Posts by kepler

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

kepler

Bobcat,

Good to see your posts once in a while. I get the feeling you live your life trying to make lemonade out of the basket of lemons delivered to your door. And may you succeed. But since you brought the proposition up, allow me to ruminate.

From my perspective, I am not an historian, but I enjoy looking at history and analyzing it. It seems like every time I pick up a used book in a bookstore I discover another segment of history that I had never noticed before. Lately, it's been a combination of reading Gibbon and some of the writers that parallel his work. And then coming up from submersion once in a while, I re-acquaint myself with people still trying to extract cult meaning out of 1914- October to be exact, only the guy who came up with this apocalyptic General Relativity is discredited by his own organization...

Einstein and Russell, I get images confused. He's lecturing at a blackboard about history and then someone comes in with a telegram to announce in October, 1914 that his calculations about 1914 are confirmed. This knowlegde came via an occultation of a star by the sun (was it Alcyone in the Pleiades?) or repeated re-measurement of Great Pyramid passage lengths, - or possibly even the Bible based on references to "this generation".

Is it needless to say that 1914 seems like just another event in what Gibbon described of history as "little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind?"

Well, OK. So what's a turning point of history? What is a color in the rainbow? And how many are there? My boxes of crayons used to have eight; six minus black and white? Is that the right answer? But they also made bigger boxes with more colors...

How many dimensions does history have? And how many ways can it turn?

I'd say that WWI was pretty rough on monarchy, the European playground and on those that had an opportunity to participate in it directly. Then again, you have events like 1812 and 1941 which were experienced by Russia - and the United States. Each had their own perspective on these. Napoleon was the possible anti-Christ to Lev Tolstoy's characters in War and Peace from the start ( it kept Tolstoy ruminating on history's mechanisms throughout - interesting, by the way), but in the United States Napoleon was the guy who sold the Louisiana Territory to the country at bargain basement rates - and in 1812, Russia's ally England had just burned down the capital just like Napoleon did to Moscow. Or did it catch on fire? Well.

I attended a Memorial one time, and someone in the Congregation got up to explain how the world was getting much worse all the time, reading a list of statistics. I guess it better be getting worse, because that individual certainly had a vested interest in it. It didn't end the last time or the time before that, but maybe this time. And if anyone tries to improve the world, that would be interfering with history, right? The divine plan?

And just in passing, if I actually were to accept all this "and live forever here on paradise earth and see all my old dead friends and relatives"...

What if they weren't Jehovah's Witnesses either? How would that affect things?

27

Could Jehovah's Witnesses Have Conquered the Roman Empire with the WTS Message?

by RottenRiley in

christians were known to show love to everyone, they beat down the pagan empire though a life devoted to loving kindness.

where do jehovah's witnesses stand on feeding the poor, helping slaves get out of slavery and donating funds to help orphanges and hospitals?

christians from various churches donate to help africa combat aids, get clean water, heating stoves to help cook their food.

kepler

Hello, Phizzy, ( and RR).

A week or two back we had crossed paths on another topic discussing Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the RE" - and I noticed elsewhere that you mentioned you were about to sit down and read Tom Holland's book, "In the Shadow of the Sword". As it turned out, I ran into the same book in a used bookstore and read it as well. Both are pretty good backgrounds for this discussion.

As for myself, I had hit Holland's book right about chapter 40 in Gibbon. Gibbon was discussing events in Justinian's reign and then the abridged paperback edition I had omitted the chapters about Belisarius reconquering the lands lost in the west and kicking the Goths out of Italy and Rome. What the ...?? As I had mentioned, all of Gibbon's text is available on line - so whatever he said can be found - but I digress - save that Holland's account probably goes into more detail about several things than does Gibbon's account:

1. The devastations of the bubonic plague on the Mediterranean basin and Persia.

2. The continuing military campaigns in the West and in Persia by Justinian and Heraklius. The Persians actually seized Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt and the Constantinople based Roman Empire had to seize it all back.

3. Arab auxiliaries in the East were near as common as "barbarian" legions in the west - and when the plague hit. the Roman regulars were outnumbered and outgunned.

The same was true for the Persian Empire in the 600s. Cities were depopulated, survivors did not fully recover. Estimates of about 1/3 of the world's urban population had died in the wake of 580s sweep of the plague. Very apocalyptic when compared with 1914.

