Demonism and the Watchtower

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

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.

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.

I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.

One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.

*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***

• It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . .
• When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.”
• Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains:
• “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

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

Ummm! I quite agree. However, is it unilateral when you bash and criticize the Watchtower and the Governing Body? Even a Trinitarian can come to a reasonable conclusion as well as witnesses with the same frame of mind. How is that good Christian Conduct?

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.

Then you can say, even a well-scripted writer would err when attempting to use a "definite" article from another language to English. Then, the presumption that the Watchtower has added, like a few others, has become exceptional when attempting to convey the thoughts of early Christianity, and therefore would have a better understanding in that script governed by a secular expert linguist. Doesn't the writing department at times refer to scholars for a better understanding? Therefore, "the" and "a" are provincial when making an assumption. You can see, "Was spider has eight legs" with that same assumption.

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, the presumption that the Watchtower has added, like a few others, has become exceptional when attempting to convey the thoughts of early Christianity,

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article. When it comes to the thoughts of early Christianity, I can only assume that "a god" is closer and much better than translating "the God." (THE God is understood, of course, by just translating "God" in a monotheistic context.) But I think that Paul explains it even better by saying:

• (Philippians 2:6-10) 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—

• (Colossians 2:8-10) . . .to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.

   

The basic idea is shown in the word for "godship" is pretty much the same as our word "divinity."

*** Rbi8 Colossians 2:9 ***

• “Divine quality.” Lit., “godship.” Gr., the·oʹte·tos; Lat., di·vi·ni·taʹtis.

*** Rbi8 Romans 1:20 ***

• “Godship.” Gr., Thei·oʹtes, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹni·tas.

*** Rbi8 Acts 17:29 ***

• “Divine Being.” Gr., Theiʹon, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹnum.

But although very common, the definite article is not always necessary to refer to THE God. It's still sometimes dependent on context. We don't translate "In a beginning, the Word . . . " just because the definite article is missing. And it could go either way here in John 1:49

• (John 1:49) . . .Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (NWT)

This would just as proper as:

• (John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” (not NWT, but common in other translations)

But it would sound odd to say:

• (John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are a King of Israel.”

But I think even this last one is just as OK as saying "a god" in John 1:1. That's because there might have been so much emphasis on the word "King." It's as if Nathanial was saying, you are not just here as a man, you are here as a KING!!!

I think that's quite possibly a way to look at John 1:1. Saying "a god" is just fine as long as we remember that the point was saying the same thing, that Jesus was not just in heaven as any other angelic being, but Jesus was in heaven as a GOD!!!

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article.

This would be a matter of interpretation. However, now we can be in accord with making the English Language more sound to linguistic understanding.

Now, John 1:1c can be subjective in other languages. For instance:

Lyder Brun (Norwegian. professor of NT theology), 1945, Ordet var av guddomsart  / The word was of divine nature.


Here the linguist is affirming the rendering of the essence in "divine".

So, the Watchtower, as well as others have been "correct" to view the nature (essence) of John 1:1c in that respect.

[Cos]

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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.

 

 

Mr. Rook,

 

To say that I ‘lied” using bold lettering is the same as calling me a liar, or has that type of labeling changed? You do this all the time, I say something which you don’t like and then you accuse me of dishonesty. If what I say to you is “foggy” have you ever thought that maybe it’s you that has “blinkers” on causing you jump to false conclusions? <><

[Cos]

21 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 something just as absurd in return.

Hello JW Insider,

 

It is good to speak with you again. At least someone else can see the absurdity of Mr. Ewing’s claim, however, the other JW’s here are not going to like that from you, even Mr. Ewing when speaking of you as an “ex-bethelite” does so with such venom in his tone.

 

I must thank you for a very detailed description of some of the “goings on” in WT H.Q., some of which I have heard about before.

 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated,

 

Over the many years that the Watchtower quoted Greber for support does constitute a “steady relationship”, there was no other way for me to say it. Also, I can understand, due to your obvious background, how you would think that I exaggerated by using the words “how often”, it’s just a way of saying more than once.

 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else.

 

Greber mentions that the ‘spirits’ directed him to alter what they said were “many erroneous doctrines that had subsequently crept into the Christian faith” and it was these that he changed under the their guidance. 

 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

 

I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.

 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

 

There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?

 

I notice that you make some further interesting comments in other posts that I’d like to discuss with you some other time, I’ll have to end this post here as I have other pressing matters that I need to attend to for now. <><

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

 

I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?

The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.

The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.

So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.

 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.

Not recently? I think this was dealt with in 2007 1/1 WT was it not?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

To say that I ‘lied” using bold lettering is the same as calling me a liar, or has that type of labeling changed?

I have the advantage over you, Cos, if you are less than 50 years old.

In 7th Grade English they taught us to diagram sentences to be able to determine EXACTLY what was being said in written communications.  It has proved valuable to me my entire life.

My wife tells me that in High School now-days  no one can understand script writing ... how to read an analog clock,  or Roman numerals. It is not taught in public schools anymore.  She teaches High School Algebra, and Calculus.

Neither is how to diagram sentences, and that has not been taught for apparently many decades.

The sentence structure determines what is actually being said ... the BOLD type is used for visual emphasis, much like spiking a football AFTER the touchdown, therefore ...

The sentence structure determines what is actually being said.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not recently? I think this was dealt with in 2007 1/1 WT was it not?

Yes.

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible . . .

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***

• This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

I should add that the writer of the 2007 article still believed that the first resurrection had already begun at some point "soon after Christ's presence began." But the only initial premise starts out within the following range:

*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• Now look at chapter 17 of Revelation. We read there that after the destruction of “Babylon the Great,” the Lamb will conquer the nations. Then it adds: “Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him will do so.” (Revelation 17:5, 14) “Called and chosen and faithful” ones must already have been resurrected if they are to be with Jesus for the final defeat of Satan’s world. Reasonably, then, anointed ones who die before Armageddon are resurrected sometime between 1914 and Armageddon.

The attempts to get closer than that rest on very flimsy evidence, even bordering on spiritism: the idea that Rutherford potentially communicated with the dead.

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

Many in Christendom believe that persons who die are still alive as spirit creatures, and the Bible says that communicating with these spirit creatures is spiritism:

• (Revelation 21:7, 8) . . .. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth . . . and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”

Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.

 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.

 

I know. This is the craziest idea ever put in writing in any of our magazines. When I read it at the time I couldn't believe it...especially when used to support the identity of the great crowd and in turn to support the resurrection occurring between 1914 and 1935.  I wonder who came up with that idea and how it could have been sanctioned. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect in Russell's day, not 10 years ago! I think I've already had a rant about this somewhere, if yes, sorry for the repetition