yeru .
where did you run off to.
i made a reply to you in the christmas star = satan?!
Yeru
Where did you run off to. I made a reply to you in the Christmas Star = Satan?! thread. You aren’t hiding are you Yeru? Come out, come out, where ever you are little Yeru. I will be gentle with you.
Here’s the way back if you forgot your way: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=8504&site=3
I'll be waiting for you on the 2nd page.
Friday
i was talking with my husband the other day about the jw's belief that the "christmas star" that guided the magi to christ was the doings of satan.
he didn't believe me; this is what i found in the "my book of bible stories" (copied verbatim from cd-rom).
who do you think made that new star to shine?
Yeru
I would ask that you look back at my previous post to you for the reason that you likely missed my additions, revisions, and correction of misspelled words. (I had forgotten to reply to your last statement, and went back to do that too.) It looks like you were likely replying to me at approximately the same time that I was editing my comments etc.
Anyway, you initially said “I'm calling you on this one.” You made certain claims in an effort to do that, after which I challenged you to back up such claims by explaining the context from which you pulled that scripture, namely Isaiah 60:6.
It was quite skillful the way you avoiding talking about the comparison between Satan USING the tree and Satan USING the star as opposed to Satan creating either one of them. Still, I'm calling you to task on it.
It’s quite obvious that God planted the “tree” that you refer to, and took credit for it … but the Bible is silent as to where the “star” come from. It is left up to our discretion to determine the source of the “star”, by reasoning upon all the facts that can be gathered.
Further, at least in my arguement I can show SOME TYPE of scriptural reference even if you disagree with the Interp. As it is, the jews see this as a Messianic prophecy.
Yes, I certainly do disagree with the “scriptural reference” that you use to support your theory with. I asked you to prove that you understood the surrounding context of that text, and apparently that put you on the spot since you are unwilling to attempt an explanation. Instead, you simply try to throw the ball back into my court without even having properly addressed the very thing that is pertinent to your claim.
As far as the Magi not seeing Christ as King of the World, well they did worship (obessience if you must) so they did recognize the kingly authority Jesus bore over them.
That’s so much bulldust, Yeru. They certainly did NOT recognize that Jesus had any authority over them. Jesus was only a CHILD at the time, for crying out loud!!! They were there merely for the purpose of witnessing the one that was supposed to be born destined to become king of the “Jews”, even as I have already stated.
Should it be so mysterious that the Magi didn't full[y] understand as most of Israel didn't either?
Stop kickin’ your self in the ass, Yeru, be nice to yourself … what you just said is plain silly. If they DIDN’T understand, as you yourself acknowledge, how in the world could they possibly worship him as being a king over themselves. I’ll repeat that which you may have missed, as I tried to explain above.
In response to your having said, “I also think it's noteworthy that the Magi, gentiles, were the first to acknowledge Jesus as KING.” … I replied as follows:
But "KING" over whom? You appear to be suggesting that the Magi expected to become subjects themselves of this "king". In their mind, this one "born" was to be king, not over the entire world of mankind (which would take in the gentiles), but "king of the Jews". And so the knowledge of the Magi was limited to their knowing no more than that there was one born destined to become king of the Jews only. (Matthew 2:2) They knew nothing of the fact that such one was to be the Savior of mankind. However, it WAS declared to the shepherds that a savior had been born "who is Christ the Lord". -- Luke 2:11.
There is NO BIBLICAL evidence that supports the JW position on the issue. You've accused me of using scripture out of context, a trait the Society is famous for.
That’s hilarious, Yeru! You talk here about “support” for an issue. For YOUR support you use an isolated scripture located at Isaiah 60:6, and you can’t even begin to explain the context in which that text is buried. Come on, Yeru! Stop the blustering! Put up, or become silent. YOU called my hand, and I answered you with sound reasoning. You, on the other hand, since you haven’t really got the scriptural support that you claim to have, do only that which is left for you to do … which is cry out “There is no Biblical evidence that supports the JW position on the issue.” You hope to divert attention off yourself by crying out such irrelevancies as “using scripture out of context, a trait the Society is famous for.” That’s got nothing at all to do with what’s being discussed between you and I, Yeru. It therefore serves no other purpose than to be used as a diversion tactic by you so that you can escape having to answer the questions I posed regarding the context of your so-called supporting scripture.
Nice to be crossing swords with you again.
Am I supposed to take that to mean that you are bowing out of the discussion? No, I’m not gonna let you off that easy, Yeru. You called my hand. What makes you think that you’ve succeeded in doing any damage with that little sword that you possess? You need a much longer sword, Yeru, the one you wear is more like a pocket knife, and a dull one at that. You should be ashamed of yourself for not having anymore sense than to enter a ‘sword-fight’ having the puny weapon that you apparently do. You have been unjustifiably bold.
Why not address the questions that I posed? If you don’t, it only proves that you have NO BASIS to be making the claim that you’ve made, and that there is no evidence to support your theory that that scripture of yours had any reference or connection to the Magi of Matthew chapter 2.
