below is a statement from gb member gerrit losch.
notice what is said about the fds.
is this true?
Definitely, its "prudent" (or discreet? ;)) to wait until there is an official statement.
Saying that ho is a collective is eisegetic. They are trying to interpret the verses to support their pre-concieved doctrine.
Well, the whole interpretation is eisegetical through-and-through. It makes little sense of the narrative structure of the parable.
And yeah it's a parable.
it's happening!.
disney compra lucasfilm y fija 2015 para el estreno de 'star wars: episode vii'!.
http://www.elseptimoarte.net/bombazo-disney-compra-lucasfilm-y-fija-2015-para-el-estreno-de--star-wars-episode-vii--15973.html.
You could watch Plinkett videos all day. He's done all the prequels, all the TNG movies (Star Trek Generations was the first of the reviews I saw back in 2008 or so, and it was hilarious), Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull, even Baby's Day Out and Cop Dog. The review of Cop Dog was priceless.
I was just thinking about this, maybe it would have made more sense to have the Empire and Darth Vader be born by the end of Episode II, with the Clone Wars being clones vs. a Republic volunteer army (helped by rather than led by the Jedi, as Jedi should never have been in absolute command, it would've made more sense to have a joint command with a non-clone Republic Army and the Senate overseeing it; we don't see non-clone Republic officers at all in Episode III), so that the formation of the Rebel Alliance and the start of the Civil War could have been the heart of Episode III.
Yeah, that is how any normal writer would have approached the transition from the Republic to the Empire. As 'Plinkett' points out, the vast Republic could have easily formed a volunteer army; after all, the Rebellion in the Old Trilogy was all volunteer. Instead we have clones fighting robots, neither of which we care about.
did anyone else notice the artwork change on page 12 and on page 83?
im new to this and cannot get the pictures to upload....but if you have a copy of the book and compare it with the pdf online, there is definitely a change.. what qould cause them to to this?.
i would be interesting to see if there were any changes to the wording of the paragraphs.
P.S. Can the Watchrower find me if I use a public or work computer; as in IP address?
Thanks to 00DAD's post, they have your IP address logged.
Don't hotlink images directly from the official website.
If you are concerned about the Society having your IP, I would recommend blocking www.jw.org from your browser's image loading. In Firefox, go to Options > Content > Exceptions to loading images automatically, and add the URL. Easy peasy.
can we hear from any of you that went through it?.
do you have power yet?.
are you staying with friends?.
A new storm is coming.
i just wanted to take a survey.
let's not let this get into the same old same old debate of atheism vs belief.
just respond with "atheist" or "believer" or "maybe god exists".
agnostic/weak atheist
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>346</o:words> <o:characters>1974</o:characters> <o:company>othello productions</o:company> <o:lines>16</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>4</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>2316</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
scotoma...Excellent point about the genetic fallacy, and it applies to everything the Society writes about "pagan origins" of holidays and the like, as well as the etymological fallacy frequently deployed in translation and biblical interpretation.
However, I can more easily exchange cash for something else than I can with gold.
This^^
watchtower's weirdest photograph?.
you wont believe it when you see it.
and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/10/watchtowers-weirdest-photograph.html.
That's not Fred Franz sitting next to Bonnie Boyd, is it?
watchtower's weirdest photograph?.
you wont believe it when you see it.
and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/10/watchtowers-weirdest-photograph.html.
Looks like an instance of retouching, which was pretty common in the old days. I would guess that there were assigned places at the table and when the photo was taken, a few people were absent, so they were 'drawn in' afterward by a retouching artist.
below is a statement from gb member gerrit losch.
notice what is said about the fds.
is this true?
That argument doesn't follow. As in English, the definite article pertains to the identifiability of the noun; it doesn't indicate whether the noun is internally a composite or not. An individual can be identifiable as well as a class. The NT is filled with hundreds of references to ho Khristos "the Christ". Those references have unique reference to a single individual, Jesus. It can also refer to groups or classes, such as ho dikaioi "the righteous" (Matthew 25:37) or ho ponèroi "the wicked" (13:49). The quote above states: "Other references in bible refer to individuals being slaves and stewards, but not THE slave/steward". I'm not sure what this is supposed to even mean. Slave/steward is a relational term, one is the slave/steward for someone else (the master), so individuals mentioned in the Bible as slaves and stewards are THE slave/steward for someone. Moses was "the servant of the Lord (ho doulos kuriou)" (2 Kings 18:12 LXX), David was "the servant of Saul (ho doulos Saoul)" (1 Samuel 29:3 LXX), etc.; note the definite article in these examples. The Society seems to take "the slave" to be a title (like ho Khristos "the Christ", which has unique reference), and that is what contrasts with other references to slaves or stewards in the Bible, but the expression is definitely not used as a title in the actual parable. The parable refers to the steward in relational terms as the one whom his master (ho kurios) has given responsibility over certain household duties.
It was common parabolic style to refer to the main characters in the parable in definite terms (since parables dramatize certain situations rather than have generic reference as in aphorisms and proverbs). So for instance the parable of the sower begins: "The sower (ho speiròn) went out to sow, etc." (Matthew 13:3); one could instead say "A sower went out to sow" (as some translations put it in English), but the definite article is used. Another example can be found in the parable of the thief in the immediately preceding verses: "But know this that if the householder (ho oikodespotès) had known in what part of night the thief (ho kleptès) would be coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house get broken into". There are many other examples in parables and this is commonly understood as reflecting underlying Semitic diction in the original oral Aramaic form of the parables (specifically, the emphatic state). As Joachim Jeremias noted: "The usage is characteristic of Semitic imagery. Already we find in the OT the use of the definite article with an indefinite meaning often in parables and pictorial narratives. In such cases the Semite thinks pictorially and has an image in his mind of a concrete instance, though he may be speaking of a general phenomenon" (The Parables of Jesus, 1972, p. 11). There is also of course the fact that the first mention of the slave in the parable was in a question concerning identification, which also promotes the use of the definite. The parable of the sower could have been phrased similarly: "Who is the sower who went to sow his field? He was scattering the seed and some fell along the path, etc." (But the focus of that parable was not whom the sower represents but the different eventualities that could occur)
