Posts by Bobcat

22

Is this valid reasoning for Trinitarian Doctrine?

by Flat_Accent in

i had been watching jwfairytale's videos recently, and he's been including snippets of this short film about a guy that becomes a jw and then changes to a born again, or so i think.

you can watch it here.

it's very dated, but quite enjoyable:.

Bobcat

Flat_Accent:

In connection with Revelation 1:8 and 22:12, I thought you might find these comments from the Baker Exegetical Commentary on Revelation. (The author is Grant R. Osborne) This is an academic commentary on Revelation, rather extensive, about <900 pages.

Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

In the text on page 71:"Of the three uses of the title in Revelation, two refer to God (1:8; 21:6) and one to Christ (22:13; though see 1:17, where Jesus is "the first and the last") From the start the unity of the Father and the Son is stressed. Here God is "the Alpha and Omega" and Jesus is "the first and the last." (1:17). In 21:6 God is "Alpha and Omega" and in 22:13 Jesus is "Alpha and Omega (see Bauckham 1993a: 54-58).

There is a footnote concerning 1:8 on page 71 that says: "While some (Walvoord 1996:40; perhaps Caird 1996:19) have argued that this is Christ rather than the Father (due to the centrality of Christ in the context), the use of OT designations for God ("LORD God of Hosts" was a favorite OT title) and the repetition of the title for God in v.4 make it more likely this refers to God the Father."

In connection with "Lord God" in 1:8: "It should be connected with "I am" ["who is" in 1:8] to stress God as the Yahweh of the OT."

Revelation 22:12

"Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Under the sub-title "Identity of the One Coming (22:13) on pages 788-9 it says: "This is the last of the [the Alpha and the Omega] passages, and fittingly all three types of this saying are found here (the only place in [Revelation] where this occurs). Moreover, this completes the attribution of the titles to God and Christ in a kind of ABAB order: in 1:8 it refers to God ("Alpha and Omega"), and in 1:17 and 2:8 it applies to Christ ("the First and the Last"). Then in 21:6 it refers to God ("Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End") and in 22:13 to Christ ("Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End"). The titles refer to the sovereignty of God and Christ over history. They control the beginning of creation and its end, and therefore they control every aspect of history in between. Since this is the only passage to contain all three titles, it has the greatest emphasis of them all on the all-embracing power of Christ over human history. These are the perfect titles to occur between the emphasis on Christ's coming as judge in 22:12 and the warnings to the believers and the unregenerate in 22:14-15. Christ is sovereign over all and therefore the one who has authority over the destiny of everyone."

Concerning both these particular verses, there are no debates about the validity/reading of the Greek text.

As you can see, this expositor has no problem applying the title to both God and Christ. Hope this is some use.

Take Care

59

Surprise Elder's Visit-FAIL

by iclone in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-ca</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Bobcat

"if they come back with a basic "Do you believe the WTS is Jehovah's organization?" and your answer will have to be yes or no."

If I could make a suggestion. (rule number one) If "they come back" with the above question, DO NOT answer "yes" or "no." The tendency will be to answer the way they want you to. But, DO NOT! It is a loaded question. They will only be looking for you to condemn yourself so that they can be thru with you. DO NOT let an appealing manner or a warm smile or a handshake or anything else, melt your resolve. (Also, always be cordial yourself.)

Throw the question back on them: "You tell me" or "I'll let you answer that." Or use that but throw in a little extra: "I'll let you give me your opinion." (This throws a doubtful - 'you have yours, I have mine' - tone to the discussion. BUT never give them yours!) The elders respond: 'Now, we want you opinion.' You respond: "My opinion isn't important. Shouldn't you ask Jehovah that?" Another possibility is: "Ah, that's something to think about." (This last one is right out of the Pioneer Service Book. It's meant for giving a response when you really don't want to say what you really think.)

Or if they insist on a yes or no answer, give them exactly that: "Yes or no." 'No, we want one or the other.' "Ok, one or the other." And each time make them re-ask the entire question again. And if they don't ask it exactly the same way as before, point that out. Make them repeat it exactly. Make the other brother (the one that is not asking the question) definitely state whether he agrees that he is also the asker of this question. What you are doing is tiring them out and turning the interrogators into the interrogated.

Alternatively, make them put the question on paper and sign it, so that you can look at it for a while. After all, they will use their two selves as witnesses against you. So make them become witnesses against themselves in regard to the question they want you to answer. Of course, it is doubtful they will agree to do this. They've been trained by the Society to not incriminate or leave any physical evidence about themselves. But if they won't put their question in writing, don't give your answer. They want you to put yourself on the line by answering. Make them put themselves on the line by going on record as having been the ones who asked the question. (And if by chance they do put it in writing, take it and say you'll need several days to think about it. And when they come back - go to rule number one.)

