Posts by kepler

33

Has Anyone Seen "Prometheus"?

by Low-Key Lysmith in

i loved it!

but then, it went right along with my own personal beliefs concerning mankind's origins, so i'm a little biased.. wondering what a religious person's thoughts would be?.

Didn't see the movie. As a matter of fact, was more curious about another (partial) space opera, about a planet named "Melancholia" that ends up destroying the set. An update on "When Worlds Collide" - but in a way a little more plausible.

From time to time had heard of the notion that life on earth got its head start from elsewhere. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA back in the early 50s, about a decade or so later went around suggesting that life on Earth got started, maybe if some aliens had stopped by and left their garbage here.

Or other variations, that elementary lifeforms or advanced organic chemistry compounds are abundant galaxy wide and drift around, or that places like Mars where it could have got an earlier start, contaminated the earth via impact debris from other collisions that got knocked off the surface. We've got the martian meteorites of recent arrival, picked off glacier surfaces in Antarctica or Greenland - but the arguments that microbial formations were anything that once lived - far short of a scientific consensus - but the search goes on.

What I have heard about the movie though is that there is some Space Odyssey early scene of an alien 3.5 billion years ago seeding the earth with some bacteria or something - and then, like "The Search for Spock" or "Nemo", people from Earth take off looking for the guy.

Well, exo-planets aren't exactly like the moon hanging around nearby in the sky. If the little green men from billions of years back came from planet Zong orbiting star Zing, both Earth and Zing-Zong are orbiting the center of the galaxy. Their paths are arbitrary. They are two stars in a crowd of a couple hundred billion. What would place them in proximity now? How could you tell?

And what do you know! From what I hear it's like the identical twins that were raised by adoptive parents. We named our dogs fido; so did the aliens. We grew up to be firemen. So did the aliens. And it all started with archeobacteria or whatever. The aliens must have got impatient about their plans having to wait until the Pre-Cambrian for anything multi-cellular to show up. But they had a dream, ... I guess. How did the dinosaurs fit into the scheme? I guess they needed to have a 200 million year jungle picture episode. All gets wrapped up in the 23rd century though, right?

That business about "Melancholia". I don't know if the director had any idea, but as the exo-planet picture has been getting clearer, part of the clarity is that a whole lot of planets get ejected out of star systems. Maybe one for every star. Space is pretty empty, true, but I can remember when people debated about whether there were any planets at all, much less whether they were any running loose like the home of Ming the Merciless, the planet Mongo. Maybe a chilled down Neptune. 2012, 2013 a chance in a million, true. But if aimed right,an interloper like that could put a kabosh on an eterna corporate party on a paradise earth.

46

stake or cross?

by Tekel in

kepler

Was it (stauros) a stake or cross?

I will cite a noted authority on this matter, "Judge" Joseph Rutherford who refers to this matter in his book of the 1920s, "The Harp of God". On page 135 of The Harp of God in a chapter titled “The Ransom”, Rutherford writes: “Thus died the Son of God, the great anti-typical ‘Lamb… which taketh away the sin of the world’. (John 1:29) In the eyes of those that stood by he died as a sinner, crucified between two thieves under the charge of disloyalty to the constituted powers, yet wholly innocent, harmless and without sin.”

On page 181 of the same book, on the first page of a chapter titled, String 7: Mystery Reveaedl, paragraph 299.

“ On the last night before his crucifixion [Jesus] was instructing them in various things that would be helpful to them in the days to come.”

As OGD wrote, Greek was the local language, but the administration of Palestine and court procedings were undertaken under Roman law. In an early episode of his career Julius Caesar crucified the pirates who took him captive among his many commentaries, if not on the Gallic Wars, but writing in Latin all the same. Spartacus and the other gladiators who had revolted in the 70s BC were crucified (6000, if not Spartacus included) by Crassus or Pompey, but the historical accounts (Appian and Livy) we have describe the administration of justice with the same Greek verb as appears in the NT. My conclusion: when a Roman writes stauros in Greek, he means cross.