Now, here's a kicker. Holland and others are sceptical that the first wave of Arabic conquests was Moslem per se; and a number of commanders might even have been Christian or as open to it as Constantine. Parenthetically, it should be noted that Aryan and Orthodox dominance shifted back and forth all over the Roman Empire map, from Emperors, to invaders from beyond the frontiers being evangelized by Aryans or vice versa. It was the same with Arabs, but with a difference. Because...

Notice how Abraham's seed was promised a domain that stretched from Egypt to the Two Rivers? Well, let's see, who has been in charge of those areas? Not the descendants of Isaac, but the illegitimate side of the family, so to speak. The 7th century Arabs happened to notice their case for probate via Hagar and they ran with it all the way to Tours beyond the Pyranees (732 AD) and farther into Asia than Alexander ever got.

And as for 95% of the Promised Land they have stayed there for about as many centuries as it was promised before the NT.

Prophecy and exegesis are fascinating, aren't they.

As to the JW movement conquering the RE, the contention of the JW movement was that the RE coopted Christianity - and they are somehow mysteriously getting belief back on its track - by distributing endless commentaries by anonymous authors from a mysterious printing press in Brooklyn:

I have trouble imagining how this was supposed to work in the first century or a couple centuries thereafter since Christianity did not have a canon for centuries. And it established its foundations for one only after this presumed co-opting by the Roman state. We essentially subscribe to the collection of book and letters that Athanasius, the archbishop or patriarch of Alexandria recommended decades after Constantine later in the 4th century - 367 AD. Aside from the Torah and TaNakh, the WTBTS society would have to wait for Paul to write his epistles and wait decades later for the Gospel writers to print something as well. Futher complicated by the absence of a faithful and discreet slave, since the phrase and parable from which the notion was derived had not yet been penned - nor had Rutherford yet appeared on earth to conduct a purge of his counsel Moyle after he had already slammed the door on his way out.

But then again, having the WT is somewhat akin to having communities of rabbis in Mesopotamia writing commentary on the Torah and TaNaKh and writing themselves into the ancient text. Was it by accident or design?

Admittedly, many things Holland suggests, I am sceptical of myself. But things he simply mentions in passing are eye openers.

27

The "Christian Greek Scriptures"

by Doug Mason in

from 1950 to 2013, the watchtower and bible tract society has been releasing its new world translation of the scriptures.. my study considers the christian greek scriptures (new testament).. http://www.jwstudies.com/why_does_wts_accept_christendoms_scriptures.pdf.

i have also provided the pictures that i created for the study.. http://www.jwstudies.com/pix_for_study_wts_accepts_scriptures.pdf.

please accept the fact that i have no idea whether colours clash or if they match.

kepler

Phizzy, Doug Mason,

Good to hear from you. I tried to write a lengthy reply, but decided just to leave a couple of notes. Maybe I can revise to satisfaction later.

To start somewhere, let's go back to Gibbon. It turns out I have the same D. M. edition which I picked up back in the 1960s while I was serving (across the pond) in Germany! A friend in the barracks had the equivalent of a garage sale since he was rotating back to the States. Finally, I am getting somewhere with it. That's the abridgement, by the way, which does not have the footnotes. Since it starts on chapter one, it leaves you wondering why Gibbon started compiling the book in the first place - and it left me wondering where I had read other passages - probably from a copy in the public library.

Going back to Daniel. Doug says about 164 BC - and I would be inclined to agree, though my opinion is more like that of a member of a jury composed of 21st century citizens called in - and not that of any sort of pedigreed expert. I would like to say though, that references to Daniel in the book of Maccabees ( I Maccabees 3:59-60) bracket how late it might have been written. I Maccabees recounts events up to 134 BC, but Daniel in its veiled references does not venture into the "future".

Best regards,

K.

27

The "Christian Greek Scriptures"

by Doug Mason in

from 1950 to 2013, the watchtower and bible tract society has been releasing its new world translation of the scriptures.. my study considers the christian greek scriptures (new testament).. http://www.jwstudies.com/why_does_wts_accept_christendoms_scriptures.pdf.

i have also provided the pictures that i created for the study.. http://www.jwstudies.com/pix_for_study_wts_accepts_scriptures.pdf.

please accept the fact that i have no idea whether colours clash or if they match.

kepler

Phizzy, Doug Mason,

Good to hear from you. I tried to write a lengthy reply, but decided just to leave a couple of notes. Maybe I can revise to satisfaction later.