Friday
i was talking with my husband the other day about the jw's belief that the "christmas star" that guided the magi to christ was the doings of satan.
he didn't believe me; this is what i found in the "my book of bible stories" (copied verbatim from cd-rom).
who do you think made that new star to shine?
Yeru
What you’re doing is pulling ONE scripture (Isaiah 60:6) out of context and applying it to the Magi; all on the grounds that you see certain things mentioned that appear to YOU (and commentator Matthew Henry as well, I might add) to compare to the account in the 2nd chapter of the gospel of Matthew … namely gold and frankincense. I’m sure too that the mention of “camels” carry as much weight in your estimation as I suppose the mention of “kings” three verses back would. However, what I would like for you to do, Yeru, is read the ENTIRE context and report back on what it’s all talking about. For example, who is the “woman” in the account (verse 1); who are the “sons” and “daughters” of verses 4 and 9; also, can you explain the absence of “myrrh” … we note that it wasn’t mentioned along with the frankincense and gold which seem to be such an undeniable connection in your mind to the account in Matthew regarding the Magi’s gift to Jesus. Simply put, what basis is there for you to draw the conclusion that the text of Isaiah 60:6 has something to do with “the coming of the Magi” as you say?
I also think it's noteworthy that the Magi, gentiles, were the first to acknowledge Jesus as KING.
But "KING" over whom? You appear to be suggesting that the Magi expected to become subjects themselves of this "king". In their mind, this one "born" was to be king, not over the entire world of mankind (which would take in the gentiles), but "king of the Jews". And so the knowledge of the Magi was limited to their knowing no more than that there was one born destined to become king of the Jews only. (Matthew 2:2) They knew nothing of the fact that such one was to be the Savior of mankind. However, it WAS declared to the shepherds that a savior had been born "who is Christ the Lord". -- Luke 2:11.
Friday
i just posted a reply to shelby aka aguest on another thread.
i can say it was the most emotional post of my life here at jw.com.
i don't want it lost.
Gopher
Who do you think you're fooling, Gopher. Not ME I hope. All you're doing is taking up for your pal, Farkel; the same as he would do for you. You two are chums that think alike because you ARE alike. I've watched the way you people operate now for well over a year, and I can see completely through you.
What you both really need to do is get up off your lazy butts and do something useful, something other than stare at a computer screen reading each others nonscense.
Friday
i was talking with my husband the other day about the jw's belief that the "christmas star" that guided the magi to christ was the doings of satan.
he didn't believe me; this is what i found in the "my book of bible stories" (copied verbatim from cd-rom).
who do you think made that new star to shine?
It only stands to reason that Satan was the source of the Bethlehem Star, so-called. Afterall, it led to an attempt being made upon the life of the very person that was destined to stamp the Serpent in the head. The same prophecy shows that the Serpent was to be the first to inflict injury ... but the injury the Serpent would receive would mean permanent death.-- Genesis 3:15.
Friday
i just posted a reply to shelby aka aguest on another thread.
i can say it was the most emotional post of my life here at jw.com.
i don't want it lost.
Farkel
That has got to be the biggest bunch of bull crap that I've heard come out of your mouth yet. I think maybe you've topped yourself, sure nuff. Why in sheol anyone on this board respects your reasonings is beyond me. You are obviously in a stupor. Maybe your fellow apostates are impressed and fooled by the size of your vocabulary. For example, maybe fancy little words like "paltry" and "fiat" is what gives them goose bumps. Do they give YOU goose bumps? They don't me!
Friday
the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.
watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?
or read it?
TD
I’m ABSOLUTELY appalled that you have the audacity to suggest that Jerome may have had a deeper understanding of the ancient language than what I do.
So what do YOU think, are you inclined to think that simply because the translator of the Vulgate is “reputed” to be familiar with the source language that he understood it perfectly, and was above making mistakes? Was Jerome infallible with his translation thoughout? Did Jerome even have a full understanding of the Bible that he translated? Do you suppose that there have been respected modern-day translators that have disagreed with Jerome on some point or another as to translation? Another thing: Isn’t it true that oftentimes translators have to rely upon the context as an aid for knowing precisely how to translate certain words? And, what’s more, isn’t that proven to be the case in the tempest at sea example, as well as others? … Wasn’t the word used in those examples simply seismos? And yet it was obviously not an earthquake, was it!
You implied that there might be other objections that could be raised. What would those be in your estimation? Please elaborate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thirdson
You make an interesting point about "seismos" but TD's question on the Latin Vulgate needs to be addressed.
Well ADDRESS it, my man. What are you waiting on … the moon to turn to blood? YOU can do it just as easily as ole Friday can. Why do I have to do everything?
Other places seismos is used in Greek apear to be earthquakes by the context of the passage as at Acts 16:26 and Rev 11:13.
Well, Thirdson, Acts 16:26 is an example of a seismos that affected the “foundations” of the jail in which Paul and Silas were imprisoned. Although most translations (NWT included) attribute what happened to an earthquake having occurred, no mention is made in the Greek text of the earth itself having quaked. Nor was such mandatory in order to make possible the results described. Unquestionably, God, the source of the seismos, is capable of shaking foundations without first needing to cause an earthquake to accomplish it. Again, there was no “earthquake” -- only a shaking (seismos). You might find it interesting that the Diaglott translated this seismos as “a shaking”, and in its right hand column called it -- not an earthquake -- but a “concussion”. It reads: “And suddenly there was a great concussion, so as to shake the foundations of the prison; and all the doors were opened, and the fetters of all were loosed.”
