Posts by Bobcat

35

India Buys New Fighter Jets from Russia

by fulltimestudent in

the wall street journal reports that india has again made a decision to buy 42 russian sukhoi su-30 mk1 fighter jets that will be assembled in india.

additionally india will buy 71 m--17 v-5 helicopters.

another deal was signed for russia to manufacture the ka and mi brand of helicopters in india .

Bobcat

Here is a video of it for any interested.

.

I was trying to see from the video if this version had the thrust vectoring nozzles but couldn't tell. I think the competition was the FA-18 and Rafale.

23

They want it both ways

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

several years ago the wts stopped announcing individuals who were df'd as, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped" and instead began announcing, "so-and-so is no longer one of jehovah's witnesses".

this seems to be rather important to me.

undoubtedly this change was fueled by legal issues raised by someone who was df'd and impacted in some way perhaps financially.

I can see your point from a purely legal standpoint. I think many are dismayed that the Society calls for the R&F to 'suck it up' and endure all the consequenses of their DF policy out of loyalty to Jehovah. But the WT applies no such standard to themselves. They do whatever they want to avoid any 'pain' that DFing might bring to themselves. (Matt 23:4) Thus, they want the R&F to 'understand "DFed" without the Society actually saying "DFed." In fact, the hypocrisy is worse than that. They use the "independant agent" elders as their stooges, whilst making sure that all the paperwork is free of any reference to themselves. They perfectly typify what Jesus said at Matthew 23:25-28.

In fact, they've always been this way in many things, not just DFing.

Take Care and thanks for your view.

36

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 12-30-2012 (DO YOUR WILL)

by blondie in

jw
friends

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/?contentlanguagefilter=en&pubfilter=w&yearfilter=2012.

united nations http://www.randytv.com/secret/unitednations.htm.

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com.

Bobcat

Additional comment:

Par.8

". . . that I should do this thing to my lord."

The end of the paragraph applies this to David's possible killing of Saul. But the context (1 Sam 24:5, 6) shows that David said this after feeling remorse over cutting off the corner of Saul's coat. By cutting off the corner, it made the coat in violation of the Law (Num 15:38, 39; Deut 22:12). It may have also represented to David a symbolic transfer of power from Saul to David. Perhaps David began considering the implications of this act after cutting it off and so felt remorse about this lesser, but definite act of disloyalty towards his lord, Saul.

23

They want it both ways

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

several years ago the wts stopped announcing individuals who were df'd as, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped" and instead began announcing, "so-and-so is no longer one of jehovah's witnesses".

this seems to be rather important to me.

undoubtedly this change was fueled by legal issues raised by someone who was df'd and impacted in some way perhaps financially.

Bobcat

Jeremiah:

In reality. the WT policy of shunning only has a vague/surface resemblance of what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 5.

The Society only focuses on the parts or words that they want to emphasize. But if you apply that same focus to the context, their whole doctrine about treating DFed ones falls apart.

For example, they have recently focused on "anyone" so as to include one's family members. But there is no need for them to focus on the whole phrase, ". . . anyone called (present tense) a brother (i.e. to them, a JW, not someone who is "no longer a JW"). And they ignore the other qualification of "anyone" that comes next, ". . . who is (again, present tense) a fornicator, etc, etc." Instead, they change that whole phrase to, "is disfellowshiped." Whereas, someone who is DFed would be rightly described by verses 12 and 13, "those outside," whom the congregation are to leave to God to judge.

The WT doctrine leads to absurdities (as I'm sure you are aware) like:

The need to shun a young sister who was DFed for fornication several years ago, but has since maried and is, by all accounts, living and leading a very decent lifestyle. Yet she needs to be shunned because she is DFed.

In contrast there is a baptized brother who is into drugs and other mischief. But since he has kept away from the congregation and moved to another town closeby, he isn't DFed. Thus his JW family can visit him and try to help him without remorse for doing so.

This very example (real life) shows how the WT policy is very much like what Jesus decried in Matthew 15:1-9. Paul (in 1Cor 5) was trying to protect fellow Christians from bad associates and protect the reputation of the congregation. The WT is only trying to protect their position of power and authority. And so their policy amounts to a voiding of God's Word in favor of their 'tradition.' And the absurdities that result are simply the logical end of an absurd doctrine. Eccl 10:12b 13 rightly describes the WT on this.

