Vidqun

Joined

• started 26 topics
• posted 2,003 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Vidqun

• 
  15

  William Redding

  by Bobcat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is anyone familiar with this person and his possible relationship with ctr or the wt?.

  if you are wondering why i ask, take a look here and scroll down one page and start reading a little.. i could not find any mention of him in the wt online library.

  i wonder if this is something barbara anderson would be familiar with?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  That type of question you should ask Vienne. She's an expert on JW history.
• 
  14

  "The sun will be darkened, & the moon will not give its light." How do events like this affect superstitious humans?

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the gospel of matthew's homily on the signs connected with the imagined return of christ, features an element of the sign that seems to really scare superstitious people.. matthew 24:29 reads: "immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light;".

  in the nineteenth century such an even occurred twice in the 19th century and apparently became part of charlie russell's conviction that the end of the world was nigh, charlie, of course, was a 'man of faith' accepting the bible as true and not willing to search for alternative explanation for such events.

  if charlie r. had been the sort of person that continually asks why, his life and ours may have taken a different course.. i cannot quote where in his mass of writings he cites those 19th c events (its a long time since i've bothered to be interested in his writings), but mention them he did, and saw these events as proof of the imminent return of jesus christ.. so let's look at these two 19th c.natural occurrences, and compare them to another occurrence some 1400 years ago.. the 19th c events occurred in 1814-16 and again circa, 1883. the reason for the sun and moon being darkened was volcanic activity, easy for us to appreciate, but more difficult for religiously superstitious people.. the wikipedia encyclopedia notes the 1814-16 event: quote.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Perhaps viewing it from another angle might be helpful. One should keep in mind that some Biblical prophecies could have a primary as well as a secondary fulfillment. If you believe that you are in good company. A number of scholars (e.g., Jerome, Martin Luther) would view Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a type of the Antichrist. And that would explain the partial or secondary (imperfect) fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecies during the years leading up to the second century BCE. The full or primary (perfect) fulfillment would occur, with new role players, during the end time (cf. Dan. 11:40-45). Most famous example of a double fulfillment must be the composite sign of Jesus’ end time prophecy, which deals with the conclusion of the Jewish system, yet corresponds to his parousia at the conclusion of the present system (cf. Matt. 24, 25; Mark 13; Luk. 21). Note also some OT prophecies deal primarily with Israel and its neighbors, but then reminds the reader of the day of the LORD and the final reckoning of the human race. E.g. Is. Is. 2:9-12, 17, 19-21; Joel 2:30, 31; cf. Rev. 6:12-17.
  
• 
  15

  William Redding

  by Bobcat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is anyone familiar with this person and his possible relationship with ctr or the wt?.

  if you are wondering why i ask, take a look here and scroll down one page and start reading a little.. i could not find any mention of him in the wt online library.

  i wonder if this is something barbara anderson would be familiar with?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Interesting book. In my research I have come to a similar conclusion. However, the difference would be that I view it as being a future event.
• 
  13

  Increase in Second Sealings for the Anointed?

  by Nevuela in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the other day i heard my anointed roommate on the phone, discussing something called the "second sealing".

  i heard her say that most anointed people only receive it shortly before death, if they receive it at all.

  she went on to say that she has been hearing about several other anointed people receiving theirs recently and not dying afterward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  I agree, perhaps these people are delusional. This does not fit the Bible narrative. According to Paul, he and his fellow apostles have been anointed and sealed:

  But it is God who establishes us together with you in Christ and who anointed us,
  who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment (2 Cor. 1:21, 22).

  But it seems as though the official sealing of the 144000 will only take place during the Great Tribulation, which makes it a future occurrence. John saw a vision of a scroll with seven seals being opened.