To start somewhere, let's go back to Gibbon. It turns out I have the same D. M. edition which I picked up back in the 1960s while I was serving (across the pond) in Germany! A friend in the barracks had the equivalent of a garage sale since he was rotating back to the States. Finally, I am getting somewhere with it. That's the abridgement, by the way, which does not have the footnotes. Since it starts on chapter one, it leaves you wondering why Gibbon started compiling the book in the first place - and it left me wondering where I had read other passages - probably from a copy in the public library.

Going back to Daniel. Doug says about 164 BC - and I would be inclined to agree, though my opinion is more like that of a member of a jury composed of 21st century citizens called in - and not that of any sort of pedigreed expert. I would like to say though, that references to Daniel in the book of Maccabees ( I Maccabees 3:59-60) bracket how late it might have been written. I Maccabees recounts events up to 134 BC, but Daniel in its veiled references does not venture into the "future".

Best regards,

K.

27

The "Christian Greek Scriptures"

by Doug Mason in

from 1950 to 2013, the watchtower and bible tract society has been releasing its new world translation of the scriptures.. my study considers the christian greek scriptures (new testament).. http://www.jwstudies.com/why_does_wts_accept_christendoms_scriptures.pdf.

i have also provided the pictures that i created for the study.. http://www.jwstudies.com/pix_for_study_wts_accepts_scriptures.pdf.

please accept the fact that i have no idea whether colours clash or if they match.

kepler

Doug Mason,

Greetings. Just want to say that I like your approach to these questions. And glad you are doing it. It seems of late, that not as many topics have been posted as when I first started submitting posts to this forum a couple of years ago. On behalf of myself and any others who miss them - Thanks!

By coincidence I had been reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall lately. So when you mentioned Athanasius ( bishop of Alexandria), it caught my eye as well. Athanasius figures prominently in his account ( chapters later 20s, maybe early 30s) as well as his collisions with or support from the various emperors east and west. Since the hard copies of this book that I possess are both abridged - and one does not have the extensive footnotes Gibbon provided, I recommend to anyone interested the on-line versions of his entire work, such as the Liberty Library version.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1681&Itemid=27

Based on some particular research interests I have, I did a quick scan of "Why Does WTS Accept" looking for coverage of those topics. But I hope to read over it at greater length to provide some more general feedback or questions. That area that has been of much concern or interest to me is how apocalyptic views have morphed in the hands of Christian interpreters of scriptures - and I have argued ( or presented a case for) that based on a process that is anchored to the book of Daniel.

I have found that as early as Jerome, it was recognized by some in the Christian community that Daniel was not necessarily a prophet or a prophet book. Jerome in his Vulgate translation to Latin of the text of Daniel reports what is shown in any present day Jewish TaNaKh whether written in Hebrew or a vernacular such as English: a partition into Law, Prophets and Writings ( as the acronym implies) and Daniel is a component of the Writings. Even the definition of the canon in Against Apion, subsequent to the Jewish council of Jamnia in 90 AD, is born out by prophets working between the time of Moses and the reign of Artexerxes, king of Persia. Daniel Chapter 9:1, seems to exclude himself in his first person account. His repeated references to "Darius the Mede" are only borne out by Greek historians who refer to the Persians invading Greece as Medes. Thucydides claims that Athenians at Marathon defeated the king of the Medes. His name was Darius. Herodotus speaks of Xerxes, king of the Medes directly...

This apocalyptic hyperbolic tangent continues with the structure built on top of Daniel with interpretations of Revelations. Eusebius records many objections to Revelations as a canonical work and Luther in his introduction to the German translation in 1522 adds his own. Taken from on-line source,

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1681&Itemid=27

it is provided below.

In either case, critiques of Daniel or Revelations abound in Christian studies. This includes the early figures of the Church who pieced together the structures and systems of thought that we have today. I find some of their arguments and presentation of evidence, reasonable and compelling, obviously. And I know that one reason many groups do not place much value in prophecy or the nature of the return is that somewhere in their hierarchies the leadership admitted that this was building on sand and that there were more pressing concerns for the Christian community.

