Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

Did Malachi Have Teenagers? - a Russian Thread

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
TrueTomHarley -
78
2110

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


Either Malachi had sulky kids or all sulky kids have read Malachi. How else can you explain his style of writing?

Everything is a challenge. Malachi is the last Bible book – a short job of just four chapters:

“I have shown love to you people,” says Jehovah. But you say: “How have you shown us love?”

And if I am a master, where is the fear due me?’ Jehovah of armies says to you priests who are despising my name.” But you say: “How have we despised your name?

“‘By presenting polluted food on my altar.’ ‘And you say: “How have we polluted you?”’

“You have made Jehovah weary with your words. But you say, ‘How have we made him weary?’

Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Jehovah of armies. But you say: “How are we supposed to return?”

“Will a mere human rob God? But you are robbing me.” And you say: “How have we robbed you?”

“Your words against me have been strong,” says Jehovah. And you say: “How have we spoken against you among ourselves?”

Enough already! Everything is challenged! Everything is hurled back in his face.

Malachi is the last book of the Hebrew scriptures. Just for kicks, turn the page. Find yourself in the gospels and roll that attitude onto Mary, mother of Jesus. (Luke 1:26-28)

"In her sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to…Mary. And coming in, the angel said to her: “Greetings, you highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.”

“In what way is he with me?” she shoots back.

“Forget it!” comes the reply. “There is my servant Ethel. She’ll do fine.”

Whatever is wrong with Mary - not smart-mouthing the angel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am trying to get this book on the Russian situation done before Putin himself becomes a Witness and calls the whole thing off, and it is just one dumb thing after another to mess me up.

Don't misunderstand, if it happens, I will rejoice - 'greater good' and all, though it will mean a year's worth of work down the drain. (or would it mean a neat little chapter at the end?)

I'm not that far off. I can finish writing it in the waiting room at the collision shop.

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote before that much of the book has been written here on this forum, and that sometimes paragraphs already written are augmented or even replaced by what is written here. An example follows. I wrote what is next in answer to an unusually contentious person:

As far as I am concerned, Trump v Hillary is a godsend for Christians because it brings into stark relief 2 Timothy 3:1-5 - that endless list of negative traits. It used to be if you cited it and your listener didn't agree the verse is fulfilled now more than ever, there was not much you could do about it - it is subjective. But now its fulfillment is so obvious. 

It used to be people would scream at each other till the cows come home over God/no God, or medicine/alt medicine or various other sideshows that could be ignored by the average person. But with Trump/hate Trump, almost everybody is drawn in and 2 Timothy 3 becomes the yeartext for this entire system of things.

I had already made this point in the book. I replaced it all with what is above. It is more pointed, forged by addressing a strident faultfinder. The stuff it replaces was too professorial, and therefore ponderous and duller .

One benefit of posting is that you take note of the kickback you get and decide to what extent you want to address it. It doesn't really matter what you think you are saying - it only matters what people hear. Every rebuke is a check, and you must not blow it off as nothing, or you will be checkmated prematurely. Allies help you, like @JW Insider, when I say something not accurate and he throws it back in my face. But even idiots help you by supplying examples of how your words fall upon those with whom you disagree. Their reactions are the most helpful of all. You are not going to please everyone - especially on so volatile a topic as JW, but you don't want to needlessly antagonize people as you are being pointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upcoming book about Witnesses in Russia doesn't use the New World Translation as the 'house' Bible because the New World Translation is banned in Russia. 

I settled upon the New American Bible - Revised Edition instead and forced myself to accept that the name of God is 'the LORD.' 

In the Ten Commandments movie, the Israelites are despondent because they do not even know their God's name. Later on they are happy as pigs in mud. They have learned it It is 'The LORD'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NABRE works just fine as a house translation for the book once you get around Jehovah being The LORD. But every so often, it alone had the 'correct' rendering. It alone carried the correct flavor. For example:

Paul summarizes God’s customary dealings with the Israel of that day: “All day long I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contentious people,” Romans 10:21

In the world of Bible translation, most works list ‘disobedient’ as the first adjective. The second is up for grabs. NABRE, says ‘contentious’. Others say ‘obstinate’, ‘rebellious’, or ‘stubborn’. Some older translations say ‘gainsaying’. (I remember seeing 'gainsay' in older JW literature and wondering what in the world that meant?)

