Posts by Doug Mason

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

EdenOne,

Thank you for your assessment.

If you wish, let me know where I have problems.

Doug

37

"The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

by Doug Mason in

if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

doug.

Doug Mason

If reasoning with a Jehovah’s Witness on the Watchtower Society’s interpretations of the Kingdom of God, Parousia, the Cross, Blood, and so on is unlikely to break the WTS’s mental stranglehold, what then is its “Achilles’ Heel”?

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Watchtower_s_Achilles__Heel.pdf

Doug

10

"THE WATCH TOWER" 1865 - Volume 1 - Downloadable PDF 417 pages

by jwleaks in

the watch tower 1865, published by j.f.

shaw & co., for the proprietors of "the watch tower", 158 fleet street, london.

sold at all booksellers and railway book stores during the mid to late 1860's.. this volume of the watch tower was first published on march 29, 1865, for the benefit of learned members of the anglican church.

Doug Mason

CTR called it "Zion's Watchtower" because he envisaged that the Zionists would take control of a peaceful world in 1914. The other part of his title "Herald of Christ's Pressnce" referred to his 1874 "parousia".

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

The WTS could justify any action in changing the list of books that make up the NT Canon (and perhaps the OT?). It says that the Church apostatised as soon as the last Apostle died, by the end of the 1st century (100 CE).

The WTS claims to be assigned the authority given to the original Apostles, so it should claim superiority over the 4th century ("apostate") Trinitarians who were the first to provide the present list of writings. This is the list that the WTS accepts as Holy Scripture. Why?

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

Acts is a late writing (possible date 125 CE) designed to provide a picture that smooths over differences in the schism between the Antioch church under Paul and the Jerusalem Church under James. It is historically inaccurate and it contradicts Paul's accounts. For example, scholars are incapable of reconciling Paul with the account at Acts 15 - which is a disaster for the WTS and its theoretical first century "governing body". Or the contrast between Acts' "Damascus Road" story againts Paul's account, where he says in Galatians that he was already in Damascus arguing against the followers of Jesus and that he left the place for 3 years after his confrontation there. Consider also the structure of Acts (Peter then Paul). Acts is commonly referred to as "religious fiction".

I am certain there are numerous presentations on the www giving both sides of the argument. The fact they are there shows this is an issue of concern. Which side you accept is yours to make. I have shown you mine. The point I make is that this is the kind of issue the NWT should address, and do so objectively.

The Book of Enoch underlies some of NT writings; at one stage it was part of the Canon and it is still part of the Ethiopic Bible. I write the following in my Study at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf

"The book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 14-15. Verbal echoes are found in Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, Thessalonians, 1 Peter and Revelation, and probably in other books. It exercised a greater influence on the New Testament than all the other non-canonical books together. It was considered sacred by Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria; and it is found in the Ethiopic version as a part of the Bible."

See my study and the reason I wrote that.

Do you see the reason I say such things are far more critical than arguing about a single word here or there?

Doug

4

It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason in

it seems to me, and i am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" nwt - is myopic and it misses the real issues.. i have no problems with improving readabilty; i have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the bible.

indeed, i wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the christain populace and produce a totally new bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as acts), altering the sequence of books (paul first), even inserting some (the book of enoch comes to mind, for example).

in other words, to address the canon.. there is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context.

Doug Mason

It seems to me, and I am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" NWT - is myopic and it misses the real issues.

I have no problems with improving readabilty; I have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the Bible. Indeed, I wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the Christain populace and produce a totally new Bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as Acts), altering the sequence of books (Paul first), even inserting some (the Book of Enoch comes to mind, for example). In other words, to address the canon.

There is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context. Not only the textual context of a word or passage, but the human context - the contemporary history at the moment a writing was composed and when it was edited and re-edited, changed and corrupted. I know this is Higher Criticism, which the WTS says it rejects - except for the following example on the subject of exegesis:

"However, if a person ignored the context and directly applied the text to worldly conflicts, limiting it to that, he would lose the whole point of the apostle Paul's argument. He would then not really be letting the Bible speak. Besides the written context, a person should keep in mind the time period involved. This can prevent one from drawing wrong conclusions" (WT, Oct 1,1976, page 586).

As I am wont to occasionally note: "a text without a context is a pretext".

Douhg

37

My interest in this revised NWT

by Doug Mason in

the biases of the earlier iteration of the nwt have been known and discussed from the appearance of the first appearance in 1950, and i assume the revised edition will be affected by the same prejudicial biases.

one can cynically subscribe to the view that this is a financial bonanza and possibly a distraction from the imminent centenary of that distant significant date.. my interest will be to see how the impact of this revision evolves, particularly in the area of the wts's support material and on the impact its release will have on witnesses.

some preliminary thoughts are:.

Doug Mason

Thanks for your help. From what I have seen so far, I am underwhelmed. These changes could have been addressed by a simple leaflet.

Do these changes achieve anything other than clarify one person's beefs with the way Franz expressed himself at certain points, especially in view of the changes they have made since he went?

Am I being cynical, but can anyone provide a realistic estimate of the gross revenue?

Would they have weighed up the impact on some JWs, or would they have been considered collateral damage for the good of the WTS's coffers?

It's almost Monday in USA, so I look forward to being able to see what's up.

JWs would be staggered if they had the choice of translations that are available to those outside the WTS's grasp.

Doug

2

Matthew 24:46

by SloppyJoe in

if this is already being discussed i did not see it and just direct me to the proper thread.

in the revised edition they have changed arriving to coming since they changed the doctrine.

anyone notice this?.

Doug Mason

Russell taught that the Parousia (in 1874) preceded the End in 1914 (with the breakout of unprecedented peace under the Zionists).

About 1930, Rutherford shifted the Parousia to 1914 but still foresaw a forthcoming divine intervention.

Since Rutherford's time, the WTS has continued a two-stage "parousia followed by a future coming Armagedon".

Russell picked up the two-stage idea from the Rapturists (Darby, Schofield, etc) which was being popularised at the time. They focused on the "70 weeks" at Daniel 9. Russell was also convinced by Barbour that the Parousia had already occurred in 1874.

I recall seeing this differentiation between parousia/presence and erchatai/coming in the 1960s. From my ancient memory, I have the idea it might have been in the "Babylon" book.

Doug

22

The New New World Translation: What a Blessing!

by breakfast of champions in

this new new world translation just puts god's holy word in a whole new new light for me!

just check out this comparison, and add some of your own if you wish!.

numbers 31: 17, 18 old new world translation.

Doug Mason

Data-Dog,

Indications are that the DSS - which are LXX (Greek OT) - did not initially have the tetragram, but that they were added much later into the spaces that had been left by earlier writers. It is significant in that they did not use the Hebrew characters which were current at the time, but they went back into the nation's early history, using palaeo-Hebrew characters. This indicates they were not read out with the Greek text.

The WTS does not follow that practice, but instead inserts a non-word from recent tradition of the Middle Ages. The Hebrew text of the Masoretes gave rise to the word when they inserted vowel points into the tetragram, in which they interleaved characters from Adonai into the tetragram.

The WTS does not follow the DSS, in that its NWT does not insert Hebrew characters into the text. Not that they inserted it consistently; rather, Franz was more intent on supporting a predetermined outcome.

Doug

14

Food for thought

by braincleaned in

why is it said that we "inherited" sin?

we all know the old 'dented cake mold' illustration... but it doesn't follow logic.. .

it was obviously not obligatory that we "inherited" sin.

Doug Mason

I think you might need to research Church Father Augustine for the concept of "original sin".

Doug