But then there are Biblical study groups who have a vested interest in these sets of answers.

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

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) [ Martin Luther writes:]

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

22

plesase help me: examples of true prophets being wrong

by nonjwspouse in

my husband insists all the men chosen to be prophets were inperfect men.

i agreed.

i do not agree that what they prophacied about; said was from the word of god; could ever be wrong.

kepler

True prophets being wrong?

How do you determine a true prophet? Someone tells you he's a true prophet - so don't believe your eyes?

The best example of a discrepancy is Daniel. He never was one - or at least he didn't start out as one in the OT, if he existed at all, other than a vehicle of getting the word out during the Maccabees Revolt.

If you look at the TaNaKh, the Jewish Old Testament, it is divided into three parts: the Law, Prophets, and Writings.

Guess where Daniel resides.

Wrong, Writings.

This is not a recent development. Jerome in translating the OT and New into Latin comments on this in 4th Century AD. In other words, it was understood from the beginning and conveniently lost. Ditto for Josephus when he gives his definition of a prophet in Apion. Not familiar with it. Should read it, then. And then read Daniel 9:1.

Daniel seemed to have a very narrow window for foreseeing things, since he was very inaccurate about the past. Never could keep straight who he had been working for or who the new management was. The only other references I know of to Darius the Mede are Greek writers Thucydides and Herodotus who thought ALL Persian kings were Medes. They thought they beat the Medes and their king at Marathon. Check who was in charge in Persia then.

I won't even get started on all the false prophecies of cities being destroyed.

So why is Daniel considered a prophet? Because certain INTERPRETERS of holy writ find it convenient to their OWN beliefs, not because there is such a thing as true prophets. That's circular reasoning.

39

Nov 20, 2013 Letter to All Congregations (RE: Phillipines Disaster Relief)

by Gayle in

"however, it would be appreciated if such donations are made without restrictions as to where and how the funds may be used.

" additionally, at this time, there is no need for donations of food, clothing, or other items.

if such needs arise in the future, you will be notified accordingly.

kepler

Two related reflections on this:

1. After the great earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan a few years ago, on line I came across streaming data about the status of Jehovah Witnesses thereabouts. It was more or less a roll call after a battle, a confirmation that everyone was present.

I noted that the status of the pets of brothers and sisters wassometines included in the report. And every once in a while there was mention of an unbaptized or unbelieving spouse. Otherwise, who knows what the mentality of the reports was: the beginning of the liquidation of the rest of mankind accordance with an [updated] interpretation of scriptures? No? Then maybe just a rehearsal.

2. "The WTBTS specializes in printing, publishing and buying and selling real estate...not in disaster relief aid to victims of natural disasters."

The specialialization in printing and publishing is worth a moment's reflection. The fact that publications are distributed world wide shows that the society is not without resources for distributing goods.

Granted, in the 21st century much of what the society writes and publishes can be distributed electronically at local plants, but it is hard to believe that there are no ships, planes or trucks involved in WT publication deliveries.

The problem is largely philosophical or doctrinal, the excising of the notion of "neighbor" from the NT for brother or sister in faith or cult and a pre-occupation with Matthew 24 vs. Matthew 25. The people who came into my house thought that an earthquake in Haiti was a validation that we were living in the end times, but were extremely evasive about how they intended to do anything to assist those affected by the event, except urge them to become fellow publishers.

Yes, send something ( goods or a check) to the Philippines via an organization you can trust.

2

19 November 1863 - 150 Years Ago Today - A Different Point of View

by kepler in

from the standpoint of funeral orations, my school's literature department had to wait nearly 2500 years for the next great oration after that of pericles.

it's a short speech that has generated many more words of philosophical interpretation, even re-molded a country that was being torn apart.

never mind that it is about someone's particular country.

kepler

From the standpoint of funeral orations, my school's literature department had to wait nearly 2500 years for the next great oration after that of Pericles. It's a short speech that has generated many more words of philosophical interpretation, even re-molded a country that was being torn apart. Never mind that it is about someone's particular country. The words are a recipe for constructing one and not making it limited to a tribe - but inviting to those who uphold its values.

