Posts by Bobcat

16

What if the nations would have submitted to God's Kingdom in 1914?

by processor in

though i have written this for the alternative daily text, it is quite serious.

jws complain that the nations refused to submit to god's kingdom in 1914. what if they had done this?.

the kings of the earth take their stand and high officials gather together as one against jehovah and against his anointed one.

Bobcat

Anyway…Psalm 2 is shown to be fulfilled in the first century, as evidenced by the prayer in Acts 4:25-28.

Also, Heb 1:5 quotes from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 -

(Hebrews 1:5 NWT) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? [Ps 2:7] And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? [2 Sam 7:14]

The implication of the question ("to which one of the angels did he ever say . . .") in Hebrews 1:5 is that God did already say those things to Jesus.

Both Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 are directly related to the Davidic Kingdom covenant. And Jesus was told this at his anointing.

For further evidence that Jesus has been ruling since the 1st century (thus, negating the need for a 1914 date) see here.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Bobcat

Jeffro:

Just as another event that overlaps this period (c.760 BCE) -

Jonah, according to 2 Kings 14:25 served during Jeroboam's reign (782/1 - 753). Whether Jonah's service extends more before or after, the Bible doesn't say. What's interesting to me is that this earthquake may give added reason for the Ninevites positive response to his message that he delivered.

The McComiskey commentary on Jonah mentions " 'There was famine in [Assyria in] 765, recurring in, or lasting to, 759 B.C. In 763 there occurred the ominous solar eclipse. All this gave rise to rebellions in various cities until 758 B.C.' (Wiseman, "Jonah's Ninevah," p. 50) As a possible background to Jonah's mission all this information is of great interest."

The events memtioned in the commentary would have primed the Ninevites into thinking the gods were angry or upset. I wonder if the earthquake (or at least the rumble from it) might have also had an effect on the Ninevites?

Secular dating puts Jonah's visit to Ninevah possibly on the heals of these events adding reason to why the Ninevites reacted possitively to Jonah's message.

The Society's dating of Jonah (and also of Jeroboam II) puts Jonah somewhere in the 844-804 timeframe, way before any of the events described above. And thus, the Society's dating has the effect of removing evidence supporting the plausibility of Jonah's preaching campaign.

12

The Foolish 'Two Witness" Concept

by metatron in

jw
friends

it seems, if i am interpreting the documents correctly, that many in the organization might reject good forensic evidence of a crime just because there aren't two or more (human) witnesses to back it up.. a quick look at the watchtower concordance reveals that all sorts of things can act as a 'witness' - such as a pile of rocks.. in john, jesus claimed that 'his works' acted as a witness.. actually, forensic evidence can offer more accurate 'testimony' than humans and is often superior.

in any case, this 'two witness' stuff is rubbish, even from a biblical point of view.

things can be a witness.. .

Bobcat

Yadda:

I've only read part, will finish later after work. But impressive research! Thanks.

Take Care

142

Do you beleive in ghosts??

by quellycatface in

jw
friends

i was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.

not sure.

i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .

Bobcat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sKzPBu2M8A

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

Fisherman:

1914 seems dead or dying right now.

Regarding 1914 -

Many posts can be found on this forum (via the "Search" function) about the deficient chronolgy behind the calculation that arrives at 1914. You might want to try researching some of that as you get time.

In the Society's view 1914 marks the beginning of Jesus' Kingship and also the beginning of "the last days." As a consequence, it also marks (for the Society) the beginning of "this generation."

As you get time, you might want to check out these links too. They show what the Scriptures say as to when Jesus became king (here and here), what the parousia or "presence" refers to (here), and reference info regarding when God's Kingdom began its rule (here). (Based on the saying "the Kingdom of God/Heaven has drawn near.")

Here is an analysis of verses describing when the "last days" began according NT writers.

You're doing good to ask and analyze.

Take Care

12

The Foolish 'Two Witness" Concept

by metatron in

jw
friends

it seems, if i am interpreting the documents correctly, that many in the organization might reject good forensic evidence of a crime just because there aren't two or more (human) witnesses to back it up.. a quick look at the watchtower concordance reveals that all sorts of things can act as a 'witness' - such as a pile of rocks.. in john, jesus claimed that 'his works' acted as a witness.. actually, forensic evidence can offer more accurate 'testimony' than humans and is often superior.

in any case, this 'two witness' stuff is rubbish, even from a biblical point of view.

things can be a witness.. .

Bobcat

Metatron:

A very interesting look "outside the box." Thank you for this observation.

Take Care

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

Fisherman:

This is a little off the specific topic you are discussing here, but, based on several comments you made about "anointed Christians," the 144,000, and the "great crowd," you might want to check out these posts later. They provide some interesting food for thought on these topics:

See here, here, here, here, and here.

Take Care

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

Mebagger2:

Although your post was a bit long (mine are sometimes too), I found it very informative. Thanks you.

Take Care

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.