Posts by kepler

11

On the Fundamentalist Notion of Babylon Destroyed - Forgot to Tell Ancient World

by kepler in

among puzzlements of sitting down with jw reps with "what the bible really teaches", was the assertion that babylon was destroyed - forever - just like it says in these here chapters and verses.

then the nwt claims that peter i & ii were written from babylon.

but beside that, ancient greek, hebrew and roman writings are full of reference to babylon as an important center.

kepler

Regarding burst bubbles:

Check out the pamphlet "What the Bible Really Teaches", pp. 22 to 25, a section called "A Book of Prophecy".

Whether the right hand knows what the left is doing and which is which in this case, this book claims that Isaiah prophesied the complete destruction of Babylon (chapter 13 and 14) and that Cyrus performed the deed ( 44 & 45).

As I said, I had looked at Herodotus prior to that. Babylon looked like it was still in good shape. Then there was Ezra chapters 7 and 8... Somewhere I made the connection that what Isaiah was talking about was the work of his contemporary, the Assyrian Sennacherib who deported Babylon's population, sacked the temples and diverted the river to flood and wash away its remains, circa 690. Cyrus, on the other hand, occupied the city with hardly a fight and swore he was going to fix the shortcomings of Nabonidus when it came to observing religious festivals.

48

God said be fruitful and multiply,fill the earth and govern it.

by atomant in

l have a problem with this.lf adam and eve didnt sin the earth would eventually have been full to the brim with perfect human beings.then what every man gets the chop or no more sex?then on the other hand we have the jw's sayingresurrected ones will not be allowed to marry in the earthly new system.. married survivors of armageddon will remain married.

single survivors of armageddon may or may not be allowed to marry.so it seems that people reborn into new system wont be able to procreate.

and married survivors will stay married so l assume that means they can still hanky panky and have babys thats a bit unfair..the earth can only accommodate a maximum number of humans then what for the married couples.

kepler

Fundamental particles have a way of hanging around. Protons for example. Neutrinos cycle back and forth...

But the universe is by no means static. If we were to hang around in it eternally on a paradise Earth, we would sure have to watch a deterioration in the neighborhood. Plus commit ourselves to a lot of dull reading and meetings.

11

On the Fundamentalist Notion of Babylon Destroyed - Forgot to Tell Ancient World

by kepler in

among puzzlements of sitting down with jw reps with "what the bible really teaches", was the assertion that babylon was destroyed - forever - just like it says in these here chapters and verses.

then the nwt claims that peter i & ii were written from babylon.

but beside that, ancient greek, hebrew and roman writings are full of reference to babylon as an important center.

kepler

Among puzzlements of sitting down with JW reps with "What the Bible Really Teaches", was the assertion that Babylon was destroyed - forever - just like it says in these here chapters and verses. Then the NWT claims that Peter I & II were written from Babylon. But beside that, ancient Greek, Hebrew and Roman writings are full of reference to Babylon as an important center. Alexander the Great entered it in 331 BC - and eventually died there from fever caught on campaigns. He meant to make it his Capital.

Still with me on this? The first couple of books of Herodotus' Histories describes Babylon life in detail. These were written about a century after the unopposed entry of Cyrus into Babylon after defeating Babylonian armies farther afield. Xenophon and the 10,000 were headed there to serve as mercenaries in the late 5th century. And Alexander - well, when he wasn't chasing Darius III, apparently made a stopover there too.

How do we know? Well, for a start, did our ancestors seriously doubt the matter? A few days ago, I saw a notice in the papers about the work of a 17th century master: "Woven Gold: Tapestries of Louis IV at the Getty Center through May 1st". The illustration was the work of Charles Le Brun, a 16' x 26 foot tapestry titled, :Entry of Alexander into Babylon."

A search on line provided several more images. Additionally there were at least one film depiction (Oliver Stone's Alexander) and accounts of the event from classical writers, principally Roman writer Quintius Curtius Rufus (History of Alexander) and Greek writer Arrianis ( the Anabasis). Both evidently drew from earlier sources.

While the film Alexander sold well overseas, in the US, hardly anyone took note. Perhaps if I had seen the film, five years later I would had more to say to the JWs who would visit my house Saturdays trying to convince me that everything they had read or were required to quote from was incontrovertible and entirely true.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

kepler

Amendment Text: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A couple of years ago I stumbled on a discussion of the English Bill of Rights of 1689. And I was struck by what it implied about the origins of the American 2nd Amendment and the right of militias to bear arms.

