Posts by Bobcat

13

This weeks book study and Bible Hi-lites

by bobld in

11 years ago

god can be our special friend.we can get to know him by his creative works and his word the bible.he provided a ransom(jesus) for sinners.a friend who cares about you,understands you and is loyal.. however,would you want god to be your friend after you read the bible hi-lites.a god who burns people with alive with fire and sulfur:gen19.

if your friend talked to you like this,abimelach,you are a dead man,for that woman you have taken is already married:gen 20.

(side note remember k.david).

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

QC:

Yes, I'm attatched by family. Especially my beloved wife. She's in, and I mean "in." Yet she also has loyalty for me and our marriage. I think she senses the damage that would be caused if she divulged some of our private talk to the elders.

It's interesting to see her reaction when I bring up something that she senses is in conflict with WT dogma (Such as this) There is an immediate reaction in her demeanor as if she senses an attack on her beliefs. I assure her that it was just an interesting point I found. And she goes back to normal, like nothing happened. And she never asks about the new point. It's like, 'if the WT didn't see it as noteworthy, then it's not.'

So I've learned to be careful. She's a wonderful woman, a wonderful human. I wouldn't trade her for anything. But some of her thought processes have been manipulated by the WT (just as mine were - but I'm slowly reversing that).

But that is how I see with most witnesses that I know. Their first reaction to anything said is an insecure defensive reaction. The very sight of a non-WT tract or book produces a reaction like they were trying to avoid touching poison ivy. Their faith is so fragile that any out-of-the-way comment threatens them. They've been trained to think there is only the WT way and Satan's way, with nothing in between. And yet they don't always have the means to put up a good argument for what they believe in. Nor do they have the security in their own beliefs to allow someone different to have his. And the WT wants it way. That way 8 glorified religious dictators can feel secure in their beliefs, even if it is at the cost of 8 million pawns.

Here is something from the book study the other night that illustrates how my thinking and the WT's have diverged: The conductor pointed to the box "Questions For Meditation," and asked 'Which comes first, research or meditation?' His answer was "research, always." The unspoken reason was that you looked up what you were looking for - always in WT publications, always accepting what they say - this is "research." And then you "meditate" so as to accept and understand what you found.

So it goes.

Take Care

Link

33

Moustaches vs. beards - one of the contributing factors to losing my cognitive dissonace

by Pacopoolio in

jw
friends

11 years ago

as a little background - i was born-in to being a witness, back in '79, in detroit, in mostly black and poor congregations.

baptized when 10-ish, stayed around, was on the fast track to ms, but faded when i moved out at 24ish.. there was a combination of a few things that got me on the road to "freedom" from the cognitive dissonance that kept me "in the truth" for so long.

the main thing was, being an artist and studying marketing, my thinking was patterned to constantly question if i was doing something "correctly," as constant improvement and questioning is what facilitates artistic and mental growth.

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

Paco:

Interesting story. Appreciate your consideration shown to your mom. Something not always found when the roles are reversed (i.e. JWs showing consideration to those outside).

I kinda think personal affronts have a lot more effect in causing people to weigh the WT in the balances than do theological issues in themselves.

On the other hand, I never saw mustaches quite the same as you. (Don't have one, but used to.) But, 'to each his own.'

Take Care

Link

5

Mis-translation of the bible even by the time of Jesus

by 88JM in

11 years ago

*** g76 7/22 p. 27 what worship does god approve?

"evidently to give credence to their belief, the samaritans changed a passage in the fifth book of moses to read gerizim instead of ebal.".

came across this quote last night.. i was slightly surprised to see an awake article admitting that "corruption" of bible texts started so early, even before the time of jesus.. i was wondering a couple of things:.

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

The changed text is in the Samaritan Pentateuch at Deuteronomy 27:4 (scroll down in the link to verse 4 for comparison with MT).

