Posts by Bobcat

8

Contradiction in last week's study article

by leaving_quietly in

6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.

in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.

" (rev.

Bobcat

I thought I might add:

Applying "the day of the Lord" to "the last days" is highly questionable in itself. "The great day of their (God's and the Lamb's) wrath" occurs in Rev 6:17. And "the great day of God the Almighty" occurs in Rev 16:14. Both terms apply to the destructive end of the last days, not to the last days themselves.

2Peter 3:3, 4, 10 is a good comparison also. Verse 3 refers to "the last days" in contrast to the destructive "day of [the] Lord" in verse 10. (NWT has "Jehovah's Day")

Take Care

8

Contradiction in last week's study article

by leaving_quietly in

6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.

in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.

" (rev.

Bobcat

Leaving_Quietly:

First point of interest is "the Lord's Day."

The NWT mistranslates Rev 1:10. The NWT has, "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day." The literal reading of the Greek text says, "I became in Spirit in (or "on") the Lord's day." "By inspiration" is fine for "in spirit." But the NWT moves the verb, "I became" or "I came to be," so that it applies to "in the Lord's day" rather than to "in spirit" (or "by inspiration").

Next, what is "the Lord's day"? Is it the same as "the day of the Lord"? Here is what the Baker Exegetical Commentary says about it: The phrase is "found only here in the NT. ...Three options have been suggested for its meaning: (1) It may be a reference to the eschatological day of the Lord, so that John is transported to the time of the eschaton [what the Society would call "the last days"] (so Bullinger 1909:12; Walvoord 1966:42); but neither the language here nor the contents of [Rev] 1:12-20 make that likely, for the NT commonly uses the genitive kuriou (Lord's) to designate the "day of the Lord," while John here has the adjective. (2) It may refer to Easter Sunday as the day of the parousia within the confines of Easter liturgy (so M. Shepherd 1960; Strand 1966-67); but this is highly speculative, and this view did not arise until at least a century later. (3) Most likely this phrase refers to Sunday, chosen by the early church on the basis of the resurrection as the day of worship (Stott 1965-66; Baukham 1982:221-50). Stott (73-74) argues that Kuriake was originally associated with the resurrection and then with the eschatological triumph of the Lord of lords and thereby came to be used of the "Lord's Day." It is likely that the Jewish-Christian church worshiped in the synagogues on the Jewish Sabbath and in their own assemblies from the earliest times on Sunday, celebrating the Eucharist [what the WT calls "the Memorial"] and worshiping Christ together (cf. Acts 2:42). While this is the first appearance of "the Lord's Day" as a technical term for Sunday worship, it became a common term for such in the second century. John was worshiping on that day and received this vision."

(Brackets in the quote above are from me. Parenthesis are from the quoted material)

You should note also the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:12-16. If John was transported to the last days, then, the description of Jesus has something noticably missing from his head, that should be there.

The point I am making is that their whole argument concerning "the Lord's day" is bogus. It does not mean what they want it to mean. (Incidentally, one of Awakened@Gileads videos concerns this very topic of Revelation 1:10.) here.)

Now, concerning the Anglo-American world power:

The idea that Britain only became a world power in the 20th century is historically false. Generally, 1763, the date of the treaty of Paris, is recognized as the beginning of Britain's world rulership. And it ruled the world to an extent far greater than any other previous power.

The idea that it became a dual world power with the US in the early 20th century is correct. The wild beast pictured in Rev. 13:11-18 has two horns. But note that what the Society refers to as Britain in Daniel chapter 7 is just a single horn. There would be nothing to prevent it from starting out as one horn and then proceeding to two later. For example, compare the description of Medo-Persia in Daniel 8:3.

The Society's explanation also contradicts their own explanation of Revelation 13:3, wherein John sees one of the heads of the 7 headed wild beast having a sword stroke that healed. You can find the Society's explanation of this in the Rev Climax book page 190, pars.13-15. It would have to have already been a "head," or world power first in order to receive a "sword stroke," which they are saying it received in WWI.

Another Society induced contradiction is with Daniel 2:44. It says, "In the days of those kings [refering to the feet and toes] the God of heaven would set up a kingdom ..." The Society says that "the feet and toes" picture this 7th world power. If God sets up his kingdom in 1914, and it is only then that the feet and toes come into being, then, how can it be said that God sets up his kingdom "in the days of" that 7th world power. (Compare the same phrase used in Daniel 5:11)

Hope this helps some

Take Care

18

Slow fade vs instant fade

by tenene in

jw
friends

i guess i'll never find out what it is like to fade slowly since i chose the instant route.. just wondering which one is easier, emotionally.. .

