Posts by kepler

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

oompa,

LOL. It might have been about 1820 at the Congress of Vienna after they put Napoleon out of circulation that the top diplomats among the allies were sitting around in meetings dividing up Europe. In the midst of all this the Russian representative didn't show up because he had died.

One of the negotiators sitting at the table expressed his concern. "What do you suppose was his motive for doing that?"

And by the way, a generation is equal to 43.5 years. And if you don't believe it, when I report back to my ship, I will be forced to open this envelope which contains my orders...

Cheers,

Kepler

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

OGD,

You noted that I was as adamant as the WT about their being a specific numerical value for a generation?

Hmmm. I'll have to reconstruct. Since I have not grown up in the WT faith, the notion of a generation has been more on the periphery for me for most of my life. Since Biblical references to generations were probably a large portion of the pie chart of generational measurements though, I think I have probably mused at one time or another about how many years they are talking about. It was only today though that I actually thought about using this test, and had meant to look at some other concordance instances of use. There's a concordance here at home and I had difficulty finding what I wanted on line when I was at the office. So I guess I started writing half-cocked. Rather than having a precise temporal definition of generation - I just have some of the arguments displayed for parents giving birth to children over an age span - and indications that Matthew's chapter one use of the term seems to match up rather well with that. I feel as though I have not done sufficient homework to argue the case for/against other genea definitions in chapter 24. I would just as soon listen to what others have to say on that one.

While the instances cited so far are for the New Testament, I suppose the research could be expanded (in principle ) to the Septuagint. To clarify what I mean, the Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament was translated over several decades or a couple centuries into Greek for dissemination about the Mediterranean Jewish community. There are variations in this text from extant Hebrew versions beyond the scope of this discussion, but translators to Greek had to decide when to use the term "genea" and how. Maybe there is a clue there.

But I am also inclined to believe/think that many Biblical passages that are interpreted as prophecy appear as they do because of a lot of backdating or ex post facto editing. To put it another way, once that possibility is admitted into the discussion, it is hard to identify where the genuine predictions are - or who said them. In some of the discussion above it is implied, but to illustrate, consider I Peter writing supposedly from Babylon. If he was not writing from Babylon, it was probably Rome. But why would he call Rome Babylon if he didn't see a resemblance? What was the resemblance? Also, the "this generation" passage appears in all three synoptic Gospels, but there are significant differences in the overall accounts surrounding that discussion. So, for arguments about context for "generation" in Matthew: do they apply as well in Mark and Luke?

...It is hard for me to break off about prophecies of destruction of cities without mentioning the one that bothers me most. And that is the reported destruction of Babylon in Isaiah. The insert into the "poem" of chapter 14 at verses 22-23 describes the fate of Babylon at the hands of Sennacherib - not Cyrus. Sennacherib desecrated its temples, leveled and flooded the city and sent its population off into captivity about a century before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem. Nothing like that happened ever again. But our tradition tells us otherwise.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

OGD, Sulla,

I suppose that since the discussion is moving toward the sixth generation concept of "the end", then maybe a comparison of generations derived from chapter one with 2010 statements in Watchtower might be a propos. Here is what was quoted at www.JWFacts.com:

At the 2010 annual meeting, John Barr presented the latest understanding of the generation. 97-year old Barr was an apt choice to deliver this talk, being the last of the Governing Body born before 1914. He explained the generation is now to include 2 groups whose lives "overlap" since 1914:

"John Barr ... twice read the comment: "Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of the other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." We do not know the exact length of "this generation," but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!" Watchtower 2010 June 15 p.5

------------

Now, in my case, I have never been an inside observer; nor can I say at this point that I am impartial outside observer either. But what I note about this statement is that it never refers to generations at all, but only"groups". Based on Matthew chapter one and using historical records, we derive 43-45 year period for a generation. Although this a rather long period based on the "begetting" method of calculation, this method still does not account for the length of life for an individual cohort. For example, generating a new generation begins with the first born and then continues with a succession of siblings. The situation is further confused with children producing grandchildren before their parents are done producing sons and daughters. Maybe Matthew was actually unaware of whether Jerusalem fell six centuries earlier, but a width of twenty some years for producing children would argue for the 45 year figure for a generation. On the other hand, there is no indication in the three examples of how long individuals in a generation might survive.

In the new concept for defining generation does not address how many actual generations are involved in the anointed overlap and relies more and more on the upper edge of a demographic bell curve. Carr's legitimacy as part of "this generation" rests on being one year old prior to 1914. But still, the gap now is more than twice as long as the generation length derived from Matthew's 14 generations between Christ's birth and Jerusalem's fall. Can forty year olds declare themselves as anointed? What about twenty year olds? If this is an-ongoing situation, then eventually the spread between the first generation of anointed and the last is clearly going to be several generations - at least from Matthew's perspective.

Come to think of it ( and this just might be my ignorance), are there any anointed JW women? Or are all the celestial civil service appointments reserved for males? Does anyone track whether there are any anointed women? Were the people pictured on the 1984 Watchtower cover all of that designation? If so, that looks like a nearly even distribution ( 7 of 16). But what about those prior to the 20th century? If I remember right, Rutherford was expecting male houseguests at Beth Sarim.

And then, of course, a lot of those who during the 20th century got their stripes and passed on, believed in something as an article of faith (2nd, 3rd, 4th formulation ...) that was demonstrated to be wrong.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

Thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, I took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history. Thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

I can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in Matthew 24:34.

"Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."

Interpretation of this verse in the history of the JW organization, as the site notes, seems to have had six generations of revision. So far. Perhaps because the Revisers are getting closer and closer to the light.

It was C. T. Russell that had dismissed the notion that the Greek word genea had anything to do with tribe or race, but in initial search I did see some suggestions that a full list of genea dictionary definitions could include that. Then that would make the resolution of events prophesied in the 24th chapter an open-ended proposition. But that wouldn't solve the society's problem either.

Still, based on that outside assertion I just thought I'd look around using a Concordance of the Greek text... And what did I find?

Matthew in the first chapter of his book gives a very clear definition of how long a generation lasts! He provides three examples. He uses the word "genea" and connects it with historical events! Matthew 1:17

"So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, fourteen generations."

I am sure, what with the Society's fascination with "sacred" numbers such as multiples of seven, someone must have stumbled on this verse now and them. I have probably missed out on lots of internal discussion of this over the years, though I was previously aware that Luke had found several more generations to add to this geneaology. But we rest assured that both genealogies are correct, right? If not, that's another topic. But the important thing in this context, is that we have the author of chapter 24 going on record in the same book as to what he thought a generation entailed. Moreover, he defined it in terms of the society's own gold bar measure for events: along that timeline between the fall of Jerusalem and 1914! You might say that Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607 BC or that Jesus was born in year 1 AD or 4 BC, but fourteen generations strung between those error margins is not going to change a definition of a generation by a decade.

Are we ready for some trial calculations?

607 / 14 = 43.3 years. 587/14 = 41.9 years

We could get longer if we dropped a generation.

607/13 = 46.7 years 587/13 = 45.1 years.

Shorter if we added, but why bother.

Although Matthew is less explicit about when King David reigned, between five and six centuries earlier is not a bad guess. Archaelogical connections with Egyptian kings and the book of Kings itself tie down Solomon fairly well, if not David (circa 1000 BC). Between David and Abraham, we've got less tie in from other records and much controversy, but patriarchs aren't surving as many years as they used to according to the Bible. Also, we can see from the usage that it is not a question of how long an individual survived, but what was the space of time netweem the ascendancy of one generation after another. If he's a 18th century figure, then a generation is about 53 years. If he is a 23rd century figure, then it might be 85. But what do you base Abraham's existence on in either century or millenium? And there goes the imposed symmetry of Matthew's genealogical argument.

What comes to mind at moments like this is Moliere's play "the Bourgeoise Gentleman". As Monsieur Jourdain is being schooled for society, the distinction between prose and poetry is provided by his instructor. The student exclaims, "I had been speaking prose all my life and didn't even know it!"

In Bible study under supervision, while speaking of generations, does anyone ever bring anything like this up?

42

Emailing my sister RE: Child abuse conviction - NEED HELP!!

by What Now? in

so the other night, my family was together and my dad brought up the recent child abuse conviction for the society.

big surprise, my sister hadn't heard anything about it, so of course she got right on to the jw.org website and emailed me the link to the watchtowers official statement.

this is my reply:.

kepler

What Now,

Your correspondence with your sister certainly rings home. Three years ago I watched the same mindset set in with my ex-fiancee. I still don't fully understand how that world view is instilled from day to day even with the measures of programmed learning and outrageous claims of authority, but the effects I have watched grow tighter and tighter like an invisible strangling vine. Yet there we were. Before she decided to go back, we were trying to get married after what had been a several year, genuine romance. Since then, though I have never been a JW or even had any previous idea what they were about, I have earned honorary apostate status. Anyone who is a brother or sister is more like the angels in their proximity to God. Perhaps I am above a mineral or vegetable. I'm not sure. When one of our pet cats died, I think I observed its passing with more sorrow than my own will ever warrant.

Now that we have hardly any contact, even with official business or emergencies each seeming like a border line case, I have to wonder if something like the Candace Conti settlement even appears on her horizon. During that transition back when I would visit her on the road trips at her hotel, I soon discovered that only two forms of printed matter remained in her room: her work folders and her JW publications for study. One of the last trips, I couldn't even stay at the same hotel and she confided in me that she felt plagued by her feeling that she was still not doing enough for Jehovah. Cleaning out the house of her belongings when she finally packed it all up, one of the memento was one of those typical framed pictures with signatures of well wishing friends on the border, hoping for her success at her new job with all of its business travel. Her portrait was in the center. She cut out her portrait and saved it and threw out the signatures and well wishes of her friends (I repeat her friends - not ones I somehow imposed on her). They were all part of the demonic past - and so was I. I had met her in a non-denominational church when she was "inactive" and it was swarming with demons as she later attested. Sometimes they were bothering her when she couldn't sleep.

Some time in the midst of all this she told me what had sealed the deal. It was when her son had died of leukemia. We traveled to the midwest for the funeral and it was the first time I met her family other than her remaining daughter. Her mother, an active minister, had been dutifully shunning her. There were no arrangements for the funeral and I made many of them myself. At the funeral ceremony, an elder from a local congregation ( not her mother's several states away) spoke of her son and all the travails in his life - which were plenty - and then turned to my fiancee and proclaimed from the podium that everything that had happened to her son was her fault.

She had given birth to him at age of fourteen.

