
A: That is right.

A consideration of the context shows quite clearly what Knorr believed about the Watch Tower. The attorney for Olin Moyle (the plaintiff) had been asking Nathan Knorr about the difference in doctrine regarding the interpretation of Revelation in the books "Finished Mystery" and "Light". The cross-examination continued (columns 1473,1474):

Q: So that the doctrine set forth in the earlier work was erroneous?
A: Yes. I might say, if I can express further-
Q: Well, it was erroneous, was it not?
A: Well, not all of it was erroneous. The Light shines more and more under[sic] the perfect day, and as things become clearer it is much easier to understand the Scriptures. It is difficult to understand Scripture until things have transpired to fulfill those Scriptures.
Q: God was writing these books ever since 1918, wasn't he?
A: I wouldn't say God was writing them.
Q: They were written under the influence of God, weren't they?
A: They were written by men in the service of God's Organization, to bring to the attention of the People the truths as expressed in the Bible.
Q: Would you say that God's views had changed between 1918 and 1930?
A: God's views never changed, and their only expression is in the Bible, which is God's word. Man can make a mistake in the interpretation thereof.
Q: So that these leaders or agents of God are not infallible, are they ?
A: That is right.
Q: And they do make mistakes in these doctrines?
A: That is right.
Q: But when you put out these writings in the Watch Tower, you don't make any mention, to those who get the papers, that "We, speaking for God, may make a mistake," do you?
A: When we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes.
Q: But you don't make any mention in the fore part of your Watch Tower that "We are not infallible and subject to correction and may make mistakes"?
A: We have never claimed infallibility.
Q: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: In fact, it is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it?
A: Yes, as His word.
Q: Without any qualifications whatsoever?
A: That is right.

Once again selective quotation suggests a claim that the Watch Tower is inspired but when he just previously says that the only expression of God's view "is in the Bible, which is God's word", it's plain that he cannot believe both. His remarks should surely be understood in the light of his earlier reply "When we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes."

AlanF, thank you for your courteous and well-reasoned response. I quite agree with you that the court must have been mightily entertained. I had many a chuckle myself when reading through the trial transcript and I would make it compulsory reading for anyone interested in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have to say I have some sympathy with Fred Franz's debacle in describing God as editor. When he was asked who became the editor of the Watch Tower after the Editorial Committee, the record shows he wanted to explain what was said in the magazine when it discontinued publishing the names of the editorial committee. I surmise the passage he had in mind was the statement that "the work of God's organization is not subject to the control of man or to be controlled by the will of any creature". But we will never know as the court intervened and insisted he say who became editor. So he said it was God and having said that he had to stick with it. I agree with you that Franz, Rutherford, and current Watchtower leaders claim that God is actively guiding them but I doubt they consider that applies to everything that appears in The Watchtower.

But there is another part of the transcript which, I believe, shows clearly how JWs can so easily change their beliefs. It is not that they believe the Watchtower is inspired. In the thirty years I have been baptised I have never come across a JW who admits to believing the Watchtower is inspired (in the biblical sense). But let me quote the relevant section (columns 845,846). Again, Mr. Bruchhausen is cross-examining Fred Franz:

Q: Did I understand you to say that Jehovah's Witnesses or their doctrines are not a religion?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You distinguish between what they profess and what organized churches profess, don't you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you call the religion of organized churches a religion because it is an organization, is that it?
A: No.
Q: If they have a profession in churches and profess to read the Bible and state doctrines in it, isn't that some profession of faith?
A: That is their creed.
Q: And you also profess to use the Bible and state some profession of faith, don't you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In that respect, they are both the same, aren't they?
A: No, sir.
Q: How is the profession of faith by a church different from the profession of faith by Jehovah's Witnesses.
A: Because a religious organization has a fixed creed which represents that which is established as a doctrine of the church and from which it does not change.
Q: Don't you have some fixed creeds that don't change?
A: The Bible is our creed, and as the Bible opens up, we get a clearer understanding of it.
By the Court:
Q: The Bible does not change, does it?
A: No.
Q: In other words, when you get to it or when it opens up to your mind?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: It is always there and it is always the same thing?
A: Yes, sir. The text does not change.
By Mr. Bruchhausen:
Q: So that the difference between the two now is that one never changes their creed and you do, is that it?
A: Yes, sir.