  Then I looked when the Lamb opened the sixth seal, and a huge earthquake took place; the sun became as black as sackcloth made of hair, and the full moon became blood red; and the stars in the sky fell to the earth like a fig tree dropping its unripe figs when shaken by a fierce wind. The sky was split apart like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.
  Then the kings of the earth, the very important people, the generals, the rich, the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?” (Rev. 6:12-17)

  And again:

  16 They said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb,
  17 because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?"
  Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so no wind could blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree.
  2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, who had the seal of the living God. He shouted out with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given permission to damage the earth and the sea:
  3 "Do not damage the earth or the sea or the trees until we have put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." (Rev. 6:16-7:3 NET)

  The transition between aforementioned chapters of Revelation is introduced by the Greek phrase Καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο (Rev. 7:1 Tischendorf’s New Testament, 8th edition), “and after this,” “this” referring to the kings of the earth and their followers, finding refuge in their underground shelters.

  Conclusion: According to Revelation the official sealing of the 144000 must still take place.
• 
  114

  JW Stumper Questions - List You Best Here

  by pale.emperor in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hi guys.

  sooner or later we're going to get a jw knocking on our door.

  just like when we were jw's doing the knocking, it's good to have a question prepared to get them thinking about their own beliefs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Here's a technical question for those that are interested in JW interpretation.

  JWs believe the two witnesses of Revelation are symbolic, with their death and resurrection taking place during 1914-1918 when Rutherford and co. were jailed. They were "resurrected" when they were freed and could continue their preaching work.

  See Questions From Readers on JW.ORG:

  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20141115/questions-from-readers/

  The two witnesses are killed by the beast coming up from the abyss. The Witnesses believe the wild beast that "was, but is not and is about to ascend from the abyss" refers to the League of Nations and later the United Nations (Rev. 17:8). See Revelation Climax-book, p. 248.

  My question: How is it that they could be "killed" by a beast that did not as yet exist? The League of Nations only came into being in 1920. It was created only after the war, because of the war. But alas, very few Witnesses today will be able to understand such a question, let alone answer it.
  

  Yes, I also like the question (of a more simpler variety): After elaborate dedication ceremonies of Kingdom and Assembly halls, do you "undedicate" and then sell them, or do you sell them as is? As was brought out, after such questions the bells starts ringing and they think: APOSTATE!
• 
  25

  How did we get from singular ha-Elohim (God) to plural ha-Elohim (judges)?

  by I_love_Jeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  read exodus 22:6-8

  jps tanakh : 6 when a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב) to god (האלהים) that he has not laid hands on the other’s property.

  8 in all charges of misappropriation pertaining to an ox, an ***, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “this is it” the case of both parties shall come before god (האלהים): he whom god (אלהים ) declares guilty (ַיְר ִשי ֻףן) shall pay double to the other.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  The following is a discussion in a Hebrew Grammar of the use of the plural in Hebrew. What you are referring to is the intensifying plural, or plural maiestatis, amplifying the person, thing or idea. Hope this helps to clarify the discrepancy.

  PLURALIS MAJESTATIS If the plural form does not express a normal numerical plural, but indicates that something or someone is mighty, big, terrible or respectable, it is called the pluralis majestatis or royal plural.[1]

  [1] Van der Merwe, C., Naudé, J., Kroeze, J., Van der Merwe, C., Naudé, J., & Kroeze, J. (1999). A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (electronic ed., p. 363). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

  § 124. The Various Uses of the Plural-form.3

  a

  1. The plural is by no means used in Hebrew solely to express a number of individuals or separate objects, but may also denote them collectively. This use of the plural expresses either (a) a combination of various external constituent parts (plurals of local extension), or (b) a more or less intensive focusing of the characteristics inherent in the idea of the stem (abstract plurals, usually rendered in English by forms in -hood, -ness, -ship). A variety of the plurals described under (b), in which the secondary idea of intensity or of an internal multiplication of the idea of the stem may be clearly seen, is (c) the pluralis excellentiae or pluralis maiestatis.[1]

  Of (c): the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics2 belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification, treated under e, which are mostly found in poetry. So especially אֱלֹהִים Godhead, God (to be distinguished from the numerical plural gods, Ex 12:12, &c.). The supposition that אֱלֹהִים is to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and, moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (see below). That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in אֱלֹהִים (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute (cf. § 132 h), e.g. אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק Ps 7:10, &c. Hence אֱלֹהִים may have been used originally not only as a numerical but also as an abstract plural (corresponding to the Latin numen, and our Godhead), and, like other abstracts of the same kind, have been transferred to a concrete single god (even of the heathen).[2]
  

  3 3 Cf. Dietrich, ‘Über Begriff und Form des hebr. Plurals,’ in the Abhandl. zur hebr. Grammatik, Leipzig, 1846, p. 2 ff.