I suppose much of this is a matter of the mind's eye. Substitute Christ saying to the rich man, give up all that he owns and "then pick up your torture stake and come follow me." Lenny Bruce had once considered the possibility of Christ's execution in New York state being by electric chair. ..But in either alternate case, somehow the message seems distorted. Cross in subsequent context signifies "sacrifice". I don't know about you, but to me, "taking up the torture stake" simply denotes masochism. Bad translation no matter how many crossbars are involved in one or the other.

The southern constellation Alpha Crucis is not simply a line but a cross...

If there were a transformation of this notion from stake to cross, it must have come early. Constantine's wife searched for the remains of the "true cross" and Constantine himself claimed he was inspired by a vision ("in hoc signum"). Whether either are inspiring or not, the vision of a vertical post does not seem as "visual" as two intersecting lines or timbers. Both of these 4th century figures spoke Greek; so I don't think they were having Greek translation problems. But they were not around when the "Judge" had a 20th century PR inspiration that would distinguish his movement from all of those millenia old "pagan cults". Just one of the many ways that Christian community had gone off the rails until the great leader, speaker and writer came along to put it back on the track after 1914.

35

The End of Biblical Studies?

by slimboyfat in

a while ago i read a book called the end of biblical studies by evangelical turned sceptical academic hector avalos.

i thought it was really interesting perhaps because it mirrors some of the stages i went through as regards how i viewed the bible as i was leaving the witnesses.

at first i still believed the bible was inspired by god but learned to use different methods to interpret it than witness eisegesis.

kepler

Vidqun,

I think there are a couple of things wrong with the picture drawn about the End of Bible Studies. Bible studies would end if everything was cut and dry and not to be a matter of uncertainty or controversy. And from what I can tell, there are a lot of things that are still uncertain or controversial. Based on that premise, let’s take another look at those three areas of consideration mentioned.

Textual basis: It is asserted that the Bible is the best preserved. Really? Other documents come down to us based on originals written in stone. Exodus gives an account of things that might have happened in the reign of Ramses III. If you look up Ramses, you can observe his mummified remains and numerous texts that he or his scribes wrote on monuments he commissioned. We have in our hands manuscripts of the NT that date from 3 rd or 4 th century, but not complete. We also know of the debates about what to include as NT and OT from that same era. The manuscript dating of the OT is another matter . We are aware of the Hebrew texts from which the Greek Septuagint was produced in the Alexandrian period in Egypt. We have things that were available from Qumran in Hebrew, but certainly not from the time of prophets such as Isaiah. Other original records in the middle east go back to the 2 nd and 3 rd millennium because they were not scrolls or bound books but written in stone form. This has implications for the historical basis.

Historical basis: There is not an absence of historical basis in the Bible, but many of the things that are claimed based on its texts do not stand up to archeological analysis. Claims made in Joshua for the sieges of Jericho and Ai are examples that come to mind. The stories in that book appear to be concocted explanations for ruins extant then. 19 th century archeologists just assumed that the dates given in the Bible or derived from it were accurate. And as a result there were several hundred year discrepancies in Egyptian history once they were compared with translations resulting from deciphering the Rosetta stone and other hieroglyphics. What is really odd is that the Exodus wandering of 40 years seems to end on a timeline that puts the Israelites entering into the Egyptian New Kingdom’s empire in Canaan. The appendices of the NWT is full of early 19 th century Biblically derived dating. Example: Moses in Numbers supposedly writing about events between 1512-1473 BC. This appendix also attributes the writing of Job to Moses. How do we know that Moses wrote anything? Even the tablets associated with him in the account were written by God.

At my house I have a recent Egyptian history that says that Thutmose III fought at Megiddo in April of 1458 against the Syrian forces, or the forces of the kingdom of Mittani. Along with the later battle of Kadesh with the Hittites (1274, Ramses II) there are detailed records including soldiers’ accounts still standing at the memorials of their graves. The name Pharaoh, which originally meant "house", was just being invented in Thutmose's time. It was a euphemism for whom Thutmose III was step-son, Queen Hathshepsup. I would say that if there is to be continued Bible study, it should include figuring out how such discrepancies occur.