The banned New World Translation says obstinate. But the pre-revised NWT hit the nail on the head, by saying they ‘talk back.’ Apparently when that version was revised in 2013, someone thought ‘talk back’ was too much of a paraphrase, but I like it best.

BTW, does anyone here have Beduhn's book 'Truth in Translation" who can tell me for endnotes the specific page the term "Protestant's burden" is defined? Also his statement that: 'translators “all approached the text [ John 1:1] already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs.”

Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I begin to walk back what I said about the older NWT being too much a paraphrase at Romans 10:21. 

If in olde English 'gain' is the root word for 'against' and say means then what it means now, then 'talk back' is the most literal rendering of gainsay & and all the other Bibles, even the 2013 revision have veered from the literal.

Will @JW Insider go along with this? He knows a lot of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like many projects we embark upon, this one has done nothing but grow and grow, and I now have something about 140K words long. It will be the most rigorous work (really, the only rigorous work) I have done.
 
I am in the footnote stage now. 'Crowdsourcing' worked so well last time, let us try it again. I need some help with the following paragraph:
 
"As mentioned, eight governing members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were sentenced to American prison in 1918, on violation of the Espionage and Sedition Act. The religious press rejoiced. Dr. Ray H Abrams, in his book ‘Preachers Present Arms,’ reports: “I have been unable to discover any words of sympathy in any of the orthodox religious journals.” By this measure, the Russian media’s response was almost cheery. Most of them rejoiced, but not all. One that did not was Novaya Gazeta, which ran an article summing up Witness beliefs with reasonable accuracy, if not proper order, and was sympathetic to their plight – taking for granted that they must continue their ministry. Included were vignettes telling why some became Witnesses and how they felt they had benefited from the faith. One woman said that she regretted only one thing – that she learned about the Bible too late to save her first marriage. Applying Bible principles would have done it, she felt, if she only had known them."
 
 
Does anyone here have the 1933 book (it was revised in 2009) Preachers Present Arms, who can tell me what page the above quotation is on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The religious press rejoiced. Dr. Ray H Abrams, in his book ‘Preachers Present Arms,Â’ reports: “I have been unable to discover any words of sympathy in any of the orthodox religious journals.”

I assume you know that this quote cuts across the bottom of page 183 and the top of 184 of the 2009 revision. It is paginated exactly the same in the original 1933. Here is a picture from both:

1933:

image.png

2009:

image.png

Your work, by the way, looks to be very well done if I can extrapolate from that snippet above. I would caution not to take this particular idea too far, as it turned out that he was wrong if you consider those religious bodies who wrote about the treatment of the Bible Students after the imprisonment was ongoing.

The reason "Upton Sinclair" is highlighted is because I had once remarked that I think the only two outside books promoted in the Golden Age were "Angels and Women" [Seola] and a book by Upton Sinclair. The Sinclair quote is from "The Appeal to Reason," March 22, 1918. Sinclair wrote for leftist papers, and as a Socialist was aligned (from a Labor perspective) with many of C J Woodworth's positions in the Golden Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sinclair wrote for leftist papers

