Posts by Bobcat

18

Glaring Mistake In RNWT And Todays WT

by piztjw in

todays' wt had this sentence in one of the paragraphs....we know this because each of their individual names are indelibly written upon the 12 foundation stones of the heavenly new jerusalem.rev.

21:14.. the cross reference lists judas iscariot as one of the twelve.

so with one breath they have said judas was cursed as jesus betrayer, and yet in their rnwt they still cross reference him in the list of the twelve named foundation stones of nj.

Bobcat

Where in particular are the removed "generation" cross references? That sounds interesting.

18

Glaring Mistake In RNWT And Todays WT

by piztjw in

todays' wt had this sentence in one of the paragraphs....we know this because each of their individual names are indelibly written upon the 12 foundation stones of the heavenly new jerusalem.rev.

21:14.. the cross reference lists judas iscariot as one of the twelve.

so with one breath they have said judas was cursed as jesus betrayer, and yet in their rnwt they still cross reference him in the list of the twelve named foundation stones of nj.

Bobcat

Its par. 6 on page 27. Here is the statement with the context:

Did the faithful apostles succeed in doing this to the end of their earthly lives? Indeed they did. We know this because each of their individual names are indelibly written upon the 12 foundation stones of the heavenly New Jerusalem.— Rev. 21:14.

I see one word there that wipes out the inclusion of Judas.

23

Separation of the sheep and goats

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

separating of the sheep and the goats you can live forever in paradise on earth, 1982, p 183, states: since christ returned and sat down on his heavenly throne, all humankind has been on judgment... during the presentjudgment people are being separated as goats to christs left hand or as sheep to his right.. the wt of jan. 1, 1988, p 16, confirmed this: yes, all mankind is being scrutinized to see who are sheep and who are goats.... the messages are broadcast by human mouthpieces under angelic direction.

a person is identified as a sheep or as a goat by the way he responds to the angelic messages.

during this 20 th century, only jehovahs witnesses have cooperated with the angels in this vital work.. .

Bobcat

It should be noted that the WT changed their understanding of this parable in 1993(?) And then had another article on it in the July 2013 Study WT. I'm not sure if anything changed in that article from the 1993 change. [edited: SOP beat me to the punch]

In the parable, "all the nations" are divided are then judged. And this is said to be done after Jesus "arrives" or "comes." The division wouldn't make sense if it was accomplished during a 100+ year preaching campaign as most of those 'divided' would have died of old age long before judgment was passed.

The old WT understanding (cited in the OP) was based on the idea that Jesus "arrives" in 1914, and thus requiring a long 'dividing' period before he passes judgment. The new WT understanding sees Jesus 'arriving' just prior to the battle of Armageddon (after the great tribulation has already begun).

To be fair, some of the new WT understanding is an improvement in understanding. Moving Jesus' 'arrival' to the time of the GT is more in line with how Jesus referred to his "coming" or "arrival" (Greek erchomai). On the other hand, their understanding of who constitutes "the least of these my brothers" and "these least ones" is still outside of how the terms are used in Matthew. They've basically boiled it down to 'obey us (the GB) and your elders, preach, and give money to the Society,' and if you do this you will be a "sheep," which is not at all what Jesus credits the sheep with doing in Mt 25:34-40.

Also, in the parable, the sheep profess to not knowing that their actions would be accepted by Jesus as being done to him. But supposing the GB did indeed represent Christ's "brothers," and their explanation was correct, no R&F JW could honestly say to Jesus that he didn't know that what he was doing for the GB would be accepted by Jesus.

Here is an analysis of the parable (Mt 25:31-46): See here , here , and here .

57

A Clean Slate When You Die ??

by Perry in

for the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.

- romans 6:7 (nwt).

i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.

Bobcat

Perry:

Romans 6:7 was discussed some on this thread. It was eye opening for me with regard to the rendering in the NWT which, as noted above, spuriously adds "his" before sin.

