Posts by Bobcat

443

The 1914 generation is still going strong 100 years later - 2014 study article.

by THE GLADIATOR in

january 2014 watchtower study article.

let your kingdom comebut when?.

this generation will not pass away.

Bobcat

The solution to the problem is to stick with the context. (See here and here and here.) Unfortunately, the GB have painted themselves into a corner with their 1914 dogma.

20

Bible Translation Shenanigans

by Perry in

by jack l. green.

the bible clearly and unmistakably teaches that the lord jesus christ is jehovah god.

the cult known as "jehovah witnesses" deny that jesus is jehovah, thus revealing that they are anti-christ.. not only have the "jehovah witnesses" tampered with the context of hundreds of scriptures, but now they have brazenly moved into the bible translation field.. their reason for doing this?

Bobcat

In a textual note for Psalm 45:6, The Expositor's Bible Commentary-Psalms (Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland, general editors, pp. 399-400) says:

This verse is the most problematic of the psalm. The combination kis'a ka lohim [It is hard for me to reproduce accurately the Hebrew - Bobcat], "your throne, God") may be interpreted in a variet of ways:

"your throne, O God" (KJV, NIV)
"your throne is like God's throne" (NEB)
"your throne, O divine king" (Weiser, 360)
"your throne is a throne of God" (RSV text note; cf. 1 Ch 29:23; see A. A. Anderson, 1:349-50; for a defence of the vocative, see Murray J. Harris, "The Translation of Elohim in Psalm 45:7-8," TynBul 35 [1984]: 65-89)

Longman himself translates it as:

Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy

Arguing against saying that the king addressed is God Almighty himself is the fact that the Psalm was originally about a Davidic king and it is not likely that the Jewish writer of the psalm would mean to express that idea. Also in the context the king himself is referred to as having his own God ("your God") in verse 7.

On the reverse side of the coin, I think people in ancient times would have less problem giving a son of a royal family the same honors that they gave his father. The whole argument about whether Jesus should be worshipped or not (in connection with the WT) seems more to be, 'Are you on our side or theirs? Are you Democrat or Republican?' With little willingness to accept that there might be some middle ground.

33

DEC 2013 WT Article - Slave for Jehovah - warning: ranting ahead

by ohnightdivine in

jw
friends

this morning's wt study almost made me vomit, stand up, pick up my bag and rush to the door.. of course it never happened.

instead, i was able to make some nice drawings on my tablet and notepad.. if you replace the name jehovah with watchtower, or the governing 8 men, it would really make sense.. what's up with all that nonstop guilt-mongering about education and having a decent job?!.

most people look down on the uneducated, and i remember, when i didn't have a job, nobody cared!.

Bobcat

WTWizard:

Using astrology, I guess sometime between the late fall of 2014 and early spring 2015 is the collapse.

I was not using "astrology," but I reached a similar conclusion to you. See here. (BTW, I took your "astrology" as toungue-in-cheek.)

Take Care

12

Eph 1:1 - An example of eisegesis

by leaving_quietly in

eisegesis (formed from the greek preposition ?

"into" and the ending from the english word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ??

"to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Bobcat

Doug:

I suggest one reason that the reference in Ephesians to "two groups ... is without precedent in Paul's letters" happened because Paul did not write that letter.

There is extensive writing in the forwards of both commentaries quoted above about that issue. This was surprising (to me) as I was previously unfamiliar with that controversy. I will say that the question (and its answer) are by no means cut and dry. Prior to about the 18th century Pauline writership was mostly assumed. But it is also interesting the tentative approach the BECNT commentary takes. There is several pages of discussion about psuedo-writers right off the bat in the sub-section on the books author. (This was curious) It still holds to Pauline writership but seems to leave the door open (or at the least, be un-dogmatic about it). The choice seems to be either Paul or some unknown. (That is in interesting contrast to Hebrews which has a number of plausible writers including Paul, Luke, Barnabas, and others.)

I agree that, supposing Paul didn't write the letter, the phrasing would lend itself more to that idea. Paul himself writes of 'Judaizers' (for lack of a better word) who felt the Jews were still to be a prominent and distinctive sub-group within Christianity.

Take Care

12

Eph 1:1 - An example of eisegesis

by leaving_quietly in

eisegesis (formed from the greek preposition ?

"into" and the ending from the english word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ??

"to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Bobcat

Here is another scholarly reference to Eph 1:1. It is in the BECNT-Ephesians commentary (Frank Thielman, p. 34):

This division of the readers into two groups, however, is without precedent in Paul's other letters, and it is difficult to see what the difference between the two groups could be. . . (with discussion here about how some view the two as Jewish and Gentile Christians) . . .

What, then, of the grammatical problem? Paul probably intended the first tois to go both with hagiois and with pistois en Xristo Insou (Alford 1857: 66; Wallace 1996: 282; Hoenher 2002: 142 [quoted above - Bobcat]). This is unusual, but native speakers of ancient Greek, such as Chrysostom (Hom. Eph., hom. 1; NPNF 13:51), Theodoret (R. Hill 2001: 2.33), and Theophylact (PG 124:1033) took the construction to mean that Paul was calling his readers in Ephesus both "saints" and "faithful" (or "believers") and seemed to see nothing unnatural in it. The grammatical difficulties, then, are not insuperable, and this makes it likely that Paul addresses his readers as a single group of Christians in Ephesus who are both hagioi and pistoi.

[End quote]

Checking with the WT-Library CD:

The SI and Insight Volumes do not seem to address the phrasing (beyond whether "in Ephesus" belongs). I couldn't find any other reference that addresses this particular subject in the rest of the Library CD ("In Ephesus" is addressed in a Questions From Readers article in the w53 2/15 pp.126-27).