And the Society has the audacity to say that JWs who violate their policy are disloyal to God. It is the WT that is disloyal to God.

I'm sorry about your situation. Hang tough, though. Losing your composure will only be used against you, as I'm sure you know.

Take Care

23

They want it both ways

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

several years ago the wts stopped announcing individuals who were df'd as, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped" and instead began announcing, "so-and-so is no longer one of jehovah's witnesses".

this seems to be rather important to me.

undoubtedly this change was fueled by legal issues raised by someone who was df'd and impacted in some way perhaps financially.

Bobcat

Jeremiah:

I commented about this on my post #321 here.

Thanks for bringing this up again. It is rank hypocrisy on the WT's part.

From what I saw, there never was an actual explanation for this. It was simply an "adjustment."

Take Care

46

Why are the world's anointed not called to Brooklyn to be Governing Body?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was in the witnesses, and near the end of my time in.

there was the whole new understanding, of putting non-anointed people in positions in the organization that were normally something an anointed person would be in.

i remember them mentioning that the amount of anointed was dwindling and there needed to be people in these positions of responsibility, to make sure the work continues.. after this was highlighted and all good witnesses swallowed this thinking hook line and sinker.

Bobcat

Band, all of the anointed are still anointed, but the vast majority are not FDS anymore.

I would add:

Band, what the WT says about "the anointed" and what the Bible says about it are two different things.

And what the WT says about "the FDS" and what the Bible says in parable form about "the FDS" are also two different things.

In fact, the NT never uses the phrase "the anointed." Which is odd considering how often it comes up in WT literature. In 2Cor 1:21 it is a verb; 'God has anointed us.' In 1Jn 2:20, "You have an anointing." In 1Jn 2:27, it says "you have an anointing" and "the anointing you received." These are the only four places in the entire NT that refer to "anointing" in connection with Christians.

Always the assumption in these verses is that ALL those being written to have it. The three occurrances in 1 John all speak of it in reference to learning and having knowledge. And the context in 2 Corinthians (vv. 15-22) is in connection with being instructed in the promises of God. Never is the "anointing" of Christians and 'ruling' or 'exercising authority' over other Christians spoken of together.

So the question of why don't the GB ask "the anointed" to come to Brooklyn to help is, first of all, moot. But it is also like asking, Why didn't the Pharisees invite Jesus and his disciples to help out on the Sanhedrin? Luke 18:9-11 helps understand why.

23

Entire WT Library From Beginning

by admirmitch in

i had an idea to which i don't even know if it would be feasible but i'd like to throw it out regardless.

i figured this is the best place to post since this is the forum that gets the most traffic.

however, this question is tech related.

Bobcat

I've heard-say that the Society has a version of the WTLIB that has everything from the beginning. I don't know if this is true or just wishful thinking. If it were true it would be neat to get a copy. But I imagine it would be big.

I think the biggest problem otherwise would be the copyright on the newer material.

11

30 pieces of silver

by leaving_quietly in

zechariah 11:12,13 is viewed as a prophecy pertaining to judas, and fufilled at matt 26:14-16 and matt 27:9. judas, as we know, sold out jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

i noticed something when reading the verses in zechariah, though.

judas sold out and betrayed jesus, however zechariah is a prophecy being spoken by jehovah and pertaining to himself.. vs 12: "then i said to them:" who is the "i"?

Bobcat

Leaving_Quietly:

Yep, that reference used Jehovah's name. How 'bout that.

The NAC series of commentaries and NICOT not uncommonly use "Yahweh" within their commentary. But the practice varies somewhat between individual commentators. The NAC uses the NIV translation as a starting place, which uses "LORD" for the Tetragram. But often within the body of the commentary you will find the Divine Name, always rendered "Yahweh" from what I've seen.

The NICOT series (New International Commentary of the OT) uses the personal translation of the particular commentator doing that Bible book. From what I've seen, they always translate the Tetragram as "Yahweh." But I haven't seen the entire NICOT series to know if this happens across the board.

Incidentally, if you are looking for extra research material, an academic commentary will often fit the bill. You can usually get them for individual Bible books. The academic ones often go to pains to present all the diverse viewpoints that exist for a given passage. They also usually give variant renderings of the particular text in question and are chock full of footnotes with source material. Sometimes the footnotes are so voluminous as to make it difficult just to get the flow of the commentary.