Here are more recent references to Romans 6:7 from the WT Library:

*** it-2 p. 138 Judgment Day ***
Basis for judgment. In describing what will take place on earth during the time of judgment, Revelation 20:12 says that the resurrected dead will then be “judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.” Those resurrected will not be judged on the basis of the works done in their former life, because the rule at Romans 6:7 says: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

*** w95 11/15 p. 19 par. 17 Stay in the “City of Refuge” and Live! ***
17 Must those resurrected during Jesus’ Thousand Year Reign enter the antitypical city of refuge and remain there until the death of the high priest? No, because by dying they paid the penalty for their sinfulness. (Romans 6:7; Hebrews 9:27) Nevertheless, the High Priest will help them to reach perfection. If they successfully pass the final test after the Millennium, God will also declare them righteous with a guarantee of eternal life on earth. Of course, failure to comply with God’s requirements will bring condemnatory judgment and destruction upon any humans who do not pass the final test as integrity keepers.

16

Satan rules the world, well according to the Watchtower Society, right?

by God_Delusion in

hi guys & gals!.

a friend, and current witness, says the jehovah's witnesses have the truth because they're the only religion that state that satan is in control of the world and not god/jesus as some christian religions state.. how can i counter this argument?.

warm regards and love,.

Bobcat

Most of the comments above would not fly well with someone who believes the Bible is God's Word, since they are based on the idea that the Bible is wrong.

For a different view of the topic consider this:

(1 John 5:19 NWT) ". . .We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." This verse may very well be cited as Biblical proof. (Although, arguably, "wicked one" could also be rendered "wicked," but that aside.) One could ask, 'If you were to read that verse 5000 years from now, would it still be true?' The answer (at least by one instructed by the WT) would be, "No." So one could argue that at some point between when the verse was written and some then future date, the verse will no longer be true. So what proves it is still true?

Satan told Jesus, when showing him all the kingdoms of the world, that, ". . .I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it." (Luke 4:6 NWT) So what accounts for the fact that democratic governments have ruled the world for the last two centuries? (Compare Daniel 2:41; Mt 12:25, 26; Rev 12:15, 16; There is actually an interesting comparison between Revelation 12:13-16 and Revelation 13:5-18. The two passages parallel each other in time, with the 4th beast from Dan 7 alluded to in Rev 13:5-10. This passage is paralleled in Rev 12:13, 14. Then Rev 12:15, 16 is paralleled in Rev 13:11-18. This is where the "earth" is ruled over by the "two-horned lamb" beast. It is this "earth" that negates the dragon's flood in Revelation 12:15, 16. The two-horned lamb" is said to speak, not 'for the dragon,' but "as a dragon" in 13:11, as if he has replaced the dragon's leadership in some way. And the action in 12:15, 16 shows the "earth's" resistance to what the "dragon" is attempting to do. It is a subtle indication that the dragon has lost control to some extent. But the point is probably way over most people's head. It might also be pointed out that the WT's 1914 date for Jesus's kingship obscures their understanding of these verses. It might also be noted the different dangers that the two beasts of Rev 13 pose: The beast of Rev 13:5-10 "wages war with the holy ones" - similarly in 12:13, 14 the dragon "persecutes" the woman and her seed. The two-horned beast of 13:11-18 poses a danger with regard to worshipping of the image it sets up and in the 'buying and selling' of 13:16-18. The two beasts have very much different character. Compare this with Daniel 7:8 which describes the 11th horn as having 'eyes like the eyes of a man.')

Take Care

8

Something unusual about virgin and Magi

by abiather in

jws view every verse of the bible as inspired.

this is nothing but following the blind guides of ancient times!

1) someone felt the need of projecting jesus being born through a virgin.

