Posts by Bobcat

27

Has anyone ever used a non-NWT (New World Translation) bible at meetings / study?

by biometrics in

about 1 year ago (before i faded), i purchased an old king james bible from ebay and started using it in the meetings and when a brother came over to study with me.. a common reaction of fellow jws was to stare at the bible, then say "what type of bible is that?

", then they'd sometimes ask to look at it, and flip to john 1:1. when they saw what it said, they'd treat it like it was apostate material, even though a few decades earler it was the same bible jws used.. i strongly encourage any lurkers/faders to use another bible at the meetings and see what type of reactions you get.. .

.

Bobcat

When we were doing Samuel, Kings and Chronicles in the school Bible reading I would bring and make use of a book called "A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. (by James D Newsome Jr) This is similar to gospel harmonies that put the various accounts in parallel columns. A very useful book, by the way. And I especially like Newsome's version. There is no commentary in it. It only has Bible text from the Revised Standard Version.

One sister heard me talk about it and expressed interest in seeing it. When I showed it to her, she only saw the cover and said 'That's OK, I don't know where that comes from.'

4

VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?

by I_love_Jeff in

Bobcat

I see there is a second thread with this question. I'll let more qualified people answer.

7

1931 Golden Age PDF

by allyouneedislove in

sorry for the re-post, but i forgot to provide anything in the subject line!.

please provide me with a pdf scan of this article?

it will be used as proof for my spouse.. .

Bobcat

That is so typical WT.

"Every reasonable mind understands that [insert current beleif about anything here]."

"All the relevant facts point to [insert your present or most recent conclusion here]."

I wonder if you can buy books or software with these sort of boiler-plate phrases? Oh yea, and "Some among us used to speculate that [insert old beleif or conclusion from phrases above as the need may be]."

Wait, maybe I'll write such a book.

4

VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?

by I_love_Jeff in

Bobcat

Try this web page. This is a review of one of Furuli's works were he refers to "backward calculations."

http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review2.htm

Incidentally, if you are researching 607bce, I would like to mention two books worth investigating. One is "Gentile Time Reconsidered." (Carl Olaf Jonsson, 400 pages) The other is "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." (Edwin R. Thiele, 250 pages)

The first book focues on 607 vs 587. The second one focuses on the timelime of the kings of Israel and Judah from the split in the kingdom (931/930bce) down to the destruction of Jerusalem (587). Regarding 587, both arrive at the same conclusion but from different angles. These two together really convinced me. In fact it was Thiele's book that got me interested enough to purchase Jonsson's book. And then Jonsson's book was like WOW! Thiele's book is difficult reading, but worth the effort if you are interested in this subject.

My personal take on Rolf Furuli: He seems to be well credentialed, he is a Witness and thus, holds to 607bce as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. His method of arguing appears (to me) to try to cast doubt on the evidence supporting 587bce, leaving 607 correct by default.

Take care.

18

YHWH and the English Translation

by allyouneedislove in

so i was doing research on yhwh in the hebrew scriptures.

i see that the wt admits that yahweh is a more accurate hebrew pronunciation of yhwh.. but, is jehovah an acceptable way to translate yahweh into english?

if not, what is the best way to translate yhwh into english?.

Bobcat

For those interested, there is an interesting write up on this page on why "Yahweh" has meaning in the Hebrew.

http://www.eliyah.com/yahweh.html

I agree that there is really better things to argue about. And for what its worth," Jehovah" and the Romanized "J" is consistent if you are going to try to create consistency with the many KJV users, which is what WT claims.

At the same time, I think the WT position is disingenious. They argue that it doesn't really matter as long as you use the name. But try using "Yahweh" in the KH or with other Witnesses in conversation. You will find out they don't really believe their own explanation.

On the insertion of the Name in the NT: They would have been more honest if they had encased the Name in double brackets [[Name]]. The NWT says they use these for "interpolations," which is what this amounts to, since there is no manuscript evidence or any ancient arguements suggesting that the Name was taken out of the NT. All their arguements for putting it in are interpretations of indirect evidence.