The emotional devastation of such a loss, being a teenage mother and also a mother to a very troubled son - all this was monumental from the start. And even as much as she was practically everything to me, I could feel that somehow the other shoe would drop as a consequence of such loss. So I can honestly say that I did not know how to deal with either situation. Her profound grief or the demanding monster still banging at the door. With regard to the latter, I ended up studying religious matters with a new zeal, especially when one day she came up to me out of the blue and asked: "Don't you think you need someone to advise you on the Bible, a true expert?" I had thought that that was the exactly what the Protestant Reformation was in reaction to.

Examining Protestant issues or perspectives vs. Catholic ones of my own background, it was interesting, but it was mostly heading down a cold trail. It was the apocalyptic thought that was the important branch, the one in the English speaking world and the American outback that seemed to gain impetus with sighting of mid 19th century comets. As I became more acquainted with the faith she was brought up in, I saw a lot of discrepancies. First I was amateurish with false starts. This stuff was more subtle than I had thought. But then I got some important clues.

When I dug around in the local university library and looked at the use of the term crucifixion in Greek and Latin texts, I was convinced that the issue of cross vs. stake was a red herring. But I might have driven a stake into a vampire the way she screamed in reaction. She told me that I was going to take instruction and then I was going to convert. Period.

I did eventually take instruction and very careful notes. I continued to take instructions several months even til after for reconciliation there no longer appeared to be hope. What stopped it finally was an overseer who made a guest appearance on Mardi Gras weekend. He didn't like my questions and I didn't like his anti-semitic rants in my living room.

But then I continued to pursue these matters - and I kept her aware of my progress whether she liked it or not. For example I told her she was deceived when she quoted Ephraim Stern on the destruction of Jerusalem. This was false witness for sure. She gave me no reply. Then I wanted to take on a number of people who I felt that had lied to me or were responsible for telling the lies. I wanted her to set up the meeting, but all she could supply was a postal address to the Home Office and warning not to get her involved.

I went back to the local kingdom halls. I asked to talk to any Elder that would give me time. Most of them scattered, but eventually I located some who were available to hear me out. It was the congregation that had drawn her back in. I spoke of things that I had examined and told them that, if on no other basis but Scripture, I could show that what they were telling me ( and by inference her) was wrong or a deliberate manipulation to fit doctrine. Things that I eventually spoke of on this forum. Things that other people have discovered on their own and spoken of here as well. It is sad that this process is such a lone pilgrimage, especially when you believe that others are living in a lie.

The elder and his two subordinates drew complete blanks to anything I had to say. More or less they shrugged. But he did ask me, "Does this matter have anything to do with a woman?" I said, "Yes, it did." He advised. "That woman was very sick. I strongly recommend that you forget all about her and move on." And my heart sank. Amid all the lies maybe he had actually said something that was true? And of things, one JW putting down another?

Yes. She was sick. And now, so was I. But I had lost track in the midst of all this examinations of scripture and doctrine why she was sick. It would have helped if the Org and her mother had not curtailed her high school education since the world was supposed to blow in '75. Maybe she would have been less inclined to believe Chinese cookie fortunes or business success stories based on covenants with God. But more important:

I don't think the Org could have landed a more deadly and vicious blow than to hit her as it did when her son had just died.

10

The Use of the Word Satan in the Bible

by kepler in

job 38:4,7.. .

job 1:6 before the lord, and satan came also among them.

job 2:1 before the lord, and satan came also among them .

kepler

Clarity,

Thanks for your note. It's the best result I can hope for engaging in this sort of thing.

10

The Use of the Word Satan in the Bible

by kepler in

job 38:4,7.. .

job 1:6 before the lord, and satan came also among them.

job 2:1 before the lord, and satan came also among them .

kepler

What often takes me off-guard on this forum is how the tides of contributions shift from close adherence to and extreme difference with JW world view. Maybe a few days ago I might be an outlier in one direction - and then next I am sailing on the other side of the lake from the regatta. A friend once gave me a bit of advice: "Just be yourself, ...clone!"

mP,

We might have had a similar discussion a couple of months ago. Full revisit: a topic called Biblical herpetology. But to tell the truth, most of my knowledge of reptiles and amphibians is present day, watching or raising turtles and frogs. Interesting enough as a hobby, but it's provided virtually no practical application. I've got nothing transferable in this case. Suspect though that areas of scientific inquiry, following a specific trail such as farm implements, coins, bricks, stored seeds, etc. tells a lot more about a society than we might initially view.

Just in passing, I did mention above that camel caravans are supposedly a relatively late innovation in the mideast. That Moses would be writing of a camel caravan king in 1473 BC ( or 1200 BC for that matter) is an illustrative difficulty with such authorship for Job. Other than that it makes doctrinal sense for the WTBTS to have Moses write Job is about the only rationale I can see. But neither cuneiform or hieroglyphic records for Egyptian or Mesopotamian origin are available in support of any argument. So, whether it's snakes or camels, there's indirect testimony about the past. But I don't think it makes sense to dismiss what ancient writings we have by saying that all the authors' motives were base and exposed.

