Posts by Bobcat

5

James 1:27, Widows, Orphans, Religion - Worship

by berrygerry in

what bothered me in the past few years prior to departure was the lack of caring for widows and orphans.. two days ago, i discovered that james 1:27 uses the word religion - even though the reference bible has it as a footnote, as does the gray bible.. there was a study article in 1991 which boasts that the nwt is consistent in translating threskeia all 4 times as "form of worship," whereas other translations also use "worship" at col. 2:18.

(check the context and greek - nwt is quite off.).

the article does not refer one to vine's, which is usually the go-to reference book.

Bobcat

a watcher
The number of needy sisters in the congregations is just overwhelming. I help the handful that I can . . .

I was reviewing some older posts. I meant to commend you for this.

On a note from my post above, I mentioned that the counting of FS time has the effect of moving congregation members to spend their time where it would be counted - in the ministry, versus spending more time with "orphans and widows."

But in addition, WT dogma or interpretation also has an adverse effect on the time spent with "orphans and widows" within the congregation. For example, in the 'Sheep & Goats' parable of Mt 25:31-46, Jesus commends the sheep for having ministered to him when he was "hungry . . . thirsty . . . a stranger . . . naked . . . sick . . . [and] in prison." Jesus then goes on to say that they did this to him when they did this to "one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine" (NET).

WT dogma asserts that "one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine" only refers to an anointed Christian," of which there are only 144,000. And most of them are long gone. And of those that remain, the only ones you can be sure of are the GB.

Thus, their own (enforced) dogma steals support away from the very ones who are being described. They are actually worse than the "goats" who simply admit to ignorance of such situations ("When did we see you . . ." - Mt 25:44)

For anyone interested in experimenting with the effect WT terminology has had on its members, try using the terms "WT religion" or "Jehovah's Witness religion" or "our religion" within the Kingdom Hall and amongst JWs. I'm guessing that if you are not a JW, this 'misuse' of terminology will be excused as simple ignorance. But if you are already a JW it will be seen as an indication of one's starting to distance themselves from the WT, in the same way using terms like "bulletin board" and "New Testament" and "crucify" would be seen.

Bobcat

12

You are simulation and physics can prove it

by Brokeback Watchtower in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chfoo9nbeow.

a little about george smoot.

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/george_smoot.

Bobcat

marked

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.

the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.

" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .

Bobcat

Wonderment:

Thank you very much for providing the context of the quote as well as the brief synopsis of the dictionary as a whole.

And thank you for the link to Cokesbury.com. I saw it listed at CDB for $99 and thought that was great. I'm going to have to bookmark Cokesbury also.

Thanks again,

Bobcat

32

Governing Body Sheep Fleecing - Official!

by The Searcher in

fellow witnesses - do you think the kingdom hall belongs to you, just because you all paid for it and personally finance its maintenance?

think again, sheep!

the "shepherds" have announced the fleecing in black & white for you, in case you decide to question them!.

Bobcat

Watchtower July 15th 2015 p.31 - "A Kingdom Hall is a building dedicated to Jehovah. Therefore, it cannot rightly be said to belong to any individual or congregation,whatever its legal title may indicate."

My question, then, is, Who can rightly sell a kingdom hall? since it does not "belong to any individual or congregation,whatever its legal title may indicate."

Bobcat

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.

the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.

" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .

Bobcat

Thank you all for your replies! And yes, Wonderment, I am more than willing to wait for your input.

berrygerry, the WT is the 1/15/15 study issue, page 29, paragraph 6.

The (possible) issue here is that the WT quoted from the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible concerning the Song of Solomon (see the OP for the exact quote and paragraph number). The WT maintains that the Song of Solomon is a drama featuring three people: Solomon (as the villain); the Shulammite woman, and her shepherd husband-to-be (who repeatedly refers to the Shulammite as his "bride."

Various references that I have point out that the Song of Solomon has the most diversified history of interpretation of any book of the Bible. It has been interpreted as an allegory of the love between God and Israel (Jewish interpretation), of Christ and his church (Christian interpretation), a two person drama (the shepherd and the Shulammite), a three person drama (the shepherd, the Shulammite, and Solomon as a foil - this is the interpretation held to in the WT study on 4/3/15).

There are numerous variations of all of these interpretations and some others not mentioned, like one having to do with a funeral for Baal (?). For example, in the allegorical interpretations, the dark skin of the Shulammite is often equated with sin.

As usual, the WT study simply presents the three character drama as if this were all settled. No mention that there are countless other interpretations. No mention that most modern references debunk all these interpretations. That in itself is a bit galling - to see such mindless drivel being passed off as 'food at the proper time.' And the audience sopping it up - although, there were a lot in the audience who admittedly couldn't wrap their heads around this - but there it is in the WT, so it must be true!

