Posts by TrueScript

50

JC question: Do you accept the FDS as God's organization?

by MrMonroe in

my wife and i had stopped going to meetings in april; in december of that year we travelled interstate and stayed with the witness couple who had "brought me into the truth".

we had already told them we'd quit meetings and there was a certain tension in the air for the first couple of days until sunday morning, when, over a breakfast that eventually lasted several hours, they began to interrogate us about why we had left.

had we been stumbled?

TrueScript

If you accept the scriptures still, you could indeed answer yes to the above, while meaning something entirely different. Biblically, any faithful Christian would be the FDS, and all faithful Christians would constitute God's organization, whatever that might be.

Also, I would point out that the Insight book even calls the parable of the FDS a parable, so they have little room for disputing that. In light of that, it might be worthwhile to ask why it is insisted they be called that instead of the faithful virgins or something.

64

Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

by InterestedOne in

in my "study," we have encountered the matter of whether or not jesus' physical body rose from the dead.

i brought up a couple of scriptures that seem to indicate physical (john 2:18-22 and john 10:17,18).

the jw's i am "studying" with explained how, although those verses may appear to indicate physical, jesus couldn't have meant that because if he physically rose from the dead, he would have taken back the ransom.. now that i know the wt reasoning on this, can someone point me to another source, link, book, article, etc.

TrueScript

Were this argument valid, God could not have back his son. This reasoning is based upon a faulty view of the ransom. The wages of sin is death, not being dead. The death paid the price, so it was not necessary to remain in that state.

51

To Those Still Going To Meetings---How Do You Still Do It?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i have to hand it to some of you!.

TrueScript

I have a lot of family still in, but by slowly showing them the *real* truth, I can hopefully help at least some of them.... to just up and leave would not allow for much if any of that.

109

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures...

by Joliette in

if i'm not mistaken, werent the committee of brothers who translated this bible: nathan knorr, albert scheoder, george gangas, fredrick franz.

wasnt fredrick franz the only scholarly person (or somewhat scholarly) person who was 'somewhat qualified' to translate any type of biblical greek, hebrew, etc?.

TrueScript

MadJW,

The point is, at the end of the day, we don't know for a certainty that the name appeared in the NT manuscripts, and even if it did we don't know exactly where it appeared in those texts. This is especially true with instances where such passages might be applied to Jesus. Therefore, we have no business messing with the sacred texts to add them. I believe that if God was so greatly concerned over the matter he could have kept it in.

TS

33

A great crowd in heaven (Revelation Chapter 7 VS 19)

by Joliette in

...i know i'm asking a lot of questions today.

the questions just keep rolling.... when i told my parents that a great crowd is mentioned as being in heaven.

i also mentioned to them how paradise isnt mentioned in revelations.

TrueScript

Leolaia,

This is really weak. There is no question that the temple in 11:1 (I think this is what you mean since there is no temple in ch. 9) is the temple in Jerusalem because it is in the city trampled by the Gentiles (v. 2), the same city where the Lord was crucified (v. 8). Naturally it lacks the specifier "in heaven" because it isn't in heaven; equally there is no reason to suppose that the heavenly temple must always be qualified as "in heaven". The "temple" from which angels exit in ch. 14 first lacks the modifier (14:15) and then contains the modifer (v. 17), but the modifier does not change the reference to a different temple. Similarly the temple in ch. 16 lacks a modifer "in heaven" but again it is clearly the heavenly temple as the voice from the throne sounds forth from it (16:1, 17). The temple in 7:15 is clearly the heavenly temple because the same group "in the temple" is also "before the throne" (on the throne being in heaven, cf. 4:2-10, 5:11, 12:5, etc.), just like the four lampstands and the sea of glass and other things that are "before the throne". There is just no contextual reason to regard the temple, and the "great multitude" within it, as an earthly temple and an earthly group of people.

My argument is not that such specification is necessary for them to be in heaven, only that the specific texts you cite all provide such specification and Revelation 7 lacks it. This does not prove they are not in heaven, but it does open the door for an earthly temple.

Otherwise, I'll reflect on your other comments for now as you've presented a couple of points I hadn't considered.

