What concept/concepts is behind the term "inspired"?

[JW Insider 5,758]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it seems that 8 million others are also inspired by the devil to support such goings on.

Wow! Is there something holding you back from saying what's really on your mind?

My father and grandfather attended KM school in Pittsburgh back in the early 70's about a year apart from each other. So I would often hear them compare notes as to what Bro. Schroeder had said on a topic. Schroeder was still of the "Rutherford" school when it came to how the entire world was "inspired" of Satan, which influenced his speech about who would die at Armageddon and why we don't celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.

As part of their training, Brother Schroeder would give them questions that the "Press" might ask them, so elders could practice answers that were "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves" so to speak. For example:

Question: Do you think the Pope will be destroyed at Armageddon?

This gets lots of snickers, and a few brothers willing to say, 'Of course he will be destroyed!.' So Brother Schroeder says that, well, we all know the answer, but what do we tell the Press? He recommended saying:

Answer: "He'll get what he deserves!"

This gets uproarious laughter, and must have been treated as if Jesus had just said "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar." It becomes kind of a joke between my father and grandfather, so that they only needed to say: "He'll get what he deserves!" when hearing about other infamous happenings in the world (e.g., Watergate, Nixon Impeachment, US Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade, Spiro Agnew).

I don't know whether Schroeder himself mentioned people with Christmas trees, but I remember being a bit taken aback that my father and grandfather even applied it for a while to people with Christmas trees, people singing Christmas carols on TV, etc., even though they started to say it in a kind of joking way, knowing that the phrase was getting old.

When you mentioned that the Society knew that Christmas was wrong before 1900 but kept celebrating until the late 1920's it reminded me of this. Imagine if Armageddon had actually come in 1915, or 1918, or 1925, as they sometimes expected. In effect, my father and grandfather were saying that Rutherford and all the people in the entire Watch Tower Society would have been destroyed. I can imagine how we, as an organization, would have felt if we knew that certain people or groups who had already stopped celebrating Christmas were looking at the Watch Tower Society at the time and saying "They'll get what they deserve at Armageddon."

When it comes to all this judgmental speech, here in this forum, I try to remember to test it by thinking what we would say if we were guests in a Mormon forum, or a Catholic forum. Would you, for example, go into a Mormon-centric forum right now and say that 15 million Mormons (LDS) are all inspired by Satan. (And yes they have had trouble with child sexual abuse and cover-ups.) And because a high percentage of Catholics support the Pope, would you go into a Catholic-centric forum and say that 1 billion Catholics are inspired by Satan.

To me, it seems a bit over the top, even though you could probably find a near equivalent problem in the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church for every problem you see among Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm not one to tell you to stop saying whatever you want to say, as you probably feel like a good part of your life was wasted among Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm sure this drives a lot of the "tone." I am reminded of the "tone" that Rutherford took against the clergy, especially the Catholic hierarchy, and he could rationalize that he was protecting the world from Catholicism -- just as you probably think you are trying to protect the world from Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least to protect a few other Jehovah's Witnesses from themselves.

[Outta Here 2,184]

19 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This is an OPEN forum

It has parameters.

[JOHN BUTLER 499]

@JW Insider  quote "Wow! Is there something holding you back from saying what's really on your mind?"

What is it BTK says ' I'm frightened of no man'  

Well neither am I, when I'm behind this keyboard  .... 

I'm sorry but that's how I relate it.   If 8 million people are serving the GB and it's W/t and JW Org, then they are serving the Devil, as the GB etc are not serving God or Christ. 

I've no need to go into all the reasons that this is easy to see.  Simple. BY THEIR WORKS YOU WILL KNOW THEM.

And the things now being revealed about the GB and its organisations, and it's legal departments, are proving that they do NOT have God's approval. So who's approval do they have ? Satan the Devil's of course.

There is no middle ground, God or Devil. You serve one or the other it seems. 

[JOHN BUTLER 499]

2 hours ago, Outta Here said:

It has parameters.

Yes but you do not set them  

[Srecko Sostar 1,799]

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However I have previously pointed out that this scripture was written before all 66 'writings' were completed, AND that ALL SCRIPTURE had not been brought together as one 'book'. 

It is very significant that numbers 6 and 66 are numbers in relation to Bible. Because Bible said how 6, 66 and 666 are numbers in context to something evil, something that is in opposition to God. Who inspired or what inspired people who put 66 letters, books as parts of Bible? 

The Catholic Bible has 73 Books. (7 more than the Protestant Bible) The Protestant Bible has 66 Books. GB decide to accept Protestant Bible. Were GB inspired, sorry, i mean - were GB guided by spirit  in this decision?

[JW Insider 5,758]

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It is therefore my opinion that the scripture, here in Timothy, was relating to the Hebrew writings. Otherwise it was prophecy.

Technically, you are correct. The Watch Tower Society publications come very close to saying the same thing in the NWT Study Bible when discussing Romans 1:2:

*** nwtsty Romans Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
1:2
the holy Scriptures: Here referring to the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. In harmony with this verse, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.” Other terms used in the Christian Greek Scriptures for this collection of inspired writings are “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) At times, the terms “Law” (Joh 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1Co 14:21) and “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12; Lu 16:16) are also used in a general sense to refer to the entire Hebrew Scriptures.—Mt 22:40; see study notes on Mt 5:17; Joh 10:34.