Bobcat

On Matthew 1:23, the NICNT-Matthew commentary says (pp. 55-7):

A reader familiar with modern study of Isaiah will notice two problems about Matthew's first formula-quotation. In the first place, while the LXX, which Matthew follows (except for one word), unambiguously refers to "the virgin," English versions of Isaiah generally translate the Hebrew as "the young woman." The definite article suggests that a particular woman is in view, but the context does not identify her; interpreters have suggested Ahaz's wife (note that the prophecy is addressed to the "house of David" v. 13), or Isaiah's (in view of the similar symbolic use made of the birth of Isaiah's son in 8:1-4). But if this is what he meant, it is remarkable that Isaiah did not use the normal Hebrew word for a "woman" or "wife," issa, which would be expected of a childbirth within a marriage. The word that is actually used is 'alma, which occurs very rarely in the OT [Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8]. While it is clear from some of those OT contexts that the 'alma is sexually mature, the word is not used elsewhere of a married woman; the person referred to as 'alma in Gen. 24:43 has been specifically described as a virgin in v. 16. Isaiah's choice of this unusual word in connection with childbirth therefore draws attention; it does not explicitly mean "virgin" (the Hebrew for which is betula), but it suggests something other than a normal childbirth within marriage. It was presumably on this basis that LXX translated it by parthenos ("vigin"). Matthew is following the LXX, but the Hebrew underlying it is sufficiently unusual to suggest that it was not an arbitrary translation.

The second problem is that Isaiah's prophecy, uttered to Ahaz in about the year 735 B.C., is not about an event in the distant future. Its point is to specify the time of the imminent devastation of both Judah's enemies and Judah herself through the Assyrian invasion: it will be before the son called Immanuel, soon to be born, has grown up (Isa 7:15-17). This raises an issue which we will note several times in Matthew's use of OT prophecy, that whereas we prefer to think of a single specific fulfillment of a prophet's prediction, Matthew's typological interest leads him rather to find patterns which will recur repeatedly throughout God's dealings with his people. In this case, he has good warrant for taking the prophecy concerning "Immanuel" as having relevance beyond its undoubted immediate aim, for the name "Immanuel" will occur again in Isa 8:8 as that of the one to whom the land of Judah belongs, and its meaning will be developed in 8:10, "for God is with us." Moreover, the prophecy in 7:14 of the birth to the "house of David" (Isa 7:13) of a child with so extraordinary an honorific title prepares us for the even more remarkable description in 9:6-7 of a child who is to be born "for us," and whose multiple and still more extravagant title marks him out not only as the Messiah of the line of David but also as "Mighty God, Everlasting Father." The theme will be taken up again in 11:1-5 with the prophecy of the spiritually endowed "shoot from the stump of Jesse." These last two passages would have been recognized then, as they still are today, as messianic prophecies, and it seems likely that Isaiah's thought has moved progressively from the virgin's child, "God with us," to whom the land of Judah belongs, to these fuller expressions of the Davidic hope. If then Isa 7:14 is taken as the opening of what will be the developing theme of a wonder child throughout Isa 7-11, it can with good reason be suggested that it points beyond the immediate political crisis of the eighth century B.C., not only in Matthew's typological scheme but also in Isaiah's intention.

To focus on these issues raised by modern scholarship is, however, to be distracted from the purpose of Matthew in including this quotation. Three elements in this Isaiah text would have attracted Matthew's attention, two with regard to his immediate narrative context (a child born to a virgin mother, and the naming of the child) and one in relation to his underlying christology, the title "God with us." His one deviation from the LXX is in the plural subject of the verb, "they will call." In his immediate narrative context it will be Joseph who will give the child his name (which neither the Hebrew text's "she will call" nor the LXX's "you will call" would have allowed), but that name will be Jesus, not Immanuel. Matthew's plural may therefore be looking ahead to what "people" (especially those he will "save from their sins," v. 21) will eventually learn to say about Jesus, that in him God is with us. We have no indication that Matthew's plural verb came from any source other than his own creative interpretation of the text.

[End quote]

8

Something unusual about virgin and Magi

by abiather in

jws view every verse of the bible as inspired.

this is nothing but following the blind guides of ancient times!

1) someone felt the need of projecting jesus being born through a virgin.