Here is the Awake passage (g76 7/22 p. 27):

Unlike the Jews, the Samaritans worshiped at Mount Gerizim, claiming that this was the holy mountain of God. However, they had no basis for this. The five books of Moses, which they accepted as their inspired Scriptures, did not justify their viewing Mount Gerizim as sacred. Evidently to give credence to their belief, the Samaritans changed a passage in the fifth book of Moses to read “Gerizim” instead of “Ebal.” (Deut. 27:4)

Here is how the NAC-Deuteronomy commentary (Eugene H. Merrill, pp. 342-43) describes the location aspect of 27:4

The place selected for the ceremony of covenant renewal was also significant, for it marked the site of Abraham's first alter in Canaan and the Lord's promise there to give his descendants the land as an inheritance (Gen 12:6-7). It was also the location of Jacob's well (Gen 33:19; cf. John 4:5) and later the tomb of Joseph (Josh 24:32). The area as a whole was Shechem, two features of which were the twin mountains, Ebal and Gerizim. Moses had already described these mountains as the locales of covenant curse and blessing respectively (cf. Deut 11:29), but only Ebal appears here, probably as a pars pro toto ("part [taken] for the whole"; cf. Josh 8:30) and also because of the greater length of the curse section with which Ebal was associated. Indeed, the Samaritan Pentateuch has Gerizim for Ebal in the text, but this obviously reflects a Samaritan ideological preference and not the original reading.

In other words, "Ebal" in the MT of Deut 27:4 is probably shorthand for both the twin mountains Ebal and Gerizim (compare the context at Deut 27:11-14). The passage in John 4:20 has the Samaritan placing Jerusalem (not Ebal) in opposition to "this mountain" (Gerizim), which was probably in full view as Jesus and the Samaritan woman talked at Jacob's well.

About Jerusalem as a 'place for worship,' the BECNT-John commentary (Andreas J. Kostenberger; p. 154) says:

Jewish tradition widely affirmed the religious supremacy of Jerusalem (e.g. Midr. Ps. 91.7 on Gen. 28:17). The Pentateuch, however, does not specifically identify Jerusalem as the proper place of worship - though other portions of Scripture do (see 2 Chron 6:6; 7:12; Ps 78:68-69) - which led the Samaritans to establish their own sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.

A footnote reads:

C. Koester (1990b: 673-74) notes that while Samaritans claimed Moses had hidden the vessels of the tabernacle on Mount Gerizim (see Josephus, Ant. 18.4.1) the Jews traced the roots of Samaritan idolatry to when Jacob's wife Rachel stole and hid her father's household gods in that place (Gen 31:19, 34; cf. 35:4; see Gen. Rab. 81.3 [ca. A.D. 180]; Psuedo-Philo, Bib. Ant. 25.10)

The real problem for the Samaritans was, not so much changing "Ebal" to "Gerizim," but rather, restricting their belief in God's Word to just the first five books of Moses.

Link

6

Hmm The Apostate?

by Jon Preston in

11 years ago

i was thinking about the term apostate and decided to search it i. the glorious "revised revised revision of the nwt" and found interesting things.

first it only appears twice.

in proverbs 11:9 .

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

Jon:

It sounds like you are using the JWApp (or whatever it's called). The Kingdom Interlinear wouldn't have anything for Proverbs or Isaiah. It only covers Matthew to Revelation.

At BibleHub.Com you can find both Hebrew and Greek language support as well as numerous translations for comparison.

Here is Proverbs 11:9. And here is Isaiah 10:6.

"Apostate" as a rendering for hanep (Strong's # 2611) picks up on some of the possible flavor of the word. That is, it can refer to an "apostate" or someone who has left God. (Compare Job 8:13) But it is also used of those who are just plain "godless," regardless of whether they used to be "godly." (You can find it 13x in the OT: Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13; Ps 35:16; Prov 11:9; Isa 9:17; 10:6; 33:14)

Interestingly, "apostate," by WT standards, does not necessarily refer to a "godless" person. Rather, in practice, it refers to anyone who holds a position or belief that is contrary to the WT position of belief. Thus, a person could hold a belief contrary to the WT's as a matter of holding a good conscience. Yet the WT would brand such a one as an "apostate." Jesus foresaw that possibility. (Matthew 5:11; John 16:2)

Take Care

Link

13

This weeks book study and Bible Hi-lites

by bobld in

11 years ago

god can be our special friend.we can get to know him by his creative works and his word the bible.he provided a ransom(jesus) for sinners.a friend who cares about you,understands you and is loyal.. however,would you want god to be your friend after you read the bible hi-lites.a god who burns people with alive with fire and sulfur:gen19.

if your friend talked to you like this,abimelach,you are a dead man,for that woman you have taken is already married:gen 20.