Glenster,

Sounds like you have addressed usage of another set of words in the OT. You are right about the first verse of the first chapter of the first book. It is an interesting insert considering that later in the text ( in English) there appears to be an editorial "we": "Let us make man in our own image and likeness." This mystifies many due to the plural, but it also raises the question of what is the image of an invisible god but that of a spirit - And this poses another stumbling block for JW doctrine. Granted, you could place in two columns arguments for bodily and spiritual resurrection - and JWs drill on the former. But what I referred to above from Mark is an argument for the latter. Same with Christ on the cross speaking to the Good Thief in Luke. The edit of this part of the Gospels in the NWT is as blatant as an episode in Orwell's Animal Farm.

But back to the singular and plural. I am not a Hebrew linguist - and Biblical scholarship has had centuries to mull such matters. But the words El and Elohim appear to be singular and plural of god. The use of YHWH, Elohim, El Shaddai and all the other forms are tracers too of Judaeo-Christian thought. And as I look at these things, trying to juggle in my mind which editorial group was using what term and why, I am inclined to reserve judgment. Things that I read a year or two ago, I would interpret differently now - and maybe it is just a matter of coming up to speed with people at this longer than I have been. But I would be aware of groupthink organizations inside or outside of the forum.

WTWizard,

Talking about "opposition"!

You wouldn't happen to be related to Jonathan Swift? You are not without sharp observation. And I confess that I share some of your anger. Who knows, maybe as much even if I don't manifest it the same way. I guess I don't look as far afield for inspiration or motivation - though perhaps some of my examples sound as demonic to JW trained ears. But actually I am convinced that there is room within Christian belief for further search for truth and room for action as well. Even our sense of fair play is based on the foundation it provided. We find ourselves in a campsite that we should leave in as good or better condition than when we found it. Tough order, but it has to be at least a conscious thought before it can be enacted.

10

The Use of the Word Satan in the Bible

by kepler in

job 38:4,7.. .

job 1:6 before the lord, and satan came also among them.

job 2:1 before the lord, and satan came also among them .

kepler

In the Jehovah Witness pamphlet “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” (WTBRT), on page 28-31 of chapter 3 ( “What is God’s Purpose for the Earth?”) there is a section titled “The Origin of an Enemy”. In the beginning it reads:

“The first book of the Bible tells us of an opposer of God who showed up in the Garden of Eden. He is described as “the serpent”, but he was not a mere animal. The last book of the Bible identifies him as the “one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth” [unattributed]. He is also called “the original serpent” [Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9]. This powerful angel, or invisible spirit creature, used a serpent to speak to Eve, even as a skilled person can make it seem that his voice is coming from a nearby doll or dummy. That spirit person had no doubt been present when God prepared the Earth for humans. – Job 38:4,7.”

To me this reads more like the Cliff Notes for Milton’s “Paradise Lost” than Genesis, and at that, it does not match up very well with the events in the middle and the end. We will stop for a moment here to look at the quote from Job, chapter 38. The first verse from the NWT reads:

1 “And Jehovah proceeded to answer Job [my emphasis] out of the windstorm and say…

4 “Where did you happen to be where I founded the earth?

7 “When the morning stars joyfully cried out together and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?”

On page 29 of WTBRT, the epistle of James is cited as explaining how a perfect spirit creation of God could somehow go bad. “Wrong desire may become very strong. Then if the opportunity presents itself, he may act upon the bad desire that he been thinking about.” - James 1:13-15.

I suggest checking out this passage for yourself to see if this sheds any light on the origin of evil in this world; whether or not it is simply inherent in human nature with which we must struggle, or whether evil resided in eternity waiting to manifest itself in interference between God and man; that one more perfect creature managed to corrupt another in full view of a royal court over which presides an eternal, omnipotent and omniscient God.

Clearly, since its founding, the WTBTS has been of the latter view. With the 1934 Yearbook I attempted a word count of the number of times its author (Joseph Rutherford) used certain words. Beyond its statistical report, most of the yearbook then was set up as a daily meditation: a passage selected from the Bible and then a paragraph selected from the previous year’s WatchTower publications. Almost invariably the WatchTower quotations were variations on the impending Armageddon theme. Judging by word counts for the first six months of daily “meditations”, Rutherford referenced Jesus 184 times and Satan 126. He mentioned “organization” 76 times, but I leave it a matter of speculation whether this was used as a pejorative.

As early as 1921, author Rutherford is quick to connect Satan with passages in the Bible Old Testament. From “The Harp of God”, pages 29-30, chapter 2, “The Creation”:

[Of Lucifer], the prophet Ezekiel says of him that “that he was the anointed cherub that covereth”, which seems to indicate that he had authority over some others. Continuing, the prophet records: “Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou has walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thous wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:14,15).

When one actually reads chapter 28 of Ezekiel, it is apparent that Ezekiel is addressing these words to the King of Tyre under siege by the Babylonians.

“Thou has been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond (Ezekiel 28:13). “ The same thing. This is about the king of Tyre.

Even in 1921 there was a tendency to cite Biblical verses in reverse order to validate an interpretation adapted for contemporary ends. But if you go to verses 11 and 12, you will read the following:

The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows: son of man, raise a lament for the king of Tyre. Say to him, The Lord Yahweh says this :

You used to be a model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty; ( 28:12)

You were in Eden, in the garden of God.

All kinds of gem formed your mantle

It is hard for me to believe that such a Bible moth as Rutherford could be unaware of what he was doing.

Now, having ascertained that Joseph Rutherford refers very frequently to Satan in his writings, often citing Satan where he is not, let us check for how many times the Bible actually mentions the chap.

