Jump to content

JW Insider

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. (Micah 4:13) 13 Get up and thresh, O daughter of Zion; For I will change your horns into iron, And I will change your hooves into copper, And you will pulverize many peoples. You will devote their dishonest profit to Jehovah, And their resources to the true Lord of the whole earth.” Any questions?
  2. Whoops! Maybe what I meant to remember was that he was never "disfellowshipped" which means that technically he is not "officially" an "apo-state." I see that his experience says nothing of being DF'd, but then again, I've seen people DF'd for less. Everything he says about his discussions with Albert Schroeder and John Albu "rings true," perfectly. (John Albu was a brother in NYC, but not a Bethelite) I was put in contact with Albu for access to some of his books and his expertise for research projects. Alan says: I have believed the same thing, but never knew for sure. I think the general outline of that 1981 book was to be prepared from a couple of older Watchtowers with updates meant to specifically answer new questions raised about Ptolemy's canon and several other sources that Carl Olof Jonsson had written about. I remember that Bert Schroeder, Gene Smalley and others were angry about COJ's manuscript but wouldn't attempt to answer it. It got passed around like a hot potato around the Writing Department for years. Finally, Fred Rusk (the brother who gave my wedding talk) got it as an assignment to produce a Watchtower article in 1980. Rusk knew that the best researchers in-house at the time were Napolitano&Lengtat but he didn't like them because they had been friends with Ray Franz and had helped work on the Aid Book. He let it sit in his office for several months. I had a very strong feeling that it would end up being turned into an assignment for John Albu. John had been open-minded about discussing anything doctrinal, even things controversial up through 1981. But he seemed to close himself off completely in 1981 and for the rest of his life (until 2004), as far as I could tell.
  3. Thanks for this quote, and others like it. You are right. It shows that they had already pinned a portion of the chronology on Gedaliah right from the start. That's true. Makes me wonder how we think we really know exactly at what point the "full desolation" started if it was a process that never came true literally, anyway.
  4. One of the first talks I was assigned to give while still a "ministerial servant" was the "Gentile Times" talk. The old outline was pretty much along the lines of the article that Russell had written for George Storrs' Bible Examiner back in October 1876. I prepared the talk in 1977 and had all kinds of questions. I never asked those questions specifically because I didn't think there was anyone I could ask. But I worked with the Art Dept at Bethel, and that turned into a series of research assignments even while I continued full-time work for 4 years in Art. Several of the research assignments required a full reading of the old Watch Tower books. The research also put me in touch with a lot of people who also had their own questions about the chronology. I even found out that several members of the Governing Body believed that many parts of the chronology had to be wrong. Turns out I got the questions answered without ever asking them. I only gave that "Gentile Times" talk once, and since 1977, I have been able to give dozens of different hour talks that don't have anything controversial in them (as far as I know).
  5. I'm sure Ann knows this, but I just saw the question. It was done in two parts: partly in 1943, and finished in 1944. The best research I've seen on this topic comes from a non-JW who opposes the JWs, but he was never baptized. (AlanF) So no one should technically call him an apo-state. At any rate his research is all true. I've looked up all his resources. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html
  6. LOL. It looks like some non-JWs put the sign on the bus, and the JWs cleverly parked everything they had in front of it and around it so that it was covered and couldn't be easily repositioned for display. Of course, it looks like some of the JWs also trapped themselves.
  7. Yes. Thanks for including the Bible Teach quote for me. I noticed I needed to include it, but I decided I had overloaded my quotation quota. I understand the beliefs of Russell and Barbour about October and the use of the 7th month event when Gedaliah was assassinated. I've made the same claim for Gedaliah and the so-called final, full desolation, and, of course, I have believed it and defended it, too. In front of other Witnesses, in person, it's easier and easier to avoid the subject because hardly any Witnesses are interested any more in such details (in my experience). And you might well be right, that this is why October has stuck with us. But the more I read in the chronology articles in old Watchtowers and old journals from Barbour and other Second Adventists, I'm starting to think it would have been October no matter what. You almost "proved" it with the verses from Ezekiel which show that the desolation was a process involving multiple events over about a 70 year period. There was nothing special about the October event. JWTheologian even brought up the reference to those scholars who make a case for saying that the land was never completely desolated, but who claim that there may have been political purposes for speaking of the land as "completely" desolate when it was really only in a "deslolated" condition. Some scholars claim that this would more easily resolve land ownership disputes among the elite when they came back and found squatters. I pointed out to him that this is an interesting point of view but is NOT a Biblical point of view. Anyway, for the moment at least, I think the "October" tradition influenced the reasoning of Barbour about Gedaliah, not the other way around. I am thinking it was already a tradition for the Second Adventist school of chronologists, with or without Gedaliah.
