Much like Cyrus posted here.
Posts by Bobcat
-
21Why remove John 8:1-11 in the NWT if these verses speak highly of Jesus
by I_love_Jeff ini understand these verses were removed in the nwt as well as some other bibles because they were added later & considered uninspired.
jesus protected an adultress so why remove it?
it fits in nicely with his teachings, does it not?
-
-
-
15
February 2014- Watchtower Public edition now available!
by A.proclaimer inthe new watchtower public edition titled "the war that chnaged the world" and the awake titled "how to invest your time wisely" for february are up.
looks like they are still sticking to 1914. they do talk about the war and tie it in with the 1914 interpretation.. watchtower public:.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20140201/.
-
-
Bobcat
BOC:
But seriously, I believe there's a Questions From Readers
It's the Watchtower 1972 6/1 p.352:
[Start quote]
● Why did the beginning of World War I not coincide with the early part of October, when the “appointed times of the nations” ended?—U.S.A.
As has often been shown in this magazine, the conferring of kingship over the nations on Christ Jesus took place in 1914 C.E., at the expiration of the “appointed times of the nations” or the Gentile Times. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:16, 17, 31, 32) Those “appointed times” began 2,520 years earlier, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and the assassination of the Jewish governor Gedaliah. The murder of Gedaliah in the month of Tishri (September/October) (“at the seventh new moon,” Byington translation) prompted those Jews left remaining in the land of Judah to flee. (Jer. 41:1, 2; 43:2-7) By the time the fearful Jews fled to Egypt it must have been at least the middle of Tishri, to allow enough time for the events mentioned in the Bible as taking place between the assassination and the flight. (Compare Jeremiah 41:4, 10–42:7.) This would place the start of the Gentile Times about Tishri 15, 607 B.C.E.
At the end of the Gentile Times, about Tishri 15 (October 4/5), 1914 C.E., Revelation 11:15 was fulfilled: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.” By enthroning his Son Jesus Christ, Jehovah God took his power to rule as King over the world of mankind. The rulership of the great Adversary, Satan the Devil, was due to end.
Being the ‘ruler of the world’ of mankind alienated from God, Satan certainly did not want to see the Kingdom take full control of earth’s affairs. (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) Over nineteen centuries earlier he maneuvered matters in such a way that, had it not been for divine intervention, Herod the Great would have killed the infant Jesus. (Matt. 2:13) Similarly, even before the birth of the heavenly kingdom, Satan readied himself and his demons for an attack. This is symbolically described at Revelation 12:3-5, where we read: “Another sign was seen in heaven, and, look! a great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and upon its heads seven diadems; and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child. And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne.”
It should not be surprising, then, that World War I broke out about two months before the end of the Gentile Times, and hence before the birth of the symbolic “son” or heavenly kingdom. Satan the Devil did not need to wait until after kingship over the nations had been placed in the hands of Jesus Christ to maneuver the nations into a large-scale war. The start of that sanguinary conflict was doubtless part of his scheme to blind persons to what had happened in the heavens in fulfillment of Bible prophecy and also, if at all possible, to hinder the Kingdom from ruling over the world of mankind.
[End quote]
Take Care
-
8
The geneaology of Christ? Commentary on Luke by Frederic Louis Godet
by Masterpiece inhttp://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647.
has anyone checked the quote from frederic louis godet?
is it accurate?
-
-
Bobcat
Masterpiece:
Here is the Godet quote in context:
It is interesting that the Society presents the idea of Luke's Mary-Genealogy as a given, with the Godet quote to support the idea. (Note the standard WT use of "evidently" in the Insight article.)
The article conveniently leaves out the arguments of many scholars against this idea.
The BECNT-Luke commemtary (Darrell Bock, Vol. I, Excursus pp. 918-923) lists six main approaches to the Matthew-Luke genealogy problem. All of them have problems that prevent a conclusive end to the controversy. The second possible argument presented in the commentary excursus is the idea presented as a solution by the WT:
[Start quote]
2. Another common approach is to argue that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, while Luke gives the genealogy through Mary. (Hendriksen 1978: 222-25; Godet 1875: 1.201). Dating back to Annius of Viterbo in 1490, the view argues that Joseph is not really in view in [Luke] 3:23, where Luke says that Joseph was "supposed to be" (enomizeto) Jesus' father. In addition, the absence of the article tou before Joseph's name shows that he is not part of the genealogy. It is also argued that seeing Joseph in the genealogy puts Luke in a double contradiction in that he disagrees not only with Matthew, but also with himself, since he has already made clear that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (1:27). Finally, it is argued that rabbinic tradition knows of the connection between Heli (also spelled Eli) and Mary (Y. Hag. 77d 2.2) There are many problems with this approach. First, it is not at all clear that the rabbinic reference applies to Mary. In fact, most doubt that it does, because the Miriam referred to there is not called the mother of Jesus and thus could be any Miriam. Second, the absence of the article tou can be explained simply because Joseph starts the list. Third, the virgin birth does not prevent legal paternity from passing through the father (Gordon 1977). Thus, no contradiction with the virgin birth exists. Fourth, the most natural way to read the Greek is as a genealogy for Joseph (Carson 1984: 64), given that Mary is not named at all here and that the genitive tou at the front of the list is masculine. To clearly bring in Mary, Luke could have named her and/or changed the opening genitive to a feminine, similar to Matt. 1:16 and its use of es, which makes clear that the Matthean connection is only to Mary.
[End quote]
In summary at the end of the excursus, Bock concludes that of the six main arguments considered, this one about Mary is not a possible candidate for the solution to the problem. But as pointed out in the quote above, Hendriksen and Godet do favor this idea. So the WT is not alone in taking this position.