With an on-line concordance, searching for: Hebrew word “SATAN” in King James version

Old Testament

JOB 1:6 before the LORD, and SATAN came also among them.

JOB 1:7 the LORD said unto SATAN, Whence comest thou? Then

JOB 1:7 Whence comest thou? Then SATAN answered the LORD, and

JOB 1:8 the LORD said unto SATAN, Hast thou considered my

JOB 1:9 Then SATAN answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job

JOB 1:12 the LORD said unto SATAN, Behold, all that he

JOB 1:12 forth thine hand. So SATAN went forth from the

JOB 2:1 before the LORD, and SATAN came also among them

JOB 2:2 the LORD said unto SATAN, From whence comest thou?

JOB 2:2 whence comest thou? And SATAN answered the LORD, and

JOB 2:3 the LORD said unto SATAN, Hast thou considered my

JOB 2:4 And SATAN answered the LORD, and said, Skin for

JOB 2:6 the LORD said unto SATAN, Behold, he is in

JOB 2:7 So went SATAN forth from the presence of the (14)

[ According to NWT Appendix written by Moses in 1473 BC in parallel with Numbers and Deuteronomy]

PSALM 109:6 over him: and let SATAN stand at his right [accuser?] (1)

ZECHARIAH 3:1 of the LORD, and SATAN standing at his right [Joshua] to accuse him

ZECHARIAH 3:2 the LORD said unto SATAN, The LORD rebuke thee,

ZECHARIAH 3:2 LORD rebuke thee, O SATAN; even the LORD that (3)

[1 st chapters circa 520-517BC, later chapters 200 years later]

1 CHRONICLES 21:1 And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David (1)

[ According to NWT Appendix, written by Ezra sometime in the mid 5 th century]

New Testament –Gospels & Acts

MATTHEW 4:10 him, Get thee hence, SATAN: for it is written,

MATTHEW 12:26 And if SATAN cast out SATAN, he is divided

MATTHEW 12:26 if SATAN cast out SATAN, he is divided against

MATTHEW 16:23 Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offense

MARK 1:13 forty days, tempted of SATAN; and was with the

MARK 3:23 them in parables, How can SATAN cast out SATAN?

MARK 3:26 And if SATAN rise up against himself, and be

MARK 4:15 when they have heard, SATAN cometh immediately, and taketh

MARK 8:33 Get thee behind me, SATAN: for thou savourest not

LUKE 4:8 Get thee behind me, SATAN: for it is written,

LUKE 10:18 unto them, I beheld SATAN as lightning fall from

LUKE 11:18 If SATAN also be divided against himself, how shall

LUKE 13:16 daughter of Abraham, whom SATAN hath bound, lo, these

LUKE 22:3 Then entered SATAN into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of

LUKE 22:31 said, Simon, Simon, behold, SATAN hath desired to have

JOHN 13:27 And after the sop SATAN entered into him. Then

ACTS 5:3 said, Ananias, why hath SATAN filled thine heart to

ACTS 26:18 from the power of SATAN unto God, that they

New Testament Epistles

ROMANS 16:20 of peace shall bruise SATAN under your feet shortly.

1 CORINTHIANS 5:5 such an one unto SATAN for the destruction of

1 CORINTHIANS 7:5 come together again, that SATAN tempt you not for

2 CORINTHIANS 2:11 Lest SATAN should get an advantage of us: for

2 CORINTHIANS 11:14 And no marvel; for SATAN himself is transformed into

2 CORINTHIANS 12:7 flesh, the messenger of SATAN to buffet me, lest

1 THESSALONIANS 2:18 I Paul, once and again; but SATAN hindered us.

2 THESSALONIANS 2:9 after the working of SATAN with all power and

1 TIMOTHY 1:20 I have delivered unto SATAN, that they may learn

1 TIMOTHY 5:15 For some are already turned aside after SATAN.

Revelations

REVELATION 2:9 and are not, but are the synagogue of SATAN.

REVELATION 2:13 thou dwellest, even where SATAN's seat is: and thou

REVELATION 2:13 martyr, who was slain among you, where SATAN dwelleth.

REVELATION 2:24 known the depths of SATAN, as they speak; I

REVELATION 3:9 of the synagogue of SATAN, which say they are

REVELATION 12:9 called the Devil, and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole

REVELATION 20:2 is the Devil, and SATAN, and bound him a

REVELATION 20:7 thousand years are expired, SATAN shall be loosed out

----

To give credit where credit is due, I would not be writing this post right now if I had not been reading WTBRT under the direction of an Elder and his assistants who visited me each Saturday a couple of winters ago. I would not have reviewed what is actually said at Genesis 3:1, nor would I have connected it with what else is said in the Bible in the manner indicated above. What happened was that I was shocked to my core by what I saw – and it was entirely different than what the Elder and the Brothers were trying to lead me to believe.

When I looked at what was said in the Bible and what I have just excerpted in part from the pamphlet WTBRT, I was amazed by the deceit in behalf of attempting to prove the devil's existence, a rather contrarian enterprise, if I do say so myself.

Genesis never identifies the serpent as Satan or the devil. Satan in the book of Job could be a proper name – or more likely, a title to a prosecutorial presence in a conventional court of an earthly monarch transposed to a celestial realm. There is no evidence for authorship by Moses and the dates ascribed to such authorship are preposterous archeologically even if Moses had written anything himself at all. Anachronisms such as camel caravans abound – and the structure of the book is a poem embedded in a surrounding narrative drawing differing conclusions. This suggests at least two authors.