The Revised NWT renders it: ". . . to the holy ones who are in Ephesus and are faithful in union with Christ jesus." This would seem to indicate that the Society takes the phrasing to refer to one and the same group. (As noted by the OP.)

12

Eph 1:1 - An example of eisegesis

by leaving_quietly in

eisegesis (formed from the greek preposition ?

"into" and the ending from the english word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ??

"to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Bobcat

Here are other renderings of the verse.

Ephesians - An Exegetical Commentary (Harold W. Hoehner, pp. 141-42) has this:

Kai pistis en Xristo Insou, "that is, believers in Christ Jesus." Without the repeat of the article before pistis, the phrase is somewhat difficult to interpret. The exact form is unparalleled in Pauline greetings. In Col. 1:2 the same basic words are used, but the structure is different (tois en Kolossais ayiois kai pistis adelphois en Xristo; [literally "to the in Colossae saints and faithful brothers in Christ" - Bobcat]) where the one article unites the two terms. Although in Col. 1:2 no verb "to be" (ousin) is used, it is utilized in Rom. 1:1 and Phil 1:1, but neither of these passages have it followed by the conjunction (kai) with an anarthrous descriptive phrase as in Eph 1:1. Thus, what did Paul mean by this phrase?

The conjunction kai could be translated "and," which could mean that two groups were being addressed, that is, to the saints who were in Ephesus and to those who were faithful. However, the other greetings of Paul do not support this idea. Rather, the picture is that the two appellations refer to one and the same group. In Col. 1:1 the one article unites the two. In Rom 1:7 it is "to all in Rome beloved of God, called saints." The church and the saints refer to the same group. Thus, in the present context it is better to see kai used as epexegetical or explicative, indicating that both adjectives refer to the same group and is to be translated "that is" or "namely" or omitted in the translation.

[End of quote]

As the commentary acknowledges, there is some controversy in the possible way of rendering the verse. As the BibleHub link above shows, translators have come up with a number of possibilities. A few argue that "the saints" refer to Jewish Christians, and the "faithful" refer to Gentile Christians. But the majority of comentators seem to take the phrasing to refer to the same group, especially since the letter itself discusses the removal of Jewish/Gentile distinctions. (Cmp 2:11-18)

The rendering "holy ones" is simply the NWT way of rendering hagios. Others render it as "holy people" or "saints." "Holy ones" is probably just a Franz-ism, although, to be fair, I doubt he is the only one to use that type of phraseology.

Take Care

23

Have JWs and other Christians completely missed the point of Matthew 24:4-8?

by Island Man in

many people think those verses are suggesting that the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, etc are all a sign that the end is imminent.

however, a careful examination of the context seems to suggest that jesus was actually forewarning his followers not to draw such a conclusion from such events.

see this interesting article on the subject:.

Bobcat

Yadda:

Is that book still available somewhere?

Wait - I should have asked, 'Is it available as a PDF?'

Just checking online for the paper book I see prices ranging from 40+ used to 200+ new.

Incidentally, my view is based on the idea that Jesus' answer to the first of the questions in Matthew 24:3 is covered in 24:4-35, with the 'this generation will not pass away until . . .' passage forming a sort of summary that ties back to "this generation" of 23:36.

Just as a side thought, which I'm still mulling over, but I think the "sword stroke" of Rev 13:3 is referring to the same event called "the year of the four emperors" of 68-69 AD (which I believe is described in Mt 24:29 and Luke 21:25, 26.) The book "69 AD: The Year of the Four Emperors" (see here) described the 18 month event as the greatest cataclysm the Roman empire had sustained up till that time. Luke 21:25, 26 aptly describes it, especially considering that "inhabited earth" (Greek oikoumene) became virtually synonamous with the Roman Empire. (Cmp Luke 2:1)

At any rate, that's getting a little off topic. But if you know of a downloadable PDF of Carl's work I'd appreciate a link.

Take Care

10

Something Is Screwy With WT's New Bible!

by JW GoneBad in

not sure if this has already been brought up.. it appears that the verses in matthew 21:29 and matthew 21:30 have been transposed from one translation to the other.. the 'old' nwt in vs 29 & 30 states:.

'in answer this one said, "i will sir, but did not go out"'.

verse 30 reads: 'approaching the second, he said the same.

Bobcat

This link ties to the other thread on this subject.

23

Have JWs and other Christians completely missed the point of Matthew 24:4-8?

by Island Man in

many people think those verses are suggesting that the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, etc are all a sign that the end is imminent.

however, a careful examination of the context seems to suggest that jesus was actually forewarning his followers not to draw such a conclusion from such events.

see this interesting article on the subject:.

Bobcat

QC:

Nice to here from you.

I posted here on Mt 24:29-31 and its 1st century fulfillment.

I used to think that Matthew 24:4-35 had a dual fulfillment. But I definitely don't anymore. (See here and here.) But I do hold that Matthew 24:36-25:46 pertains to Jesus' "parousia" and "the conclusion of the system of things." So we are partly in agreement, just as you said.

Take Care

20

Who is the faithful and discreet slave?

by wearewatchingyouman in

when i discuss things with my father regarding whether a governing body is needed for christians one theme that is constant with him is "if it's not the gb who is the faithful and discreet slave - who else is giving food in these days to god's people?".

i've been working on a response to this for the last couple of months and am just curious as to who christians who are ex-witnesses interpret the faithful and discreet slave to be, and the parable in general.. .

i guess i'm just looking to round out my argument and have a few different angles.

Bobcat

Here are some posts about the topic covering many different aspects:

Here and here (with numerous sublinks) and here and here.

Take Care