Posts by Bobcat

14

Immortal life or Everlasting life?

by The Searcher in

it's very interesting that 1st corinthians 15:53 has been cited in the watchtower study articles last week and this week.

that scripture, speaking about humans, translates the greek word 'athanasia' to mean 'immortality'.

can that be correct?

Bobcat

The Searcher said: There is absolutely no reason or justification to give anyone immortality

I believe I found a reason. Of course, whether anyone accepts that is another thing. The reason is based on the universal sovereignty issue. That was recently discussed here and I commented twice on it. But since the flow of the arguement was decidedly against such an issue even existing, I decided to retire from the thread. I might add that the explanation (that I've arrived at) is neither simple nor short.

Blondie said: I always wondered if humans would have children after the final test, 1000 years after Armageddon, because they would not be tested.

I also believe I found an answer to this. It is somewhat hypothetical, as I base it on inferences from several verses. And it also is related to the idea of universal sovereignty that I refer The Searcher to above.

You are right to point out that there could be no testing of new humans after the 'test' following the 1000 years since Satan and the demons would be gone for good.

That leaves two possibilities: (1) It is necessary to test every human who will ever come into existence. And since no further testing would be possible, then, no further humans would come into existence. Or (2) The testing has a specific purpose for those humans alive at that time and the results of that test do not require later humans to be tested. This possibility would allow for more humans to come into existence. Of course, the finite size of planet Earth would pose a problem.

Just as a 'teaser' of sorts, here are a couple of questions:

Why is the universe (the various stars and planets) so big? Even with the Hubble, very few planets can actually be seen. So, obviously (that is, if one believes in creation), it's not all there for our (earthly) viewing pleasure.

In regards to children, the Society likes to use the illustration of a cup being filled with water. According to them, you stop when it gets full. But is that the only way to solve that problem?

Take care Searcher and Blondie - from one who enjoys your posts very much.

4

Looking for some help/critique on an article on apostolic succession

by corpusdei in

i just finished up on an article examining the idea of apostolic succession.

i think i've done a fair job of examining the other side of the issue than that put forward in the reasoning book, but the idea itself is one that i'm pretty unfamiliar with (and what i do remember is incredibally rusty).

can anyone point out any factual or logical issues that i may have made here?.

Bobcat

Not to be a critic, but just to share some of what I learned when researching this:

This is the third paragraph above:

A primary scripture held to show that Peter held a primary authority is Matt. 16:18, in which Jesus tells him "Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation". As the greek for "Peter" and "rock" are similar, and the words are the same in aramaic (the language that Jesus would likely have been speaking in), it may seem to maintain that claim. The Watchtower does make a legitimate point when stating "in his expression "on this rock" Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated "this," which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. We cannot imagine Matthew's being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction.

My thoughts:

If I remember correctly, there is some evidence that Matthew originally wrote his gospel account in Aramaic. If so, the statement about Matthew not being careless about genders does not apply. In other words, he would have used the same word for "Peter" and "rock." The Greek translation of the original would have been forced to make a distinction in genders between "Peter" and "rock" simply as a matter of grammer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Jesus specifically gave Simon the name "Cephas" (Peter). That argues that there was a purpose for doing this. Matthew 16 would account for this purpose. Otherwise, the purpose for his name change goes unstated.

Another point to note: If, as the Society (and some others) holds, that Matthew was the first and earliest gospel account written, it would account for why the other gospel accounts did not have the pericope in Mt chap.16. Peter was prominent in the early years of the congregation (after Jesus death). But within several decades he lost that prominence. Thus (if as said) Matthews account was first, it explains why he included the account and the others didn't simply because they were written after that brief early prominence. (The statement about 'building the congregation on this rock' would have the connotation that Peter was used prominently to establish it. Which he did, as the book of Acts attests.)

I've read two extesive writeups on this subject. One was the NICNT on Matthew by RT France. The other was an online writeup. (If I can find the link I'll send it in another post.) Both of these writeups made the interesting point that were it not for the subsequent Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, there would be little question that Peter was who Jesus was referring to when he said "rock." In other words, most of those who argue that Peter was not the rock are trying to disprove the Catholic doctrine. But that came afterwards and is, in effect, a red herring.

Having said all that, I also note that your article is about Apostolic succession and not Mt chap.16 per se.

I have other things to do at the moment, so I'll check back with you later. Hope this much helps some.

Take Care.

30

Some observations on Animal Farm by George Orwell

by WinstonSmith in

i recently finished reading animal farm, written by george orwell.

as someone who has recently awoken to the truth about the truth, this book blew my mind.

the parallels with the watchtower society are quite astounding.