Satan as a name for the devil is just as semantically slippery as saying “Judge” is Rutherford’s first name. For in the other instances that ha satan appears in the Hebrew text of the OT, save one, it could just as easily be an accuser in a trial ( Zechariah or Psalms) and has sometimes been translated as such. If all letters are capital, then proper nouns and common nouns can only be determined by context. And even then, XEROX could represent a corporate enterprise or a paper copy.

The account in 1 Chronicles is the most problematic. In the 21 st chapter, almost out of nowhere, this 5 th century record proclaims that the “the devil made David do it”. King David did a lot of regrettable things as the earlier books of Samuel and Kings recount. But of all the evil, or treacherous things that are attributed to David, this particular incident was so terrible that it provoked one of three severe punishments from God - David's choice (3 years of famine, 3 months at the hands of thy enemies or 3 days of Yahweh’s sword – an epidemic 21:12-13). Remarkably, o nly a few chapters before is related the contrasting promise the Lord had made to the people of Israel via the prophet Nathan ( I Chronicles 17:9-10). David selects the last of the choices in which 70,000 reportedly succumb to plague.

What was at the base of this issue? King David had ordered a census.

Has anyone really ever sorted out the inherent iniquity of this deed? Each decade the United States engages in a nationwide tally. The Gospels record a census in connection with Christ’s birth. And the Watchtower’s annual collection of data about itself could hardly be described as anything else.

The only thing that is clear here is that the author of the Chronicles, perhaps Ezra the representative of the Persian monarch, assumes that the reader knows what he is talking about when he says that Satan urged King David to compile a census. Nothing earlier in the Old Testament gives us any clues. Genesis tells us nothing about the serpent’s connection to God’s court – or even if God presides over one. God’s behavior and description are inconsistent in chapters one and two. And his ability to foresee the consequences of events on Earth is not consistent (e.g, reporting second thoughts about appointing Saul as King). When he speaks in the Old Testament about relations with his people, the Covenant, it is described without any reference to events in the Garden of Eden at all. While some can derive order in these tales, one could just as well conclude there is chaos from which the notion of Satan could arise.

Yet in the New Testament, we find that Satan has a complete identity as an evil spirit. In the Synoptic Gospels his minions appear to lurk behind every tree. In the quotes from the Gospels above, it is even said of Satan, “It is written…” Where? As well as I can tell within the framework of the Bible itself, initially in the Epistles of Paul.

In the Gospel of John we have one reference to Satan as Satan, but in Revelations we have eight. By definition, we speak of the author of this Gospel as John, but do we know who John of Patmos really is? The John of the Gospel speaks of a divine Christ who was on the Earth and John Patmos speaks of a Christ who appears in symbolic visions. The Gospel of John speaks less of demons than the Synoptic Gospels. In chapter 8, Christ accuses Pharisees of being spawn of the devil for their beliefs; in chapter 10, skeptics claim he is possessed of the devil for beliefs of his own. I am unaware of miracles in John related to casting out of demons. Revelations, despite much mention of Satan, speaks only three times of demons: worshiping demons ( 9:20), demonic spirits ( 16:14) and a dwelling of demons ( 18:2).

In seeking an answer to these questions, I have noted what Jewish commentators say about their Scriptures. The Devil is not inherent within it. One has gone so far as to say that the reason the serpent in the garden is the serpent is because at that writing “the devil had not been invented yet”.

But this is not to dismiss the presence of evil in the world.

We know evil when we see it, but we know nothing for sure when we are simply afraid of the dark. If we are called as jurors to judge a crime, for the most part, we have a choice of considering that an individual is guilty or innocent; but sometimes we are allowed to take into consideration the expert testimony of those who argue for “not guilty by reason of insanity”: crimes which make no sense in terms of gain, jealousy or anger; crimes sometimes where people have driven off an edge of despair or make no sense at all. There is provision for hate crimes and heinous crimes, but none for demonic possession.

Are crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol the result of the individual neglect or the work of the devil? Are crimes done in the name of ideology or zealotry the fault of the devil or should we attribute blame to human agents? Are evil ideas at loose in an era the responsibility of those who are alive on Earth or an invisible agent sprinkling them down on us like salt? If a person spontaneously spouts obscenities and blasphemies, do we attribute it to the devil or a neural disease? How about seizures?

But back to the book WTBRT.

“The first book of the Bible tells us of an opposer of God who showed up in the Garden of Eden. He is described as “the serpent”, but he was not a mere animal. The last book of the Bible identifies him as the “one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth” [unattributed]. He is also called “the original serpent” [Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9]. This powerful angel, or invisible spirit creature, used a serpent to speak to Eve, even as a skilled person can make it seem that his voice is coming from a nearby doll or dummy. That spirit person had no doubt been present when God prepared the Earth for humans. – Job 38:4,7.”

This paragraph and subsequent paragraphs are filled with assertions which examination does not support. The first book of the Bible does not tell us that an opposer of God showed up in the garden. T he narrator says that the snake had been around long enough to gather a reputation as clever or subtle – but that’s more like Aesop’s fables than an exposition on an eternal being capable of tripping up the work of the Creator. If it did, then there is more duality in the creation and rule of the world than the first chapter of the book suggests. It is Revelation that says “original serpent”; not Genesis. And Genesis says nothing about marionettes, puppetry or ventriloquism. But we are told on page 29:

“This happened in the case of Satan the Devil. He apparently heard God tell Adam and Eve to have children and to fill the earth with their offspring. ‘Why all these humans could worship me rather than God!’ Satan evidently thought. So a wrong desire built up in his heart.”

