Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  41

  Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for decades now, those words have appeared atop one of the watchtower societys buildings in new york city.. that exhortation may never have been more needed by jehovahs people themselves than it is today.

  recent posts have asked good questions regarding what can or will sustain individual jehovahs witnesses who do truly love god, but who may be disheartened by various things they have seen in the organization.. it is clear to me that many witnesses spend far more time reading the societys publications than gods word itself.

  one reason sometimes given is that the preparation and research has already been done for you, thus making it easier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi, Libby.

  I wonder what the average jw would say if asked that question: how would you change in your obedience to the org if you found out they were perfect?

  Very incisive question!
• 
  41

  Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for decades now, those words have appeared atop one of the watchtower societys buildings in new york city.. that exhortation may never have been more needed by jehovahs people themselves than it is today.

  recent posts have asked good questions regarding what can or will sustain individual jehovahs witnesses who do truly love god, but who may be disheartened by various things they have seen in the organization.. it is clear to me that many witnesses spend far more time reading the societys publications than gods word itself.

  one reason sometimes given is that the preparation and research has already been done for you, thus making it easier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Greetings, Farkel.

  You have not seen how the possibility of Lot knowing what he was doing but not who he was doing it with affects this discussion.

  That Lot participated in an incestuous act is indisputable. This discussion is about whom is responsible for the act. If Lot had a concubine or concubines it is conceivable his daughters essentially gave her the night off and pretended to take her place. Lot could not have been falling down drunk or else he could not have performed sexually. But it was probably so dark in the cave that all they needed was enough intoxication to make him susceptible to their wiles. After the act they probably greased him with more intoxicants so he would not remember a thing. The next night: what worked once worked again.

  To assert the circumstance of a faked concubine is impossible, because the text does not mention it. But it is not necessary to assert this because we do not have to prove Lot’s innocence from being a knowing participant in incest. The text does that for us. The possibility of a faked concubine is enough to dispel assertions that Lot MUST also be blamed for the incest despite what the text says.

  Just how far his two daughters went to pull off their conspiracy is not stated in detail. For a fact none of us knows full details of the incident, all we have is a brief written record. The written record says Lot was duped. Condemning Lot for complicity is reading language into a text. Condemning Lot for intoxication is about as far as you can go. Since the text presents Lot’s daughters as feeling they had to fool their father into having sex with them, it is also reading into the text to say Lot’s intoxication makes him responsible for incest because nothing suggests Lot would have ever thought his daughters would put him in the position. Lot apparently trusted his daughters. Who broke the trust? So far as we know, Lot thought his daughters were doting on him. He accepted it and became intoxicated. The conspiracy was theirs, not Lots.

  If we read into the text that Lot knew his daughters were capable of incest then he would have culpability for incest resulting from him accepting liquor from them. Can we prove this?

  If we read into the text that Lot could recognize who was having sex with him then he would have culpability. Can we prove that?

  If we read into the text that Lot was so intoxicated AT THE POINT OF SEX that he was incapable of performing then the text becomes a myth. Can we prove that?

  Lot was responsible for how much he drank. For this reason, as I have said, we can blame Lot for instances of intoxication. Whether those acts of intoxication made Lot an unrighteous drunkard is another question.
• 
  41

  Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for decades now, those words have appeared atop one of the watchtower societys buildings in new york city.. that exhortation may never have been more needed by jehovahs people themselves than it is today.

  recent posts have asked good questions regarding what can or will sustain individual jehovahs witnesses who do truly love god, but who may be disheartened by various things they have seen in the organization.. it is clear to me that many witnesses spend far more time reading the societys publications than gods word itself.

  one reason sometimes given is that the preparation and research has already been done for you, thus making it easier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Tina.

  No one disputes Lot impregnating his daughters. Who has omitted the account? I’m not sure what comfort has to do with your question either.

  Apparently you feel Lot was the aggressor or conspirator in the incident, or that he knowingly shared in the acts of incest. The text says otherwise. If Lot had been the type to have sex with his daughters then why did the two girls take measures to dupe him? As a thinking person, according to the text, who duped who, in your opinion?

  About Lot’s intoxication: he was obviously not so intoxicated that he was unable to perform. This means he must have had some sense of awareness. But, for all we know Lot may have thought the female laying down with him on each occasion was some unidentified concubine of his. We don’t know. The incident did take place at night, in a cave. Do you know how dark it gets in a cave, at night? Unless we assume Lot could recognize his daughters by feeling their bodies or their sexual preferences, how can we conclude more than the text says, that he was duped?