  8. It was an interesting time. The white-robe bridge incident was curious. This was a reference to a previous time. Recall that Barbour thought it would be 1873 then 1874 and there were several places where many of his followers gathered for a final rapture. Russell joined the expectations in time for the 1878 expectation, and then Russell's readers (without Barbour) next expected it in 1881. Until 1914, there were no real "rapture" expectations for all Bible Students, although 1910 became popular for a while. 1914 was the biggest, but there were a lot of speeches that downplayed the expectation from November of 1913 on through about the middle of 1914 when Russell indicated for a while that he had lost faith in 1914 and even wondered what people might be saying 100 years in the future (2014) as he said that it no longer seemed likely to happen. But then the war started and he regained his faith in the chronology. Even then, however, Brother Wise and others continued to downplay the exact expectation for October. Brother MacMillan was sure of October, however. In 1915 he even gave a convention talk blaming the extension (then 8 or 9 months after October) on a lack of dedication by the great crowd (great company/great multitude). The robes issue is even more interesting. It was once a pejorative way to make fun of Millerites and Barbourites to claim that they were standing around at night wearing their white "ascension robes." There is a lot of evidence that robe thing was just made up ("out of whole cloth"), from a story starting out of the Boston area. But over time, it seems like the Bible Students began to think of it as appropriate, after all. Remember that when Russell was dying, he asked to have his "toga" put on, so that he died wearing it. Also, the "first edition" of Faith on the March indicates that even MacMillan might have already had his white robe prepared. (He lets us know this in the context of telling about one Bible Student who already had already negotiated a funeral plot for himself in the summer of 1914 to be ready by around October 1914.) Another minor point is that the Millennium had already started in 1873/4. The new millennial day was already dawning, thus, "Millennial Dawn." The first Jubilee cycle after that was to end in 1924 which was one of the reasons that Abraham, Isaac, Jabob, David, etc, were to be raised in 1925. It was not until much later that the Millennium was expected to end in 1976, then 1975 after some chronological adjustments. Franz even gave one speech where he mentioned the new understanding of the Jubilee to start in 1975. It would have coincided with the earlier chronology of Jubilee cycles, 1874/5, 1924/5, 1974/5 - and for a time Franz even wanted to change the 1975 date to 1974, but was evidently outvoted and the article was never published.
  9. No one can tell for sure why we emphasized October so much. It was the habit of several chronologists after William Miller and therefore followers of Barbour and Russell also emphasized October. It has nothing to do with when the Temple fell even though the book "What does the Bible Really Teach" mistakenly indicates that the temple fell in October. Other publications such as Insight and various Watchtower articles say that it was NOT October. (More importantly, the Bible says it was not in October.) I think the "Bible Teach" book changed it to October just to simplify the reasons for explaining October 1914. It was probably for similar reasons that the date for Russell's announcement has changed from October 1st to October 4th to October 2nd. Don't know if you are aware, but the Watchtower has also taught that the actual date for the end of the Gentiles Times was October 4th: *** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand *** 11 Now that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, we know that the day for Jehovah to hold an accounting with the Gentile nations for “their error” must be very near. Never has the world been the same since 1914. Secular historians cannot explain the reason for this. But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended. *** w75 11/1 p. 661 par. 15 The Time for Choosing God as Sovereign *** This fact of universal interest has been true since the year 1914 C.E. In that year “the times of the Gentiles,” or, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended about October 4/5 , when counted from the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah by the Babylonians in the year 607 B.C.E. *** w73 3/15 p. 168 What Kind of Ruler Does Mankind Need? *** When did Jehovah do so? In the year 1914 C.E. when the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” ended, about October 4/5. *** w72 6/1 pp. 351-352 Questions From Readers *** 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.” *** w72 12/15 p. 748 par. 5 The Time to Decide in the Name of Which God to Walk *** By the end of the Gentile Times about October 4, 1914, eight nations and empires of Christendom, along with Japan, were fighting one another. *** w71 12/1 pp. 717-718 par. 1 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today *** The Gentile Times had begun about the middle of the lunar month Tishri in 607 B.C.E., and so their 2,520 years of duration would end in 1914 about Tishri 15, which corresponds with October 4/5 . By then the British Empire and other empires of Christendom were embroiled in the war. The other member of the Anglo-American Dual World Power entered the war in the spring of 1917. *** w70 1/15 p. 50 par. 5 Peace with God amid the “Great Tribulation” *** Both the Bible’s time schedule and the physical facts of history prove that the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended in 1914 C.E. about October 4/5 that year. That expression "the physical facts . . . prove" was an expression that Rutherford often used when there was no real evidence for something. In this case, it's probably F W Franz using it, but with the idea that WWI provided those "physical facts of history." There are many more quotes like this, but notice that the next one actually admits that it is two months off, and offers no explanation for it. *** w65 9/15 p. 569 A Pivotal Date in History *** With this pivotal date established, it is easy to go back seventy years from the seventh month of the year 537 to the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. as the time of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah. In 607 B.C.E., the month of Tishri began on September 22/23, the day for the observance of the festival of the new moon. It was in that month of 607 B.C.E. that the “seven times,” or, “the times of the Gentiles,” “the appointed times of the nations,” began. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, AV; NW) This was two months after Jerusalem had been destroyed and its temple plundered, wrecked and burned down, after which its two principal priests were killed.—2 Ki. 25:5-21. Evidently to make up for the lack of evidence for October 4th, one of the next paragraphs points out that "At Ezra 3:6 it is stated: 'From the first day of the seventh month on they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, when the foundation of Jehovah’s temple itself had not yet been laid.' This would be, according to the Gregorian Calendar, on September 28/29, of 537 B.C.E. So on the first day of the month they celebrated the new moon of the seventh month of that year." Then, a footnote states the following (linked to September 28/29): *** w65 9/15 p. 570 A Pivotal Date in History *** Or, according to the Julian Calendar, October 4/5, 537 B.C.E. See Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (edition of 1956), by Parker and Dubberstein, page 29. Just because Tishri 1 fell on October 4/5 in 537 doesn't mean it fell on October 4/5 in any other "signficant" year. The above admits that it wasn't that date in 607, and in 1914 Tishri 1 lands on September 8th. Of course, this particular new moon celebration was just one of three different memorials to the time of the Temple destruction, but was not the date for the destruction itself according to the Bible and the Insight book. The October tradition is actually based on a lot of assumptions, including the idea that Adam was created around October 1, 4026. The old October 1, 4028 B.C.E. date was more definite, but when it changed to 4026, the Insight book changes it only to "likely". *** it-1 p. 45 Adam *** That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year. For some reason we began believing that Jehovah, in effect, created the civil, secular calendar when he created Adam. (When Jehovah implemented the sacred calendar the first month was changed from Tishri to Nisan in the spring.) The older reasoning was closer to the idea that "we just knew" because we understood Bible chronology. The newer reasoning, starting around 1950, included the idea that Adam must have been created in the fall, and this would explain why many secular calendars (including the Hebrew) started in the fall. *** w70 5/1 p. 273 par. 5 An Ingathering Affecting All Mankind *** However, Bible chronology which indicates that Adam was created in the fall of the year 4026 B.C.E. would bring us down to the year 1975 C.E. as the date marking 6,000 years of human history with yet 1,000 years to come for Christ’s Kingdom rule. So whatever the date for the end of this system, it is clear that the time left is reduced, with only approximately six years left until the end of 6,000 years of human history. (1 Cor. 7:29) This corroborates the understanding of Jesus’ words that the generation alive in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I would not pass away until the end comes. *** w68 5/1 p. 272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** 4026 [B.C.E] Creation of Adam (in early autumn) Gen. 2:7 *** w51 4/1 p. 221 An Interesting Chronological Chart *** 4025 B.C. Adam’s creation (in the fall) Gen. 2:7 It might seem off the subject, but the October date of Adam's creation was once accepted as a very important factor in determining the possible date for Armageddon, and as we see in the quotes above, this was tied back to 1914. And as the quote below shows, for some reason we "needed to determine" time from the "autumn of 4026" -- elsewhere stated to be about October 1st. *** w68 5/1 p. 271 pars. 4-5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. *** w67 7/15 pp. 446-447 The Removal of Mankind’s Chief Disturber *** Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E., which means that six thousand years of human history end about the fall of 1975 C.E. We are in the great 7,000-year rest day of God, starting at the time he rested after the creation of Adam and Eve. There are, therefore, a thousand years left to run. In those years we sometimes gave another piece of evidence as a reason for sticking with the October tradition. The following article which is specfically on the topic of the time of Adam's creation gives no other reason for October other than this one, and this one just appears almost out of the blue with no other context about October. (In 1955 we were still pointing to the 1976 date, not 1975, which happened when we changed the date of creation back again from 4025 to 4026.) *** w55 2/1 p. 94 Questions From Readers *** What are the reasons for changing the creation date of Adam first from 4028 B.C. to 4026 B.C. and now recently in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” to 4025 B.C.? . . . Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October. . . . The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date. Apparently, the entire October tradition was just something we inherited from Nelson Barbour, and we kept it even though we found very little basis or evidence for it.