I like the NICOT series for its thoroughness and personal translation that it offers. The NAC series is often more recent, and thus, is more aware of recent ideas and discoveries. Not always though. The NAC can also be found more economically on sites such as ChristianBook.Com. That is a definite consideration for me.

Sometimes a single volume OT or NT commentary serves as a way to get an overview of a passage, and from there a more thorough commentary can explore the particulars.

Just to give you an example of what is available (in comparison with the WT):

In connection with Daniel 6:28, the NAC commentary on Daniel offers a several page discussion of the subject of who Darius was. It lists all the major ideas offered, but it concentrates on the two main ideas: (1) That Darius was Cyrus, (2) That Darius was Gobryas.

The Darius=Cyrus discussion occupies about a page and a half of text. The Darius=Gobryas discussion occupies a little less. The commentator leaves the discussion with the thought that there is slightly more evidence favoring Cyrus, but that the question is still open to research and future findings.

In comparison, the Insight Book, discussing the same topic, has all the material/arguments that the NAC has favoring Gobryas - right down line - almost like they copied the discussion from the same source as the NAC. But when it comes to the idea of Darius=Cyrus, the Insight Book has a single brief paragraph that basically dismisses the idea out-of-hand. (Which, incidentally, the same "evidence" that the Insight uses to dismiss the idea, the NAC uses and expands on as part of the evidence that Darius=Cyrus.)

Comparing WT commentary with 'outside' commentary has left me with the definite impression that WT material is heavily filtered. And they often don't even bother to give any reasoning; they simply tell you what they want you to 'know,' relying on their 'authority' to ingrain an idea in you. Non-WT commentaries also suffer from the author's personal bias to some extent, but they are also far more open with regard to reasons given and allowing you to see divergant opinions without the judgmental overtones you find in the WT. And their use of footnotes and freely citing source material puts the WT to shame and exposes them as amateur journalists. The WT definitely has good reason for not wanting JWs to look at any outside material.

At any rate, I hope this info is of some use to you.

Take Care

11

30 pieces of silver

by leaving_quietly in

zechariah 11:12,13 is viewed as a prophecy pertaining to judas, and fufilled at matt 26:14-16 and matt 27:9. judas, as we know, sold out jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

i noticed something when reading the verses in zechariah, though.

judas sold out and betrayed jesus, however zechariah is a prophecy being spoken by jehovah and pertaining to himself.. vs 12: "then i said to them:" who is the "i"?

Bobcat

In regard to Zech chapter 11, commentator George L. Klein (NAC, Zechariah, p.311) said:

Zechariah 11 may be the most difficult and controversial chapter of the entire book. In a famous comment, S. R. Driver took this point one step further, claiming that Zech 11:4-17 stands as the most enigmatic passage in the whole Old Testament. For instance, distinguishing between figuative and non-figurative language presents significant challanges in chap. 11. Identifying the appropriate topics and points of comparison in the chapter's various metaphors, whether trees or shepherds, is also extremely difficult. In many cases, locating specific historical references to Zechariah's proclamation in chap. 11 proves exceedingly trying as well.

Klein surveys some of the main viewpoints from which the chapter is analysed by commentators. Then, with regard to verses 4-17, he provides this opening survey of what the material presents in general:

Zechariah 11:4-17 unfolds with three distinct movements. First, vv. 4-6 introduce the righteous shepherd. In this subsection, those who spurn righteousness reject the shepherd, thus invoking the wrath of God. Second, vv. 7-14 overview the flock's rejection of their shepherd and the breaking of the symbolic staffs, "Favor" and "Union," symbolizing the breach of the covenant between the Lord and his people as well as the rupture between Judah and Israel. This second section also clarifies the reason for the judgment described in 11:1-3, the people's rejection of the righteous shepherd. Finally, vv. 15-17 conclude on the somber note of a new shepherd, a worthless shepherd whose unrighteousnes and lack of care for the flock results in the decimation of God's people.

Then, when arriving at the commentary starting with verse 7 (the second section of 11:4-17), Klein states:

Verse 7 begins with the affirmation that the shepherd - none other than the prophet Zechariah - did indeed assume the role of shepherd as the Lord had instructed him, though in a symbolic fashion. As the shepherd, Zechariah may have prefigured the messianic King who would provide the consumation of the Lord's promises.

