Posts by robhic

15

What's in a Name?

by robhic in

in reading a post above, this thought hit me:i know nimrod's name in hebrew means "let's rebel".. .

i've seen this same type statement numerous times.

"so-and-so's name, which means xxxxx ..." and amazingly the person's name means or describes what they just did (see quote above).

robhic

Holy cow! I didn't realize such a simple question would generate such complex and technical answers. You people are too smart for me.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I had no idea it could get so complicated. I just figured it was the Israelites naming some guy who had a penchant for breaking stuff something like "He who breaketh stuff," but after the fact so as to make their fairy-tale book more interesting.

Great minds think alike, check out my old thread with same title: what's in a name?

Pete, sorry I missed this one. And thanks to all for such insightful answers.

Robert

15

What's in a Name?

by robhic in

in reading a post above, this thought hit me:i know nimrod's name in hebrew means "let's rebel".. .

i've seen this same type statement numerous times.

"so-and-so's name, which means xxxxx ..." and amazingly the person's name means or describes what they just did (see quote above).

robhic

In reading a post above, this thought hit me:

I know Nimrod's name in Hebrew means "Let's rebel".

I've seen this same type statement numerous times. "So-and-so's name, which means XXXXX ..." And amazingly the person's name means or describes what they just did (see quote above). Co-incidence? Hmmm...

Did this person already have this name and just started doing what his name implies, or did the goat farmers that wrote the bible happen to make the name of the person they were writing about just mean the same? (Did that make sense?)

Like what came first -- the chicken (aka "She whom layeth the eggs") or the egg?

Inquiring minds want to know!

26

Would a Father really destroy His children for disobeying and arrogance?

by Judas I. in

even go so far as to torment them forever?

how could that ever be justified?.

would that be also admitting failure as a father by resorting to that?.

robhic

According to Christian doctrine, we get punished for being born "sinful," even though we cannot help how we are born. It's doctrines like this one that often make me wonder if the advent of monotheism thousands of years ago was just about the worst thing that could have happened to the human race.

That sums it all up pretty nicely and simply. We (are supposed to) get punished for something not of our choice. Is this the way the real world works? Would your parents punish you (excessively, too, I might add) for something you didn't do? Or have you held accountable for something your older sibling did years before you were born?

"Oh, BTW, Johnny, we're gonna punish you very, very severely for the rest of your life for some stuff your older brother did about 10 years before you were born. OK?"

I don't think any "normal" parent would even have this absurd idea cross their mind!

And religions in general being the worst thing that could have happened to the human race is a concise summation of a universal truth (OK,at least in my opinion..). Very well put.

4

J.R. Mantee

by seek2find in

in the film witnesses of jehovah.

it is said that the society deliberatley misquoted a number of scholars and j.r. mantee is mentioned.

can anyone point out where he is misquoted?

robhic

Here is something I had saved (sorry about the formatting):

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1yfx7/BDR.htm (Jason Debuhn rebuttal)

The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society

In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar (An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here <caris.htm> ) July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs: I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar. (1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris. (2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering. (3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." (4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them. (5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10) The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule." On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences. Regretfully yours, Julius R. Mantey

22

responding to the Reasoning book on birthdays?

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

i am helping someone out with a response to a jw about birthdays.

she wants to be able to have a comeback to his programmed response.

i am looking at the reasoning book section on birthdays.

robhic

I didn't write the following. It was written by [[email protected]] but gives some interesting thoughts regarding birthdays:

By celebrating an individuals birthday one gives too much honor to such a individual.

I find this argument amusing. What is too much honor? How do you measure that? By who is determined what is too much? Do you give more honor celebrating a person’s marriage or his birthday? This argument is way too arbitrary. What does the bible say about giving honor? "to him who [calls for] honor, such honor" (Rom 13:7). Also Jesus tells us: give Caesar what is due but God what is he due. This also involves honor. Therefore, it is not wrong to give someone honor, as long as it doesn’t result in worship as this is something that is only reversed for God.

*** Rbi8 Romans 13:6-7 ***

For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax, the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute, the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.

Jesus’ death day is to be commemorated.

based on Luk 22:19,20 and 1Kor 11:25,26.

The conclusion that we should memorialize Christ’s death is correct. It is however not connected to the current issue. The fact that we have to commemorate Christ’s day of death doesn’t mean we should not or cannot commemorate / celebrate birthdays.

The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays.

Correct. This in itself doesn’t mean much: they didn’t wear jeans either. The reason behind it is what counts. It is interesting to note why the early Christians did so. We will use Insight in the scriptures for this.

*** it-1 319 Birthday ***

However, there is no indication in the Scriptures that faithful worshipers of Jehovah ever indulged in the pagan practice of annually celebrating birthdays.

*** it-1 319 Birthday ***

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1882, Vol. I, p. 817) says the Jews "regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship . . . , and this probably on account of the idolatrous rites with which they were observed in honor of those who were regarded as the patron gods of the day on which the party was born."

M’Clintock and Strongs Cyclop æ dia cite the reason: the Jews "regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship because of the rites. So celebrating your birthday was part of false worship in those days. This was the reason why Christians didn’t celebrate it. It would identify them as false worshippers.

responding to the Reasoning book on birthdays?

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

i am helping someone out with a response to a jw about birthdays.

she wants to be able to have a comeback to his programmed response.

i am looking at the reasoning book section on birthdays.

robhic

Job 1:4 And [Job's] sons went and held a feast in the house of each one upon his day; and they sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.
Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

I guess this can be viewed in different ways but I always thought it represented Job's kids having birthday celebrations. Doesn't "Upon his day" scream birthday? It certainly isn't a funeral or wedding anniversary...

