Waton, this is from a theological point of view. If you are not that way inclined, feel free to ignore it. But, I believe reasons for it will soon become apparent (cf. Rev. 6:12-17).
Posts by Vidqun
-
53the gaping hole in this week's weak wt study.
by waton infor pimi pimo persons: give us one text that says those aspiring to everlasting life should not partake of the bread and wine.
in the article, the whole proposition of refusing the emblems is based on the personal experience of one brother in the 1930s.!
all jws partook.
-
-
-
53
the gaping hole in this week's weak wt study.
by waton infor pimi pimo persons: give us one text that says those aspiring to everlasting life should not partake of the bread and wine.
in the article, the whole proposition of refusing the emblems is based on the personal experience of one brother in the 1930s.!
all jws partook.
-
-
Vidqun
Rattigan, what did Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" ask the criminal: Do you feel lucky? It's a gamble, I know, but do you want to chance it? The language and symbolism point to the memorial. The book of John does not feature the memorial celebration at all except for John 6. The difference here is that he spoke to everyone, including Pharisees. Interestingly, the chapter ends by referencing Judas, about to betray him (John 6:71). The contrary position is explained by NET footnote:
John 6:53 (NET footnote) says: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. These words are at the heart of the discourse on the Bread of Life, and have created great misunderstanding among interpreters. Anyone who is inclined toward a sacramental viewpoint will almost certainly want to take these words as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, because of the reference to ‘eating his flesh’ and ‘drinking his blood’ (John 6:53ff.; cf. Matt. 26:26-28). But this does not automatically follow: By anyone’s definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the discourse, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it here, as in the previous references in the passage, to a personal receiving of (or appropriation of) Christ and his work. Notice that in John 6:54 (NET footnote) the result (has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day) is produced by eating (Jesus’) flesh and drinking his blood. Compare John 6:40 where the same result is produced by “looking on the Son and believing in him.” This suggests that the phrase here (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood by the phrase in John 6:40 (looks on the Son and believes in him).
However, I am not convinced. It is no coincidence that Jesus uses this very same terminology when instituting the memorial of his death. Early on in his ministry (already in John 6) he would be preparing the people for the Eucharist. His intimate followers, later to be anointed with holy spirit, are in a special covenant relationship with him (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; cf. Rev. 5:9, 10). They would be celebrating the memorial in remembrance of their Lord, for forgiveness of sins as well as being participants of the new covenant as leaders of the Israel of God (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:25; Gal. 6:15, 16; Rev. 14:1-5; 20:4). Jesus’ earthly subjects would celebrate the memorial in remembrance of their Lord, for forgiveness sins and being participants of the new covenant as part of the Israel of God. By so doing both groups would be unified in “proclaiming the death of the Lord until he arrives” and attaining the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:24-26; Gal. 6:15, 16; cf. John 6:56).
-
53
the gaping hole in this week's weak wt study.
by waton infor pimi pimo persons: give us one text that says those aspiring to everlasting life should not partake of the bread and wine.
in the article, the whole proposition of refusing the emblems is based on the personal experience of one brother in the 1930s.!
all jws partook.
-
-
Vidqun
To the contrary, note what Jesus says of you if you don't partake: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (cf. John 6:48-54 ESV). And the basis of judgement: “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (12:47, 48 ESV). [Cursive script added.] Are the GB members sentencing their brothers to death?
-
8
Another Rainbow explained....
by snare&racket indue to the many variables involved it has been difficult for science to predict how proteins fold to form their uniquely functional state.
proteins are built from individual amino acids up, coded by dna.
protein function is dictated by its shape and amino acid make up.
-
-
Vidqun
Create (Design/Manufacture)
Google > DeepMind > Complicated folded protein molecule
Spontaneous generation (Design/manufacuture)
Cell information and manufacturing system > Complicated folded protein molecule
It certainly boggles the mind!
-
41
The 1950s NWT (1984)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
-
-
Vidqun
Well, seeing that we are generalizing, one could say most modern English Bible translations are based on the King James, including the ASV. I think I read on this forum that an Israeli translator affirmed that Frederick Franz was adept at Hebrew. She could not fault his translation. I still believe that he had some original ideas, whether right or wrong. The critique of his "[strong] testicle" translation just proved it to me yet again. But I do not excuse his scholarly dishonesty to prove a doctrinal point. A good example is Jer. 29:10 in order to prove the 1914 date. If he did have a good knowledge of Hebrew he would have known it was wrong. The Silver Sword also has it wrong.