But even if you accept the idea of putting the Name in where OT quotes are made, the dishonesty is apparent. NWT puts the Name in the NT 237 times. But only about 80 of those times are quotes from the OT. The rest are simply where THEY figured it should be. Roughly 2/3s of the times are falsely riding on the 'OT quote' explanation.

5

Watchtowers Version of Truth

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

watchtowers version of truth .

today i added a new article to my blog addressing the watchtower organizations yeartext banner of your word is truth.

if gods word is truth then anything said by watchtower that is not true is not the word of god.

Bobcat

" As for the various fractions derived from those components and products that contain such fractions the bible does not comment on these."

Where does the Bible comment on "those components" that WT says are banned? (i.e. the four major components)

You're right. This is so much double talk. It'd be funny if it wasn't so life threatening.

I wonder how they would weasel out of this text: John 15:13 "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends." How could it be OK, nay, praiseworthy, to surrender your whole soul, but be wicked to merely give just a portion of it? (But also be OK if a worldly person gives it - blood, that is.)

On the other hand, if one accepts the arguement that blood for medicine is banned by the Bible, then, the WT teaching on fractions is really a repudiation of basic Christian teachings such as these:

Mt 5:21, 22 (Where Jesus condemns the small feelings and acts [fractions, as it were] leading to murder)

Mt 5:27, 28 (Where Jesus condemns the smaller acts that lead to adultery)

Mt 23:20 "Therefore he that swears by the altar is swearing by it and by all the things on it" (The context [vss.16 - 22] involves Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees view of what is holy in the temple and what is not.)

They've become like the murderer who has to keep murdering to cover over the past murders.

10

Why is the Faithful and Discreet Slave thanked in every prayer?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

jw
friends

every prayer at any meal,congregation meeting,and assemblyhas the fds being thanked for the spiritual food that they provide.jesus gave us an example on who to pray to and what to say.the society or any human were not included and was not ever mentioned by jesus.the society has always included themselves in prayers.

.

do you think that by including themselves in every prayer,they intentionally try to inculcate that into each brain,so that their powers are never questioned?.

Bobcat

I wonder why there is no mention of "the faithful slave," "slave class," reference to "food at the proper time," etc in the rest of the NT? Its obvious the early Christians did not understand Jesus' parable that way. Yet, to even ask that question in a KH is to invite a review of your loyalty.

I marvel when I hear my wife mentioning churchgoers attitude toward leaders in their churches. If you just replaced the names it would be a perfect description of the KH. Yet she can't see it. She has a study who just told her that she was quiting her Bible study to attend a weekday church study. Mrs. Bobcat told me she asked her: 'Can you ask questions about what you will be learning?"

On the prayer aspect (and in conversation for that matter), it feels like there is a concerted (but somewhat under the surface) effort to replace "the Society" with "the faithful slave." If you still use "the Society" you are not keeping up with theocratic order.

4

THE OTHER ISRAEL [full documentary]

by darth frosty in

just watching this documentary on the pharisee and their oral traditions and the teachings of the talmud.

this is like the wt$ playbook!.

the other isreal.

Bobcat

This is fascinating. (So far anyways.) I watched about 16 minutes of it so far and after just a few minutes I'd wished I had kept some notes for comparison.

If you replace the Pharisees with the Society and non-Witnesses in place of Gentiles there are a great many parallels. Although, I would say that some things have moderated some with the passing of the Franz era.

As an example, the Talmud (as explained in the video) viewed normal copulation (outside of marriage) as fornication, but if was non-standard(?) it wasn't. This was similar to how the WT used to view matters until the mid-70s. Thus, a mate who engaged in anything non-standard was not guilty of adultry and not free to be divorced from.

But there were many other parallels. I'm going to have to watch this again with a note book handy.