Bobcat

Gold symbolizes gift for a King; frankincense a gift for a priest; Myrrh a gift for someone to die.

The NICNT-Matthew commentary comments on this (pp. 75-76):

Their gifts are those of the affluent: gold, then as now the symbol of ultimate value, and exotic spices, which would not normally come within the budget of an ordinary Jewish family. Frankincense (which came from Southern Arabia and Somolia) was an expensive perfume, and was burned not only in worship but in important social occasions; for its nonreligious use (with myrrh) see Song 3:6; 4:6, 14; cf. Sir 24:15 . Despite the symbolism traditionally discerned in the gifts of the magi since the time of Irenaeus (gold for royalty, frankincense for divinity, and myrrh for death and burial - the latter based on John 19:39), myrrh, too, was primarily used as a luxurious cosmetic fragrance (Esth 2:12; Ps 45:8; Prov 7:17; Song 1:13; 5:1, 5). These are luxury gifts, fit for a king. The reader who knows the OT stories cannot fail to be reminded of the visit of the Queen of Sheba with her gifts of "gold and a great quantity of spices" to the son of David in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 10:1-10), and of the imagery which the visit provided for subsequent depictions of the homage of the nations to the Jewish Messiah (Ps 72:10-11, 15; Isa 60:5-6).
A footnote says: For the royal honors implied by the gifts see J. H. Neyrey, Honor, 59-60. [A preview of this book exists on Google Books, but pages 59-62 are, unfortunately, not included. - Bobcat; But see here, here, and here for various patristic interpretations of the gifts.]

Sirach 24:15 - http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Sirach%2024%3A15

Incidentally, for thoughts on the "star" and the magi account of Matthew 12, different from the WT interpretation, see here, here, and here.

Take Care

22

TheGreat Tribulation was in the 1st century

by maccauk11 in

"then there will be a great tribulation, not seen since the beginning of time nor will everoccure again.

im saying,christ was talking about the comingdestruction of jerusalem in the 1st century and not the end of the world but the end of the jewish system of things.

there is no end of the world.

Bobcat

For a discussion of the literary breakup of the Olivet Discourse see here and here.

These posts breakup the Olivet Discourse according to the two questions that were asked in Mt 24:3. The divided answer is 24:4-35 for the first question and 24:36-25:46 for the answer to the second question. "This generation" of 24:32-35 neatly concludes the answer to the first question ("When will these things [the destruction of the temple from 23:33-39] be?"]) tying back to "this generation" of 23:36.

The "great tribulation" of Mt 24:21 falls within that context. And the immediate surrounding context ('disgusting thing standing in a holy place' [v.15], 'fleeing from Judea' [vv. 16- 18], 'praying that the flight not occur on the Sabbath' [v.20], all argue that this was instructions for a 1st century Jewish audience.

Some might argue that Mt 24:14 was nowhere near being fulfilled by 66-70 AD. But "inhabited earth" was used synonamously with the Roman Empire. The NICNT-Matthew commentary (p. 909) posits:

In what sense, then, would the good news of God's Kingdom be heard "all over the world" before that event [66-70 AD] occurred? The "world" here is he oikoumene, the "inhabited world," the world of people, which at that time meant primarily the area surrounding the Mediterranean and the lesser known areas to the east, around which stretched mysterious regions (comprising much of our "old world") beyond the fringes of civilization. More narrowly it was sometimes used for the area covered by the Roman Empire (as in Luke 2:1). The same phrase hole he oikoumene is used to describe the extent of the famine in Acts 11:28 and the extent of Artemis worship in Acts 19:27. Such uses suggest caution in interpreting it [Mt 24:14] too literally, even in terms of the then known world.

Incidentally, the action in the first part of the prophecy concludes (at 24:31) with a fortelling that Jesus would expand the collection of his "chosen ones" to the ends of the earth. (See here for comments on 24:31.)

