Posts by Bobcat

26

Last night in the Jeremiah Book

by BroMac in

i dont understand when this happened: .

*** jr chap.

2 pp.

Bobcat

The 'gap' starts at 20 years, but it actually widens as you go further back,

If I understand correctly, the gap between secular and WT dating is 20 years at 587 (Secular=587; WT=607)

At the deportation of the Northern Kingdom the gap slightly narrows (Secular=722; WT=740)

At the division of the kingdom after Solomon the gap is 67 years (Secular=930/1; WT=997)

At the exodus from Egypt (Secular=1446; WT=1513; Here the gap is holding at 67)

Secular dating actually helps explain certain things that WT dating leaves unexplained. For example, by secular dating Jonah visited Ninevah shortly after a famine and after an eclipse and during a very weak period in the Assyrian empire. These events may well have 'primed' the Ninevites to react favorably to Jonah. But WT dating puts Jonah in Ninevah way before these events.

By the way, I second the 'nice graphics' up above. Thanks for the efforts in those.

31

WT: World War I started in October 1914 (not July 1914)

by Calebs Airplane in

according to the wt, these are the actual sequence of events that led to the start of world war i:.

1) the gentile times ended on october 1/2, 1914.

2) jesus took the throne immediately thereafter.. 3) one of jesus' first tasks as the newly enthroned king was to engage in a heavenly war against satan and his demons.. 4) having won the war against satan and his demons, jesus expelled satan and his demons from the heavenly realm giving them only terrestial access.. 5) since satan is a sore loser, he became extremely bitter and decided to wreak havoc upon all the earth.. 6) filled with anger, satan then provoked the nations of the earth into a 4 year bloody battle known today as world war i. so there you have it... wwi started sometime in october of 1914 (not july 1914 as history books would have you believe).

Bobcat

Kepler:

Thanks again for the info. Just as a matter of curiosity (an extract from the list):

May 23, 1918 Costa Rica against Germany
Dec. 16, 1917 Cuba against Austria-Hungary
Apr. 22, 1918 Guatemala against Austria-Hungary
Apr. 22, 1918 Guatemala against Germany
May 24, 1918 Nicaragua against Germany
July 15, 1918 Haiti against Germany
July 19, 1918 Honduras against Germany

All these South American/Caribbean nations joining the war in 1918. If I remember, I think the guns went silent in Nov 1918. I wonder what their motive was this late in the fight? I kinda doubt they had much in the way of military force to contribute. Did declaring war put them on the reparations receiving list? (The question is actually for anyone who might know.)

Take Care

6

The Federal Council of Churches & League of Nations "Political Expression of the Kingdom of God"

by BluesBrother in

i have searched many times for the actual text of what the fccc said in their endorsement of the league of nations in 1919 - a quote much loved by the wts and seen as a fulfillment of prophecy of "the disgusting thing standing in the holy place.

it was here all the time, courtesy of our old friend hawkaw...long may he be remembered.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/17563/1/fccc-league-on-nations-un-watchtower-rare-article.

the download links in his post still worked for me and it is fascinating reading.

Bobcat

BB:

All I get from the old thread where images should be are a notice that "Remote Linking is Forbidden." Maybe I'm not looking at the right thing. The first post appears to have had scans (or something) of the FCCC Bulletin, but only have the remote linking notice. Maybe I'm not looking at the right thing.

This would be interesting to see.

Take Care

31

WT: World War I started in October 1914 (not July 1914)

by Calebs Airplane in

according to the wt, these are the actual sequence of events that led to the start of world war i:.

1) the gentile times ended on october 1/2, 1914.

2) jesus took the throne immediately thereafter.. 3) one of jesus' first tasks as the newly enthroned king was to engage in a heavenly war against satan and his demons.. 4) having won the war against satan and his demons, jesus expelled satan and his demons from the heavenly realm giving them only terrestial access.. 5) since satan is a sore loser, he became extremely bitter and decided to wreak havoc upon all the earth.. 6) filled with anger, satan then provoked the nations of the earth into a 4 year bloody battle known today as world war i. so there you have it... wwi started sometime in october of 1914 (not july 1914 as history books would have you believe).

Bobcat

Kepler:

Thank you for that WWI history. You're quite a fund of historical information. I hope you keep hanging around here.

I actually started reading this thread from the end (save for the opening post) and was going to work my way back thru the posts. But I had to stop after this post just to express appreciation before I delve further.

Take Care

Edited to add:

This thread reminds me of the recent WT idea expressed that England only became a world power after 1914, "in the Biblical sense."

55

If all of our sins are forgiven, what is GOD going to judge us for when we die?

by jam in

jw
friends

just curious..

Bobcat

DOC

He's not.

There is the resurrection of the righteous & unrighteous.

Either way, you get to come back in the Paradise and be judged for what you do there.

First of all, thanks very much for citing Acts 24:15 above. We discussed Romans 6:7 a few days ago (here), and the idea of a person dying having "[his] sins" acquitted. If Rom 6:7 were true, as the Society propounds it, then, there couldn't be a resurrection of the unrighteous. There wouldn't be any, since they were all acquitted/justified.

But your comments reminded me of another text that the Society bends out of shape, namely John 5:28, 29. Jesus referred to, 'those who practice good/vile things' using the past tense. But the thought of them coming out of the tombs is future tense. The Society's explanation of this, that the 'things practiced' are future, requires mental gymnastics. In fact, the Society bases their explanation of John 5:28, 29 on their mis-explanation of Rom 6:7. If you take John 5:28, 29 just as it reads, the 'things practiced' would have to be in this life, before death.