Somewhere above it was stated that gaps or re-copying errors in Biblical texts are not significant. There are numerous examples of episodes that appear to be marginal notes of copyists that found their way into texts. The beginning and (especially) the end of Mark I would consider significant issues. Mark has a very old abrupt end and several later versions with some variety. Thanks to Mark 16:18 we have sects in this country that devote much time and ceremony to snake handling...

It was only a few days ago that I heard mention of comparing the search for Biblical source text with tracing human or animal genetic variations to an earlier genetic code. In either case, we do not have the original in front of us, but we do have analytical procedures to help identify its makeup.

Impressive literature: As a compendium of books, it would have to be. But since we do not know exactly when much of it was written, we might not be comparing it with other period literatures appropriately. It is hard to find a detailed narrative of anything in the second millennium BC, but if we had a 2 nd millennium Bible with its pre-occupations with events in Egypt, I would think its original script would be Egyptian hieroglyphics, wouldn’t you? Its dating is derivative of Babylonian methods. The beginning of the year and months are much the same. The alphabet owes much more to the Phoenician. Episodes such as the “discovery” during the reign of Josiah of what appears to be Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:3) suggests that even parts of the Pentateuch could have arrived 800 years later than the NWT appendix would have us believe. When things were actually set down as texts, it is difficult to say, especially with events like Jerusalem’s destruction. But should it be as late as the 7 th century, then the Bible could be compared shortly with a large body of Greek literature.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Terry,

It took me a couple of readings to grasp what you were saying. One reason might be on account of the so-called paradigm effect. For example, there are other parts of the story that I or others might have stopped to examine and question. But then there are other parts such as "die" and "day" which somehow slipped past review amid all the other strange assumptions of a Garden of Eden in chapter two disconnected from chapter one.

But another aspect of the story is that the OT text and Judaism quickly drop it. Whether it was meant to do more than superficially explain origins is not entirely clear. Abraham, his descendants and Moses are pre-occupied with a Covenant in which events in the Garden of Eden appear have little bearing. The subject of Adam, Eve, apple and serpent in the garden are all dropped - as far as I can tell - until Paul picks it up again in the Epistles.

So I'm still back on message. Paul and the NT Gospel and Acts writers give an account of Christ's life, tell of miraculous events, relate who was present when they occurred and tell either what the Holy Spirit said or what the messengers of God said.

In fact, the establishment wrought by Rutherford so thoroughly puts a cap on things miraculous that reflecting on it sent me back to look again at Dostoevsky's sidebar story to "The Brothers Karamazov" - The Grand Inquisitor (Book V, chapter 5). Christ returns to 16th century Spain and is immediately arrested by the theocratic authorities. You could say that he was guilty of performing a miracle. And, as noted by the narrator, he came "that day and that hour, knoweth no man, not the Son, but the Father." In the Dostoevsky account the Grand Inquisitor an old man of ninety, passed by the cathedral, and witnessed the crowd and cure of a young girl.

It's not a dialog but a monolog when the Grand Inquisitor and Jesus meet face to face. Examination of the prisoner begins as follows:

"Is it 'Thou'?"... "Don't answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou has no right to add anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why then art Thou come to hinder us?..."

This was brother Ivan's dream that he relates to younger brother Alyosha the monk. The book was written in 1874.

Interesting.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

YY, Terry,

Thanks. I think we are getting somewhere with what you are saying.

Starting with what YY said, there is an element of hearsay in Christian beliefs that stretches back to nearly 2000 years ago. And what Terry points out is that there there is transition from what is perceived to how it is interpreted in any individual. And for the majority of the forum there is a sense that in the case of the WTBTS and its congregants, the process has broken down somewhere resulting in a cognitive dissonance. I hope that recapping that much is not introducing distortions into what you are saying, but at any rate, your statements are right above to behold.

