Vidqun

Joined

• started 26 topics
• posted 2,024 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Vidqun

• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Black sheep, I believe he is referring to me with those words. Allow me to take up the slack.

  Eggy, we have been discussing “generation” and in your explanation you include the term “contemporaries”. That’s why I gave you the dictionary definition of “contemporary” so that there is no misunderstanding. And I quote:

  Our new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 isn't about overlapping generations, but is about contemporaries of a particular event, and the event began with the composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914. We now understand that this event -- the composite sign -- marks the beginning of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34, so we no longer apply Jesus' use of generation to people, since these would be contemporaries of one another during the "generation of the sign." The lives of some of the older ones during this generation of the sign would overlap the lives of some of the younger ones during this generation of the sign. Again, there aren't really two groups, the "older" group and the "younger" group, but here's another hypothetical:

  Then you explain your theory with the following illustration:

  Imagine a three-day convention and I have two parts to give on Days 1 and 2 at the Dallas Convention and two parts to give elsewhere on Day 3. You have two parts to give elsewhere on Day 1 and two parts to give on Days 2 and 3 at the Dallas Convention. You and I are contemporaries at the Dallas Convention on Day 2 even though I was there when it began on Day 1 and you were there when it ended on Day 3. The Dallas Convention represents "the generation of the sign," so that while I was there when it began, you were there when it ended and our lives overlapped at the Convention on Day 2, making the two of us contemporaries there.

  I see you also use the word “overlap”. It gets easier on the ear, the more one uses it. But really Eggy, you will not even get away with this illustration in your TMS. Let’s face it, this is not a good illustration of explaining JWs stance of “this generation”. Two overlapping lives at a convention? Come on now, admit it, it is not fitting, using a three day convention to explain a generation of 50-100 years. I am sure you can do better than that. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you go and ask one of the elders at your cong. whether the illustration works or not.
• 
  100

  CRAZINESS!!! I'M BEING 'MARKED' FOR GOING TO COLLEGE!!!

  by MsGrowingGirl20 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ohmygosh!!!

  one of my friends who is a ms told me today that the elders have 'marked' me because i'm a reg.pioneer and i've decided to go to college next semester???!

  he said he can't tell me anymore but to be careful---what the hell does 'mark' mean?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  MSGG20, I did say it, and I do say it again. This is what it means to be a "leper" and be treated as such. The cong. will view this as a go-ahead for pre-emptive shunning. They will avoid you (and your family) socially. This is not a prophecy, this is a fact. Been there, done that. View this as your first badge of honor.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Djeggnog,

  Thanks for answering point 6 as well as the PS. Is your silence on the other points an indication that you agree with them? I take that as a yes, because it is the truth and you value the truth, don't you? Again wonderful illustrations that have nothing to do with the points under discussion. It is one way of avoiding straight answers. Yes, then there is the lack of language proficiency in the congregations. What do you expect from an illiterate people that is discouraged from investing in Higher Education?

  Your eloquence in the English language is cancelled out by your obnoxious personality. Is that why you hang out with a bunch of apostates, because your brothers and sisters avoid you? Well, in that case I am sorry for you. Unfortunately you will find that this place is not conducive for cultivating the fruits of the spirit. In case you have wondered about them, these can be found at Galatians 5:22, 23. You certainly need a refresher course in them.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Sorry, I never addressed my response.

  Djeggnog, this is for you.

  I know you said you’re not comfortable discussing this with me, but seeing you don’t mind getting personal, I have freedom of speech to say my say. This is JWN, and I think we are allowed to do that:

  Firstly, I thought your illustration of the convention was amusing. Do use it in a talk. The R&F will love it. Pity a convention is three to five days long, not exactly what we are discussing here, is it? But you love to obfuscate and convolute the issues with inane arguments (nice word “obfuscate”, thanks 00Dad).

  Secondly, please do not associate God’s spirit with your hit and miss theology. It is disgusting and it dishonours God. God’s spirit doesn’t go “enie, menie, minie, mou….” Please, you are giving God and his spirit a bad name, i.e., blasphemy. You don’t want to do that, do you?

  Thirdly, you candidly avoid the subject of selective quoting and dishonest scholarship, because you know it to be true. The writers of the Society don’t like quoting sources. How often have you seen, “According to a Greek scholar…” No quote, no source. Whether you like it or not, that’s dishonest. They don’t want you to look it up, because you will see it is a partial or misquote. I gave you a few examples, but you ignored them, because the truth hurts. Sorry about that.

  Fourthly, I gave you a dictionary definition of the word “contemporary.” The plural of this word occurs in both quotes of the Society (from the Dictionary as well as the Lexicon). Whether you define the word or interpret it, it can only mean: “happening, living, existing, or coming into being at the same period of time, one that is contemporary with another, or one of the same or nearly the same age as another.”

  Fifth point is a question, Where do you think the Society got the information from, contained in the Aid and Insight books? Did a lot of the information not come from Christendom’s commentaries? But how can that be? Christendom resorts under the harlot, Babylon the Great. Unfortunately the R&F doesn’t know that, because most of the time they don’t quote or give their sources, because they are dishonest.