  These are reasons why I do not understand why or how you "read it" as you do. It appears to me you read a great deal into the account.
• 
  41

  Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for decades now, those words have appeared atop one of the watchtower societys buildings in new york city.. that exhortation may never have been more needed by jehovahs people themselves than it is today.

  recent posts have asked good questions regarding what can or will sustain individual jehovahs witnesses who do truly love god, but who may be disheartened by various things they have seen in the organization.. it is clear to me that many witnesses spend far more time reading the societys publications than gods word itself.

  one reason sometimes given is that the preparation and research has already been done for you, thus making it easier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  A careful reading of the story of Lot.......19,31-38.
  What is the moral imperative of incest? Tina

  Tina, I don’t understand your question. To me the incident speaks badly of the two girls’ morals and says little of Lot’s. Lot’s daughters dishonestly conspired to commit incest and did knowingly commit incest. Lot drank too much. You apparently believe Lot too was guilty of knowingly committing incest. If so, how do you get this from the reference?

  I do not want to take away from Nicodemus’ comforting message, but I would like an understanding of your question.
• 
  23

  The Last Days in the 14th Century

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the last days in the 14th century .

  all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

  this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  It of course begs the question why Jesus should mention Earthquakes & al if what he really tried to communicate was that we would have global communication in the last days.

  This would be a feasible interpretation if and only if you could answer yes to the following question:
  would a reasonable person listening to Jesus saying those words directly, those Jesus was addressing in the first place, be likely to draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about global communication?

  Hello, JanH.

  Likely to draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about global communication? I believe this is why Friend depends so much on language used at Matthew 24:14.

  “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” RSV (oikomene: the world)

  I don’t know for sure what hearers thought of it back then because I have no sure way of knowing how THEY understood Jesus’ words as presumably spoken. If we take the words as understood by the common Greek listener we would draw one conclusion, probably the one you prefer. If we take the words as understood by followers of someone claiming divinity then we have other possibilities. And this is all we are really talking about here, possibilities.

  Hmm, Marvin, I can understand why some people thought you were friend. You sound like him.

  Were him?

  We have worked on so much together, and I have learned so much. Guess that’s where it’s at.
• 
  41

  Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for decades now, those words have appeared atop one of the watchtower societys buildings in new york city.. that exhortation may never have been more needed by jehovahs people themselves than it is today.

  recent posts have asked good questions regarding what can or will sustain individual jehovahs witnesses who do truly love god, but who may be disheartened by various things they have seen in the organization.. it is clear to me that many witnesses spend far more time reading the societys publications than gods word itself.

  one reason sometimes given is that the preparation and research has already been done for you, thus making it easier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  But they bear out how important, and beneficial, it can be for individual Witnesses to take the time to actually read God’s Word directly. Doing so can help one keep clearly in focus what Jehovah really expects. And it can help one sort out genuine demands of Christianity from additional burdens that may be placed by a man or men, even if well-meaning. It can bring a measure of calm and peace the next time a Circuit Overseer gives a blistering talk which denigrates the friends for being “below the national field service average,” or for “poor meeting attendance,” as his words can be evaluated in an accurate Biblical context.

  Hello, Nicodemus!

  There is iron in your words! Too many times I have sat in comfort listening to scathing remarks about not enough of this and not enough of that. It proves true what you say.

  Beyond that, the Bible is rich in spiritual insight and provides like support for all its thoughtful readers. Like it or not we are all on a spiritual journey. Some realize it sooner than others do. Contemplating spiritual values found in the Bible can provide a tremendous calming affect, one making it easier to succeed in other aspects of life. I recommend it right alongside you!
• 
  23

  The Last Days in the 14th Century

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the last days in the 14th century .

  all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

  this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi, Alan.

  JanH was not attempting to use this to disprove any Christian's contention that "the end is near", but to show why Christians cannot use 2 Peter to prove such a contention.

  That may have been his intent, but I do not believe a casual or critical reader would conclude it for sure. This is why I pointed out what I did. The paragraph does not present scoffing as one of the reasons for Christians concluding “the last days,” as you have. But it may have intended to.

  As for JanH's illustration of a 14th-century Christian's claiming that the century he had just witnessed contained all of the "signs" mentioned by Jesus and that therefore he must be living in the last days, the point was that the Christian would have been incorrect no matter whether he 'correctly' applied Jesus' words or not. In other words, if Jesus meant that earthquakes had to be observed worldwide as a "sign", and the 14th-century Christian was by some means actually able to observe them worldwide, he would have been wrong to claim these as a sign. And if he only observed one or more local quakes and then 'incorrectly' applied Jesus' words, he certainly would have been wrong about them as a sign.