Insofar as the text you refer to at Revelation 11:13, the idea of a concussion fits as well as the thought of an earthquake.
There has been a long history of translation of the Bible which would agree with that conclusion.
A long history of translation of the Bible don’t mean diddly squat, Thirdson. And you really should know that, since today’s translators are able to boast of having identified and eliminated hundreds of errors that earlier translators had committed.
In addition, seismos doesn't just mean shaking but more literally a commotion either of the air (gales) or the ground (earthquakes). The "shaking" of Matt 8:24 is variously translated as storm or tempest and as "agitation in the sea" (NWT).
I came back to correct myself here after I gave more thought to what you said. Yes you're right, but it should be understood that the word seismos of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of what shook. The identifying word in the text is “sea”. Notice: “Now, look! a great agitation (seismos) arose in the sea, so that the boat was being covered by the waves.” The same is true in the example of the incident involving Paul and Silas, the identifying word is the word “foundation”. Again the same holds true with regards to the text of Matthew 27:51, the identifying word being the word “earth”. Note: “… and the earth [yn] shook [seismos], and the rocks were split.”
That’s why that when it comes to the text of Matthew 24:7 one has to look for the word or words in the context that identifies what is supposed to have shaken. In that particular case it was the nations themselves, on an international scale (nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom = international). So we see that in each case there was a word that served as an identifier.
This is what Bible commentator J. A. Seiss, author of The Apocalypse had to say on page 152 of his book. He discusses this word, seismos, in connection with its use in Revelation 6:12. It goes as follows:
“I saw when he had opened the sixth seal, and there was a great shaking.” The common version [KJV] says earthquake, but the original word (seismos) is not so limited and specific. Though usually rendered earthquake, it denotes quakings in general, and is often used for any sudden and violent shaking in any part of the world. In the following verse it is applied to the shaking of the fig tree. Matthew employs it to express tempestuous commotion of the air and sea (8:24); and in the Greek translation of Joel (2:10), it is used to denote violent disturbances in the heavens. In the form of a verb, it signifies to shake, toss, agitate, -- whether the things shaken be the earth, the air, the sea, the sky, or anything else. -- Joseph Seiss
Well, gentlemen, I’m gonna retire for the night … it’s getting quite late. This will have me sleeping ‘till noon again tomorrow. In the meantime don’t trip over your Bibles.
Later,
Friday
the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.
watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?
or read it?
Dr. Julius R. Mantey made the following ridiculous statements:"[The Watchtower translation of John 1:1 is] a grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'the Word was a god'. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. People should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." -- A shortened version of the above.
Yesiree, what a TRUE "scholar" this poor fella has proven to be. The guy apparently believes that "hell" is hot, that we all have immortal souls, and that the general populace will have sealed their eternal destiny by the time they have died. I sure know that I would place a lot of confidence in his understanding about John 1:1. NOT!
Friday
the kingdom interlinear translation (kit) has been published by the.
watchtower since 1969. it still is available in it's second editon.. but how many really use this book?
or read it?
TD
Good evening TD. Are you by any chance the "Tom" that used to post over on the old H20? Seems like he also went by "Zachary" if my memory serves me right.
You asked, "How do you account for the Vulgate?"
Well, TD, the Vulgate is the Latin edition or translation of the Bible made by Jerome at the end of the fourth century, now used in a revised form as the Roman Catholic authorized version. That's how I would account for it.
I would be delighted to know what you are talking about. Do you think that you have something that will overturn the conclusions that I've reached about the word seismos as used in the Bible? If so, let's hear it please. I'm all ears.
Friday
does anyone who has left the organisation still feel that these are the last days?
all down through history people have wanted to feel that they live in special times - are jws just an extension of this?
for me the biggest problem with this theory of the last days has been the distinct lack of earthquakes since 1914, a quote from the book signs of the times revisited says "as more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located.
Copernicus
Cowdip:
Your depiction of the “Treasure Store of Knowledge” as an allegory was a bit off the mark, in my opinion. You might update it as follows: think of it not a treasure box, but as a refrigerator. One that is stuffed chock full of baloney.
I think that most here would at this point agree that the Watchtower’s eschatological theology has failed abysmally.
Instead, in your determination to prop up the Society as God’s instrument on earth, (as I said previously) you resort to taking something written thousands of years ago and seek to superimpose it over a set of contemporaneous circumstances that appear to you as having some discernable connection. This stems from your belief in bible inerrancy,....
I've got to break this off for the moment, perhaps I will return later today.
Friday
PS> I'm thinkin' 'bout changin’ what I call you from Capricious to Cuss. That be okay? Afterall, it's shorter and almost true to the last three letters of your screen name. Awe shoot, I don't know, perhaps I will use them both ... I'm kinda fond of both of them. How about you, you got any preferences?