And the points made in the WT about marriage and courtship weren't bad at all. It was just strange to see them try to make Song of Solomon try to prove them. I don't think any cited text from Song of Solomon actually said what the paragraph said it was saying.

But at any rate, that aside. I had a hunch that the context of the quote from the Bible dictionary was dismissing the whole dramatic interpretation being held to in the WT. I wanted to see if they were pulling a quote right out of the middle of material that dismisses the very interpretation they were holding to. (As usual, the WT gives no page numbers. But they did give the name of the reference. That is an improvement.)

(And this interpretation in no way originates with the WT. One of my references says that the three person drama was first proposed by Ibn Ezra in the 12 century AD and then further enlarged upon in the 18th and 19th centuries. Of course, the audience was lavishing praise upon the F&DS for having deciphered such a hard to understand book.)

Wonderment, I'd also like to hear what you think of the Dictionary. CBD has the 5 volume set on sale. I was wondering if it is worth the sale price.

Thanks again in advance.

Bobcat

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.

the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.

" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .

Bobcat

bump

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.

the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.

" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .

Bobcat

The WT study 4/5/15 quotes from the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. The quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest." It is located in paragraph 6 on page 29.

I was wondering if anyone had access to this reference. It may be in Volume 5 which includes items that begin with "S." I am very interested in the context within which the quote is taken.

Thanks in advance

Bobcat

9

Nisan 14 Enigma!

by The Searcher in

where did jesus take his faithful 11 apostles immediately after finishing the meal in the upper room?.

anyone looked at this before?

.

Bobcat

Searcher:

Very interesting find. All the times I have read that account I somehow always assumed they were in the same place until the end of chapter 17. I wonder if John 17:1 ("[Jesus] lifted up his eyes to heaven . . .") might be an indication of an outside location?

Looking at various commentaries, they seem to accept the possibility (of the group leaving the upper room after chapter 14) without being dogmatic about it. Some suggest possibly a location passing through vineyards or near the temple entrance (where there was a golden vine hanging over the entrance) whilst giving the vine illustration of chapter 15.

This is the only recent WT commentary I could find on it (Greatest Man book):

*** gt chap. 116 Preparing the Apostles for His Departure ***
Following the memorial meal, Jesus has been encouraging his apostles with an informal heart-to-heart talk. It may be past midnight. So Jesus urges: “Get up, let us go from here.” However, before they leave, Jesus, moved by his love for them, continues speaking, providing a motivating illustration.

Also see w90 8/15 p.8 which the Greatest Man book account is taken from.

Bobcat

2

A question about the 'baptism talk' at current assemblies.

by Esse quam videri in

my memory is that after the 'candidates' answered the questions, the speaker stated that they should be 'baptized without delay' or words to that effect.

is this still the case.

is there any recording you can refer me too which gives the audible evidence?

Bobcat

For some interesting commentary and experience on WT baptism ritual, go to this thread and scroll down to my first post.

Bobcat

12

I'm confused about the Memorial? Great crowd?

by thedepressedsoul in

this was my first memorial thinking outside of the box.

last year i was starting to have questions but this is the first year i noticed a lot of bs.

can anyone clarify a few things for me?.

Bobcat

Touching the plate and cup, whether you eat and drink or refrain, is intended by the WT to allow you to express your hope - either going to heaven or staying on earth.

And yet they emphasize that only a relative few are going to heaven. And most of those have already died. So anyone who eats/drinks of the emblems becomes the object of others immediate judgment as to whether such a thing is really possible for that person.

There are many ironies in this WT ceremony:

1. The only ones who partake without question are the leaders, the governing body at headquarters. To question their partaking is to question their authority. Everyone else who partakes is somebody that 'believes' they are going to heaven. But as far as the leadership is concerned, that remains to be seen.

2. JWs go to great lengths to invite outsiders to "observe" the Lord's Evening Meal. Yet, as you pointed out, they take pains to make sure everyone participates by being handed the plate and cup. If you noticed after the passing of the cup and plate, the brothers who did the passing of them must sit down and have the plate and cup handed to them. This, despite the fact that they have been handling the plate and cup as they passed it to all those in their seats. Finally, the the speaker has to be handed the cup and plate in the same ritualistic way. He is required to show where he stands on the matter.

It seems to me from points "1" and "2" that this is an exercise in establishing who the leadership is and who those being led are. You show the acceptance of your place as a follower of the GB by passing the emblems without partaking.

3. Another irony is that Jesus (and Paul) described the eating and drinking of the bread and wine as a way of 'remembering Jesus' death.' But at the Kingdom Hall, eating and drinking the bread and wine (or not doing so) is all about where you hope to go after this life.

And I agree with your point about why have non-partakers in attendance. How odd to be invited to a ceremonial meal in order to watch others partake of it. Or in many Kingdom halls, to watch nobody partake of it. What a waste of food that Jesus would never have approved of (compare John 6:12; Matthew 14:20; Mark 8:8; Luke 9:17)

Bobcat