There were no collected Christian Greek Scriptures at the time. Except in the sense that the Greek LXX was the Christian Bible as well as the Jewish Bible in that time period. The LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (into Greek). Paul and all the Gospel writers quoted from the LXX. It is rare for any "NT" writer to ever quote from the "OT" in a way that shows preference for the Hebrew (as we know it today) over the LXX Greek.

Of course, the letters of Peter also treat Paul's letters as inspired, and of "life and death" importance. If we accept that the Christian "church" is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, then we will, by extension, include the "NT" as inspired along with the "OT." Of course, it's not merely an internal claim that they are inspired, otherwise any text could have made the claim. It's the acceptance that inspired scripture can only be included if it is accepted as the words of apostles and those who had the approval of apostles during their lifetime. It also must harmonize with the rest of scripture. Where there is or was a question as to the harmony or authorship, we have a useful directive from 1 John 4:1. What we have really done of course, is accept the earliest collected manuscripts that were already accepted by consensus by the earliest known "Christian fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd century.  Their criteria matched their beliefs about apostolic authorship and supportive contemporaries of apostolic authorship.

By accepting the choices of the early "church fathers" we are actually putting faith in the fact that Jehovah made sure that sufficient manuscripts meeting the necessary criteria were saved and sufficiently "revered" to remain true to the purpose of scripture, uncorrupted. The scriptures were copied so often that we can now trace back (sometimes) to within a hundred years of the death of the last apostle (usually a bit over 200 years) and find that there was a high consistency to the copies of manuscripts, and enough manuscripts to remove any corruptions that did find their way in.

 

[JOHN BUTLER 499]

By accepting the choices of the early "church fathers" we are actually putting faith in the fact that Jehovah made sure that sufficient manuscripts meeting the necessary criteria were saved and sufficiently "revered" to remain true to the purpose of scripture, uncorrupted. The scriptures were copied so often that we can now trace back to within a hundred years of the death of the last apostle and find that there was a high consistency to the copies of manuscripts, and enough manuscripts to remove any corruptions that did find their way in.

But now I'm hearing on here that the GB / W/t / JW org have changed scripture or words in scripture. Or written it is such a way as to suit their own purposes. 'Brazen conduct 'for instance.  And is 'torture stake' in the original; scriptures ? 

And then we have the misuse or wrongful meaning of scriptures such as Superior Authorities. 

So God has done a fantastic job of preserving scriptures only to have it all messed up because no one is inspired by God's holy spirit  to use scriptures properly. 

 

 

 

[JW Insider 5,758]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But now I'm hearing on here that the GB / W/t / JW org have changed scripture or words in scripture. Or written it is such a way as to suit their own purposes. 'Brazen conduct 'for instance.  And is 'torture stake' in the original; scriptures ?

These can all be separate topics. The WT's NWT Committee is a lot like all committees put together for the purpose of translating the Bible. They never claimed to be inspired, but they had certain criteria in mind for the NWT. One was to be accurate and consistent and also allow a high degree of literalness in the original. Sometimes this literalness even preserves Hebrew idiom. And yes, they had certain ideas about accuracy in mind when choosing words like "torture stake" instead of the Greek "stauros."

Translating the Greek word stauros as "torture stake" is not any worse, and might even be better, than translating it as "cross." It depends on the accuracy of the research that went into knowing what a "stauros" really was at the time the Bible was written. The Romans never consistently used two pieces of timber in the shape of the small letter t or T as is often depicted. They definitely did use that form around the time of Jesus, and probably used it a lot, but not consistently. It still might not have been the most commonly used shape of a stauros in Jesus' time. But there is no sure way to know exactly what the shape was for Jesus' execution, because a stauros could take on many shapes. The main thing we know about it is that it was wooden, fashioned from a tree, stake, board, timber, etc., and that no matter what the shape it was used to bring about a torturous (and shameful) death. Even if we knew for sure that the particular stauros in Jesus case was "cross-shaped" it still would not necessarily mean "cross" is the best translation, as it might not get across the full range of meaning implied in the original word "stauros."

Same for the word "brazen." The complaint, as I've heard it, is that it hasn't been specifically (and consistently) defined as to how it will be applied in judicial cases that come before a judicial committee (of elders). Unfortunately, this is the same problem with the original word in Greek, so maybe the translation is just fine. It's not much different than the word "immoral" which will have a range of meaning depending on who's doing the judging.

And yes, bias is going to happen with all translators. If you have decided that the parousia is a 105-year-long event you will look for rules in Greek that would allow you to say something happens "during" the parousia instead of "at" the parousia. If you are trying to be consistent you should follow through and see if "during" works in all those other cases where you might have more naturally translated the Greek to the English word "at." If the range of meaning supports your own view of a doctrine, you will naturally drift toward those definitions that allow for your doctrine, even if they are not as common. If you had to do this in 10 different places, as our NWT translators did, then it should have given them pause to wonder if they were handling the rules of Greek correctly. But if you are a true believer in the doctrine you will more likely just be comfortably satisfied that the Greek actually "supports" your unique teaching.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And then we have the misuse or wrongful meaning of scriptures such as Superior Authorities. 