Thanks,

TS

33

A great crowd in heaven (Revelation Chapter 7 VS 19)

by Joliette in

...i know i'm asking a lot of questions today.

the questions just keep rolling.... when i told my parents that a great crowd is mentioned as being in heaven.

i also mentioned to them how paradise isnt mentioned in revelations.

TrueScript

elderelite,

They are "before the throne," but we can not set aside the distinction between these and the martyrs in Revelation 6. If they are not the martyrs, who are they? Is there another group in heaven with which they can be identified?

John is not provided means of identifying the voice in Revelation 19 and he is not told their identity. He records the "voice of a great crowd," but without further specificiation. Too many assumptions are required for this to prove anything about Revelation 7. Could these be the harpists of Revelation 14:2? Or perhaps the 24 elders of Revelation 5? Either would make sense.

TS

33

A great crowd in heaven (Revelation Chapter 7 VS 19)

by Joliette in

...i know i'm asking a lot of questions today.

the questions just keep rolling.... when i told my parents that a great crowd is mentioned as being in heaven.

i also mentioned to them how paradise isnt mentioned in revelations.

TrueScript

Leolaia,

I have to disagree in your assesment of the great crowd. The great crowd at 19:1 is ambiguous, only a voice from heaven. The leap required to use this as proof of the great crowd's location in Rev. 7 is not convincing. The temple is confessed to be in heaven on several occasions as you highlight, yet each provide the specifier "in heaven," lacking in Revelation 7. The temple at Revelation 9:1 also lacks this specifier and contextually I doubt you would dispute the location as upon the earth.

While commented on, you seem to overlook the distinction between the great crowd and the martyrs in Rev. 6. The great crowd has "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb" (7:14) while to each of the martyrs "was given... a white robe" (6:11). The former would refer to the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice while still living. Similarly, the martyrs are told to "rest" while the great crowd "serve him day and night" (7:15)

"Before the throne" is an expression generally reserved for heaven, but not excusively (20:12, Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan Ex. 15:17) . They are "before the throne" not because of martyrdom, but because they have made their robes clean with the lamb's blood (7:15).

TS

109

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures...

by Joliette in

if i'm not mistaken, werent the committee of brothers who translated this bible: nathan knorr, albert scheoder, george gangas, fredrick franz.

wasnt fredrick franz the only scholarly person (or somewhat scholarly) person who was 'somewhat qualified' to translate any type of biblical greek, hebrew, etc?.

TrueScript

Ding,

The translation of Colossians 2:9 is not particularly good, but John 1:1; 8:58 and Colossians 1:16-17 are actually quite fine. John 1:1 corresponds to Philo's notion of the Logos as deuteros theos, while are a number of grammatical considerations substantiate the translation. I'm uncertain the NWT Translation Committee recognized those things at the time, but they went in the right direction by what was at least dumb luck. 8:58 is quite good as evident in the footnote of the 1970 edition of the NASB and Kenneth McKay's work on the subject (in addition to other grammatical considerations). Colossians 1:16-17 is demonstrably accurate as a reflection of Jewish Wisdom speculation, Wisdom having been "created before all [other] things" (Sirach 1:4).

109

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures...

by Joliette in

if i'm not mistaken, werent the committee of brothers who translated this bible: nathan knorr, albert scheoder, george gangas, fredrick franz.

wasnt fredrick franz the only scholarly person (or somewhat scholarly) person who was 'somewhat qualified' to translate any type of biblical greek, hebrew, etc?.

TrueScript

ProdigalSon,

Sounds like you've been reading around the internet too much. The Westcott and Hort text was the best available at the time. Today we have the NA/UBS texts, which are more accurate, but relatively similar to WH. Point being, the NWT did go the right way with WH, as did the NIV and NASB.

18

T"he Lord says we must cover our territory 4 times in 6 months" - 1943 WT - no excuses

by Bonnie_Clyde in

well, you know, the end was coming.... do you think this was knorr or franz?.

http://escapefromwatchtower.com/garage.html.

the watchtower - july 1, 1943.

TrueScript

Setting this aside, something I've never understood as a JW is how the GB is spirit directed. How are we to know which things are from Jehovah and which are from imperfect men? What are Jehovah's means by which he makes use of them when they are not inspired? Has an answer to this ever been attempted? I don't recall one.