He also originated the irresistible quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,562
    Total Topics
    113,511
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,486
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Notawelder
    Newest Member
    Notawelder
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Coincidences are not evidence in favor of God. Now, can you deal rationally with the argument?
    • I didn’t know you were asking a question and I thought you were giving a personal observation. I'm not disputing the body of Christ or the kingship? I was questioning where Russell saw himself as part of that kingship. You are giving an impression, Russell thought he had that "guarantee" when no one on earth does. Christ will choose who, not the "saints" or the GB for that matter. They hope their fine work will be accepted just like the rest of us that will stay here on earth. OV313 HOW AND WHAT TO FIGHT "The Good Fight" By C. T. Russell The whole world may be divided along these lines into two classes, the one guided and controlled by earthly affairs and interests, and the other by heavenly hopes and interests. The former are what the Scriptures term the "natural man," and include many of earth's noblemen, as well as the earthly, sensual, devilish. Those controlled by the heavenly hopes, called the "spirit-begotten," "new creatures," are but a small number, and include some.   The Lord's favor to Daniel in permitting him to have a high position in Babylonia and subsequently in the Medo-Persian empires is contrary to his dealings with Spiritual Israelites of the present time. He deals with us not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. Consequently the rewards we get for faithfulness to him are spiritual rewards, "much advantage everyway." The Lord expects that the heavenly hopes and prospects set before us of a participation in the heavenly Kingdom as joint-heirs with our Lord, the Messiah, will be esteemed by us as of greater value than the honors and dignity conferred upon the prophet Daniel in the past. And we, too, so esteem the matter. Let us continue to thus view things from God's standpoint, until by and by he shall say, Enough, come up higher.   Who then -- In the harvest. B163 Few would be found giving to the household of faith meat in due season at his presence. R718:4 Faithful and wise servant -- Faithful to the "Master" and to "his fellow-servants" and "the household." D613 God's grace will probably come through a human channel, through the helpfulness of the fellow-members of the body of Christ, whom the Lord will make use of in serving the meat to the household of faith. R2383:4 Ever since the Church has had an existence, God has raised up some from its midst as special servants of the body, some who had special teaching ability. R1206:4 God in his own time raises up suitable servants or expounders to dispense his meat in due season. A319 Servants who are anxious, not only about the amount of service, but also that it be in exact cooperation with God. R1797:1 Merely a steward, liable to be removed at any moment should he fail to fully and duly acknowledge the Master in every particular. D613 One channel dispensing the meat in due season, though other channels or fellow-servants will be used in bringing the food to the household. D613 A special messenger to the Church at this time. R6023:3* Some one servant (animate or inanimate) whom the Lord would specially use in the present time to dispense the present truth. R1994:3 Originally applied to Pastor Russell by one who became his bitter enemy. He avoided the discussion which followed, except for references in Volume 4 and when the passage occurred in the International Sunday School Lessons. R4482:1, 4473:3, 3811:2 Thousands of readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that servant." His modesty precluded him from claiming this title. OV447:6*; R6011:2*, 4482:1, 2489:4* While this exhortation in general seems to apply to one particular servant, we can see the same principle would apply to each servant in turn as he would receive either food or stewardship. R3356:5 Whether you like to call it a class or individual, whatever it be. Q355:5 Let each reach his own conclusions and act accordingly. R4483:3, 1946:2; Q644:4 The whole body of Christ, faithfully carrying out their consecration vows. R291:6, 149:5*  .  This is what you are missing. You are projecting with a guarantee something Russell didn’t consider himself to be aside from being a faithful servant alongside the brotherhood. There were times when certain independent Bible students believed the “church” was the WS. Therefore, they all believed the members met that requirement of being saints.   Was "The gospel of the kingdom" ever preached in all the world during past ages? The Scriptures declare that the immortality of human souls and eternal torment is not the gospel, Galatians 3:8. But, now, today, the gospel is being carried to every nation on earth by the one, faithful and wise servant of the Lord, Luke 12:42. The coming tour of the world means something. Yes, dear friends, soon shall the end be. Lift up your heads and rejoice when ye see these things beginning to come to pass. Why? "Because your redemption draweth nigh."   Just like AlanF, you want to cherry pick. However, tell your pal, JW’s were constituted in 1931 therefore any material he submits before that, belongs to the “Freedom Bible Students” or the “Associated Bible Students”, not the original “International Bible Student Association”. Pastor Russell was part of.
    • When you don't pay much attention to what goes on in your life, God can go unnoticed but if you start to notice the coincidences that are always going on, things get interesting. Here's an obvious one.                     Twin Towers Lone Tower.doc
    • You must be reading something into this that isn't there. The quote I think you were trying to remember is probably this: *** w17 February p. 26 par. 12 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? *** The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. . . .Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food.  
    • Yes, @Arauna, an excellent challenge for you. Put each “joke” under the microscope. Analyze it with critical thinking skills to PROVE that it is funny or not funny. Just think how enriched your life will be! It is like when I watch Colbert. I do not just laugh because the plebeians are laughing—what do they know? It might be a trap. I run each joke into the lab for a bevy of tests. If I determine thereby using science that it was funny, I laugh my sides off. If you actually read things before you worked on your rebuttal, you would see that @Arauna‘s comment has nothing to do with chronology. It has to do with political developments that she has in position to know that will make you wish the end had come, even should you be on the wrong side.
    • You haven't yet addressed the main question which I repeated for you, so I'm guessing that you ARE already aware that Russell taught that those of the "high calling" were included in "The CHRIST." I have no idea what it means to be "missing the 'hope' part of my understanding." Are you saying that Russell said things which were not in line with who Russell really was? Did he only hope to be the faithful and wise servant, when he claimed to be the faithful and wise servant? Did he only hope to be God's mouthpiece when he said he WAS God's mouthpiece? If not, please explain. I don't want to twist your words.
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.