  10. On the other hand, the "first edition" of "Faith on the March" says that this happened on Sunday, October 4th: We realized that 1914 was upon and now we must do something about it. On the 23rd of August, 1914, Brother Russell made a trip out in the northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern States, and wound up at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 30 through October 4, 1914. That was an interesting time because we thought we were going to heaven that first week in October--- and were looking forward to that. That was the idea. ... On Saturday about 500 of us took the Hudson River daylight boat, a very lovely ride from Albany to New York. Then Sunday morning we were to open up in the Tabernacle and conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel. Sunday morning, October 4th, the dining room was crowded. Brother Russell's habit when he came down in the morning was to hesitate at the entrance of the dining room a moment and say, "Good morning, everyone". We would all say, "Good morning". But this morning after greeting us as to the time of day he said, "The Gentile Times have ended, their kings have had their day." Then, of course, we all applauded. We were all very excited and I wouldn't have been surprised if at that moment we all just started up, that being the signal to go up, but it wasn't. So the same recorder of these events first wrote the circumstances to show why it was Sunday, October 4th when the announcement was made.
  11. Good post. Good research. The Watchtower here says it was on October 1st, and I think A. H. Macmillan was the first to say it was on October 2nd. I have read Macmillan's "Faith on the March" and I'm now reading the typewritten first draft of Macmillan's "Faith on the March." (His edits remind me of experiences watching the editing process at Bethel.) For years, I have noticed that there are a couple of things that Macmillan either just "made up" or else he had a very poor memory, or was choosing between two or more versions of a story. But when he chose to report on specific things that Russell said or did, there is strong evidence that it's Macmillan's own fault when he reported it incorrectly. (For example, when a bunch of Watchtower readers were reported to have waited on a bridge in Pittsburgh in their white robes expecting to be raptured, he quotes Russell to exonerate him from any personal embarrassment in that incident. But he ends up claiming Russell said something that he wouldn't likely have said unless Russell also had a bad memory. The newspaper account that Macmillan claims to base the story on, actually doesn't exist, and it now appears Macmillan confused it with a report from a Philadelphia newspaper about an incident a few hundred miles away from Pittsburgh.) On the other hand, Rutherford had also been known to make "convenient" changes in a story, which he did several times in his booklet from 1915: "Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens." As a lawyer he must have had some of the documentation in front of him, but he makes several claims in that booklet that differ from the court records, often just slightly and often in a technically ambiguous manner, and often with an obvious purpose of simplification or to avoid a distraction that might create suspicion. (The entire booklet was written for the purpose of exonerating Russell from about a dozen of the major claims made against him and/or his business practices.) In think that in this particular case, I would choose to believe that it did happen, and that Macmillan is correct, rather than Rutherford. The reason is that Rutherford may have only wanted to give emphasis to the fact that the Gentile Times ended on October 1st, and including the fact that Russell waited until October 2nd would be a distraction that would have required a small explanation. So the slight change was just to avoid the distraction. Technically, Rutherford may have thought that "first of October" could ambiguously refer to the earliest part of October instead of a specific date. It's also possible that Rutherford incorrectly remembered it being on October 1st. But the other reason to accept Macmillan's date is because it looks like he is working from a diary. We also know from another source document that Macmillan had worked out the travel dates for all his speeches and convention travel in 1914. We also have a letter from Macmillan explaining why he can't make a certain travel arrangement based on the dates and (un)available funds. As a Bethel administrator, he would likely have kept good documentation. Also, we know it was common for many Bible Students to use books like "Daily Heavenly Manna" as a diary. What he writes in Faith on the March