(side note remember k.david).

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

QC:

I'm pretty much marginalized. I'm never asked to do anything - and to be fair, I'm glad. I partake. And I wonder if they think I'm a little off. But they never say. No elder has ever asked me about partaking at the memorial. Not once, going on nearly a decade now. When someone else does ask (which isn't very often) I say 'I'm just doing what I was told to do' (which is the truth - although JWs seem to find that strange if the person who told you is Jesus. If the GB or an elder tells you to do something, then, yes, do that. But if Jesus says to do something, well, first we have to see if that applies to you. . .).

I'm not on the TM school. At least I don't think I am. I'm never offered any school parts (for years now). But they never said I'm off, nor have I asked to be off. But I am glad to not be doing school parts. And I would not accept any if asked. I have much better things to devote my study to than the picayune school parts. It is a strange twilight zone. (I think many of the friends wouldn't mind if the school overseer forgot to schedule them also. For years he has been in the habit of handing out assignments with only a week notice. The friends grumble to themselves but still do them. Me, I hear them grumbling and smile. I'm free of that.)

I've learned to be very careful what I say around JWs. (This was fun, but I still sensed raised eyebrows, even though it is straight out of the Bible and done in a non-contradictory fashion.) The WT has them all tuned in to be alert for 'apostate' tendencies now. It's sad. I used to love this religion and the people in it. I still love the people but I see a widening gulf between us now due to the differences in our beliefs (mine and theirs) and even in our different thinking patterns and seeing more plainly how the WT manipulates them. In the BH comment I mentioned above, I was very careful to stick with the idea that 'Paul said this and applied that' in connection with what was said in Genesis. If someone tried to find fault with my comment they would have had to basically disagree with Paul's application of the Genesis promise. Yet fundamental Christian teaching on that point is so absent in the KH, I don't doubt most just shrugged it off as a comment, nothing more, nothing less - what you are supposed to do. There is no real thinking or analyzing going on there. Just listening, obeying, etc.

But generally I avoid commenting at the meetings. Occasionally, just enough that they can't say I don't, but not very often. I despise the parroting of ideas that most commenting is. The WT tries to guilt people into commenting regularly, saying it is part of our worship, when in fact, it is part of their indoctrination process. I save most of my 'commenting' for before and after the meetings, and especially for the olders ones who are just trying to get by from day-to-day. I try to always give older ones an encouraging word, or just single them out to speak with them. They thrive on that.

For the moment, I content myself with trying to help JWs on the internet to get a better understanding of the things the WT hides from them. Many of my comments here (on JWN) are more intended for lurkers. And I try to annotate my comments here with enough references and/or scriptural backing to do real damage to WT falsehoods.

Take Care, QC

Link

24

Regarding the permission of certain blood fractions, what is the biblical basis?

by I_love_Jeff in

11 years ago

with regard to the permission of certain blood fractions, what biblical basis is the watchtower's selection of approved and non-approved components or fractions made?.

two key words here: biblical basis.

one answer by a jw caught my attention: .

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

I posted here basic Christian ideas that appeared to rule out fractions, supposing one took blood for medicine as wrong.

Link

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

11 years ago

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

2 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

Same feelings as BOC about this.

Link

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

11 years ago

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

WantingTruth:

A lot of interesting points that coincide with the discussion here in your linked writeup:

God telling Jesus at his baptism, "This is my Son . . ." (and later, as in Mt 17:5) ties back to Psalm 2:7. Both Psalm 2 and 110 are regarded as Davidic inauguration psalms. And thus, their application to Jesus has overtones of him having been made king. (See also here.)