21

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 5-21-06 WT Study (I AM WITH YOU)

by blondie in

comments you will not hear at the 5-21-06 wt study (april 15, 2006 issue date, pages 20-24)(with you).

review comments will be in red.

wt material from today's wt will be in black.

robhic

This is relevant only insofar as it's about being "with you always." It is about Jesus but (to me) it is hysterically funny. Those who may be offended by "Jesus-humor" might be advised to stay away. (It's really nothing bad but some are offended easily...)

http://www.sortakinda.com/look/withyoualways.shtml

94

607 bce or 587 bce

by jw in

jerusalem 607 bce vindicated.

why jehovahs witnesses are right for sticking to the bibles chronology of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

arguments for 587 bce are scripturally flawed, causing four bible prophecies to fail.

robhic

How can you use something INVISIBLE as proof of anything? Sheesh...

20

Jesus' Chromosones

by PopeOfEruke in

all the ads for da vinci code and opus dei whatever got me thinking about the whole jesus-mary thing, and what genes jesus had.

how was mary impregnated anyhow?

the wt teaches that the big j turned jesus (or michael??

robhic

"Because Jesus was a Jew," Langdon said, taking over while Teabing searched for his book, "and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood."

Whether or not the book is true or not (I think not...) this fact (?) seemed very plausible and interesting to me. The Jews, like most peoples of their time, were obsessed with procreating -- preferrably males but children, nonetheless. How many passages in the bible underscore having children, needing to have children, the very large families, the importance of male children, and on and on? It was a big deal!

So, OK, we have jesus starting to get to an age where marriage was pretty much a given, if not outright required. Why or how would he escape needing to be married to fulfill established custom and practice at the time? That and his "perfect" hormones would probably be kicking in right about the age of puberty so his "perfect" horniness" would be raging.

Mary Magdelene was a reasonable choice. I'm sure marrying a prostitute was frowned on, but jesus didn't generally go for conventional and she was available, so why not? And if not MM, then why not some other woman? Marriage was a big deal, plus jesus was probably ready for some fun after all the years of celibacy.

Just a thought, but it makes a lot of sense...

9

How Scientology and JW help UN to criticize France

by chasson in

http://www.coordiap.com/document/onu_060308_rapport_su_3ff.pdf .

in this document you could find that jw and scientology have met the un's representant when he visited france in september 2005 to talk about the french's policy concerning religion.

not surprisingly, un now criticize france concerning his policy against cult, without talking about a specefic's case of discrimination.

robhic

While I am certainly no authority on this matter, I seem to remember a similar discussion from a few years back. This article (I think) is what started it. It all stems from tax issues:

FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY
by Gerald Sigal

The Watchtower Society has always maintained that it alone is the only Christian faith. All other groups claiming to be Christians are simply part of the false religions of the world destined to be destroyed by God. They are not worthy to be called "Christian." Thus, the Society has alleged:

. . . Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys ["begins to destroy," in 1926 edition] the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of "Christianity." (Charles Taze Russell, The Finished Mystery [Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 7], Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1917 [1917 edition], p. 485.)

The Watchtower Society describes itself as "the only organization on earth that understands the 'deep things of God'" and "the true Christian organization" (The Watchtower, July 1, 1973, p. 402). It asks, "[i]f you were asked to identify those who are truly worthy to bear the name 'Christian' today, using the guidelines established by Jesus himself, could you honestly select any of Christendom's churches?" (Awake! February 22, 1975, p. 23). In a description of its members it maintains that "There are people, worshipers of the true God, Jehovah, to whom you can flee. Millions have fled. Known as Jehovah's Witnesses, they make up an international Christian brotherhood. . . . Before baptism, all of these had completed a spiritually stimulating course of Bible study, enabling them to make a personal, well-founded decision to resign from all former attachment to any other religion" (Awake! November 8, 1996, p. 9). It is obvious that the Watchtower Society considers itself to be the only Christian group and its membership the only people who can truly be called Christians. Catholics and Protestants are part of "modern-day Christendom. False to its claim to being the realm of true Christianity, Christendom has fallen victim to Babylonish religion. . . .Christendom will go down into destruction with it" The Watchtower, October 1, 1982, p. 27). For over one hundred years the Watchtower Society has held to the position that only its members are Christians. But, to protect its financial holdings in France the Watchtower Society indulged in hypocrisy. In an open letter addressed to the President of France, appearing as a full page advertisement in The New York Times (July 5, 1998, Section 4, p. 12 WK), the "Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" sought outside support for their protest against being taxed. Under the title: FRANCE MOVES TO TAX RELIGION! They claim that "French tax administrators have jeopardized basic human rights by imposing a punitive 60 percent tax on the third-largest Christian religion in France. If the tax laws can be used to suppress one religion in France, then many religions and nonprofit organizations are at risk." Whatever the legal merits of its objections may be are not our concern here. There is another issue. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are the self-proclaimed "third-largest Christian religion in France" what do they consider are the other two Christian religions? Are they referring to Catholics or Protestants? The Watchtower Society never refers to Catholics or Protestants as being "Christian religions," but only calls them by what the Society considers a derogatory term, "Christendom." For the love of money, however, the Watchtower Society has hypocritically by-passed one of its central doctrines: that it alone is the only Christian religion. It has attempted to fool those outside the organization unaware of its deviousness. By its teachings, the Society has already fooled its members. (underline and italics mine)

I also have scans of the New York Times ad mentioned ( a friend who works in the Library of Congress was able to send it to me) if anyone is interested.

Robert