Demonism and the Watchtower

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Some people go to college six years to make some reaaaaaly cool candles, man.

Some people go to college because it was expected of them, by parents who paid for it.

Some people go to college because they KNOW through pain, disappointment and many tears they are not sharp, intelligent, or coordinated and strong enough to survive any other way.

Through the genetic lottery, and no fault of their own ...  they are naturally incompetent at everything, and need to be TRAINED to do something that will pay the bills, or to become educated enough to be able to survive in a normal conversation without being pitied or being made fun of.

Through grit and hard work, incredible years of hard work, they LEARN to survive in a hostile world without being a burden on others, and have productive lives of true worth, REAL self respect,  and REAL earned dignity. 

Those are the people that NEED college ... and have my REAL admiration.

... also the REAL admiration of employers.

Not everyone can be a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs .... and that is a fact.

They changed the world .... most of us just do not want to be buried early.

 

.

[Cos]

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

You are trying to shift the burden to me, because it is YOU that lacks reading comprehension, and do not THINK about what is actually being said

For your convenience, I quote my original post you take umbrage with ... I don't know if you even understand what a "qualifying statement" IS, now. The only alternative I see is that you have a complete lack of reading comprehension skills so I will isolate it for you, thusly ..... (ahem!) ... and highlighted in RED, from your quote of my post.

You could ask the Greek speaking village idiot, and that would have no value whatsoever.

Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that you LIED about having asked anyone at all from the Greek speaking community about this.

You avoided the actual issue.

I look forward to your complete, rational and comprehensive details of the experiment YOU ALLEGEDLY ran, if you really did .... which I currently doubt almost to the point of certainty ... and I am being generous.

 

 

Mr. Rook,

 

You have already falsely accused me of dishonesty when you doubted that the Watchtower appealed to an occultist for support on their renderings until I showed the proof, but then, to hide your ignominy, you made a most outrageous comment, which I very much doubted, but hey that’s what you needed to do to avoid the implication of the Watchtower Society’s association with an occultist.

 

Now you again falsely accuse me of lying. There is no way that I can verify to your satisfaction that I spoke with this person no matter what I say as you have already made your mind up. One thing, don’t you think that if I lied I would have said something more along the lines like “Yeah, we discussed all about anarthrous predicate nouns …blah blah blah.” But no, none of that was discussed, he told me how he understood the verse and that was all. <><

[Cos]

18 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Mr.COS

Well, the good thing people can decide and see for themselves how disingenuous your argument is. The “facts” speak for themselves. Your arrogance has become your Achilles' heel, therefore rendering your experiment meaningless.

Did I suggest using a simple tool like google translate to come up with a deception publisher of the “Bible” have been using for decades? Yes! Don’t start twisting my word!

As for knowing Latin, keep studying junior, you have ways to go. Include Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic before making a pompous retort.

As you stated, your observation is irrational and incoherent for a scholarly review. To them, it means as you project, zilch!

Mr. Ewing,

 

I really donÂ’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you donÂ’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them. <><

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I really don’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you don’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them.

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.

On 9/3/2017 at 12:01 AM, Cos said:

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).

Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.

Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)

So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)

But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.

But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.

But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.

John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

[Shiwiii]

On 9/15/2017 at 5:05 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.

If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.

So the same can be said the other way around. If they are jw's, then all is good but if not, then it is bad. Not a very convincing argument. 

 

On 9/15/2017 at 5:05 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

Actually that is not true, because the NT writers attributed many quotes from the OT to Jesus sometimes in paraphrase. 

Lets look at a few verses John 12:27-41. This group of scriptures is speaking of whom? Jesus. Jesus hid from the crowd of people in verse 36 and this was why? To fulfill the word of Isaiah saying that the people would not believe in Him (Jesus). He had performed signs before them, but they still didn't believe. But Isaiah was saying this about Jehovah, right? John attributed this to Jesus. 