That's interpretation that can go wrong even when the translation is just fine.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So God has done a fantastic job of preserving scriptures only to have it all messed up because no one is inspired by God's holy spirit  to use scriptures properly. 

Really? You must think the Bible is full of all sorts of esoteric ideas that are required for some rituals that must be performed according to a specific type of knowledge. That's a gnostic way of looking at Scripture. The Bible is actually full of simple ideas that make us happy and unburdened and free. It was easy to understand the Law in Israel that had hundreds of individual rules. Then Jesus taught us how to transition from that old view to a view based on undeserved kindness and love of God and neighbor. This is not something only the anointed can understand. It's not so far up there that it's hard to reach. It actually brings a true conception of God down to us. 

• (Romans 10:5-10) . . .For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the Law: “The man who does these things will live by means of them.” 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching. 9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.

[JOHN BUTLER 499]

Really? You must think the Bible is full of all sorts of esoteric ideas that are required for some rituals that must be performed according to a specific type of knowledge.

Well the GB seem to think so, as they say THEY are the FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE and only THEY can give instruction to God's people. 

[JW Insider 5,758]

21 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Well the GB seem to think so, as they say THEY are the FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE and only THEY can give instruction to God's people. 

Just because they are not THE faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24:45, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of A class of faithful and discreet slaves, just as all of us should be. It has nothing to do with whether one is anointed or not. It's just a matter of whether we are being discreet and faithful as required when waiting for judgment at the parousia. In fact, as Jesus said, no one knows the day and hour of the parousia, because it would come as a surprise, similar to how the judgment quickly swept people away in Noah's day where people took no note of a warning. And similar to how the judgment on Sodom quickly swept people away with no particular warning at all.

So if they feel the responsibility of a faithful and discreet slave, then great! These are elders who should then take on the responsibility to feed Jesus' little sheep. And they are definitely working on that very effort. What they tell us to do is rarely anything different from read the Bible, accept an obvious understanding and explanation -- which is probably correct 98 times out of 100. I'd guess that, in spite of difficulties in Bible translation, the number of verses that ended up perfectly well translated was an even better ratio than that.

Also it's not correct to say that they claim only THEY can give instruction to God's people. Every publisher is allowed to present the good news of the Kingdom to those who may become God's people. Every speaker from a platform can be giving instruction to God's people. Every older sister who encourages a younger sister, every younger brother who encourages an older brother, etc. All the congregation feeds one another by building one another up and encouraging one another.

I bring up the point about the parousia, even though you didn't, because it is that specific teaching that makes the GB believe it is absolutely necessary for the GB to take on the responsibility of a specific faithful and discreet slave for the purposes of feeding the entire worldwide congregation of God (since about 1919). It still doesn't mean that the rest of us should shirk our own responsibility to also be faithful and discreet slaves helping to build up the congregation of God. So it doesn't need to interfere with our Christianity. As Paul said, there will be sects among you. For most Witnesses, who prefer not to question, and not to make sure of all things,  it probably makes them more comfortable this way.

[Outta Here 2,184]

7 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Why haven't you voiced your opposition before about JTR that has far exceeded being offensive.

Check and see what comments I have made regarding ill-advised behaviour and statements of others in the past. 

The offensive behaviour individuals display toward each other on  forum space is for themselves to sort out generally. The parameters and guidelines are there for all to apply. Moderators can be appealed to by protagonists if they so wish, and of course moderators can intervene as they see fit.

However, slanderous and offensive statements made about millions of decent people worldwide  exceed the boundaries of acceptable use of this forum, be it open or closed, that is if those guidelines listed above are still in force. If they are not, then let those who made them rescind them.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes but you do not set them

They have already been set.

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr. 3,713]

15 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Some of the posts here are thoroughly offensive and bigoted and seem to be bringing the forum down to the level of a mere exchange of personal "flaming" messages.

Moderator, @The Librarian , someone ! The forum has a minimum level of standards to prevent a complete loss of credibility. Please moderate!

I agree (somewhat).  

I have no interest whatsoever in attacking people I will never meet, and soon, like all of us ... toooooo soon we will all be dead, and the words we type will evaporate forever.

However, when I get hit on the shoulder and a grenade falls into my lap (figuratively speaking), I pick it up and toss it back where it came from.  Most of the time the "sender" forgot to pull the pin, but I consider the evil  intent, so I pull the pin, and send it back.  The amount of lies told about me, and things I have been accused of need to be addressed, AND ANY LIAR AND SLANDERER THOROUGHLY EXPOSED ... which I have done.

Common, ordinary self defense.

It's an exceptional person who can be hit on the head with a hammer, and reply "OH RANDOM FLUCTUATIONS IN THE SPACETIME CONTINUUM !".

However, it does not bother me in the least, as the corrosive interactions merely strip away the veneer of fantasy we all tend to accumulate.

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Too many rules, and it gets as dull as a cardboard knife.