Bobcat

WinstonSmith:

Many thanks for the synopsis/parallels. I know that had to take some effort. And as some have already mentioned, the parallels are just too vivid to deny.

A few more to add:

"The pigs direct that the apples are for them alone."

*** w10 3/15 p. 27 par. 15 One Flock, One Shepherd ***
Those in the new covenant "have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place." (Read Hebrews 10:15-20.) These are the ones who are "to receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken." (Heb. 12:28) So, then, only those who will be kings and priests in heaven with Jesus Christ should drink from the "cup" that represents the new covenant. ... All others who attend the annual Memorial are respectful observers, who do not partake of the emblems.

________________________

"The work of teaching and organising fell naturally on the pigs who were generally recognised as being the cleverest of animals."

"The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others."

"With their superior knowledge it was natural that they (the pigs) should assume leadership."

*** w08 1/15 p. 26 par. 6 Counted Worthy to Be Guided to Fountains of Waters of Life ***

GOD'S WORD identifies anointed Christians who are caring for Christ's interests on earth as "the faithful and discreet slave." When Christ inspected the "slave" in 1918, he found those anointed ones on earth to be faithful in providing spiritual "food at the proper time." Hence, Jesus, the Master, was pleased thereafter to appoint them "over all his belongings." ... A master has authority over his belongings, or possessions, and he can use them as he chooses. The belongings of Jesus Christ, Jehovah's enthroned King, embrace all Kingdom interests on earth. That includes "a great crowd ..."

The willing support given to anointed Christians by their companions of the other sheep was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. He wrote: "This is what Jehovah has said: ‘The unpaid laborers of Egypt and the merchants of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, tall men, will themselves come over even to you, and yours they will become. Behind you they will walk.'" (Isa. 45:14) In a symbolic way, Christians with an earthly hope today walk behind the anointed slave class and its Governing Body, following their leadership. As "unpaid laborers," the other sheep willingly and wholeheartedly expend their strength and their resources in support of the worldwide preaching work that Christ assigned to his anointed followers on earth.

Thanks again and take care

55

Would you die for your current beliefs?

by SweetBabyCheezits in

jw
friends

.

Bobcat

This isn't specifically about 'dying' per se, but rather, risking one's livelihood.

Just listening to the Society's counsel (echoed by elders also), one is expected to risk their job in order to attend District Conventions. They always relate it to the strength of your faith. And I have to admit that in times past my wife and I have risked our employment in order to go to the DC. And I will also add that it worked out well in the longer run. But it did give us some grey hairs in the process. Yet, in recent years I have begun pondering the "why" of this.

Like, there were no 1st century examples of large conventions that I can think of. Not that that would prohibit such a thing. But why would going to such a thing need to be viewed as so 'all or nothing.' The location boils down to which city offered the Society the best deal. The date boils down to which weekends happened to be open for that facility. The hotels on the reccomended list are not the most economical, but rather, the ones that offered the Society a deal. (In fact, some of the budget hotels don't offer a discount, figuring they are already discounted. But that causes them not to be on the list.)

On top of that, the speakers the Society sends are taken care of in every way. But I'm expected to risk all to be there at the city of their choice, at the dates of their choice, at the hotels of their choice, naturally, paying my own way, and expected to show my appreciation by helping to defray the Society's expenses also.

And if I don't go, I am the faithless one.

(I might add that the Society's view of higher ed, and the employment that results from that, make one more vulnerable since one wouldn't usually have the benefits and flexibility with regard to vacation time.)

(Another thought: When they put up the hotel list at the KH, they don't allow making copies. Thus, when the list goes up, there is always a crowd seeking to see it. That and the long lines to get in at the Convention site and the sickening rush of people to get a good seat - all this gives me the distinct impression of being treated by the Society like cattle.)

39

NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please

by cofty in

so if its true that a new 2012 version of the new world translation is to be released at this year's dc what changes do you think they will have made?.

don't forget your square brackets for interpolations.. .

"this good news of the kingdom will be preached to all the [developed] world and then the end will come" - matt 24:14.

Bobcat

I think I missed the point of this thread. I was proposing much needed improvements. There are a lot of things I would hope they wouldn't change about the NWT.

One of the more fascinating things to me is to see the specious and long-winded reasoning they sometimes resort to whilst trying to get around or nullify what the NWT accurately says. They tried to make an accurate translation (generally speaking), and then spend much effort in the WT trying to explain why it doesn't mean what it actually says.