Then we go a little further to verse 39, which says that they could not believe and again quotes Isaiah (6:10). Who could they not believe? Jesus. Why did John say that these things were said because  Isaiah saw His glory? John knew Isaiah chapter 6 very well and attributed it to Jesus. The glory he saw was from verse 1 of chapter 6. In the Septuagint it states clearly that Isaiah said "I saw His glory" 

 

Also, out of the 237 insertions, 161 of them are a not direct quote and some of those are not even found in the Septuagint.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Cos:

On 9/17/2017 at 1:40 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I would like to hear what you have to say about that specific investigation ... your hard data would of course trump my guessing what the outcome of YOUR actual experiment was. 

Remember however, if you use my qualifying criteria,  the qualifier was that my experiment basis was that  the Greek speaking person person had to be educated enough to understand the uses of Greek predicate positions, etc., specifically the anarthrous predicate as it was used in context of the complete sentence being considered.

Please provide as much detail of your experiment as you can remember ... I wallow in enjoying long detail accounts.

 

Cos:

In the REAL world of establishing FACTS .. ( remember FACTS? ... ) there are criteria to determine the credibility and applicability of those facts to any questions needing answers.   Some facts are incredibly important .. some are completely irrelevant.. and only fuel for idiot word games.

If I ask you how many oranges you have ... and you reply your car needs to be repaired ... that does NOT count as a legitimate answer.

There are Good Detectives

There are Bad Detectives

Bad Detectives do not detect much.

..................................................................................

Your quote of my post still stands on its own, as follows.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that you LIED about having asked anyone at all from the Greek speaking community about this.

You avoided the actual issue.

I look forward to your complete, rational and comprehensive details of the experiment YOU ALLEGEDLY ran, if you really did .... which I currently doubt almost to the point of certainty ... and I am being generous.

Cos:

It APPEARED to me at that point in time that you were lying ... I did NOT call you a liar, a point you missed in avoiding making a legitimate focused reply.

A reasonable person analyzing your foggy unfocused and choppy replies would conclude ....

YOU DID.

.

 

[Evacuated]

20 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

In the Septuagint it states clearly that Isaiah said "I saw His glory" 

Probably John 14:9 has relevance to this one.

Anyway, the Septuagint quotes are interesting. You have accounted for some but what of the 76 others. Is there a quick reference guide available?

[Shiwiii]

22 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Probably John 14:9 has relevance to this one.

to an extent I agree, but the way John directly attributes this glory to Jesus is implying that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. I do get where you are coming from though. Kinda like in Revelation 4:11, speaking of glory/honor/power and again in Revelation 5:12. In chapter 4 it is God who is worthy to receive these and in chapter 5 it is the lamb who is. 

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say

Here we go! An ex-bethelite to the rescue. How does [was god] make sense to you? You admit, NOT knowing Latin. Do you know Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew? To distinguish between a definite and indefinite article. Your friend sure doesn’t.

If you just looked at the sample given, it would indicate on John 1:1c at best it would be in English [and the word was divine essence]. Does that make sense to a supposed intelligent person?

 

And the absurd point is how incoherent non-scholars are with John 1:1c. Granted it also, depends on what translator you use, but, since google translate, made its own rendition of Nova Vulgata? It is appropriate to use it.

The other point of intellectual dishonesty is the “fact” opposers don’t administer the same vigor to other scriptures in defying the letter “a” in John 1:1c

If you are referring to my attitude toward COS, donÂ’t use your double standard analogy since he has been insulting to me, and was the first to instigate it.

[Evacuated]

46 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The other point of intellectual dishonesty is the “fact” opposers donÂ’t administer the same vigor to other scriptures in defying the letter “a” in John 1:1c

Great charts. Thanks a lot. Can't upvote due to COS-bashing unfortunately. 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

Great charts. Thanks a lot. Can't upvote due to COS-bashing unfortunately

Don’t give it a second thought. I understand the need for restraint up to a point. I was as cordial to COS as he was to me until COS decided to use “ad hominem” attacks. Then, I respond kind with kind, and I hope it is understood since many here resort to the same, at any given time. If anything, I have learned to appreciate “HONESTY.” So, Thank You!

[Anna]

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, I respond kind with kind, and I hope it is understood since many here resort to the same, at any given time.

Ummmm...something tells me this is not the correct Christian attitude