Hebrews 1:1,2
(Hebrews 1:1, 2 NWT) . . .God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. . .

The NWT greatly softens the impact of what the writer of Hebrews is saying by the rendering, "at the end of these days." (See here for how others render the phrase.) The WT holds to the idea that 1914 marks the start of the "last days."

The NAC-Hebrews commentary (David L. Allen, pp. 102-03) has this to say about "in these last days" (NIV rendering):

The expression "in these last days" contrasts with "in the past" [NIV; "long ago" NWT] of v. 1 and is descriptive of the time when the readers of the epistle lived. The phrase "in these last days" (ep' eschatou ton hemeron) is found in the Septuagint (with various inflections) and translates a Hebrew temporal idiom for the future as distinct from the past. The Jewish perspective of two ages - this age and the coming eshatalogical age - is well known [except among those taught by the WT - Bobcat]. The rabbis debated in which age the Messiah would appear, finding Old Testament evidence both ways. It is probably best to link the two at the appearance of Jesus: the closing out of "this age" and the inauguration of "the coming age." The phrase had come to have a technical eschatalogical significance in Jewish thought, and this was incorporated into the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, like the other New Testament writers, viewed the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus as the inauguration of "the last days." [See two other quoted references that have the same idea here. - Bobcat] The present time in which the readers [of Hebrews] are living is "the last days" in contrast to the palai ["long ago" NWT - Bobcat] of v. 1. It is not only that the appearance of Jesus occurred during the last days, but that his appearance initiated the last days.

Also concerning the NWT rendering "at the end of these days," a footnote in the commentary says:

Lunemann (Hebrews, 393) correctly noted that ton hemeron touton [literally "the days these" - Bobcat] should not be taken in apposition to ep eschaton with the meaning "at the period's close" ["at the end of these days" NWT - Bobcat], which these days form.

The NIGTC-Hebrews commentary (Paul Ellingworth, p. 93) also comments about "in these last days":

. . . [the phrase] is Septuagintal, used in echatalogical contexts such as Numbers 24:14 and Daniel 10:14 LXX, pasages which have other points of contact with Hebrews. Esxatou ["last"] is neuter, meaning not "on the last of the days," but "in the last days," or more idiomatically "in the end time." . . . Hebrews distinctive (not Septuagintal) addition of toutwn ["these"] indicates that the last days have begun. Toutwn should be taken with the whole phrase: "in these days which are the last days," not "at the end of these days."

It appears to me that the NWT rendering, "at the end of these days," is likely motivated by existing WT doctrine about "the last days."

I have some other comments in line with your writeup, but will stop here for the sake of brevity.

Take Care

Link

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

11 years ago

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

Kaik:

Thanks much for the military and political synopsis involving WWI. Very interesting! And as you pointed out, there is no discernible turning point from those perspectives involving WWI/1914.

Take Care

Link

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

11 years ago

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

11 years ago

Bobcat 11 years ago

Kepler:

I'm have to head off to 'make brick for the Egyptians.' But just to address a possible mis-understanding, I wasn't trying to imply that 1914 somehow marked a "turning point" in the ecology. One could point to certain aspects of the ecology and say, 'See, this is worse than it was before 1914!" And it is possible that it was true. But as you pointed out, graphing of the problem would very likely show that the year 1914 had little to do with it. In the case of the enviroment, the start of the industrial revolution might be somewhat of a marker in time, although if it were, it would be hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint an exact year.

Just supposing for a minute WWI were a "turning point" in history. The war went on from 1914 - 1918. Why would 1914 have to be the turning point? Early in the war I think Germany's side had the advantage. Yet the English side eventually came out as the winners. I think (and this is off the top of my head), but I think 1917 might possibly be considered the "turning point" in the war. So if the post-war world was dominated by the winners, then, 1917 would be better recognized as the larger historical "turning point."

In reality, the start of WWI only serves to give sanction to the Society's 607-1914 chronological calculation. (By the way, I was consulting previous posts of yours to see if you mentioned anything about a turning point in WWI. See here and several posts on down in the thread.)

Well, got a go.

Take Care till next time.

Link