-
41
The 1950s NWT (1984)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
-
-
Vidqun
I think Franz was ahead of his time in certain aspects. As you will see, he's not far off with his literal translation of Jer. 5:8. Here's HALOT, the most modern and influential version of Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon, edited by J. J. Stamm, with an explanation of hkv: denominative vb. possessing testicles; with visible testicles, NRSV: lusty stallions Jr 5 8. † Note strong in brackets, very accurate.
-
41
The 1950s NWT (1984)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
-
-
Vidqun
No Jeffro, I don't agree. We have a modernization of the King James in the form of the New King James Version (NKJV), yet the NWT is nothing like it. The ASV had some influence, e.g., Jehovah in the OT, but overall quite different. As you said their verbal structure, quite tedious, but original according Franz's wayward theories of the Hebrew Verbal System. Nothing quite like it amongst the translations. I wrote to them that it was quite contradictory and gave examples, but I am sure they didn't appreciate my criticism at the time.
-
41
The 1950s NWT (1984)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
-
-
Vidqun
This proves that the NWT is an original translation, even though funny. I have learnt a lot from it, believe it or not. E.g., 'El is singular for God and 'Elohim is plural (of excellence), translated God. The [true] God indicates the distinction. Few translations indicate the peculiarity of the Hebrew. And the average Jew really had an averse reaction to idols after being punished repeatedly for this sin, thus the dungy part, similar for the word "abomination," something to loathe. The NWT is highly conducive for original language studies because of its peculiar renderings. One needs to go back to the original languages to find out the meaning. Think of the Greek word that they translated with "impale." In the time of the Maccabees some Jews were impaled. They were place on a sharpened stake. However, this is not how Jesus died. This is part of the learning process. What would we have done without the the NWT! It helps us to distinguish truth from doctrinal embellishment which one finds in a great variety of translation, especially official Protestant and Catholic versions.
-
12
Bewildering Background revealing who stopped slavery in the world
by Terry inbewildering background.
even among the greatest religious thinkers and moral philosophers of civilizations around the world for 1000’s of years slavery was not considered a moral issue.. only one civilization developed a “moral revulsion” against it very late in its history:western civilization.. abraham lincoln said:if slavery is not considered wrong; nothing can be considered as wrong.. but why did not even the leading moralists among other nations and civilizations reject slavery at all?.
there is no evidence that slavery came under attack in any other part of the world before the 18th century.
-
-
Vidqun
The American Civil War was about the abolishment of the slave trade. Those for the abolishment: The Republicans. Those against: The Democrats. I find that quite ironic. Perhaps all these BLM people should study history. They might just learn something.
-
15
A thesis: The Discursive Construction of Freedom in the Watchtower Society
by AndersonsInfo ina thesis: the discursive construction of freedom in the watchtower society.
https://ris.cdu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/24632569/thesis_cdu_24577264_chester_h.pdf .
be aware, this thesis, although supremely stimulating, thought-provoking, fascinating, attention-grabbing, remarkable, noteworthy, and appealing, the author made use of out of the ordinary, worthy of note, and fascinating words and statements that, for the reader of average intelligence (like me), make for laborious reading.
-
-
Vidqun
Brilliant thesis. It answered a lot of questions I wondered about. The Society as a superorganism (like a beehive) would not be interested in truth, justice or deep doctrinal issues.
The queen(s) and top echelon make sure the workers and drones toe the line and contribute to the unity of the hive. If not, they are expelled, hopefully to die outside. So all questions, e.g., Are the members of the Governing Body sincere? Do they really believe in the Bible? Will there be a reformation? are moot.
They are not interested in the opinions of the minions. As long as the minions contribute to the unity of the organization, they are acceptable. In this case all are equal (some just more equal than others). And that's where conditional love comes in. I love you as long as you obey. This is also the case with the Mormons, Scientologists, etc.
I also like her comparison with the body and its immune system. The bacteria and viruses, those spreading a different doctrine, whether right or wrong, must be eliminated.
So, for those that want to see change and are working for it, are wasting their time. According to such a model, they are flogging a dead horse, farting against thunder.