But since accounts of things in the NT and earlier are brought up in this context, let us examine them further. Whether one believes everything recounted or whether one does not ( and there could be reasons for the latter in terms of testimony, because some of the particulars of the accounts conflict), there are witnesses cited that give accounts of physical events, various Apostles and disciples, the writers of the documents themselves. These events were not passed off as "invisible". Historical events were not interpreted as proof of events happening in heaven. The Gospel accounts reported visible, physical miracles and they indicated which of the followers were present when they happened. We could argue further about whether there are holes in these accounts (authorship, plausibility, consistency across accounts), yes; and that would be another topic. But all the same the NT also provides a standard or figure of merit for the scenario supposedly unfolding supposedly 2520 years after Jerusalem's fall.

The purported accounts of the return of Christ and Satan (?) in 1914 and the subsequent selection of Rutherford's organization as theocratic authourity do not provide similar citations. From Russell and Rutherford pointing at the WWI trenches, I only get a hand waving argument that a dreamy version of Milton's Paradise Lost is being re-enacted or revised. Neither Russell or Rutherford's associates, after the 2 Rs passed on, have provided us with documents similar to the Gospels or the Acts. There are no voices from heaven explaining that Satan has just fallen back to Earth (again?). Beth Sarim as a welcome center for the reanimated prophets is a total failure, if it were ever intended for that purpose.

I have seen many a manager go into an empty room and return shaking his head that my requests have been turned down by his associates, but I was never fooled. Why should I be so now? How did Rutherford know that the Covenant had been handed over to him when neither he nor any of his associates can describe how? No one was in the room. As far as I can tell, it must have been some sort of corporate proxy issue voted on rather than an observed event. How did Rutherford get it exactly - as the result of some sort of foreclosure?

I know. Most people are giving short shrift to the questions because it now seems like water uner the bridge. But when one considers the dynamics of people taking instruction or deciding to commit or recommit themselves to this belief, I feel forced to ask:

If these things were as important as supposed, why is there not given an account like that surrounding Jesus being baptised by John?

Who was a genuine WITNESS to these events?

How could they be witnessed if they were entirely invisible?

35

The End of Biblical Studies?

by slimboyfat in

a while ago i read a book called the end of biblical studies by evangelical turned sceptical academic hector avalos.

i thought it was really interesting perhaps because it mirrors some of the stages i went through as regards how i viewed the bible as i was leaving the witnesses.

at first i still believed the bible was inspired by god but learned to use different methods to interpret it than witness eisegesis.

kepler

OGD,

Saw this and a couple of your other recent posts

If I don't get a chance to say anything more about your discussion about acceptance or rejection of "ambiguity", I would like to say thanks. It's worth my consideration considering circumstances that brought me to this forum.

Anyway, I would like to attest to what you say about the New Jerusalem Bible. Several years ago I was able to find a copy of the version with footnotes and introductions to many of the books at a used bookstore. The footnotes are wonderful since they point out to the reader many issues or implications of the text that would not be obvious at first reading. The layout is also helpful. Just from this it is fairly clear that the Book of Isaiah is made of three distinct parts. Or that text changes back and forth from poetry and prose. The translators, contributors and/or editors largely let the chips fall where they may. And even at that they seem to remain optimistic that the readers will find their work edifying and spiritually uplifting.

The introduction explains that the Jerusalem Bible undertaking began during the papacy of Pius XII in the 1940s. It was felt that Catholic Biblical scholarship was falling behind that displayed in other religious communities and that it was urgent that things not remain in such a state.

Since you mentioned "Lord of the Rings", I should note that Tolkien was among the contributors to the Jerusalem Bible effort.

Prior to joining the forum, and of course since, it has been necessary to consult other sources. Starting from near zero perhaps five years ago, I have become used to looking at Hebrew and Greek texts with guides, the NWT and the KJV as well.

Correspondingly, I should say that for people who come from a Protestant background, it should be remembered that there are numerous non-canonical books in the Catholic Bible. In many cases, despite this strike against the included text, there is an awful lot of pertinent information in these books. Some are simply the stuff of legends such as Judith, but others such as the Maccabees tell things about Christian and Jewish history that would not be understood otherwise. If one were to cite Josephus, then Maccabees would be equally as valid.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Thanks, all of you for your comments.