appears to say that many of the Bethelites didn't even get home until late in the day or evening on October 1st. 500 persons (including Bethelites and "conventioners" who would be staying at Bethel at least until Sunday October 4th) were traveling on October 1st from Saratoga Springs to Brooklyn.including a Hudson Steamer from Albany. This is several hours of travel. Note from Macmillan's book: Ever since 1879 The Watch Tower had been calling attention to the foretold end of the present systems as due to begin in 1914. But while we were all looking forward to 1914 and the end of wickedness and sorrow in the earth, many of us were thinking more of our own personal, individual "change" than anything else. On August 23, 1914, as I well recall, Pastor Russell started on a trip to the Northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern states, and then ending at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 27-30. That was a highly interesting time because a few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. At that Saratoga Springs convention quite a number were in attendance. Wednesday (September 30) I was invited to talk on the subject, "The End of All Things Is at Hand; Therefore Let Us Be Sober, Watchful and Pray." Well, as one would say, that was down my road. I believed it myself sincerely — that the church was "going home" in October. During that discourse I made this unfortunate remark: "This is probably the last public address I shall ever deliver because we shall be going home soon." Next morning (October I ) about five hundred of us began the return trip to Brooklyn, including a lovely ride on the Hudson River Day Line steamer from Albany to New York. Sunday morning we were to open services in Brooklyn, this to conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel, the home of the headquarters staff members. Friday morning (October 2) we all were seated at the breakfast table when Russell came down. As he entered the room he hesitated a moment as was his custom and said cheerily, "Good morning all." But this morning, instead of proceeding to his seat as usual, he briskly clapped his hands and happily announced: "The Gentile times have ended; their kings have had their day." We all applauded. We were highly excited and I would not have been surprised if at that moment we had just started up, that becoming the signal to begin ascending heavenward — but of course there was nothing like that, really. [My great grand-father was with Russell on the Northwest and Pacific portion of Russell's convention tour starting August 23, 1914. He was one of speakers out of Chicago who usually joined Russell only on the "Western Tour" as they called it ]
  12. This is much more interesting when you quote the verses in total: (Acts 10:40) God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, Notice that although we believe the "Father" corresponds to the only true God, this verse does not mention the Father raising his Son. It says that GOD raised up Jesus. Although some would say that Jesus was also God, that wouldn't explain why Jesus needed God's permission, in effect, to be allowed to become visible after his resurrection. Some Trinitarians claim that the only reason that Jesus spoke of the Father as "his God" was to reflect his humanity while in the form of a man. Yet here we see that Jesus as a raised spirit creature needed to be allowed by God to manifest himself as a man. (John 2:19) Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John makes clear that the entire life of Jesus was to do his Father's will, and therefore they were in complete unity of purpose. Jesus lived his life on earth for the purpose of accomplishing that will which included being raised from the dead and going back to heaven after that will was accomplished on earth. Jesus prayed to his God that the Father's will would be done, and his part in that meant that he was in effect raising it up through his participation in the will of his Father. If Jesus was alive to be able to raise himself then he didn't die, and the Father's will was not done. Jesus did not die for your sins, if Jesus did not truly die. If Jesus died, only God could raise him. If God died then he does not exist forever and was not immortal. (Romans 8:11) If, now, the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you. Obviously, the verse says nothing about the spirit raising Jesus from the dead. (The KJV agrees with the NWT here.) It would not have been wrong to say that Jehovah used his holy spirit to raise Jesus, but in every case, it is Jehovah, God, the Father, who raises Jesus. If I said: "The money of the man who killed Jesse James should be in my wallet," this would not mean that money killed Jesse James.