Bobcat

Wouldn't "instant fade" be a contradiction in terms? At any rate, I'm curious what you mean by "instant fade."

Take Care

28

Scriptures seem to hint that Jehovah/Yahweh is a SON of God?

by EndofMysteries in

after the past few years of trying to really figure out what the bible is teaching and no influence, one of the things has been that possibly the god of the israelites may have been a son.

i want feedback on what i am about to show.

this is the tip of the iceberg, just one angle of what may be going on.

Bobcat

EndOfMysteries:

On Duet 32:8, 9, "inheritance" is being used figuratively. Duet 32 is in poetic style, so one would need to accord the author some 'poetic license.'

On a contrasting example, Numbers 18:20 has Jehovah as being the Levites "inheritance." If one took that too literally, it would make God equivalent to property.

Take Care

20

New World Translation Assaults on Language and Phrases that Always Wigged Me Out!

by DarioKehl in

i listened to the august 4th episode of the healingxjws podcast where they interviewed a former jw circuit overseer.

he shared many great examples of how original meanings (especially poetry) were lost in this terrible translation.

it's worth listening to.

Bobcat

John Kesler:

'Luke 23:43 - Truly I tell you today,'

This comma placement defies logic. They completely ignore the fact that Greek is an inflected language. "I tell you" (versus "I told you" or "I will tell you") is enough to know that it was "today." What "day" was the thief going to think Jesus was speaking to him? Tomorrow? Yesterday?

And "Samuel" is typical WT. They simply can't let you decide or think for yourself. It is on a par with "other" in Col. 3:15

Wonderment:

"It [NWT] has its place as a Study Bible (my opinion)"

I agree. I'm glad I have one and I do use it. But never exclusively. I'm just finding too many untrustworthy verses. A good recent example from this past WT study is Revelation 1:10.

Another somewhat dishonest phrase is "gifts in men." (Eph 4:8) Even the footnote in the Ref. Bible is somewhat deceptive. The footnote in the 1950 NWT (Christian Greek Scriptures) tells the real story. But they left that out of the updated Ref. Bible.

When my wife and I read the Bible together, I'll often use another translation just because when she reads, it forces me to analyze the text as I follow in the different translation. I think it works towards building reading comprehension. But I notice that more and more, my wife has to see what the other translation says to get an idea what the verse or phrase is saying. The uber-literalness has its place, but it does impede reading comprehension.

Leolaia:

Very interesting list. I used to keep a list of verses where the NWT read more understandably than the KJV. I think I'll borrow yours and make another list.

29

The Resurrection - Gender-less Humans or Spirit Beings?

by Badfish in

"in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.

" (mathew 22:30).

also, what about their offspring?

Bobcat

I have two things. First a question and then a comment.

The question:

The arguments about whether the events in Gen chap.6 really happened aside, and assuming that the "sons of the true God" were angels and the "Nephilim" were their hybrid offspring - Where does the idea come from that these angels materialized human bodies and lived like men? And then, of course, the flood would have forced them to return to their original spirit selves.

For several years I have tried to figure out how the Society came up with that aspect of the story.

Jude 6 says they "did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place."

Peter says they "had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah's days" (1 Pet 3:20) and "sinned" (2 Pet 2:4).

Genesis 6:2, 4 says "the sons of the [true] God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose ... the sons of the [true] God continued to have relations with the daughters of men."

Of course, they had to do it in some way. But these verses are the only ones I know of that describe those events and they fall short of saying anything about where they lived or how they accomplished their deeds or what type of bodies they assumed. Yet the Society describes it and illustrates it as if it was beyond questioning.

That is my question, but what follows is what I've considered as impacting my viewpoint so far.

"Wives" in Gen 6:2 is simply a translator's choice. "Wives" could just as rightly be translated "women" or "females." I have a problem with "wives" because Jude 7 describes the people of Sodom as having "committed fornication" like these angels. If the women of these angels were really their "wives," could the angels be described as 'committing fornication' with them?

Another problem I have with the idea of the angels living as men is that Genesis 6:4 says, "the Neph′i·lim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the [true] God continued to have relations with the daughters of men." The verse isn't conclusive, but the statement about 'the Nephilim being in the earth in those days' would seem like 'less-than headline news' if superhuman angels were living there too.