The crux of this cross-examination is Franz's answer to the question : Don't you have some fixed creeds that don't change?

Essentially, his answer is no except for the belief that the Bible is our creed. That means it is quite possible (although improbable) that one day Jehovah's Witnesses will believe in the trinity. In fact they can believe anything at all, and change those beliefs, provided they are convinced it is taught in the Bible. As ludicrous as that sounds it is very similar to what happened to the early Christians as a study of the first three centuries will show. That is why they had all those Councils...there simply was no fixed creed for the Church beyond a belief in Jesus as saviour.

Does that mean a JW can believe anything provided they are convinced it is taught in the Bible? After all, if it is taught in the Bible then sooner or later it will be explained in the Watchtower!? My answer has to be yes, but...

...but they cannot teach it to others if it is not accepted by the church. Why not? Because Paul says "you should all speak in agreement, and there should not be divisions among you, but you should be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought". There simply would not be a recognisable faith of Jehovah's Witnesses. As it is, the religion today is not the same as that which existed before the elder arrangement (1971), and that one was not the same as the one with elective elders, which was not the same as...

A church with only the Bible as their creed is a noble endeavour but it is destined to continue to redefine itself until "the day is firmly established". Forgive me for rambling on a bit, I didn't mean to use this as a soapbox. It's just that my reflections on what Fred Franz said, and the logical consequences of that, have crystalised my own convictions on the subject.

Earnest

"Beware the Jub-jub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

16

New Light On Blood

by freeman in

jw
friends

in order for meat to be blood free, as the jews and the early christians would have understood it, one has to cut the neck of the animal and let its heart pump the blood out.

not hit it over the head like they do in the slaughterhouses today.

also you have to remove the veins and arteries starting at the neck working down.

Earnest

Food for thought, indeed, Freeman. And it is certainly true that many modern-day Jews require their meat to be prepared in that way.

But nowhere do I read in the scriptures that biblical Jews or the early Christians soaked their meat in cold water or salted it with coarse salt. If that was necessary for meat to be "biblical blood free" I would have expected the Bible to say so.

Earnest

49

God is editor of the WT

by Earnest in

jw
friends

in an earlier thread reference was made to a court case in which fred franz stated that jehovah god was editor of the "watch tower".

as this quotation is often used to support the allegation that jws believe the wt is inspired of god i thought it would be of wider interest to provide the relevant court record for general consideration.. the court case itself was in 1940 and was olin moyle against fred franz and others and the wtbts.

just so that you know who is who, hayden covington was attorney for the defendants and walter bruchhausen was attorney for the plaintiff.

Earnest

Hi waiting,

In the previous thread which referred to this case AlanF said

Here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration.

The record speaks for itself as to whether that is true.

It's quite interesting to consider whether the first readers of Paul's letters and other scriptures considered them to be inspired in the same sense we do today. Quite possibly the congregations which received Paul's letters viewed them in the same way JWs view the WT - as an aid to understanding [let's not argue about that, I'm trying to make a serious point]. Only later when many others were also writing to the congregations did they have to decide what was inspired and what was not. But I think it has been accepted by most believers that such inspiration ended with the death of the apostles.

Earnest

"Beware the Jub-jub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

49

God is editor of the WT

by Earnest in

jw
friends

in an earlier thread reference was made to a court case in which fred franz stated that jehovah god was editor of the "watch tower".

as this quotation is often used to support the allegation that jws believe the wt is inspired of god i thought it would be of wider interest to provide the relevant court record for general consideration.. the court case itself was in 1940 and was olin moyle against fred franz and others and the wtbts.

just so that you know who is who, hayden covington was attorney for the defendants and walter bruchhausen was attorney for the plaintiff.

Earnest

In an earlier thread reference was made to a court case in which Fred Franz stated that Jehovah God was editor of the "Watch Tower". As this quotation is often used to support the allegation that JWs believe the WT is inspired of God I thought it would be of wider interest to provide the relevant court record for general consideration.