  JanH’s article goes so far as saying that certain named events transpired in the 14th century, not that those events transpired as the sign would have them. You talk about worldwide observance of events. This is different from events happening worldwide, or events happening in different localities but at the same time.

  Simultaneous events happening worldwide would be observable by all Christians as one sign. But this is not what JanH’s article describes. His article describes various events, with some happening in different locales. The event of earthquakes is an example. If the so-called sign of “the last days” provides for worldwide observation then events in the 14th century would not qualify unless they were each happening in each locale over roughly the same period. Were they?

  Another option is the one posed by Friend. He proposes that worldwide observation has occur uniquely in our time by means of each event transpiring in different locales, with observation coming by means of modern communication, the same means by which saturation of the good news is taking place. He sees this as a key in understanding what the Bible records on the subject.

  The point here is that (as JanH stated, even assuming that Jesus meant to give signs of the end to watch for) even if a 14th-century Christian 'correctly' applied Jesus' words to each 'sign', events proved him wrong about the imminence of "the end". Therefore, such 'signs' are valueless for all time periods after the 14th century.

  I would agree with this statement, if the correctness of application could be proved. That is why I raised the questions I did. If 14th century Christians incorrectly concluded a sign then that act proves no more than it was a mistake. If true that worldwide observation is a key component of the so-called sign, then 14th century events were not correctly identified. Assuming Christianity is soundly based and that the so-called sign is genuine, then 14th century Christians who may have incorrectly identified it were not less Christian for doing so. They were only doing what Jesus said, staying awake and telling people to watch out. But doing that is not evidence the so-called sign is an invention or that it never existed.

  Logic tells us the same thing: earthquakes, war, famine and pestilence are as common in human history as grass, blue sky and sexual desire. Invoking them as 'signs' gives one no more information about the nearness of "the end" than saying, "Look! The grass is green! The sky is blue! Young men are lusting after young women! Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching!"

  I agree they are all common. But through the ages Christians have not commonly observe them worldwide. This is, I think, the point Friend has made. He has argued that, scripturally, the extent of observation is as important as events themselves, that extent of observation is part of the sign. If this is true then our time is unique in terms of events and observation by Christians.

  These facts really point out what JanH mentioned as a major caveat: Jesus actually said nothing at all about quakes and so forth being signs of imminence of "the end". In fact he said the opposite: quakes and so forth were not to be interpreted as signs of "the end".

  I am familiar with the line of reasoning ending at “there is no sign.” I am not convinced by it. One thing I am convinced of is the WTS is wrong in its reasoning on the texts in question. As I said before, there is no basis upon which to conclude that earthquakes have been more prevalent or intense over the past 100 years than previous eras.

  I wonder if you could see your way to making Friend's polished draft, or at least the points made in it, available. I'm sure he wouldn't object to making it available privately.

  Are you kidding me? You know how tight he is about his person, including his written work. I am forbidden from releasing anything he wrote as his. Like most writers, he is picky about unfinished work. One day, when I know it doesn’t matter, it will be different. I could post the work as someone else’s. But that is not right either, for many reasons.
• 
  23

  The Last Days in the 14th Century

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the last days in the 14th century .

  all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

  this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  JanH:

  Your article presents a compelling case that many Christians in the 14th century would have concluded they were witnessing a fulfillment of what is termed a sign of the last days. I have a few comments.

  Many Christians through the centuries, always convinced that their time was that of the end, has always pointed to the ones who doubted the messages of doom and gloom, and applied to them the worlds in 2. Peter about "scoffers." Of course, the "scoffers" have always been correct, and the doomsayers were always wrong.

  I am not sure what your point is about 2 Peter 3:3,4. At face value the only conclusion is to this end: scoffing would be erroneous in one period of time, “the last days.” The text does not preclude scoffers in other periods of time, when Christians might incorrectly assume “the last days”. So according to the text, scoffers would always be right, except when the scoffing was finally done in “the last days.” So, to say “Of course, the ‘scoffers’ have always been correct, and the doomsayers were always wrong” as evidence supporting your overall conclusion would be, I believe, an error. You may not have intended this comment as this sort of evidence, but it has the effect of illogical bias going into an otherwise worthy article. Some will mistake it as evidence, so why include it.