With regard to verse 12 he says:

Verse 12 overviews the final severance of the employment between the shepherd, portrayed by Zechariah, and the people he sought to lead back to God. The request for pay leads to the final transaction when terminating their relationship. The shepherd's desire for money only partially provides his motivation. Rather, the shepherd sought to underscore the finality of the broken relationship between himself and the nation, and symbolically between the Lord and Judah. The price, 30 pieces of silver, represents the lowly price a slave was worth in the earliest era in Israel's history (Exodus 21:32). the money the shepherd received was tantamount to slave wages. The exchange drips with the people's disdain for their estimation of the value of the shepherd. His value to the entire nation did not even surpass the worth of one slave to a single family. The monetary value ascribed to the shepherd forcefully spoke of the trifling attitude of the nation to their shepherd and their God who had sent him.

I only copied small parts of a very voluminous commentary on this, but I tried to copy enough to help get a drift of the passage. Klein sees it as actions taken towards the shepherd whom Zechariah is portraying. But at the same time, the attitude shown the shepherd is representative of the nation's attitude towards God. This view can be seen in several passages in the NT where Christ attributes the nation's view of himself, and their treatment of his disciples, as their not knowing the God that sent him. (Off hand I can't recall the location of specific passages.) Something similar can also be seen in regard to Samuel, when the people requested a human king. Samuel saw it as a rejection of himself, but God said they were really rejecting Him. (1 Sam 8:1-9)

Hope this is some help in your analysis.

Take Care

60

Genesis 3:16 - As to ALL Women... or One Woman? A Favor, Please...

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

so, as some of you might know (or discern)... or not... i am not your usual submissive/in subjection kind of girl.

given what some apparently expect of women... as wives, daughters, female friends... and in general... i was curious about the greater fulfillment of genesis 3:16, because many are of the belief that it applies to all women as to all men... (including those that aren't their husbands)... and not the just one being addressed at the time (eve as to adham).. personally, other than paul's position on women teaching in public (which was borne of what was occurring in the region at the time, due to by-then jewish culture and roman occupation)... and peter's admonishment for wives to submit themselves to their own husbands... that i know of nothing that validates a woman being in subjection to anyone other than her own husband, and even then such "subjection" is not puerile or unrestrained (so as to just be a given), but borne of love and respect for her husband (in which case it should not be difficult)... who is obligated to honor her, as well.

Bobcat

AGuest:

Your other comments re the WTBTS' views as to "all baptized males as having headship over females," is kind of what I'm talking about, too! Where did they GET that, other than their own false teachings??

Here is the reasoning the WT uses to establish male headship over women in the congregation:

*** lv [Keep Yourselves in God's Love] p. 210 Head Coverings-When and Why? ***

Paul mentions the congregation setting, saying: "If any man seems to dispute for some other custom, we have no other, neither do the congregations of God." (Verse 16) In the Christian congregation, headship is given to baptized males. (1 Timothy 2:11-14; Hebrews 13:17) Only males are appointed as elders and ministerial servants with the God-given responsibility to care for the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)

First they cite Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:16. They do this first, whereas, Paul said this last in his discussion in 1 Cor. 11. This is a giveaway that their idea of male headship is manufactured by them, not Paul.

Note their reasoning: 'Since only males are apointed as elders/ms, therefore males are heads over females in the congregation.'

This is why I cited Numbers chapter 30 in the linked post. Paul was ground in OT procedure. In Mosaic Israel, only males were priests and leaders within the nation. Yet that fact did not give them any 'headship' over a widow's vows so as to be able to cancel them. After a women became a widow, she did not revert back even to her father's headship, let alone any headship of local leaders or priests. Those priests and leaders were only "heads" over their own wives and children.

The statement in the publication that, "headship is given to baptized males," is a patently false statement. Nowhere, that I know of, are elder/ministerial servants referred to as "heads." Nor is the term "headship" ever used in connection with these duties.

Thus, the WT's argument is a false one. And their quoting Paul's statement that 'we don't have any other custom,' is simply a thought-stopping measure designed to prop up an otherwise empty argument. And the falsity of their argument can be seen when it is taken to its logical consequence, which the ludicrous WT dutifully does, letting, yes, demanding, that baptized children act as "heads" over grown women.

Take Care