  Sixth, and final point, I never questioned the scholarship of the NWT. You inferred it. I did ask YOU whether there was a problem with the translation of the word “generation”, because the latest explanation does not fit the original translation of the word. But I think you are either thick or you love to obfuscate, as stated previously.

  PS The Beasts of Revelation, let’s not go there. If you don’t know the beasts or their history in the Society's literature, rather avoid the subject altogether, otherwise you might just throw your name away.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Transhuman68, you remind me of the poster of Johnny English: He knows no fear. He knows no danger. He knows nothing.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  I know you said you’re not comfortable discussing this with me, but seeing you don’t mind getting personal, I have freedom of speech to say my say. This is JWN, and I think we are allowed to do that:

  Firstly, I thought your illustration of the convention was amusing. Do use it in a talk. The R&F will love it. Pity a convention is three to five days long, not exactly what we are discussing here, is it? But you love to obfuscate and convolute the issues with inane arguments (nice word “obfuscate”, thanks 00Dad).

  Secondly, please do not associate God’s spirit with your hit and miss theology. It is disgusting and it dishonours God. God’s spirit doesn’t go “enie, menie, minie, mou….” Please, you are giving God and his spirit a bad name, i.e., blasphemy. You don’t want to do that, do you?

  Thirdly, you candidly avoid the subject of selective quoting and dishonest scholarship, because you know it to be true. The writers of the Society don’t like quoting sources. How often have you seen, “According to a Greek scholar…” No quote, no source. Whether you like it or not, that’s dishonest. They don’t want you to look it up, because you will see it is a partial or misquote. I gave you a few examples, but you ignored them, because the truth hurts. Sorry about that.

  Fourthly, I gave you a dictionary definition of the word “contemporary.” The plural of this word occurs in both quotes of the Society (from the Dictionary as well as the Lexicon). Whether you define the word or interpret it, it can only mean: “happening, living, existing, or coming into being at the same period of time, one that is contemporary with another, or one of the same or nearly the same age as another.”

  Fifth point is a question, Where do you think the Society got the information from, contained in the Aid and Insight books? Did a lot of the information not come from Christendom’s commentaries? But how can that be? Christendom resorts under the harlot, Babylon the Great. Unfortunately the R&F doesn’t know that, because most of the time they don’t quote or give their sources, because they are dishonest.

  Sixth, and final point, I never questioned the scholarship of the NWT. You inferred it. I did ask YOU whether there was a problem with the translation of the word “generation”, because the latest explanation does not fit the original translation of the word. But I think you are either thick or you love to obfuscate, as stated previously.

  PS The Beasts of Revelation, let’s not go there. If you don’t know the beasts or their history in the Society's literature, rather avoid the subject altogether, otherwise you might just throw your name away.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Excellent Smiddy! Your definition is in line with the Lexicon definition. Common sense rules!

  Djeggnog, allow me to delve into some “honest interpretation.” Take note: This is a prediction. The present light of two groups, those who are born and those who die, making up “this generation”, being incomprehensible to a normal person, calls for “new light.” In the foreseeable future we will be told that, as such, the word “generation” is of secondary importance, if fact it is meaningless. Because of being followed by a negative connotation in most cases of NT use, the emphasis should be on the sinfulness of the people, rather than the “genealogical” element. One should therefore not view the word “generation” as a chronological marker, but rather as a qualitative noun. This “new light” would mark the end of the Society’s current “generation” problem.

  2. Almost all the remaining NT genea-passages speak of “this generation” (he genea haute). This construction in Greek, with the demonstrative regularly following its noun, is clearly the equivalent of haddor hazzeh. It is interesting that the OT does not know this stereotyped phrase in its NT sense, though Ps. 12:7 comes very close to it (cf. Gen. 7:1; Exod. 1:6; Deut. 1:35). In these passages the demonstrative has a pejorative character, i.e. the reference is to a class of people who in this world stand over against the children of light and are further described as faithless (Mk. 9:19), faithless and perverse (Matt. 17:17), adulterous (Mk. 8:38), evil and adulterous (Matt. 12:39), evil (Lk. 11:29), crooked (Acts 2:40), crooked and perverse (Phil. 2:15). The Song of Moses in Deut. 32 (32:5 and 32:20) seems here to have had a certain influence on the wording. In these passages the temporal, “genealogical” element is completely absent. The emphasis lies entirely on the sinfulness of this class, this type of people.

  3. In Jesus’ discourse about the future the phrase clearly bears this second meaning: Mk. 13:30; Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32. Indeed, in every other NT passage where haute forms part of this phrase, it has the same pejorative character. But since the discourse refers to this genea “passing away”, the temporal, genealogical element is also present, though of secondary importance.