Also (rule number two), NEVER REPEAT YOURSELF. If you have already given an answer (whatever it may be), never give it again. If they want you to repeat yourself, make them tell you what you have already said. And if they don't state it like you said, point out emphatically that that is not what you said. The purpose of there being two of them is to be witnesses of what you said. So if they want you to repeat yourself, use their witnesses to your advantage. (REMEMBER, even if you say "Yes" a hundred times, and "NO" only once, they will take the "No" and use it against you. - So never repeat yourself!)

Also (rule number three), Do not let them put words in your mouth. They might use a phrase such as, "Oh, so your saying ...". What they are doing is interpreting what you did say, and if you agree with "so your saying ...", then, it is the same as if you said it. And they have the two witnesses to confirm it. So don't be trapped by that. "Oh, so your saying ...", "No, brother, there is no double meaning in my words." Or, "What I said is what I was saying. Nothing more.")

Also (rule number four), and this depends on your physical circumstances: DO NOT let them surround you, physically that is. DO NOT let them position you with your back to the wall. Keep moving, subtley, so that they are positioned with their backs to the wall. If there are two or three, keep moving to the right or left so that only one is directly in front of you. It is a mental thing. It gives the impression that you are in control. That you are outflanking them.

Take Care

6

What kind of toolbars do you have?

by Iamallcool in

jw
friends

i would be willing to try different kinds of toolbars as long as it will not damage the computer.

.

Bobcat

I keep the Tyndale House toolbar on IE9. But I don't have it on Chrome which I use here. Info on it can be found on the link.

28

Anyone Notice this in the New Brochure "Good News From God"?

by Cadellin in

if you look on page 10, "what is god's purpose for the earth?," you'll see an illustration of adam in the garden--with a belly button!!

what were the wt artists thinking????.

i'd post a scan but, alas, i'm unable to in my present locale..

Bobcat

If you look carefully at the picture you can see a 'cock' and a squirrel with 'two nuts'!!

And the squirrel closest to Adam's left hand laughing as if to say, 'Look what we have, that you don't.'

Well, someone in Bethel has a sense of humor.

17

Question about reporting fellow JWs.

by maninthemiddle in

i have searched but not found an answer yet.

does anyone remember what scriptures they base reporting another person's "wrongdoing" to the elders?.

i put "wrongdoing" in quotes so i could user their term and you could be reported for anything.. i know they have used the scripture about going to the person first, that is rarely followed, i know it is common practice to tell on eachother, i just can't remember if they even pretend to make it scriptual.. thanks.

Bobcat

DATA-DOG:

I'm finding that, in regards to the KH, you have to apply Micah 7:5, 6 which Jesus partly quotes at Matthew 10:34-36.

I had an Elder recently tell me that even if a Wife has an issue with her Husband she must talk with her husband present.

But the reverse (husband having issue with wife) does not hold in the KH.

And the idea only applies if the husband is baptized. Otherwise, he means nothing to the elders.

17

Question about reporting fellow JWs.

by maninthemiddle in

i have searched but not found an answer yet.

does anyone remember what scriptures they base reporting another person's "wrongdoing" to the elders?.

i put "wrongdoing" in quotes so i could user their term and you could be reported for anything.. i know they have used the scripture about going to the person first, that is rarely followed, i know it is common practice to tell on eachother, i just can't remember if they even pretend to make it scriptual.. thanks.

Bobcat

Here's the NIV rendition of Leviticus 5:1 -

If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

Here is various commentary on the verse: (Found at this site.)

Keil & Delitzsch:

The first (Leviticus 5:1), when any one had heard the voice of an oath (an oath spoken aloud) and was a witness, i.e., was in a condition to give evidence, whether he had seen what took place or had learned it, that is to say, had come to the knowledge of it in some other way. In this case, if he did not make it known, he was to bear his offence, i.e., to bear the guilt, which he had contracted by omitting to make it known, with all its consequences. ??? does not mean a curse in general, but an oath, as an imprecation upon one's self ( equals the "oath of cursing" in Numbers 5:21); and the sin referred to did not consist in the fact that a person heard a curse, imprecation, or blasphemy, and gave no evidence of it (for neither the expression "and is a witness," nor the words "hath seen or known of it," are in harmony with this), but in the fact that one who knew of another's crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses

Barnes:

Swearing - Adjuration. The case appears to be that of one who has been put upon his oath as a witness by a magistrate, and fails to utter all he has seen and heard (compare the marginal references. and Proverbs 29:24; Numbers 5:21).