  [1] Gesenius, F. W. (1910). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley, Eds.) (2d English ed., pp. 396–397). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  2 2 The Jewish grammarians call such plurals רִבּוּי הַכֹּחוֹת plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc. 10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Gn 1:26, 11:7, Is 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way. It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels; so at all events in Is 6:8, cf. also Gn 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied in אֱלֹהִים (see Dillmann on Gn 1:26); but it is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.

  [2] Gesenius, F. W. (1910). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley, Eds.) (2d English ed., pp. 398–399). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• 
  29

  What is your understanding of the terms "Ransom" and "Redeem"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  with respect to christ being the "redeemer" and of having "paid the ransom", i would like to know:.

  (1) what is your technical understanding of each term?.

  (2) what is the watchtower's understanding of each term?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Doug, sorry, it was a rush job and I did not make myself clear. The Bethel lecture set met off in the general study direction. I doubt whether the Society will accept the quote(s) of Keil & Delitzsch, two German clerics, part and parcel of Christendom, as well as TDOT, and TDNT. Although they used such Commentaries, they very seldom admitted their sources. I personally prefer the explanation contained in Keil & Delitsch because it was well-reasoned and thought out. I also agree with the part you quoted. However, that I have under the heading, "To bring in righteousness to time indefinite." I thought the last of quoted paragraphs might have come from the Society, but unfortunately I cannot find it in the literature, so I might be mistaken.
• 
  29

  What is your understanding of the terms "Ransom" and "Redeem"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  with respect to christ being the "redeemer" and of having "paid the ransom", i would like to know:.

  (1) what is your technical understanding of each term?.

  (2) what is the watchtower's understanding of each term?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Doug, hope this will help. There was a Bethel lecture on the subject. Some here might still have it on their files. The following is based on Dan. 9:24. If I remember correctly, this first part comes from the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary of above verse. The source of the rest of the quotes are noted.

  To make atonement for error. The third statement is, כִּפֶּר is terminus techn., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive.

  These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere συναθροισμός, a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins. Against the idea of a climax it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, הַפֶּשַׁע, which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a συναθροισμός it is objected, that the words “to shut up” and “to seal” are not synonymous with “to make reconciliation for,” i.e., “to forgive.” The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked.

  There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin.

  *

  Making atonement. וּלְכַפֵּ֣ר from כפר, to cover, to atone.

  Etymology: The lexica of the nineteenth century associated Heb. kipper with Arab. kafara, “cover,” describing the act of atonement as the covering of guilt. Since Heinrich Zimmern’s reference to Bab. kuppuru, the two etymologies agree.

  In the Koran, Arab. kaffara, “absolve” (with God as subject), is a term borrowed from Judaism but given a new semantic structure: atonement is an act of the merciful God, without the need of any sacrifice. Arabic lexicographers derive the word from kaffara, “cover,” so that kaffara may have overtones of “atone (by covering).”

  The use of kesāyā, “cover,” to translate kappōreṯ in 4Q156 presupposes a specific concept of the sacral object called kappōreṯ; it is not an etymological conjecture. The interpretation of kipper as “cover” on the basis of Arabic, most recently supported by Stamm, is fraught with problems.