Sometimes, posting these propositions, have to wonder if I am coming in from too far out in left field, just coming up with things that are irrelevant to the experience of years of KH and knocking on doors. I never know. But at the same time, the experience of being on the other side of the counter and having this tear up my home, it's left a deep impression on me too. So I keep plodding on...

Soft & Gentle,

Yes, you were right. I was thinking of Fatima. For anyone interested, the Wikipedia provides a detailed account and links at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Rather than to claim that this is matter of dogma in anybody's faith, I would just like to highlight some points for comparison.

1. There were three witnesses,

2.There were repeated incidents, crowds gathered to observe events.

3. The site provides newspaper records of the day of one of the observed events.

4. A message was written and given to religious authorities.

5. Predictions about specific history were given...

From that point, in my youth circa 1960, I was aware that the message was instructions to pray for peace and the conversion of Russia, lest there would be another terrible war. My teachers in parochial school were ambivalent about whether this was all true or not, but did not suggest that the idea be ignored. Dutifully, like others, I participated in such prayers. We need not examine all the details, but that was the story in essence. In all appearances, it seemed like an intercession into the natural course of events- if you believed what perceived evidence there was. And as I am maintaining above, there is some, whether credible or not. Furthermore, from all appearances, considering that many in the 50s, 60s and even into the 1980s feared that nuclear war would result from US and Soviet confrontation over something, it would appear that this form of apocalyptic thinking had a happier ending for most of mankind than the "glad tidings" I have heard about once I opened my door...

In addition, there are other similar incidents in history. A staggering example is the Lady of Guadalupe in the 1530s. Perhaps it changed Mexico from whatever it was before. Generally, historians say that it this is a legend that accrued over decades or even a century. Maybe so. But I have read Bernal Diaz's account of the "Discovery and Conquest of Mexico". As a lieutenant of Cortez in the 1517-21 campaign and a settler of Guatatemala, he is a contemporary of the event and makes mention of it in his history toward the end. Why he did not elaborate on what the "miracle" was? Perhaps he thought all his readers already knew and acknowledged it. Whether a natural explanation existed or not, the absence of his detailed account is our loss all the same.

But it still raises the question: Why should the miraculous unwitnessed events events of 1914 and 1919 be more credible than these?

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

YY,

You raise the point that the Jehovah's Witness is a nomenclature derived from Isaiah 43. No doubt about that. But I still think that the point about witness to unperceived events is worth raising. If one is introduced as speaking in behalf of Jehovah with a name like that, then one is lead to belief that the individual is providing important testimony. The people that came to my house were not allowed to deviate in any significant matter from a script associated with publications. And when I examined the publications they were presenting as "truth", there were a number of downright lies that I have mentioned earlier.

And also, behind it all, were these remarkable claims about Satan falling to Earth, a property he supposedly already owned, as well as Christ arriving in some sort of incremental process (1878, 1914, etc.) - but in both cases invisibly. Why should it make any sense that this particular war that started several months before the October determination should be the kickoff of anything other than what it was, a war? And then why should anyone believe that there was a 5-year invisible administrative process in heaven to determine that Rutherford and Co. was the most qualified candidate for Theocrat? I've read the guy. ... What can I say?

To a large degree, Rutherford would claim that events in his life were foretold in Revelations, and then subsequentlyeverybody forgets the matter, perhaps eventually recycling the same passages for other purposes.

I don't know if I should discount this, but so far no one has recounted how either Russell or Rutherford heard one word at the Brooklyn HQ from the Most High about what was going on "up there". There is no certificate. No tablets. Nothing that equates to events at Mount Sinai. Or even across the ocean in Portugal.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Yesterday when I submitted the above post, I should have looked at it more carefully. Maybe it was an oncoming headache. I feel better now and maybe some of the text revisions below will be of some help.

Back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western Europe of things happening in central Asia could not have been much worse. Events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day. Much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of Genghis Khan. His armies and those of his successors eradicated cities and armies that resisted their advance: from China to Hungary and Poland; heading south in Asia, the middle eastern heart of the Islamic world. His descendant Mongke ruling from remote Karakorum in Mongolia, anticipated ruling the world from Pacific to the Atlantic and communicated with the outside world accordingly.