Case in point:

John 1:12 (NWT) says: "However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God's children, because they were exercising faith in his name."

Today's WT lesson (which is nothing new) revolved around the idea that only the 144,000 - chosen only by God, with no human choice involved - are "God's children (or Sons)." Completely contradicting the simple statement in John 1:12.

(I try not to immerse myself in WT propaganda so much (anymore), but I often study the WT lesson to try to keep my mind sharp by picking thru the flawed reasoning. But today's lesson was very much like trying to read 'spagetti' computer code.)

Much of the 'twisting' of the Scriptures done by the Society is accomplished by programming alternate meanings for phrases that have been accurately rendered in the NWT. (e.g. "other sheep," "little flock," Christ's brothers," "Sons of God," "Seed of the woman," and on and on ...)

If the talk about adding a more explanatory appendix to the NWT is true, then, I imagine there is where the above sarcastic proposals would actually be found. And the indoctination would ensure that readers would apply the meanings of the appendix to what is said in the Bible text. That's how the WT version of "Newspeak" works. Having it right in the back of the Bible would be all the better because it would lesson the physical distance between the Bible and the 'traditions of men.'

39

NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please

by cofty in

so if its true that a new 2012 version of the new world translation is to be released at this year's dc what changes do you think they will have made?.

don't forget your square brackets for interpolations.. .

"this good news of the kingdom will be preached to all the [developed] world and then the end will come" - matt 24:14.

Bobcat

Here are some more:

John 10:16 "other sheep which are not of this fold" - "of" should read "out of" based on normal NWT usage.

This is a sneeky little rendition to support their idea of who the "other sheep" are. They want you to think that the "other sheep" are not in the same "fold" as the sheep mentioned earlier, whom they consider the anointed.

Jesus is saying the "other sheep" did not come "out of" the same "sheep fold" that the earlier sheep were "led out" of. "Of" in vs.16 is the same particle (Greek: ek) that prefaces "leads [them] out" in vs.3. But they want you to think "of" in vs.16 means 'belongs to.'

Also (while I'm at it), they would do justice if they changed "sheepfold" in vs.1 and "fold" in vs.16 to "courtyard." Both are the same word, and both refer to an in-town pen for housing flocks of sheep, as opposed to a wilderness pen described in vss.7 - 15.

John 17:3 "taking in knowledge" - My guess is this was rendered to support the ministry. But in doing so they miss out on an important point.

"Taking in knowledge" was justified because W. E. Vine said that was a possible rendering of ginosko (literally: "to know") And, 'since he said it, that means its ok to use it in Jn 17:3.'

The word can have a range of meaning based on the context. For example, Mt 1:25 "had ... intercourse," Lu 1:34 "having ... intercourse." But here is the problem. In Jn 17:3: [ginosko] "means" [or lit. "is"] "everlasting life." There is an equivalency between the two. But "taking in knowledge" does not equate with "everlasting life." For example, compare Jn 5:39, 40, Lu 11:52, and 2Tim 3:7, 15. There IS a relationship between "taking in knowledge" and "everlasting life," but the two are not equivalent.

Invariably, when KH speakers use Jn 17:3 they will say "taking in knowledge" is a 'first step' towards everlasting life, when the verse says it "means" or "is" life. The phrase "taking in knowledge" forces them naturally to contradict what the verse is saying. "Knowing" or 'having a relationship with' would much closer approximate the meaning intended.

But, "taking in knowledge" does fit the pharisaical view that doing enough will eventually gain life.

45

If you were a Witness, when did you realize the Governing Body was apostate?

by matt2414 in

for more than 30 years i believed everything that came from the watchtower society, especially since i lived at bethel for a while and i knew a lot of the gb members, who to me seemed intelligent and personable.

at the beginning, the emphasis was on the bible, the kingdom, jehovah and jesus.

but gradually over time, there would appear an elephant in the room that no one seemed to talk about, such as the change in the understanding of "generation.

Bobcat

leaving_quietly said: "1) willful non-support, 2) spiritual endangerment, and 3) extreme physical abuse."

Here is one of the things that gulled me about this: The list of 3 you cite came from the Nov 1, 1988 WT p.22 pars.9-12.

Here is a partial quote: (Par.9) "What may be the grounds for such a step? (i.e. seperation)" (Par.10) "Willful nonsupport is one basis for separation." (Par.11) "Extreme physical abuse is another basis for separation." (Par.12) "Absolute endangerment of spirituality also provides a basis for separation."