I wouldn't doubt that the WT got its Godet quote by using a commentary such as the one quoted above. Bock's 2 volume commentary on Luke is considered the gold standard in Lukan commentaries. It is probably in the WT reference libraries at Bethel. Thus, the WT is most likely aware of the problems associated with the Lukan-Mary-Genealogy hypothasis. But you wouldn't know that from referencing just the Insight Volumes.
Some further interesting points to note in the Insight reference: Normally, if an idea is ancient the WT will cite that as weight in favor of that idea. But this Lukan-Mary-Genealogy idea only dates to 1490. Thus, no mention of that in the Insight article. Notice also that the Insight paragragh starts with a premise (that Luke's genealogy is of Mary) and then proceeds to 'prove' it with the Godet quote.
Of course, that Insight writing style does not, in itself, prove the idea wrong. But the style is more understandable when one sees the larger picture of information available that is not included in the Insight article.
Incidentally, one of the problems Bock's commentary discusses with regard to genealogical lists is the practice of Levirite marriage over the centuries among the Jews. He cautions against simply writing off the list in Luke as a fabrication.
Take Care
-
17
Circuit Assembly Questions
by DATA-DOG ini have to go to the ca this weekend for family reasons... the only bright side is that i may spot some hypocrisy to share with others.
if my suffering helps just one person then it's worth the effort.
i know why the caged bird sings... .
-
-
Bobcat
NVR2L8:
Searcher may have in mind the publisher per diem rate for Society owned facilities.
-
19
Pecking Order in the Millennium
by Cold Steel inokay, the smoke has cleared.
everyone's dead who had it coming and the remainder find that their bodies have been changed.
no more disease, no more aging, no more human weaknesses and the weather is perfect.
-
-
Bobcat
Cold Steel:
Once a third or more of the population is removed, all the infrastructure and much of the technical innovation that has been built up since the dawn of the industrial revolution is basically history. Some of it may be usable as is, but only as long as it lasts.
This idea isn't 'Revelation' based, but is a standard premise in Nuclear/Biological War planning. Even non-war events, such as the supposed coming "Peak Oil" crisis (e.g. see here) are envisaged to include a large scale die-off of humans and subsequent collapse of the modern lifestyle with all its associated infrastructure.
The history channel had a series called "Life After Humans" that hypothasized a total removal of humans. But it wouldn't take anywhere near that much to end the modern world as we are familiar with. The BBC movie "Threads" attempted to incorporate that idea in its docudrama. See just the opening scene for how it describes modern life.)
-
8
What if we were a video game?
by EndofMysteries into imagine this, just imagine creating one yourself, like a video game.
you create a virtual world, you design a planet, even a universe if you choose to.
you focus on one planet and design it, create life on it.
-
-
Bobcat
EOM:
Have you ever seen "The Thirteenth Floor"? (And here.)
-
14
Isn`t the scripture at Rev.12: 12,13 Pointless ? " Woe for the earth...because the Devil has come down to you having great anger...."
by smiddy indoesnt the bible clearly show he has always been on the earth causing trouble and havoc ?
onwards.. then especially with the account in the book of job.. not forgetting his tempting jesus in the wilderness.. being reinforced in 2cor.4:4 "...the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of unbeleivers...".
all of which occurs on earth with humans , so whats the big deal about rev.12:12,13 ?.
-
-
Bobcat
I opined above that the true intent of Satan's ousting from heaven in Rev 12:7-12 is, not for the purpose of trapping him in the location of our planet, but to remove him from access to the heavens. Verse 10 gives the reason, "Because (Greek hoti) the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!"
Several other verses (all from the old NWT) in the Bible coincide with this view:
(John 12:31-33) . . .Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.” 33 This he was really saying to signify what sort of death he was about to die.
(Romans 8:31-34) . . .What, then, shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 He who did not even spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, why will he not also with him kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares [them] righteous. 34 Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us. . .
(Colossians 1:21, 22) . . .Indeed, YOU who were once alienated and enemies because YOUR minds were on the works that were wicked, 22 he now has again reconciled by means of that one’s fleshly body through [his] death, in order to present YOU holy and unblemished and open to no accusation before him . . .
The casting out of Satan has to be located after Jesus' death and resurrection. Nor is there any reason why it would have to wait until "about 1914-1918." The Romans 8 passage shows God already having made a decision that leaves no further room for an accuser.
-
26
Feb 2014 WT Study article
by molybdenum inthe caption under the picture in the first article.
hail christthe glorious king!says:.
birds will be called on to cleanse the earth (see paragraph 18).
-
-
-
17
The Ultimate Jehovah's Witness Question??? dun dun DUN
by runForever inthere is a gray space, unconnected rifts in the truth.
it is a question that once you ask it you will never be the same - like being on the.
event horizon of a black hole.
-
-
Bobcat
The bigger the tract the bigger the angle from which it can be viewed. Of course, font size must also be incorporated into the meta-preaching time continuum effect that the tract conveys on its owner. I'm sure someone has a formula for constructing an accurate time-counting model . . .
-
13
When did Jesus start ruling as king?
by DS211 incindy: o.k.
cindy, now read the next two verses 25 and 26.. cindy: for he must rule as king until [god] has put all enemies under his feet.
cindy: i never saw that before!.
-
-
Bobcat
DS211:
Thanks for reproducing that 'conversation.' I knew from an earlier thread that 1 Cor. 15 replaces "sit at God's right hand" with "rule as king." But that was neat how 'Karen' brought out how when all the enemies are under his feet, Jesus then hands the kingdom back to God.
Also a good point when she asks, 'If Jesus had all authority in Matthew 28:18, what authority was there left to gain in 1914.
Excellent post!
Take Care