What follows is a simplification, but it will set the table for the presentation of an argument. If anyone is curious about more detail about this era, I suggest "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford, a best seller of several years back.

Anyway, the Mongols themselves had their own religious beliefs and traditions and had assimilated some others from their conquests. But what ensued during the 1250s was a court-sponsored debate among the great faiths of the era. By invitation mullahs, monks (Christian and Buddhist) and other missionaries travelled to Karakorum via the Silk Route, in some cases in transit for over a year. We have some record of the discourse. William of Rubruck a Franciscan monk was in the contingent arguing for western Europe's Roman Catholicism and Weatherford draws some from his accounts.

Actually many of the Mongols had married wives from conquered regions where Syrian or Eastern Orthodox christianity held sway; and as a result believers of this variation of Christianity already was widespread within the Mongol court as well as among the horse-borne cavalries travelling all over Eurasia. But ultimately the Khans either turned to Islam or Buddhism. In part because the Christian sects squabbled to no advantage in the court debates, were not as learned as their Muslim counterparts and in the case of ruling over China, the culture just had a way of influencing them.

Now, let us imagine a new debate in a new court if somewhat imaginary. I am not one of the Khans, but I will play the part as someone who is not entirely versed in JW beliefs and their foundations. Easy enough to do, because it is true. Ready?

From lengthy reading, discussion and debate elsewhere I have learned that JW or the WTBTS believe that

1. Christ returned to reign on Earth in 1914.

2. Satan the devil was thrown out of heaven at about the same time.

3. Under God's auspices a lengthy search of Earth's believers was conducted and circa 1918 or 1919, it was settled that an organization (WTBTS) was suited over all other potential candidates to be God's Theocratic Government on Earth.

4. All of this process was invisible.

5. All of this process was unheard.

Now questions arise.

1. Did I state items 1 through 5 correctly?

2. Aside from C. T. Russell concluding that WWI must have been indicator of 1 and 2, how do we know?

3. Since C. T. Russell was no longer around in 1918 or 1919, what was the evidence of the subsequent search?

4. Did heaven wait for Joseph Rutherford to complete his WTBTS corporate takeover?

5. Was the decision announced by Mr. Rutherford?

6. If this was invisible how was this event perceived? ( I don't mean pointing to several Bible verses, but perceived as an event such as one wakes up one day and the matter has yet to be resolved – and then it is because of a perceived event)

7. Did Rutherford or Russell have any other witnesses?

8. How do you witness an invisible event?

9. How do you corroborate your observations with others - unless they also saw exactly nothing?

10. How come this organization was subsequently so unsuccessful in predicting much of anything else beside this invisible event?

11. If the event is invisible as claimed, why should I not be just as open to other claims of invisible events entirely unrelated?

12. In this case, why should I not conclude that we are dealing with an oxymoronic expression?

A little later, I would like to provide an account of other events in the same era (1914-1919) produced by another organization; these were more visible and involved three (3) children as simultaneous witnesses ( time and a half enough to provide sufficient testimony in other clerical matters). I myself am not convinced of the facts and veracity of the alternative story, but I have to admit that that I sense more evidence in support of this apocalyptic scenario than the one that I so far understand to be that of the WTBTS.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western Europe of things happening in central Asia could have been much worse. Events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day. Much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of Genghis Khan. His armies and those of his successors eradicated cities and armies that resisted from China to Hungary and Poland and the middle eastern heart of the Islamic world. His descendant Mongke ruling from remote Karakorum in Mongolia, anticipated ruling the world from Pacific to the Atlantic and communicated with the outside world accordingly.

What follows is a simplification, but it will set the table for the presentation of an argument. If anyone is curious about more detail about this era, I suggest "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford, a best seller of several years back.

Anyway, the Mongols themselves had their own religious beliefs and traditions and had assimilated some others from their conquests. But what ensued during the 1250s was a court-sponsored debate among the great faiths of the era. By invitation mullahs, monks (Christian and Buddhist) and other missionaries travelled to Karakorum via the Silk Route, in some cases en route for a year. We have some record of the discourse. William of Rubruck a Franciscan monk was in the contingent arguing for western Europe's Roman Catholicism. Actually many of the Mongols had married wives from conquered regions where Syrian or Eastern Orthodox christianity held sway; and as a result believers of this variation of Christianity already was widespread in the court. But ultimately the Khans either turned to Islam or Buddhism. In part because the Christian sects squabbled to no advantage, were not as learned as their Muslim counterparts and ruling China just had a way of influencing them.