"Have relations" in Genesis 6:4 is interesting also. The KJV is more literal, saying "came in unto." (ESV has "came in to") I've read that this might have the idea of an invasion, with the possible idea of rape or something like that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but somehow I've acquired the idea that in those times it was more customary for the women and men of a family to live in seperate quarters and for the man to bring his wife or concubine to his quarters for relations. That is why the word used for "have relations," or more literally "come into" suggests to me that these angels did not live like married men.

The final problem I have with the angels living as men is one of logic. If they are capable of changing form/ materializing at will, why give up a spirit body for one that has to go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, travel at much less than light speed, use doors, etc. Why not just materialize - if they need to do that - make love, and then go back to the spirit realm? (The best of both worlds, as it were.)

At any rate, that is the extent of my research on the matter, and since this was part of the (extended) topic, I was curious to see if there was any more opinions or info that could be added or used to correct.

Since the question turned out to be so long, I'll save my comment for later. It was about the phrase "marry and being given in marriage."

Thanks and Take care

33

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 08-12-2012 WT Study (SHORTLY)

by blondie in

jw
friends

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com.

http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php.

http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/.

Bobcat

Billy the X

SERIOUSLY? It's been the civil rights movements, labor unions, independence movements, and elections that have made Britain and the US great! Giving more rights to minorities and women hasn't weakened the US, it's produced a greater pool of brains and talent.

Exactly. Even the USSR, with all its military might, just could not compete/keep up with with a democratic power.

33

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 08-12-2012 WT Study (SHORTLY)

by blondie in

jw
friends

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com.

http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php.

http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/.

Bobcat

JWGoneBad:

Speaking of Flip Flops! Check this Flip Flop out!

That is so typical of the WT to rewrite history. "From the perspective of Bible prophecy" - Then how was it an accurate prophecy it does not correspond with what actually happened????

1763 is the date of the Treaty of Paris - which is recognized as the date when Britian became the official (by treaty) dominant power of the Western, if not the whole, world - both economically and militarily. Napolean later made an effort to change that, but he did that as a recognized challenger, not as an equal contender.

The next 50 years or so (1815 - the rise of Kiezer's(? spelling) Germany are basically recognized as a sort of 'Pax Brittania.'

Even from the pespective of the prohecy in Daniel they are wrong. Even if the feet and toes (the iron and clay from Dan chap.2) picture the 7th world power - God sets His kingdom up "in the days of those kings." If God's Kingdom comes to power in 1914 and then the 7th world power comes into being, then, how could it be said that God 'sets up His Kingdom "in the days of those kings"?

Also, I believe they used to say it was the 7th head of that beast that got the sword stroke in Rev chap.12 (The sword stroke being WWI.) Wouldn't the 7th head have to already be in power for it to receive that?

I think there is a prophecy somewhere that fortells that the Bethel punch bowl was to be spiked.

20

New World Translation Assaults on Language and Phrases that Always Wigged Me Out!

by DarioKehl in

i listened to the august 4th episode of the healingxjws podcast where they interviewed a former jw circuit overseer.

he shared many great examples of how original meanings (especially poetry) were lost in this terrible translation.

it's worth listening to.

Bobcat

DarioKehl:

JWs NWT just assume "to times indefinite" means "forever."

It could be that individual JWs think "time indefinite" means "forever." But I believe the Society's position on the term is that sometimes it doesn't. The Hebrew word is olam (Strong's #5769). AMG's Hebrew dictionary defines it as "a very long time ... It may cover a given person's lifetime; a period of many generations; the time of the present created order; time beyond this temporal sphere, especially when used regarding God. The term also applies to many things associated with God, such as His decrees, His covenants, and the Messiah." So, efectively speaking, it could mean "forever" or a time of less duration, sometimes a time duration that is not easily quantified, thus "time indefinite."

The NWT renders it as "time indefinite" to distinguish it from another word rendered "forever." There is some interesting discussion about this on the BHebrew discussion forum archives.

Take Care

67

What Are The Funniest Sitcoms That You Have Enjoyed?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i was watching the beverly hillbillies the other night and i have to say, the writing and the acting was terrific!.

another classic is all in the family.

loved that show!.

Bobcat

Many of the ones already mentioned, plus

Home Improvement