Now here is how they put it in the book Keep Yourselves in God's Love (published 2008): (p.220, par.2) "Consider here a few exceptional situations that some have viewed as a basis for separation." The book then lists 3 things: "Willful Nonsupport," "Extreme physical abuse," and "Absolute endangerment of spiritual life."

That is just amazing that "some have viewed" the exact same things that the 1988 WT said. What are the chances of that? I wonder what would happen if a publisher came up with some other reason for seperating? Saying; 'Well, here's something I view as a reason ...'

39

NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please

by cofty in

so if its true that a new 2012 version of the new world translation is to be released at this year's dc what changes do you think they will have made?.

don't forget your square brackets for interpolations.. .

"this good news of the kingdom will be preached to all the [developed] world and then the end will come" - matt 24:14.

Bobcat

Dan 12:4 "the true knowledge" - they could take out the word "true."

It doesn't belong. Yet, when they cite the verse, that is the word that is emphasized.

Eph 4:8 "gifts in men" - should be 'gifts to men (as in humans or people, not males). Verse 7 contradicts "gifts in men."

1Thes 5:3 "Whenever it is that they are saying ..." - should be "while they are saying ..."

And they should have a footnote that says "'are saying' is not the same as 'the cry of.' Cmp 'are saying' in Matthew 16:13.'"

Mt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36 "Judgment Day" - should read "day of judgment."

This is the exact same expression used in 2Pet 2:9 and 3:7 rendered "day of judgment." They even have a talk that tries to make a difference between the two expressions, but never mention that in the Greek they are exactly the same.

Here is a curious note: In the 'Bible Teach' book there is an appendix chapter on what is Judgment Day. But it never quotes or cites the four verses in Matthew where the term "Judgment Day" is used. (These are the only four places in the NWT that the phrase is used.)

Mt 19:11 "have the gift" - should read " "to whom it has been given."

And take out the nonsensical header "gift of singleness" The Bible never says singleness (or marriage for that matter) is a gift. The ability to live successfully with singleness, and having a good mate are gifts. (Imagine buying a light switch at Lowe's and the salesman says; 'And we are throwing in two free gifts with that switch, ON and OFF.')

Lu 6:38 "... people will give ... They will pour ... they will measure ..." - The Greek uses neuter pronouns usually indicating God will repay.

The NWT changes them to refer to people doing the repaying. (Although, God may use people for this purpose.) This isn't a big one. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Jn 1:1 "a god" - This is, admittedly, a literal translation. So no argument on that.

But ... "a god" contradicts the context of the epilogue (Verses 1 - 18). "A [something]" in English usually means 'one of a class.' Thus, 'a car' is one of the car class, one example of many. But the "Word" is "an only begotten son from a father," "the only begotten god." (Vss. 14, 18) He definitely is not 'one example of many.'

How to translate it so that it fits the context? My take: "the Word was God[like]." (I hope I don't start a big argument on this.)

I could come up with more in time (esp. in Revelation). But, having said these, in fairness, I like certain general features of the NWT. It can be very useful when used in conjuntion with another or several translations. Just watch out for the mines.

3

What Would Happen?

by allyouneedislove in

what do you think would happen if i told an elder or co "listen, i just thought you should know that i have no intention of heeding any direction from the fds regarding medical procedures"?.

Bobcat

Imagine being on a battlefield. Your enemy is somewhere out there in front of you. You are somewhere out in front of your enemy. Exactly where, they are not sure. Suddenly, you hoist a flag signaling your position.

The WT lives off of being 'somewhere out there,' but never in a definite location. The "FDS" is nothing more than a smoke screen, sheilding those who are really making policies. Telling them what you think or feel does nothing to them. It only identifies you.

It does worse than that. It gives someone the ability to judge you before you have ever done anything. Why give someone the ability to judge you over, say, the blood issue, when you may never need blood.

You may have to identify or stand up for yourself over some important issue. Telling someone beforehand how you think or feel lets them decide when the battle begins and how it will be fought.

Just my two cents worth. Take care.

8

Jesus' Baptism - 26 or 29 AD?

by Bobcat in

in my own research i've found that scholars are divided as to when jesus was baptised.

26 and 29 ad seem to be the most reccomended dates.

i was wondering if anyone could offer info on the points of difference between the two or links to further discussion on the reasons for holding to either date.. thanks in advance..

Bobcat

Doug, Leolaia, and binadub (hey, that's clever):

Thank you all for your replies and links and info. Now the research begins (or continues) ...

I'm still a working stiff so it took a day or two to get back to this thread. Amazingly, it was already 10 pages or so from the top active page.