  13. I agree. This is exactly the same as what I said. And it sounds like you can agree up to this point, too. In English we have a similar use of the definite article "the". We do use it in front of Lord when we mean "God" but this is likely a historical artifact for distinguishing it from other lords and masters on earth. ("House of Lords," etc). We don't need it in front of "God" because this word usually refers to one person alone. I can say, "I am going to pray to the God," but I would only say that if the context required me to distinguish from other gods. It's the same in Greek if Lord is clearly understood in the immediate context to be only the true God." In the verses shown, most of them show from immediate context that only one person is spoken of. Micah 4:13 is a parallel [poetic] construction where "the Lord of all the Earth" stands in its own stanza/phrase. Exodus 23:17 is a perfect example of why the LXX would NOT require the definite article to correctly translate the sense of the Hebrew. Note: " Exodus 23:17 τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀφθήσεται πᾶν ἀρσενικόν σου ἐνώπιον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου " Note that it ends "enopion kuriou tou theou sou" referring to appearing before [literally] "lord the God of you." The original Hebrew had said: "appear before the Lord Jehovah." So the "THE" was translated into the Greek LXX, but used in front of God, rather than Lord, where God replaced YHWH in the LXX, not specifically "Lord" which was more typical. Similar reasons account for the LXX translation choice in the other verses, too: Exodus 34:23 τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀφθήσεται πᾶν ἀρσενικόν σου ἐνώπιον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Ισραηλ. It's almost the same here, where the Hebrew originally said: "the Lord Jehovah, God of Israel. The LXX put the "the" in front of "God" and dropped "Jehovah" ending up with "before Lord, the God of Israel." So "the" does still appear properly, just not attached to "kuriou" but to "theou" instead.
  14. You are correct about the "Master" copies of the Bible such as the Westcott and Hort (WH) text along with the partial "critical apparatus" prepared by them to explain how they decided which were the best readings from among the choices. But it's this is actually the crux of the problem. The Westcott and Hort text is one of those "Master" texts that shows that there is still not one single bit of evidence for the divine name in any Greek texts ever discovered over the past nearly 2,000 years. (This is NOT an argument that we should not use the divine name, only that we should be careful when we imply that texts like the WH text of the NT provide an indication that the NWT committee might have discovered evidence for putting the divine name in the NT. The Westcott and Hort text only provides additional evidence that neither the divine name, nor anything like it, has ever been found in any Bible text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, aka, New Testament). This does not mean that it was never there, only that there is still no evidence for it.
  15. Apparently, John Eliot himself was also one of those persons who believed that the "Indian" tribes might have actually been Jews (lost Israelite tribes) which might add another reason why missionaries to "Indians" added the divine name to their translations of the NT in the same way that missionaries to the Jews added the divine name to modern Jewish translations. Note this from http://brown.edu/Facilities/John_Carter_Brown_Library/exhibitions/judaica/pages/tribes.html : 25. Thomas Thorowgood. Ievves [Jewes] in America, or, Probabilities that the Americans are of that race. London : W[illiam]. H[unt]. for Thomas Slater, 1650. Here, Thomas Thorowgood joins the argument, drawing much from the writings of Menasseh ben Israel. The possible rediscovery of “lost Jews” interested Thorowgood and others in a millennial context, and he also drew on the writings of the Puritan missionary John Eliot, who had spent time among the Indians at Roxbury, Massachusetts, outside Boston.