This is a lot of supposition since we are only to Genesis chapter three. This is supposition derived from perspectives that are shared with us in the Bible only after Romans – and after the Apostle Paul had given his world view reconsideration during events related in Acts. Since Paul’s writings precede the Gospels chronologically, it is hard for us to tell if and when anyone looked at things this way before Paul wrote of them himself.

But as for Satan “apparently heard God tell Adam and Eve” or “Satan evidently thought” … based on

3:1 Now the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animalsthat Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman…

The text specifically says that the snake was an animal. Who is deceiving whom and how?

If “it is written”, then the written tradition is outside of the Old Testament canon and there are several candidates to consider. Zoroastrian documents provide earlier and more detailed discussion of eternal conflict between good and evil, or “truth and lies”. The book of Enoch, alluded to in the epistle of Jude, resembles Zoroastrian writings more than anything else in the Old Testament. My conclusion, based on what evidence I have in hand, is that notions of Satan and the devil grew up after the return from the Captivity and that they are more reflective of Persian Zoroastrian thought. Consider that the second chapter of the first book of the New Testament is about the visit of the Magi.

Magi are Zoroastrian priests.

The first Persian monarch acknowledged as a Zoroastrian follower, a worshiper of Ahura Mazda, was Darius I.

Another couple of quotes from Zechariah.

Zechariah 1:7

On the 24 th day of the 11 th month ( Shebat) , in the 2 nd year of Darius, the word of Yahweh was addressed to the prophet Zechariah as follows, “I had a vision during the night. There was a man riding a red horse standing among the deep rooted myrtles…

1:12 The angel of Yahweh then spoke and said, “Yahweh Sabaoth, how long will you wait before taking pity on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, on which you have inflicted your anger for the past 70 years?

The NWT appendix indicates that Zechariah wrote in 518 BC of events from 520 to 518 BC.

An inconsistency, is it not? As are many of the other matters that were discussed above: Genesis 1 describes creation differently than Genesis 2; sometimes Israel’s covenant with God is in force and his people are to remain on the lands in peace, at others it is not.

Most of what WTBTS says about events in the garden sounds much like the abbreviated guide to Milton’s Paradise Lost, which seems to have borrowed extensively from the book of Enoch to which, mysteriously, there seems no recourse anywhere in 17 th century England. But Milton and the Watch Tower differ on several important details after the Garden. Lucifer by Milton’s reckoning was thrown out of heaven long before the Witness observance - if one can be a witness to an invisible event.

But I have noticed where the WTBTS remains on message: Satan is important.

In truth I do not know the answers to all the questions I have posed – and certainly will need help in search of answers from people outside of the organization that brought these things to my attention.

But if Satan in 1914 weren’t thrown to the Earth which he already “owned”, and if all alive who do not believe as the WatchTower says to believe, or all who lived and died before the Watchtower came to be did not believe as the Watchtower said to believe yesterday, today or tomorrow… If they are not destroyed along with the evil one after re-enacting a variant of“Paradise Lost”, which Satan inexplicably has never read… If more than simply friends and relatives who were publishers and pioneers will remain here on Paradise Earth forever, or bodily confinement to Paradise Earth is not to be eternal fate, but perhaps transcendence as Christ’s words in Mark 12:24 imply ...where would the WTBTS be?

Diminished.

39

Paradise earth doctrine - did it strike anyone else as a bit odd?

by sseveninches in

i have neglected to read jwfacts.org since discovering jwn a few weeks ago (remnants of the "apostate" defenses in action), but recently i decided to dive head first into it, and it has been eye-opening.

of course, some of the information i already knew through reading jwn, but one of the pages that really got my attention was the paradise earth topic under "questionable doctrine".. paradise earth caught my eye because way before i started having doubts about jw doctrine, i have always been asking questions about the topic - not to raise doubts (since i didn't have any back then), but just for my personal understanding, and to see how plausible it could be.

in the past i have asked things like:.

kepler

As one radio commentator observed, most predators have their eyes set forward (hawks, eagles, tigers, sharks...) and most animal prey have their eyes on the sides of their heads (pigeons, chickens, sheep, cattle, game fish...) to get a wide field of view. So when Paradise Earth commences, you have to wonder which way will eyes re-position themselves. Will hawks and owls look more like pigeons or pigeons look more like owls? Will our own eyes take on a wider spacing?

The Paradise Earth was something I was never raised in - and only deduced after several years of engagement and living with someone who eventually returned to the society like a yo-yo on a string.