I seem to remember CoC mentioning Ray Franz being told by his uncle to do some research in the Jewish Encyclopedia (or something like that). I wonder if WT leadership had been greatly influenced by Jewish writings? That would explain a lot of WT history.

19

Zone Overseer Talk - Would You Wear Saul's Armour?

by WinstonSmith in

i have been meaning to post these up since i signed up to jwn but, until someone mentioned the zone talk that is happening tomorrow in new zealand, i had forgotten!

i used to be a prolific note taker during public talks, assemblies and conventions.

as i became more awake to the truth about the truth this died off.

Bobcat

Thank you, Winston, for the report. And for trying to be fair minded about it and report what you heard.

One brother where I work who went to the recent zone meeting, here is what I hear from him about it: (imagine cricket sound)

And here is what Society reports about this 'food at the proper time': (imagine cricket sound)

About the current economic problems: I could see suggesting the formulation of a strategy to try to make due and not burn all your time just trying to make a living. But simply and only focusing on "university education" seems disingenious. It smacks of an alternative agenda. Especially so when they quiety make use of such things themselves whenever they see fit to do so. And when the speaker himself is living off others, you get no sense of empathy or fellow feeling.

40

Why did Satan want to kill Jesus?

by FaithfulBrother in

why would satan have wanted to kill jesus if jesus' death would defeat satan and save mankind?

why would satan enter judas at the last supper and get judas to betray jesus, leading him to his death, if this death is what defeated satan?.

Bobcat

I've thought some about this topic before but this discussion motivated me to try to put some of these together to try to get a bigger picture. Here are some related to this discussion:

In connection with Satan the Devil killing others:

Jesus called him "a manslayer when he began." (Jn 8:44)

The apparent reference is to his actions in the garden with Adam and Eve.

The Genesis account shows he was "a manslayer" by prompting them to sin, rather than by directly killing them.

Hebrews 2:14, 15 describes Satan as "the one having the means to cause death" and others being in slavery (to him) due to "fear of death."

I mention these two things because they seem to support the idea that Satan benefits more from having live subjects rather than dead resistors. At the same time, the threat of death would be a useful tool, perhaps used on some to affect the many.

In connection with Satan knowing that Jesus' death would be his undoing (and thus, why kill him?)

From what I can see, God knew ahead of time the details of how and when Jesus would die and systematically withheld that information from Satan (and others for that matter).

Prior to the flood (of Noah's day): God promises a savior (Gen 3:15), curses the ground, eventually many angels sin, the flood wipes out the preflood world, the curse is lifted, mankind starts anew, no further record of any angelic defections. And no more information about the coming Saviour until after all this happens. Effectively eliminating the possibility of any angels learning the details and then turning bad.

For the period after the flood, 1 Peter 1:10 - 12 indicated the prophets could not fully grasp what they were predicting about the Messiah, nor could angels.

Eph 3:8 - 10 also states these things were hidden by God only to be explained by the Christian congregation (after the fact).

Luke 18:31 - 34 and Mark 9:30 - 32 give examples of Jesus' disciples being unable to grasp details of Jesus' death, saying they were purposely "hidden from them."

From this and the above I gather (so far anyways) that Satan would have been more pleased to break Jesus' integrity to God rather than to kill him. But at the same time, the significance of Jesus' death was kept from him.

Another thing that I gather from the fact that humans are held accountable by God despite pressure from Satan is this: That Satan is not in complete control. That is to say, he could incite great opposition to Jesus with the hope of breaking him, but not be able to prevent the momentum of that opposition from killing Jesus, which is exactly what God wanted to happen. Further, the accounts show that Satan recognized who Jesus was. So Satan would see that Jesus was the key person to break, motivating him to go 'all out' as it were. It's as if Satan was given just the right amount of information to cause him to act in a predictable fashion.

Incidentally, Jesus appears to have understood why and when and how he would die based on numerous statements of his.