The prophets of WTBTS seem either silent or antithetical to the beliefs propounded by Lincoln. Yet even as much as they rant about Biblical prophets and their return, I am convinced that they missed the real thing. But most importantly, the final aspiration of the speaker and all those that admire him, was that that a free government - from the bottom up and not down from above from a tyrant, a slave owner or a theocrat - was a gift from God and a thing to be protected.

Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground.

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Nov. 19, 1863

95

Emergency relief fund for the Philippines. How will it work.

by joe134cd in

i was just thinking it will be interesting to see how the wts emergency relief fund will operate in the philippines.

ok it worked well with the storm in florida, with cashing in on the insurance cheques.

sorry to generalize, but americans have the disposable income, and the insurance polices for things like this - a thing the wtbts finds very attractive.

kepler

Given that most everyone on this topic reads as sceptical about what the WTS will do in this situation - and that includes myself - I would suggest that serious consideration of alternate means to help people in the Philippines should be pursued here and off-line. Three organizations I can think of that would get aid to the affected areas and will not limit it to sectarian considerations. But before I give my own list, I would say that it is not all inclusive and I would encourage others to give their own recommendations. 1. In my own case I have worked with Child Fund since the early 80s and all my sponsorships have been in the Philippines. Formerly they were known as Christian Children's Fund. The aid will get there. 2. Same with Catholic Relief Services. In the case of Haiti, I phoned in inquiry Monday and I heard how they were active in the field on public radio the next day. 3. Unicef had an e-mail partition the next day. So that's my short list. No doubt someone will find fault with one or all three. What's more, when disaster strikes, the magnitude is overwhelming and you and I have budgets that probably tanked after 2008 or 2009. We're drops in the bucket. Still, I pose this question or challenge. And for many it has probably been taken up already. But all the same, if you think the WTS approach to disaster and those in need if fake or self-serving, then why not get involved with a group that is more likely to get something there? See if it makes you feel any better than wondering if you contribution did anything other than getting this week's WatchTower in the hands of people in the storm's path.

2

Caveat Lector: Jerome's of the Vulgate's Caution on Daniel

by kepler in

recently, started reading gibbon's decline and fall of the roman empire.

i discovered that the printed versions i had access to were abridged, but the entire book is available on line in pdf or more detailed forms.

one reason it is worth reading chapter by chapter is that abridements seem to convey different messages.

kepler

Phizzy,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the encouragement.

There were a couple of on-line sources for public domain classics. Liberty on line had various full versions of Gibbon. And I believe it was CELSUS which had the Eusebius and Jerome.

I checked to see if Olaf Jonsson had examined the work of Eusebius on BC chronologies. It looks like he did, but he was mainly interested in the 607 BC problem. Eusebius uncovers some other stones though. He uses the several kings' lists that Jonsson describes in his book and never uncovers a "Darius the Mede". When you read the kings lists in contexts, you wouldn't expect to find one either. When the Medes close down they are closed and Cyrus takes over.

Separating political tracts and "scripture" could be a difficult matter. Letters of the Apostles or disciples can be taken at face value - the epistles. But if the Gospels were written decades later by ghost writers or non-eyewitnesses, then there could be motive in what was included as well. And how much we might never really know, save that each new gospel over the original(s) reflected a lot of further thought. In the Old Testament the issues could be much the same when whe see duplication and revision of what could be earlier messages. This continues to fascinate me, but I can't make up my mind about what should come away from this other than wisdom - I hope. Perhaps wisdom to conduct ourselves differently than if we had never grasped what might have been going on.

But going back to the writings of church fathers ( whom few on this board probably would NOT suspect political motive), Eusebius in that same BC era writing remarks on another interesting problem. Among what was available to Eusebius, the Syraic, Samarian, the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Pentateuch do NOT agree on chronologies from the time of Adam to the time of Moses and then the construction of the Temple in Solomon's time. The question arose with Paul's speech in Acts - with some of the discrepancies arising due to estimates of Josuah's age and life span - but it extends further than that in Eusebius's mind. And from our own perspective, ignoring scientific or forensic evidence of human origins, access to Egyptian records throws another curve in these estimates that compresses the 3 or 4 centuries of Judges to a muchshorter error or one of concurrent reigns...

But I don't think the NWT, in its introductory claim to have sifted through all these versions of the OT, that these discrepancies in dating have been addresed. According to the 1984 version, Moses was a figure in the Egyptian court of 1500 BC. Period.