In many current debates about the amendment's nature, a public figure such as President Obama might argue that regulation of arms would in no way result in the loss of firearms suitable for small game hunting. Whether this is simply disingenuous or the result of widespread unawareness of 1689's Bill of Rights, I have to wonder. After all, the President once taught Constitutional law. But consider this summary:

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

Laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;

No taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;

The right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;

No standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[nb 2]

Subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law;

the election of members of Parliament should be free;

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;

jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;

promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;

Parliaments should be held frequently.

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

Did you notice that provision above about Protestants in particular having the right to bear arms? This was in reaction to the monarchial century and a half tug of war between Catholic and Protestant affiliations. Other features of the American Bill of Rights are there in embryonic form, but the right to bear arms is a check and balance measure against the possible religious backsliding of royal family members - and their standing armies.

In other words, although Federalists Papers and other background sources have little to say on this matter, those that drafted the American Constitution would surely have been aware of the English BOR context.

But the document does not take away with one hand what it gives with another: no established churches and religious liberty.

I argue that the founders intended to arm the individual citizens as much as the situation might require: muskets., cannons, pikes or whatever technology allowed - and that they were not thinking about provisioning them with passenger pigeon or buffalo carcasses. They were thinking about defense against central governments. And I can imagine that Justice Antonin Scalia would pick up on this, even though you might say that the gun was originally pointed at people of his own religious persuasion. Others, of a different philosophical bend would be quite the contrary: "The amendment has to be taken into a 21st century context rather than 17th."

In practice, I see evidence that mass murder and mayhem is as much a result of mental state. Our assassins seem to have no rational agendas. The shooting from the U of Texas clock tower back in 1966 could serve as an illustration. A military veteran with a severe brain tumor shot people at random in the quadrangle below.

On the other hand ( an economist's argument?) were it not for gun shows in the United States, where would Mexican drug cartels get their weaponry? Or are these examples of well armed militias in another country?

8

How the Churches got the ‘End of the World’ wrong in 1492.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

in 1453 constantinople (also known as byzantium), the last remnant of the once mighty roman empire was a christian island in an islamic sea.

the city had been seriously weakened during the holy fourth crusade (1202-04), when fellow christians of the catholic brand had besieged the city, captured it, and savagely sacked it.. ( who needs enemies when you have christian friends?).

a miniature of the siege, artist unknown.

kepler

Reading accounts of the 16th century Reformation, it appears that on both sides of the fence there was much the same feeling. They were living ( of course) in the End Times.

Matter of fact, when you consider such influences such as plagues, i must have been every other decade that end time apprehensions were widespread.

46

The Pope Tells Trump He's Not A Christian

by minimus in

jw
friends

this should be fun.

building a wall is unchristian.

i can't understand why the pope is getting involved in american politics.. poor donald..

kepler

Trump's characterization of Mexican immigration to the US as a flow of criminals is untrue and an insult. It makes the NYC Stature of Liberty a monumental hypocrisy.

Considering that the current pope is an Argentinian and the former archbishop of Buenos Aires, it puts his statement in another perspective: reminding rich Americans to respect and attend to their Latin American neighbors.

The Pope interceded in behalf of Cubans who had been living under harsh economic embargo. He is also a critic of unrestrained capitalism. He currently lives in the back room of the Vatican and conducts his life much like he did in Buenos Aires - where he commuted by bus.

As far as I know, he told Trump to reconsider. And that he would have no stamp of approval from his side of the house. Trump, in such instances, usually resorts to law suits. Donald might need the services of John Edwards as his Vice President, what with all his ambulance chasing experience....

1

By the Rivers of Babylon Exhibit of Yahudu Tablets

by kepler in

has anyone noticed, commented or reported on the exhibit that opened in jerusalem: the yahudu tablets from babylon chronicling the daily life of judean exiles in babylon.

about 100 of them translated.

part of the private david sofer collection.. the announcements indicate that the earliest of the set dates to 572 bc and that they show how exile wasn't so bad.

kepler

Has anyone noticed, commented or reported on the exhibit that opened in Jerusalem: the Yahudu Tablets from Babylon chronicling the daily life of Judean exiles in Babylon. About 100 of them translated. Part of the private David Sofer collection.

The announcements indicate that the earliest of the set dates to 572 BC and that they show how exile wasn't so bad. In fact, the community never left "Babylon" until the present day and was the source for much of written Judaic scripture, particularly the Babylonian Talmud. But no doubt, much of the editing of the Old Testament scriptures we know today.

What would be of particular interest to this forum would be the dating of events in terms of reigns of Babylonian kings.

From a personal standpoint, it is another shell or two in the arsenal against the arguments posed in "What the Bible Really Says", i.e., that Babylon was destroyed in punishment for incidents recorded in Daniel. Babylon and its Jewish community lived on for centuries.