Not to get wrapped up in the details of my own religious upbringing, I would say that the idea was entirely foreign - save for the notion that when I was introduced to parochial schools in the 7th grade, the sister/nun who was my first teacher in a Catholic school used to go on about how the world was designed for us. I liked Sister J- otherwise she did everything she could to help me transition into the parochial school system - but the notion that the world was like a custom made suit or car made little sense to me because I was already secular enough to see the counter arguments: that we were part of the world like fish, monkeys, birds, trees and everything else that was born here. If the world and we were not made for each other, then there was little likelihood we would be sitting in a class talking about it. If we would be suddenly introduced into Jupiter or Mars, we would certainly die. But if there were beings placed there by God or an evolutionary process they would stare at us in amazement and wonder why we expired or existed at all with the apparatus evolution or circumstance had given. The next five years, taught by brothers in religious orders or their lay equivalents, only one or two of them were actually naive enough to pull the same argument - and it didn't hold with anyone who heard it. Certainly the biology and physics teachers didn't try to pull an argument like that - even though we started every class hour with a prayer. Whatever the motive, we weren't there because we wanted back in the Garden of Eden as soon as God would announce a shutdown.

No, where I got a suspicion that some doctrine liked that lurked in the background was if my fiancee caught me speaking of, reading or watching anything that suggested that someone might live a normal day on another planet or even strive to do so. That offended her somehow and she started to explain how the earth was designed for us. Only movies that had Denzel Washington, Louis Gossett, Jr. or Eddie Murphy could address espionage, science fiction, historical conflict or much of any drama; otherwise it was an artistic travesty. Books were career counseling and self help and movies were for light comedies - I finally figured out.

We had met in a non-denominational church and I only gathered slowly what were the implications of her background: If you observed it in the sky, if you dug the bones out of the ground, if you observed the geological strata in the Grand Canyon, it didn't matter. We could attend an open night at a science institute or stroll in a museum. No evidence based on centuries of labor in laboratories, at blackboards, computers, measuriing lava flows, parallaxes to stars or anything else really mattered. At one point, we had dinner in Maryland with immigres I had helped to get into the country. Their visas came in a process like they would have been excellent pitchers for the Yankees if they ball players from Cuba instead of physicists from Russia. But it turned out they actually believed that people could live in space or other worlds and that they were striving for a future like that for their descendants. They had sat at campfires in their childhood in Siberia dreaming of the day and dedicating their careers for that possibility for their children or grand children. She was inches from their faces telling them that we were made to live on a Paradise Earth.

It was obvious that she was offended by the idea that human aspiration within the 21st century could exist outside the interpretive scriptural framework of 19th century Anglo-Protestants who just had to come to terms somehow with the west's ancient institutional church. The only way was to declare most of history an apostacy that was only resolved by the sort of efforts in America that produce figures like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or leaders of "Awakenings". A pity the people she was talking to did not get the same indoctrination she did starting from when she was five. They probably had a philosophical background that skirted Anglo-Protestantism millenarianism entirely. But she never found out what people from that part of the world dealt with in terms of indoctrination. Why should she, now that she was planning to go back into the indoctrination business.

Who exactly will reside in-on Paradise-Earth and why, I am still not clear on. And since this is a rectification due to an egregrious event in the Garden that the society had once clocked at 6000 years ago in 1975, I have to wonder as others do why this confrontation with mortaility affected all animal life as well as human. There is no satisfactory explanation for all the biota that seems to be dead material on this earth, animals that died in tar pits or perhaps even turned into chalk or coal. Then there are bone remains of animals that were slain by other animals than man. And then there are feline carnivores that cannot even digest meat dinners and never could.

Then there is all that geologic evidence that this earth which was made for us was a very hostile place for anyone like us for aeons of time as well. Camping on the earth 500 million years ago would be no treat if there were enough free oxygen by then. I don't know if there would be any firewood. And some of the possible snapshots millions of years later...

But OK. So the select get to stand around on paradise earth because for humans without immortal souls there is no transcendance to a higher plane in death. Whether you believe there is any substance in an afterlife or not is certainly worthy of other threads. But if you believe that human fate is to remain on this earth forever, then are we not asking all of the nature we observe to stop in its tracks as well?

The Earth is not static in its nature. Nor is even the moon - it is receding away with time. The sun is growing brighter and hotter as it burns up its nuclear fuel and it has a finite life as can be determined by observing and modeling stars that are similar to it. If half of its ten billion year life is expired, paradise on earth a billion years from now is not necessarily part of the warranty. And water boils away into space anyway when you are counting that long. Then there are even more immediate and subtler ways that eternity slips through one's fingers.

If the earth and its environs are supposed to work perfectly like a monotonous machine forever, how is it supposed to reset itself to the task? Does this make any more sense than having all of us simply die at our appointed times and meet our Maker on whatever terms that might entail beyond our ability to perceive on this plane of existence? On hand you have the impassable veil of death and the other, the banal.

While perhaps Buddhism and other eastern philosophies have attempted to clear the mind through meditation, it appears to me that the WTS attempts to clear the world of all distractions from a vague PG rated return to a theme park. The faith of my background is sceptical about the perfectability of human kind, but it encourages its adherents to take part in the re-ordering of the world, perfectable or not: works, professions, charity, arts, search for knowledge or even truth, raise, protect and teach children... and in the process to glorify God - whether The End comes with a colliding comet in ten minutes or in a billion years.

In that regard Judaism, Islam and most of Christianity not obsessed with Apocalypse have more in common with each other.

27

"Blunders that led to World War"

by Jeffro in

on the watchtower.org site at the moment, they are featuring a link to an article that first appeared in the august 2009 awake!

that purportedly talks about how world war i began.. in jw make-believe land, world war i began suddenly, and was essentially a big surprise.

so it's interesting to note that the one of the most significant things that led to world war ithe first and second balkan warsare completely omitted from the article.

kepler

test