  16. Jammy, I have checked every portion I could from this NT (in the Massachusett language), and I don't think it's correct to say that it uses "Jehovah" frequently. You can find each book here: http://people.umass.edu/aef6000/Texts/Algonquian/Algonquian.html There was only one book I couldn't open, but it appears that only Matthew contains the name Jehovah, and only 3 times where it's a direct quote. Are there more instances that I missed? I think the choice of only placing the name "Jehovah" in Matthew and only at three of the more obvious direct quotations from the OT was intended to provide a "teaching" link back to the OT. The translators may have been considered that Matthew was the closest book to the OT, and there were also some who believed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
  17. At this point it only shows that some modern translators of Romans 10:9 thought that Jesus is Jehovah. Romans 10:9 does not say the equivalent of haAdohn (THE Lord) in the Greek text. I am bringing these up to show that it is a mistake to rely on the "J Docs" (Hebrew versions) without recognizing what they are. They were produced for missionary purposes. In other words, they were produced for teaching the concept that the NT and OT could be connected in a way that Jewish readers should be able to see more clearly if the terms for Lord and God were replaced with "YHWH" or "the Name" or "Jehovah" etc. When early missionaries went to the Native American tribes ("Indians") many of them in the 1600's and 1700's also had the concept that they would more easily understand the concept of the Lord Jesus of the NT being the same as the Lord Jehovah.of the OT. In fact, America was still seen as a "Promised Land" with native Americans thought of as related to the "lost tribes of Israel." This was not just a Mormon concept, but was also believed by many of the Puritans (pilgrims) who landed on Plymouth Rock. It's not surprising then that early native American translations also added in the term "Jehovah" to the NT. Note: Choctaw version translated in 1949 by Cyrus Byington, a missionary from Massachusetts, says at John 20:28: Chan [John] 20:28 Toma [Thomas] said to him "My Lord and My Chihowa! [Jehowa]" A Mohawk translation says the following in John 1:1: "The Logos was with Yehovah. In fact, the Logos was Yehovah."
  18. There is a lot of readily available research on this topic already online. As I began to join in, I also realized that I might be repeating information that has already come up in other questions and topics on this forum. I'll start with the J docs that I arbitrarily assigned to Category #4. , The J Docs initially referred to about 19 different Hebrew translations (from Greek to "modern" Hebrew) numbered J1, J2, J3, etc, up to J19. A few more have now been added to the 1985 Reference NWT, but these include even more modern non-Hebrew translations that use a form of "Jehovah" in the NT. From the standpoint of how the Greek Scriptures (NT) should be translated into English (or any other language) the "J Docs" are meaningless. I think that several of us have misinterpreted their importance. These have nothing to do with what the ancient Greek texts said or meant. They are not old texts from the viewpoint of the Scriptures. They are "modern" texts. (J2 is the oldest from about 100 years before Columbus and the next oldest J7 is from about 100 years after Columbus. The rest are mostly from the 1800s through the late 1900's). They are modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament. They were sometimes simply the work of biased Trinitarian missionaries who wanted to create a Christian ministry to Jewish speakers of Hebrew. They added the divine name in the places in the NT where they thought these verses should show a direct connection between the God/Lord of the OT and the God/Lord of the NT. They referred to God as YHWH even in cases where the NT was not quoting the OT. The problem is that the Trinitarian bias allowed these "translators" to pick several cases where even Jesus as Lord is directly connected to Jehovah as Lord. Note this information about J18. The 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation says: Our old NWT Bibles (1950, 1951, 1963) used to include a statement about them altogether like this: All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences." But we didn't count all of the "distinct occurrences." There are over 100 additional distinct occurrences that we didn't count because we couldn't use them. Just a few examples will show why. This has already been started on other sites that I copy from below. They include HollyW's examples: 1 Corinth. 12:3 in J14 "...no one can say "Jesus is Lord (יהוה), except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Thess. 4:16,17 in J7,8,13,14,24 2 Timothy 1:18 in J7,8,13,14,16,17,18,22,23,24 Hebrews 1:10 in J8 in which Jehovah addresses the Son using the Divine Name. 1 Peter 2:3 in J13, J14 1 Peter 3:15 in J7 J20 (Concordance to the Greek Testament) cites יהוה at both 1 Peter 2:3 and 1 Peter 3:15. Revelation 16:5 in J7,8,13,14,16 Romans 10:9 in J12-14, 16-18, 22 Acts 26:14,15 in J17,J18 "'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' But I said, 'Who are you Lord?" And the Lord (haAdohn - Jehovah God) said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.'" [Several places in the J Docs even name the Holy Spirit as YHWH.]