Again, these cuneiform tablets have been translated. But I haven't seen them. Nor do I know their implications - yet.

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

kepler

Wonderment:

Of the languages I have studied beside English, Greek is far down the list. More of an analyst with a dictionary and grammar than someone with any type of fluency. So I will concede to all that I am not able to argue this matter from a standpoint of grammar much beyond the rudimentary. But all the same, I am not arguing this matter because I am that much more naturally comfortable with notions such as a triune God. My case is simply what I read in the text of John and what, evidently, early church writers saw in the text as well speaking in the same tongue. They appear to spell it out.

It was pointed out elsewhere as well that if Jesus simply asserted that he existed in some form prior to birth, he was not necessarily evoking an idea that was blasphemy. Many, including the Jews of the time, have suggested that we have some existence prior to birth. And the duration of this might have been a speculation as well, an existence that could have extended prior to the time of Abraham - though it seems like a stretch as well for it to come up as a rejoinder in such a context.

But what clearly provoked the rage in Chist's listeners was his choice of words.

Significantly, Origen in breaking all this down does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but simply the Father and Son.He does not suggest that Jesus was the Archangel Michael or a spirit older than Methuselah.

And in the case of Chrysostoms:

"But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father uses this expression, “I Am,” so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?"

If you believe that this quote is somehow carefully edited to convey such an idea, then perhaps someone can provide us with an alternate translation of what the first sentence of the quote above must have said.

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

kepler

It was remarked in another forum:

" What [is] not take into account is the particular category of usage into which John 8:58 falls as a result of the context in which it is found. As D.A. Carson points out in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, context and usage are much more important than technical, grammatical rules. He calls these kinds of fallacies “grammatical fallacies.” While there are many possibilities when it comes to the use of words that would fall within the parameters of Greek grammar, the proper understanding of terms comes most often through discovering its actual usage in the sacred text....

" “The ‘I am’ formula without the predicate,” or “I am” without anything following it (Gr.—ego eimi) , is used frequently in John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the New Testament, with crucial antecedents in the Old Testament as well. In Mt. 14:27; Mk. 13:6; 14:62; John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 18:6 and, of course, John 8:58, as we’ve seen, we find this formula used, but each time it is in the context of either some sort of miraculous intervention where Christ is revealing his divine authority, or in the context of an overt statement declaring his divinity in no uncertain terms as we saw in John 8:58. This does not mean this “formula” cannot have other meanings, but it does establish a context in which we find it often relating to Christ’s identity as more than just a man in the New Testament."

For those who are just picking up this discussion, I will repeat one of the earliest arguments I can find in Biblical textual analysis in the Greek community - for which I presume a translation into the vernacular is not required.

Origen (circa 225 AD) did so as well.

In his lengthy writings titled Against Celsus, Book 8, chapter 12 first paragraph is as follows:

'In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. “If,” says he, “these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, “As You and I are one,” he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. “For,” says He, “My Father is in Me, and I in Him.” And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.'

---

John Chrysostoms examined the same text in the same language a century later with the same conclusion.

I suggest that if one is actualy looking for a grammatical problem, one might consider what language or languages these Gospel exchanges might have been undertaken originally. Aramaic with the disciples on the Lake in Matthew? In Hebrew with the high priest in Mark?

66

The wt has now changed Jesus definition of neighboor

by poopie in

jw
friends

the man asked jesus who is my neighbor jesus stated the one who acts mercifully toward other humans.

not good enough for watchtower neighbor must fit in three catagories only according to yesterdays wt wow changed the words of the son of god.

kepler

lanalonger,

I had not read the new interpretation either.

I have little doubt that individual members of the WT&BTS are willing to treat anyone as their neighbor in the same context as the parable in Luke - and I know of some- but I have had both instruction and been on this forum long enough to detect a doctrinal problem on this matter. I remember the topics where brother and neighbor had to be explained, I have heard hundreds of anecdotes.

When instructors ( usually an elder and a brother or two) would come to my house to provide instruction, I remember their response to the earthquake in Haiti. It was merely another sign of how close we were to the End. Yes, but aren't you and the congregation going to participate in raising any aid? No answer and very uncomfortable. Later, when there was an earthquake in Japan of enormous intensity, I happened to locate a WatchTower service on line which like a continuously rolling scroll; it listed the status of all JWs in affected areas as fast as the KHs could report and operated for several days thereafter. A complete census, as it were, of believers. And along with the household pets, there was some mention of mixed marriage spouses.

I got the picture.

But it's heartening to know that the central offices have finally offered clarification on this matter.

Post script for the story in Luke; another reading. The man walks by seeing the injured man on the road and just assumes that the final cataclysm, the Apocalypse has already occurred.