  Assuming we accept the troubled interpretation of the so-called ‘synoptic apocalypse’ that has Jesus stating that wars, diseases, famine, crime and earthquakes would be a sign of his future second coming, let us put a loyal Christian in at the end of the 14th century.

  Your article does a pretty good job of putting a loyal Christian in at the end of the 14th century, with one exception. The article fails to address certain details, like how 14th century Christians who had never observed an earthquake could have rightly concluded “the last days.”

  Assuming as you have, the so-called “sign of the last days” would be one that all Christians could observe, whether they would observe it or not. If this is true, then your article fails to make the case that 14th century Christians claiming “the last days” were doing so correctly because it fails to address Christians that almost certainly never observed, for instance, an earthquake. Because Christians in Eurasia probably observed earthquakes does not mean they all did. Also, it is doubtful that Christians in Africa would have witnessed earthquakes during the same period.

  There is no disputing the calamity of the 14th century. Arguably, that period is one of the worst in human history in terms of effect to humans, if not the worst. But the so-called “sign the last days” does not require the worst period, at least until the finale called Armageddon.

  All this said, I agree that details of the WTS’ interpretation are more than lacking. An example is their discussion of earthquakes. Certainly their claim of increased earthquakes since 1914 is without merit, as are their claims that the so-called sign requires increased earthquakes.

  A close friend of mine has posted on this forum including, as it turns out, on this subject. I happen to have a fairly polished draft of an article written by him addressing this subject. A search of this site turned up a ruff version of the same article. I think several here know this person as Friend. I do not have permission to post the more polished article, but here are links to articles I found on the subject:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=769&site=3#6623

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=808&site=3
• 
  29

  Accuracy of Bible Translation

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am trying to find out more on the translators of the jw's bible.

  they claim and so it claims in the front of their bible that it was translated by experts in greek and hebrew.

  what training if any did these people actually have in these ancient languages.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Finally, the NWT is also not honest in another respect. At Colossians 1 for example, they insert the word "other" in brackets like this [other], to imply that Jesus was not the sole creator. This is explained away in either footnotes or appendixes as to 'clarifying' the language. However, not matter how well intended, the original text does not use the word [other] and therefore its insertion is an example of dishonesty to support their non-Trinitarian dogma. I have no opinion on God's nature, be it Triune or not, but to insert little tiny [clarifiers] is not in keeping with good translation when it makes a wholesale change to the text.

  Hi, Amazing.

  I’m not sure just how to gauge what you call a wholesale change, but you might want to rethink that criticism about the bracketed "other." At least the NWT translation provides a mechanism to readily identify supplemental text, some translations do not. Which do you think is more honest. Why don’t you compare the following texts from the NWT with other reputable translations, like maybe the RSV.

  Colossians 1: 5, 19.

  About the bracketed "other" in Colossians of the NWT: since it is identified as supplemental, this seems more a question of appropriateness gauged by the text’s context rather than by the words found in the original language text. Context indicates Christ was "the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." To many this is plain language that Christ did not create God, which means Christ created all other things. I believe a reader would only find offense in the bracketed "other" if they failed to conclude Christ was created. In their case, since the NWT has identified "other" as supplemental, they are not confronted with a contradiction.

  For me the NWT is just another translation. Since there is no translation that can completely satisfy the original language, many must be referenced.
• 
  41

  Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  to whom it may concern,.

  the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

  such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Yes Eusebius, I agree.

  AF: More important for our present discussion, though, is that you're raising another red herring. The propriety of the JW position on blood has nothing to do with the living habits of anyone -- including those who choose to discuss the issue.

  DS: I think one's living habits have a lot to do with the issue of blood transfusions. Claus Westermann wisely remarked that a society which does not value life, but in turn clamors for the execution of the death penalty is in effect at odds with itself and thus unjustified in its desire. Withn this example in mind, I ask why you make a big stink about blood tranfusions? Why should one harp on blood transfusions when he or she may be endangering his children in other ways?

  Alan is correct that the PROPRIETY of the WTS’ position on blood has nothing to do with living habits of anyone. The propriety of that position rests on two questions from two different perspectives. Is the position scripturally sound—because that is how its purported—and is it morally acceptable in modern society.

  Duns the Scott’s reply contains a bit of misdirection by inserting a dynamic that is beside the point. Whether the WTS’ position on blood is morally or scripturally correct has nothing to do with whatever other correct or incorrect moral choices are made by people. I choose to let my child regularly eat meat. Because that threatens my child’s life more than would a blood transfusion, should the PROPRIETY of the WTS’ position on blood then be of no concern to me?