The court case itself was in 1940 and was Olin Moyle against Fred Franz and others and the WTBTS. Just so that you know who is who, Hayden Covington was attorney for the defendants and Walter Bruchhausen was attorney for the plaintiff. The relevant part of the case was the direct examination of Fred Franz by Covington (columns 794 - 795) and cross-examination by Bruchhausen (columns 865 - 867).

In the direct examination Fred Franz had just started to explain the purpose of the Watchtower magazine. The examination continued -

Q. Is the "Watch Tower" magazine a one man magazine?
A. It is not.
Q. Who was the editor of the magazine in the days from 1900 to 1916?
A. Pastor Russell was the Editor, the sole Editor of the "Watch Tower" down to his death in 1916.
Q. Who became the editor of the magazine upon the death of Pastor Russell?
A. Pastor Russell left a will designating five gentlemen to serve on an editorial committee, three of which must agree as to an article.
The Court: He asked you who they were.
Q. Do you remember who they were?
The Court: Do you? If you don't remember, tell us.
Q. The names, and if you don't remember the names-You say there were five?
A. Judge Rutherford was one of them. Mr. Van Amburgh was another, and Fred Robison was another.
Q. Was there any provision in the Charter of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society for such editorial committee?
A. No, that was the Will of Pastor Russell.
Q. Who subsequently became the Editor of the magazine, the main editor of the "Watch Tower" magazine?
A. In 1931, October 15th, as I recall, the "Watch Tower" discontinued publishing the names of any editorial committee on the second page.
The Court: He asked you who became the editor.
The Witness: And it said-
The Court: Who became the editor?
Q. Who became the editor when this was discontinued?
A. Jehovah God.
Q. And who wrote the magazine under the direction of Almighty God?
A. Various individuals contributed to the magazine, Judge Rutherford, and others.
Q. Who passed on what went into it?
A. Judge Rutherford, primarily, and he also called in associates-
The Court: Who had the final say?
The Witness: Judge Rutherford supervised everything that went into the magazine, sir.

Fred Franz was cross-examined on this by Mr. Bruchhausen -

Q. I understand that you say that in 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued naming the editorial committee, and then Jehovah God became the editor, is that correct?
A. Jehovah's editorship was indicated thereby citing Isaiah 54:13.
The Court: He asked you if in 1931 Jehovah God became editor, according to your theory.
The Witness: No, I wouldn't say so.
Q. Didn't you say that Jehovah God became the editor of this paper at some time?
A. He was always the One guiding the course of the paper.
Q. Didn't you state that on October 15, 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued the naming of an editorial committee and then Jehovah God became the editor?
A. I didn't say Jehovah God became the editor. It was appreciated that Jehovah God really is the One who is editing the paper, and therefore the naming of an editorial committee was out of place.
Q. At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper, is that right?
A. He is today the editor of the paper.
Q. How long has He been editor of the paper?
A. Since its inception he has been guiding it.
Q. Even before 1931?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you have an editorial committee up to 1931?
A. Pastor Russell in his will specified that there should be such an editorial committee, and it was continued down till then.
Q. Did you find that the editorial committee was in conflict with having a journal edited by Jehovah God, is that it?
A. No.
Q. Was the policy in opposition to what your conception of an editing by Jehovah God was?
A. It was found on occasions that some of these on the editorial committee were preventing the publication of timely and vital, up-to-date truths and thereby hindering the going of those truths to the people of the Lord in His due time.
By the Court:
Q. After that, 1931, who on earth, if anybody, had charge of what went in or did not go in the magazine?
A. Judge Rutherford.
Q. So he in effect was the earthly editor-in-chief, as he might be called?
A. He would be the visible one to take care of that.
By Mr. Bruchhausen:
Q. He was working as God's representative or agent in running this magazine, is that right?
A. He was serving in that capacity.
Q. Didn't he have his name on it as editor?
A. No, sir.

Each one must conclude for themselves just what Fred Franz was claiming for the Watch Tower magazine. To me it seems quite clear that he qualified his meaning of the expression "editor" to mean that God was guiding the course of the paper and no more than that. You may well disagree with his viewpoint but it is a far cry from saying the Watch Tower is inspired.