Clarke's Commentary:

If a soul sin - It is generally supposed that the case referred to here is that of a person who, being demanded by the civil magistrate to answer upon oath, refuses to tell what he knows concerning the subject; such a one shall bear his iniquity - shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God, of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, and must expect to be punished by him for hiding the iniquity to which he was privy, or suppressing the truth which, being discovered, would have led to the exculpation of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty.

From what I can see, the major difference between this and KH practice is that the context of Lev 5:1 is very open, a public matter. In KH practice, the reporting is more a matter of secret reporting. Often the elders will keep the informer anonymous , even to the one accused. Indeed, many would say nothing if they couldn't remain anonymous.

Take Care

30

Odd, isn't it? Genesis never mentions Satan; Job mentions a serpent or Adam maybe once or not at all - and Eve gets 4 refs in whole Bible

by kepler in

my concordance searches indicate eve is mentioned twice in the ot and twice in the new.

i guess elsewhere in genesis she must be the wife or the woman.

interesting: since she was the only woman in the world and adam was the only man, i wonder how husband and wife as terminology were invented?

Bobcat

Kepler:

I wonder how husband and wife as terminology were invented?

"Husband" and "Wife" are English. (No sarcasm intended.) No doubt other languages have their own terms for marriage mates. But in Hebrew "Husband" is simply "Man," and "Wife" is simply "Woman." Translators will use "Husband" and "Wife" when the context calls for it (or when they think it calls for it; e.g. Genesis 6:2) Thus, Eve was Adam's "woman" and Adam was Eve's "man." Not unlike English slang.

Incidentally, the Hebrew words for "man" and "woman" are related to each other in the same way the English words "man" and "woman" are related.

By the way, interesting thought you raised about Satan. I think some of the development of the term may be buried in Jewish ? (I can't think of the term at the moment - something like commentary maybe)

Take Care

14

Book - Research-Bible-Artifacts with a chapter on VAT 4956 by Rolf Furuli

by VM44 in

this book contains a chapter on the subject of vat 4956 that is written by rolf furuli.. http://www.gersam.de/neuheiten_2/artifacts/artifacts.html.

research - bible - artifacts.

for centuries we have been able to learn about the history of the middle east because of many ancient writings are in existence.

Bobcat

Leolaia:

Well, Boy Howdy! I saw the box that said "Author Gersam Verlag." It sounded like a name to me. Just don't send me to pick up any German food for you. Who knows what I'll come back with.

But thanks for pointing that out.

Take Care

Edited to add: And thanks for being kind (in the way you put it) to a dummy.

10

Disfellowshipping, Association, and Marriage question.

by baltar447 in

ok, so i've heard it said before that disfellowshipped people can't associate with other disfellowshipped persons.

is this in print anywhere or in the elder manual?.

also, are there "rules" about disfellowshipped persons marrying?

Bobcat

Baltar447:

Off hand I can't provide any references. But having spent several decades as an elder, I can tell you that normally what a disfellowshiped person does in connection with marriage is usually of no interest to the elders (beyond curiosity, that is).

Now if a baptized person marries a disfellowshiped person, from what I have seen, the baptized person would normally be disfellowshiped. I think that is taken as a choice to fellowship (at the closest level) with a disfellowshiped person. So in essence, it is more a matter of defiance of the Society than anything else.

As far as disfellowshiped persons associating with others in like standing, I never viewed it as of any importance, nor have I seen it as being of any concern to elders I served with. At the same time, some (elders) are reasonable, and some are semi-Nazi's in their views.

I kind of think that if two disfellowshiped person started conversing with each other at the Hall, more elders would likely be incensed. I think, as a whole, they tend to view quiet listening, more towards the back, as the proper conduct for DFed ones. Anything beyond that starts raising eyebrows.

I hope this is of some use.

Take Care

13

Robots

by Aeiouy in

i was reading the incredibly fascinating posts on the "something i heard from our lord" topic, and noticed something that piqued my curiousity.

the jws always say that eve wasn't really guilty of wrongdoing, but rather adam.

after eating from the tree, adam became like god, knowing good and evil.

Bobcat

Aeiouy:

Just a couple points. I know you'll get more.

The word "know," in both Hebrew and Greek was used with a certain amount of flexibility. For example in Genesis 4:1 the NWT says that Adam "had intercourse" with his wife. But "had intercourse" is the same Hebrew word as "knowing" in Genesis3:22. Thus, he "knew" her in a way he hadn't before this. But he already was acquainted with her as a person in other ways.

Adam had already been told not to eat from the tree. So he "knew" it was wrong. His "knowing good and bad" like "one of us" after eating from the tree was something more than mere acquaintance with what was good and bad. The phrase "like one of us" would be the key to understanding in what aspect the "knowing" was.

And yes, I enjoyed iRobot.

Take Care