Now, let us imagine a new debate in a new court if somewhat imaginary. I am not one of the Khans, but I will play the part as someone who is not entirely versed in JW beliefs and their foundations. Easy enough to do, because it is true. Ready?

From from lengthy reading, discussion and debate elsewhere I have learned that JW or the WTBTS believe that

1. Christ returned to reign on Earth in 1914.

2. Satan the devil was thrown out of heaven at about the same time.

3. Under God's auspices a lengthy search of Earth's believers was conducted and circa 1918 or 1919, it was settled that an organization ( WTBTS) was determined to be God's Theocratic Government on Earth.

4. All of this process was invisible.

5. All of this process was unheard.

Now questions arise.

1. Did I state items 1 through 5 correctly?

2. Aside from C. T. Russell concluding that WWI must have been indicator of 1 and 2, how do we know?

3. Since C. T. Russell was no longer around in 1918 or 1919, what was the evidence of the subsequent search?

4. Did heaven wait for Joseph Rutherford to complete his WTBTS corporate takeover?

5. Was the decision announced by Mr. Rutherford?

6. If this was invisible how was this event perceived? ( I don't mean pointing to several Bible verses)

7. Did Rutherford or Russell have any other witnesses?

8. How do you witness an invisible event?

9. How do you corroborate your observations with others unless they also saw exactly nothing?

10. How come this organization was subsequently so unsuccessful in predicting much of anything else beside this invisible event?

11. If the event is invisible as claimed, why should I not be just as open to other claims of invisible events entirely unrelated?

12. In this case, why should I not conclude that we are dealing with an oxymoronic expression?

A little later, I'll come back with an account of other events produced by another organization that were more visible and involved three (3) children as simultaneous witnesses ( time and a half enough to provide sufficient testimony in other clerical matters). We can then examine how it compares.

I'll get back a little later to tell about some similar miraculous events that were going on during this era ( post 1914)

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 and several others,

Thank you for your contributions based on your experience and analysis. As to the answer to the rhetorical question of the topic, maybe I should concede that the answer is, "Plenty." After signing off and thinking about some objections raised to my initial approach to this ( taking out an historical tape measure and dividing by generations), I could see what was bothering some people. I had a spacing for generations, but I had no indication of when a generation would literally die off. And if in many cases "this nation" or "this people" could be inserted into translation instead, that posed another problem. So I was looking back over my shoulder as well. I think OGD and others have examined this matter well. In addition, there is illustration of how the Synoptic Gospels could have taken different slants (OGD above) on given events or sermons. I stop short of saying "in fact", because we can only guess what the Gospel writers were thinking - unless they someday give interviews on Charlie Rose.

But with so much other material in the Gospel text related to the prediction of the circa 70 AD siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, I would not dismiss possiblity of two editorial revisions: one to point toward 70 AD; and another to point toward a more distant time. Luke's inclusion of the discussion between the good thief and Christ was an indicator of something not so much based on return but a Kingdom transcendant, another such glimpse being Mark 12:17-21: "...For when they arise from the dead... they are like the angels in heaven."

But John of Patmos had a "dream" and we all know the rest.

We also talk of generations in our own day. There's the Baby Good, Generation X, etc. There might remain one or two veterans of World War I in this country. I was surprised by how many Russian Revolution veterans seem to show up in recent documentaries... but that's a three or four year bias. They are all essentially gone. A GB member giving a speech as "this generation" being one year old at the time, is in violation of the principle. He is part of the "next generation". His parents were part of "this generation". So we are left with the notion that to fulfill a numerological 19th century prophecy regarding a 2520 year span, 1913 babies handing off a torch to the children of the Generatio-X is what Christ had meant nearly 2000 years ago.

Case rests.