Earnest

"Beware the Jub-jub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Earnest

Alan,

It is an easy thing to belittle a man when you know that the great majority will endorse your view whether it is true or not.

Whether or not I agree with what You Know has to say I think his willingness to support his beliefs on a board such as this has nothing of cowardice about it.

As regards the information you presented I would just comment on your reference to Fred Franz's cross-examination in the Olin Moyle court case of 1943. This has often been used to support the accusation that JW believe the WT is inspired in the biblical sense but the quotation is selective and Franz goes on to make quite clear that is not what he is claiming. The WT is often accused of selective quotation. Beware the beam in your own eye, brother.

Earnest

39

Introducing myself.

by Danni in

jw
friends

hello eveyone.

forgive me for just jumping in your threads without giving some information about myself.. my name is danni.

i am a law enforcement officer.

Earnest

Hi Danni,

As one who is still regularly at JW meetings and who was taught JW beliefs from birth I would like to just make some comments on two issues that have been raised, namely shunning of those excommunicated and the "protection" given to paedophiles.

It is true that JWs are told to shun those excommunicated and this is based on such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and the second letter of John verses 10,11. Whether this includes not even talking to them or helping them in a case of need has been understood differently at different times but my own understanding does certainly not extend to treating such people as if they don't exist. My sister (who is excommunicated) and I still enjoy company and conversation and there has been no attempt to prevent me from doing so. However, as many on this forum can testify this is not common practice and shunning in its absolute form has caused a great amount of heartbreak.

A lot has been said about the "protection" that is given to paedophiles by JWs. The situation is that they will not take action against someone unless there are two or more witnesses, or a person confesses, to their wrong. This is based on the principle at Deuteronomy 19:15 and, understandably, it is unlikely for there to be witnesses in instances of paedophilia. That does not mean JWs have any love for such wickedness but that they stick to the legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. As they see it, it is a scriptural requirement to do so. The girl I love was abused as a child and her step-father remained an elder for many years. But as an adult she addressed her nightmares and this man is no longer allowed responsibility in the congregation due to her courage. My own view is that she should have gone to the police but she did not want to give evidence in court. However, there are also many instances where such abuse has been covered over and I can only agree with silentlambs that such ones should not be allowed to represent JW in any public capacity.

I think that most JWs would respect your position as a law officer but do not use firearms themselves. I absolutely agree with everyone here that if you carry on with this relationship you should go in with your eyes wide open. Best wishes whatever you do.

Earnest

14

A simple question for serious JW's

by zerubberballs in

jw
friends

a simple question for serious jw's:.

according to this sunday's newspaper suppliment a common snail travels at 24 inches/hour (60cm/hr).

i've got snails in my garden and i've just crunched some math on my super scientific pocket calculator.

Earnest

Mehinks there's a touch of sarcasm in these here posts but I have puzzled about the distribution of animals and the geological record for some time now.

I can't say that the easy answers satisfy as they tend to go beyond what is written in scripture. The only satisfying conclusion I have come to is that the biblical flood was a local flood in the sense that it was limited to the Mediterranean area and that possibly the "world" referred to the world of mankind or the world known to man at that time, probably the latter considering the meaning of the Hebrew word used.

I know this is not orthodox JW belief but it is the best I can d to harmonise scripture with the facts.

Earnest

8

I had the sudden urge to

by sweetone2377 in

jw
friends

spray paint "merry christmas" across the front of my old hall thursday night.

we were back in ky to visit my grandparents and we had to drive by my old hall while driving to a friend's house.

everyone's cars were parked neatly in a row outside (about 10 or 13 cars, it was always a small cong.).

Earnest

Reminds me of the time I was night watchman at Bethel (South Africa) and hung up streamers in the dining-room the night before Christmas.

Never a dull moment!

Earnest

4

White Cheddar Cheese

by joelbear in

jw
friends

hi all you ukers.

i love english white cheddar cheese.

any advice on ordering some.

Earnest

You could try this website for Cheddar gorge but I think your best bet is to persuade Englishman to start up his own mail order company of all things English.

http://www.cheddarsomerset.co.uk/Adverts/the_cheddar_valley_cheese_depot.htm