Some feel that "all the tribes of the earth" of v. 30 requires some expanded worldwide application. But "earth" can just as easily be translated "land." And referring to people of the nations as "tribes" in Matthew (or in the entire NT except for Revelation) does not have precedent. Translators render it "earth" due to an already existing belief that the prophecy has a major later fulfillment. (Compare Luke 21:20-23 where "Jerusalem" gets surrounded and the time has arrived for "great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people.")

Some feel that the description of the "great tribulation" in 24:21 requires some greater tribulation than what happened in the 1st century. Concerning that, the NICNT reference mentioned above states (p. 915):

Josephus's lurid description of the horrors of the seige (War 5.424-38, 512-18, 567-72; 6.193-213) shows that, while v. 21 uses the hyperbolic language of apocalyptic (cf. Dan 12:1; Joel 2:2; 1QM 1:11-12; T. Mos. 8:1; Rev 16:18), it is an assessment which those involved in the events would have been agreed on. (Josephus himself, who was involved in the events, claims that none of the disasters since the world began can compare to the fate of Jerusalem - War 1:12.) In passing, we should note that "nor ever will be again" confirms that this passage is about a historical event, not about the end of the world!

Revelation 16:16-21 fortells something that has some similarities to Matthew 24:15-30, but it is not the same sequence of events (where M 24:15 = R 16:16; M 24:21 = R 16:18, 19a; M 24:29 & L 21:25, 26 = R 16:19b; R 16:19c has no parallel in M 24; R 16:20, 21 = R 19:20, 21 with no parallel in M 24.

At any rate, this is just offered as food for thought. No intention of sparking an argument. And all due respect to any who feel differently.

Take Care

2

NEW LIGHT 2014 Separation of Sheep and Goats. Kiddy Fiddlers on the left - Normal people on the right

by outinthemeadows in

sorry....this of course is a complete lie, but there's bound to be some new light this next year.

"new light" as in changing what was advertisied to be "the truth" to amending "the truth" about a scriptural matter.....or in other words, the previous thinking was a lie and not "the truth" afterall..

Bobcat

How about an analysis of the parable based on its Matthean context and then expanded to relate Revelation 3:10. See here, here, and here. I'm sure Kiddy Fiddlers fits in there somewhere.

11

"I shall surely multiply your seed . . ."

by leaving_quietly in

i've been thinking about the 144,000 and them alone being called to heaven.

it does not make logical sense, given the promise given to abraham, which was still thought to be in effect even in the first century, thus should still be in effect today.

the promise was: "i shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore.

Bobcat

CrazyGuy:

Thanks for the encouragement. A lot of this research came after reading questions raised here, questions that would either, never dare to be asked, or never thought to be asked, at a KH.

Leaving:

As CrazyGuy said, some of the material posted was for you, if you needed it, but also with lurkers in mind.

**************

Abrahamic Covenant

Old Covenant - A sub covenant of Abrahamic covenant. Produces only Jesus as a "seed of Abraham," all others condemned by the law itself.

New Covenant - A sub covenant of the Abrahamic covenant. Exists as a replacement for Old covenant. All faithful disciples of Jesus in this age (not just the 144,000) fall under this covenant. (A great crowd of which survive the GT.) It also picks up all those resurrected (including those condemed under Old covenant) during age to come. See here, here, and here.

Thus, by the end of the millenium, all mankind will be sons of ("the seed of") Abraham via their relationship by faith in Jesus. If one were to take God at his word (Abraham's seed compared to the stars and sand in number) it may hint at how mankind will expand beyond earth. (All of them being "the seed of Abraham.") God's promise to Abraham may well extend into the very distant future and involve His purpose for the entire universe.

Incidentally, the post millenial "test" does not decide who gets everlasting life. Jesus does away with the enemy "death" before he hands his kingdom back to the father. (Compare 1 Cor 15:24-26)

WT tries to say that "like the stars/grains of sands" is equivalent to 'an unknown number, later revealed to be 144,000.' But see here.

Take Care