  In the LXX, words based on the root kpr are translated consistently by derivatives of hiláskomai; “propitiate, appease.” The regular equivalent of kipper is exiláskomai; the Day of Atonement is translated hēméra exilasmoú (Lev. 23:27f.); the sacral object termed kappōreṯ is translated hilastḗrion; kōṗer is translated exílasma (1 Sam. 12:3; Ps. 49:7 [LXX48:8]).

  a. The construction of exiláskomai carefully imitates that of kipper.

  b. The usage is described as a semitism; it does not agree with common Greek idiom.

  c. Contrary to a popularly accepted theory, certain other translations of kipper – in particular apaleíphō (Dnl. 9:24, possibly a double translation in conjunction with exiláskomai), “wipe away” – cannot be cited in support of the basic meaning of “cover” for kipper.

  d. The variety of translations for kōṗer is noteworthy, especially lýtron (Prov. 6:35; 13:8; pl. in Ex. 21:30; 30:12; Num. 35:31f.), “ransom” or “to free by ransom” (cf. Ex. 13:13).

  e. In the CGS we notice a rare word ảntílutron, “corresponding ransom,” at 1 Tim. 2:6, a statement based on Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45 (cf. Tit. 2:14). See TDOT, vol. VII, pp. 289-292; TDNT, vol. IV, p. 349.

  For error. To err, to deviate, to incur guilt. עָוֹ֔ן from עָוָה. Influenced by the efforts of earlier lexicographers to derive every Hebrew word from a basic material meaning, GesTregLex viewed `wh as a union of two Arab. verbs `wy “bend, turn” and ģwy “deviate, err from the path,” which in turn corresponds to Eth. `awawa, “err, stray, not know.”

  R. Knierim thus deduces a basic meaning of “bend, curve, turn aside, twist.” Even if this etymological meaning is correct, one still cannot determine whether any biblical writer was familiar with the original meaning. In any event, the use of the individual conjugation stems already shows that the root expresses a “dynamistic holistic thought” that tries to conceive in a single sweep “the various phases of a misdeed-consequence process (deed-consequence completion).”

  In older traditions, `āwōn occurs approximately 20 times as a “vernacular term… qualified by a dynamistic understanding of reality.” In the majority of instances it refers to the transgressions of human beings toward others, errors inevitably prompting drastic consequences for the perpetrator. It is closely related to “sin” (cf. 1 Sam. 20:1; 2 Sam. 24:10), its opposite being ḥeseḏ (cf. 2 Sam. 3:8). The reference is thus to fateful guilt caused by a person’s iniquitous transgressions; neither “guilt” nor “sin” nor “punishment” provides an adequate translation in such cases.

  God is the only entity capable of turning away such burden of guilt from a perpetrator, thereby bringing about a positive outcome. He either takes away `āwōn from a sinner (cf. 2 Sam. 24:10) or can permit atonement. The people confess chāṭā’nû; in later texts `āvînû is added for the sake of completeness (Dnl. 9:5; cf. 2 Chron. 6:37). See TDOT, vol. X, pp. 547-549, 550-552.

  It think this was how the Witnesses saw it. Things might have changed. I am not up-to-date with current Witness theology.

  To finish off sin as well as making atonement for error. Jesus’ being cut off in death, his resurrection, and his appearance in heaven resulted in ‘finishing off sin as well as in making atonement for error’ (Dan. 9:24). The Law covenant had exposed the Jews as sinners, condemned them as such, and brought upon them the curse as covenant breakers. But where sin “abounded” as exposed or made evident by the Mosaic Law, God’s mercy and favor abounded much more through his Messiah (Rom. 5:20). By Messiah’s sacrifice, transgression and sin of the repentant sinners can be cancelled and the penalty thereof be lifted. Interestingly, the life course of the Isaiah’s Suffering Servant would result in him “being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors… because of his wounds there has been a healing for us… despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth” (Is. 53:5, 8).
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  WhatshallIcallmyself, it happened in the past and seems to be happening again. And you're right, a full magnetic reversal could mean an extinction level event for the earth as well as biblical-scale floods. See this website for additional information: http://magneticreversal.org/. I personally don't think that it will be that bad. The Bible calls it "the great tribulation," from which there will be survivors. Nevertheless, I believe we are in for a rough ride.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, not only is the earth out of kilter. Recently we have experienced an earth wobble, where the sun shines in through your window, and then the next day it doesn't come close. If you look up at the stars, you will notice some of the constellations are not there where you saw them last night.

  Try this video for size. Prep Aussie demonstrates it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKqyqaGI9_Y

  His somewhat long winded, but the information is relevant. Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7hsV86aQA