  19. Happy to get to that soon. Let's say: Category #1 would be cases where the NWT uses the name "Jehovah" when the NT (GS) is NOT quoting from the OT (HS). There are over 100 of these cases. Category #2, then, would be rare cases where the NT (GS) quotes or references the OT (HS) in places where "Jehovah" was used in the OT but the NWT chooses NOT to translate the name "Jehovah." That means I left out a couple of important categories:They might seem minor at first but one of them, we'll call it "Category #3" turns out to be important in the way they show the reliance on the LXX in the NT (GS) instead of the Hebrew in quotes of the OT (HS). Category #3, then, contains the few instances where the Hebrew was known to contain the Divine Name but the LXX did not replace it with the usual "kyrios" (Lord) but instead replaced it with "God." Category #4 could be the many cases where the "J" texts use the name Jehovah, but the NWT does NOT choose to translate "Jehovah" in those locations. What would we expect to happen in the case of a Category #3? The NWT is based on the "Masoretic" texts (MT) from more than 1,000 years after the time of Jesus. That's because we have very few full texts of Hebrew Bible books (in Hebrew) from any earlier. (The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] weren't published in time to affect the NWT, but full books are rarely covered.) In cases where the MT and other texts including available DSS use the Divine Name, the LXX usually replaces with the word "Lord." if the NT (GS) quotes from one of those places, would we expect the MT and/or DSS or would be expect the LXX version of the OT verse?
  20. Technically, there is still no evidence that Christian scribes took Jehovah's personal name out of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, so it is probably not fair to judge these persons as "apo-state" since they are technically imaginary, so far. Also, we shouldn't say that the Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better. They fared much better in this regard, if we are correct about what we imagine might have happened to the Greek texts. Those Hebrew texts contain the divine name nearly 7,000 times, and only in about 130 places does it appear that the divine name was replaced with "Lord." That means that between 98% and 99% of those occurrences fared perfectly well. But we believe that at least 237 out of 237 cases in the Greek texts were removed. To review, then, the score is: Greek texts: 0% Hebrew texts 98% There is no reason, then, to say that the Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better than the Greek. That was a mistake. Also, the Masoretes left a recognizable pattern which helps us understand the reasoning behind the removal in a lot of these cases. I'm not sure why we would praise these same scribes for their faithfulness on the one hand and then judge them as apo-states in 2010. We should take this subject very seriously because if we have done the wrong thing here we have actually removed the word Lord 237 times from the text of the Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Jehovah. In most of these cases there is NOT a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a couple of cases where it IS a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name was used, we do NOT use the divine name, but leave it as Lord.
  21. One of the administrators/moderators must have used the "dirty-word-filter" and used it to change the word "a-p-o s-t-a-t-e" to "brother." The original Watchtower article calls them "APO"+"STATE" Christians, NOT "brother Christians." Don't know if the punctuation I just used will get around the filter.
  22. He was referring to the Isaiah Scroll, which is a very long scroll that is often quoted as being 99.9% faithful to the original. In fact, it also shows that literally hundreds of changes occurred over just 12 centuries, but that most of them appear accidental and they were of only minor importance to the overall text. What makes your question even more interesting is the fact that the name YHWH was never removed from those texts over that thousand year period. We only claim that the YHWH (or some Hebrew/Greek/hybrid form of it) was removed from Greek texts. Hebrew texts remained intact.
  23. I tried to do an estimated range once on this subject. I would have really doubted a method that researched every story about them, because no more than a small percentage would have had a story written up about it. (Newspapers tend to deal with the very young and/or photogenic. Otherwise, even if it bleeds, it doesn't lead; it gets buried.) I have had access to JSTOR and an awful lot of medical journals due to the fact that my son's Harvard ID allowed me to share a lot of those journals and library resources. There are a lot of interviews with doctors who have done studies on the difference in mortality rates from those who refuse most blood therapies and those who accept all blood therapies. But these are not statistics that most hospitals or doctors would like to have made public. I get a much higher number based on extrapolating from these doctors who have done studies, but there is still a wide range of possibility. There is a location here with a simple (incorrect) attempt: http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf That article gives a number that appears high. If the number is correct, it makes a blunder in the method however in attempting to extrapolate the committed population of JWs to include the entire group of those who might attend Memorial (in effect). It also appears to assume a steady population of JWs. Also there is a difference in mortality during operations by doctors who are not as skilled in bloodless surgery (those who don't specialize in bloodless surgery) and those who normally use blood as a backup, but are forced not to have that backup. Elective and sometimes even emergency surgeries for JWs are often handled by doctors selected in advance for their willingness to respect JW beliefs. At any rate, I can't give a very good answer, but the minimum possible range that I see is still much higher than what you got for "100 years."

  • 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.