Incidentally, "those who practiced good things" and "those who practiced vile things" would appear to form a merism.

Anyways, take care, and thanks again for bringing Acts 24:15 to mind.

89

1975 - A weak argument?

by Christ Alone in

i posted this on an older thread, but i wanted to get an honest opinion about this from all of you.

i think taking the 1975 approach with a jw is...weak.

was it wrong (and false prophetic) of them?

Bobcat

Just as an aside which is indirectly related to this subject:

When the WT study discusses probable/improbable/hard-to-pin down things, always compare the question for the paragraph with what the paragraph actually says.

The paragraph might say something like, 'Its quite possible that such-and-such is the case.' Then the question will say something like, 'Why was such-and-such the case?' or, 'What proves that such-and-such was the case?'

The paragraph will postulate but the question will ask the audience to stamp it as true. This is why conductors were instructed not to rephrase the questions. The questions are every bit as much of what is being taught as the paragraph. I've seen it for years now.

I can see from the comments that much of 1975 was similar. The Society has learned to CYA but still get what they want. And their aura of being F&DS pushes any 'probable/possible' statements into the realm of, 'yea, that is exactly case.' And they never hold the R&F back from running with it. Only when they are called on the issue, then they say, 'We never specifically said that,' or 'The R&F ran ahead . . .,' or similar.

CA, thanks for bring the topic up, even as aquestion, because it helps expose what is really going on, the unsaid things.

21

1 John 5:14 - who hears prayers?

by leaving_quietly in

the last talk on the school this week was about jehovah being the 'hearer of prayer.

' one of the proof texts used was 1 john 5:14.

"and this is the confidence that we have toward him, that, no matter what it is that we ask according to his will, he hears us.".

Bobcat

Most commentaries view 5:13 - 21 as a sort of summary conclusion. Thus, they take auton ("he") in verse 14 as an echo of 3:21 which specifically refers to praying to "God." The NIV inserts "God" into the text of 5:14, showing that the translators understood "he" to be "God," as opposed to "the Son." The translation in the NICNT commentary also inserts "God" to make the point clear (as he understands it).

I can see where the immediate context could lead to a different conclusion.

Take Care

50

Einstein and Religion - with considerations of "Human Free Will"

by james_woods in

ok, here is a small first step toward putting together a thread on this subject.

the problem i had in getting started was how complicated the topic is - how to get it into an understandable form suitable for a discussion thread.

first - einstein was, of course, jewish.

Bobcat

James, thanks for the topic.

I know this mainly centers around Einstein. And perhaps since he wrestled with the idea, there can be some wrestling of it here.

At any rate, I wonder if this topic of "Human Free Will" suffers from a sort of false starting point. Namely, the "human" aspect of it.

Just as an idea to bump around, what if one viewed "free will" (which may or may not be the best description - but that is the term that everyone seems to prefer), but what if one viewed it as a universal commodity of sorts.

Before creation (assuming that and a creator), all of it belonged to the Creator. Then, as he creates intelligent beings (angels and humans), He, in effect, divies some of it out to each of them. A necessity required due to his granting them self-awareness - or perhaps as an integral part of their self-awareness.

On the human plane, "free will" would necessarily be of very limited proportion, since many of our daily activities are governed by basic biological activities (such as eating, sleeping, etc.). Even our interactions with other humans would impose further limits (marriage, children, friends, earth's resources, etc).

I'm still tossing the idea around in my own head, but I am curious how others would see it. The two types of free will that EP mentioned reading about seem to take an all-or-nothing point of view. I wonder if it makes more sense for there to be a middle ground viewpoint? And I wonder if Einstein struggled with the notion because of only seeing the two opposite ends of the argument rather than a middle ground approach?

Anyways, I gotta go for awhile.

Take Carre and thanks for the topic.

317

Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone in

just by knowing what will happen, that doesn't mean that we can prevent or cause something to happen.

my knowing that does not prevent them the free will of making the choice.. it's the same with god.

if god is not restricted to existence in the present, then the future is known by god because god indwells the future as well as the present and the past.

Bobcat

James:

It is worth another thread (which I am working on) but Einstein's religious belief is interesting in this regard.

Looking forward to that with interest.

Take Care

36

Did Jesus ever claim he had to die for our sins?

by Cagefighter in

so for those that have been keeping up: i have recently become fascinated with the lost gospels as well as the history of the four cannon gospels (matthew, mark, luke, and john) and as some may say the "historical jesus".. i am fascinated by the variations in who jesus was and what he did according to different traditions and texts.

one thing that provoked me the other day is that the coptics/gnostics do not believe jesus "died for our sins".

which explains why an i have never been accosted infront of my favorite drinking hole my a glassy eyed 20 year old with a pamphlet in their hand asking if i am "saved".. so this got me thinking..... i don't recall jesus ever claiming to have to die for our sins in matthew, mark, luke or john either?

Bobcat

Here is a section from Isaiah 53 referencing Jesus:

(Isaiah 53:10-12) . . .But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong [his] days, and in his hand what is the delight of Jehovah will succeed. 11 Because of the trouble of his soul he will see, he will be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. 12 For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

And here is words from Jesus himself concerning his then future death:

(Matthew 20:28) . . .Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many."

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. If Jesus understood that he was the suffering servant from Isaiah 53, then this would have been one of numerous verses that would have let him know that he had to die. The verse from Matthew shows Jesus knew he was going to die and what purpose it was to serve. Some others could have been cited, and were above.

Take Care