  Morgenthaler, R., & Brown, C. (1986). Generation. In L. Coenen, E. Beyreuther & H. Bietenhard (Eds.), . Vol. 2: New international dictionary of New Testament theology (L. Coenen, E. eyreuther & H. Bietenhard, Ed.) (36). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Djeggnog, remember we spoke about dishonest scholarship in an earlier thread. First of all, check out the English meaning of “contemporary”. I know you don’t like Webster, but humor me. Secondly, study the quotes according to the Watchtower. Thirdly, study the quotes in the Dictionaries and Lexicons. Can you spot the difference? That’s what I call dishonest scholarship.

  con•tem•po•rary \ k?n-'tem-p?-?rer-e, -?re-re \ adj

  [com- + L tempor-, tempus] 1631

  1: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time

  2a: simultaneous

  b: marked by characteristics of the present period : modern , current — con•tem•po•rar•i•ly \ -?tem-p?-'rer-?-le \ adv

  syn contemporary , contemporaneous , coeval , synchronous , simultaneous , coincident mean existing or occurring at the same time. contemporary is likely to apply to people and what relates to them Abraham Lincoln was contemporary with Charles Darwin > . contemporaneous is more often applied to events than to people contemporaneous accounts of the kidnapping > . coeval refers usu. to periods, ages, eras, eons two stars thought to be coeval > . synchronous implies exact correspondence in time and esp. in periodic intervals synchronous timepieces > . simultaneous implies correspondence in a moment of time the two shots were simultaneous > . coincident is applied to events and may be used in order to avoid implication of causal relationship the end of World War II was coincident with a great vintage year > .

  ———————

  2contemporary n

  pl -rar•ies 1638

  1: one that is contemporary with another

  2: one of the same or nearly the same age as another

  Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

  Watchtower Quotation:

  The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

  " Those born at the same time .... Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age ."

  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958

  " The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries. " (Page 5)

  Dictionary Quotation:

  Vol. 2 : New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

  CL & OT genea, derived from the root gen-, means birth, also (noble) descent, then descendants, family, race (i.e., those bound together by a common origin). Those born at the same time constitute a generation (“three generations of men are a hundred years”, Hdt. 2, 142). Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age. In the LXXgenea is almost always the translation of dôr and means generation, in which case the whole history of Israel is often regarded as a work of God extending through many generations, from generation to generation”, “from all generations”).

  Morgenthaler, R., & Brown, C. (1986). Generation. In L. Coenen, E. Beyreuther & H. Bietenhard (Eds.), . Vol. 2: New international dictionary of New Testament theology (L. Coenen, E. Beyreuther & H. Bietenhard, Ed.) (35). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

  ? the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and freq. defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries (Hom. et al.; BGU 1211, 12 [II b.c. ]; Jesus looks upon the whole contemp. generation of Israel as a uniform mass confronting him (cp. Gen 7:1; Ps 11:8) Mt 11:16; 12:41f; 23:36; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 7:31; 11:29–32,50f; 17:25; 21:32 (EGraesser, ZNW Beih. 22, 2 ’60). S. also 1 above.

  Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (191–192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  ---
• 
  73

  Want honest answers

  by independenthinker in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i've wanted to make this account for the past 2 weeks, but ive been afraid that ill get caught by posting.

  do they check this site?.

  im 18 years old,baptized at 14. really my problems started a few weeks ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Welcome Independentthinker. My little fantasy world as JW also crumbled after I found out about the UN-NGO debacle. I knew things were not always above board, but I ignored all the warning signs. I recently did a lot of research on "the disgusting thing causing desolation" and "the beast from the abyss," and to find out the Society was an NGO of the UN for nine years (1992-2002) shocked me to my foundations. Although they resigned in 2002 (from the UN), they are still actively involved with the UN in different countries. As one elder explained it to me: It is not wrong because they can do so much good by helping the brothers, when they work with the different UN organizations. And of course, they can also access funds made available by the UN for relief efforts. So, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
• 
  11

  Does the WT still use Zech.8:23 as a last days prophecy ? In veiw of the fact (evidently) the numbers of converts are decreasing worldwide ?

  by smiddy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is a scripture that was used a lot during the 70`s & 80`s proving that the end was so close,and it was to culminate in a grand influx before the great tribulation.

  " it will be in those days that ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold,yes ,they will actually take hold of the skirt of a man who is a jew,saying,"we will go with you people for we have heard that god is with you people.".

  when you look at the reality of the situation in this day....,their seems to be a marked decline in worldly converts in christendoms lands.....,mainly baptisms coming from young born ins,..... and certainly no marked increases from either asian, oriental, or other non christian lands,that would seem to indicate another failed prediction/prophecy we can credit to the f&ds class.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  smiddt, the one in Zechariah crops up in the literature now and then. One scripture that stood out in the nineties was Isaiah 60:22: "The little one himself will become a thousand, and the small one a mighty nation." Others that were quite popular are the doves flying in to their dove cotes (Is. 60:8) and the tent pegs that need to shift to accomodate all those coming in (Is. 54:2). An elder told me he believes while there is an increase Jehovah it means that Jehovah is blessing their work. If there is a serious decline in converts in the near future, be assured, they will find new scriptures to back that up, e.g., the love of the greater number will cool off (Matt. 24:12), etc.