JW Insider

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

To whom, members of the Bethel Family?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

It appears Furuli and Ray missed the mark when it comes to the presumptive first century governing body the watchtower has focused on.

You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, the Sanhedrin could be the equivalent to a modern governing body regardless who tries to discredit that notion.

There was also the Council of Jamnia that could have taken part in canonizing the Hebrew Bible.

Now the Sanhedrin was composed of either 21 or 24 elders. The point here is, The Pharisees (middle class) and Sadducee's were prominent Jewish leaders.

I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)

And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.

I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

1 hour ago, Witness said:

This Resolution was adopted by congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the earth. The announcement in the Watchtower magazine of October 15, 1932, at the end of 2,300 evenings and mornings was the official notification made by Jehovah through his visible channel of communication that his sanctuary of anointed “living stones” had been cleansed, vindicated and justified.

Some time around 1971, that prophecy changed from 1932 to 1944. This changed in --you guessed it-- 1971! I'm assuming that Fred Franz had caught the contradiction himself. This is definitely his writing, below (and likely above, too) as he was the only one allowed to define the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 1290, 1335, etc. I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.

*** w71 12/1 pp. 724-725 pars. 27-29 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
When did those 2,300 evenings and mornings begin? By knowing this we can find out when they end and thus when Jehovah’s “holy place” is “brought into its right condition,” or, “shall be restored to its rightful state” . . . At the earliest this was on June 1, 1938, when the official magazine of Jehovah’s anointed remnant of underpriests at His sanctuary, namely, The Watchtower, published Part One of the article entitled “Organization,” so as to state more fully the theocratic requirements for it. When we calculate according to the Jewish lunar calendar that was used at the time of Daniel’s vision centuries before the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar were introduced, June 1, 1938. . .
28 If we thus count from the critical period when theocratic organization was being more fully installed in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses, when did the 2,300 days end?
29 Remember, this is a prophetic period. So a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14) So 2,300 days would amount to six lunar years, four lunar months and twenty days. That amount of time counted from Sivan 2 (June 1), 1938, would end on Tishri 21 (October 8), 1944, or, counted from Sivan 16 (June 15), 1938, it would end on Heshvan 5 (October 22), 1944. At that particular time world events were moving closer to the bringing of the beastlike Eighth World Power out of the abyss shortly after World War II, this time in the form of the United Nations organization, for world peace and security.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Was this before or after he decided to accept the unpublished book of Olof Jonsson?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before COJ. Remember that the first Aid Book was released in 1969. More of it was done, but it ended at A-E. The entire book A-Z was released in 1971. The research that Franz had to do on Chronology and the Elder arrangement had already been done by 1969.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

What would have been the mindset of Ray if he thought negative about the GB before he was kicked out.

"Mindset" hmmm. Who knows? I don't think anyone ever got the sense that he thought negative about the GB. He took a leave of absense in early 1980 for health reasons. I'm sure it was mostly due to harrassment by a specific member of the GB, but I doubt that he considered that brother to reflect the entire GB, or the "GB arrangement." He was asked to resign from the GB in May 1980. From his book, it appears he was doing the best he could, and still supportive of the Society's arrangements right up until he was disfellowshipped near the end of 1981. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed he said anything about the GB until his own book was published in 1983.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Now I can understand, the negativeness when he was kicked out, so are you saying, you will soon see Furuli disfellowshiped? If he is, it would seem to a thinking person, he will discredit the Watchtower like RAY.

I don't think Ray Franz would have wanted to appeal the DF if he was really negative. Why try to stay in something you don't like?  And personally I don't see it as inevitable that Furuli will be disfellowshiped. If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should then I think that the decision will reach to NY HQ, and they will try to avoid making any news over it. I think that the GB will understand this as a kind of a trap for them. There is the small world of academia, which the GB still rely on now and then for a certain level of credibility. but they will fear what they don't understand very well, and not with to disturb anything there. And, more importantly we are already in a world where a large percent of young JWs do online Google searches, so that his disfellowshiping would also bring unnecessary attention on the very thing they don't want. I'm sure it's preferable to try to let it blow over if it will.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Why can't you just accept the man as an individual ? He is just as entitled to an individual opinion as anyone else is.

I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad. I think that R.Franz was also "right" and "useful" in several ways, but I also think he was too weak or passive to stand up for what he was learning to be right. I had thought he might have come to realize some of these things after leaving, but he admits to not having the confidence to stand up to F.Franz, the conservative "guardian of doctrine" in those days. He should have seen the ongoing problems of the "two witness rule" and that scripture did not treat is as so all-encompassing. I don't mean to go off on a CSA tangent but some of that is on R.Franz, for promoting the two-witness rule. He knew things were wrong and didn't kick up much of a fuss. He admits to having learned that the WT was wrong on 607, and therefore wrong on 1914, and therefore wrong about the "parousia" and "generation" theory. I think he bears some responsibility for just allowing the status quo to go on and create the mess it did on that "generation" topic for several more decades. 

But the point is that even the WTS saw some usefulness and things that were right in the book that R.Franz wrote. They changed some things that he had exposed. A person can be partly right and partly wrong, but it doesn't mean their concerns are not useful.

With Furuli, I agree that it's not fair to try to group him with others. But the comparison is very interesting to me because I think I know Furuli's thinking pretty well from reading a lot of his books and even having some back-and-forth with him on academic sites many years ago. And I heard the equivalent of about 70 15-minute talks by Ray Franz at the Bethel morning text over a 3.5 year period. (Don't tell Kosonen, but that's 1,260 days.)

To me, Furuli, like Franz, have some good points and some bad points. (I mean, who really needs to go back to the old 49,000 years of creative days?) But I'm not playing fair if I say that Furuli must have been very thoughtful and useful with his critique of "GB=FDS" just because I agree with him on that, but that he must still be stuck on the weak and beggarly things if he can't get over 607 BCE and the 49,000 years.

So anything I can grasp at to understand his current mindset is of interest to me.

There are many more points of overlap between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli on those topics where they agree. One might expect this to be natural since they studied the same topic and came to the same conclusion on a few of them. Perhaps it's just coincidence, except for the idea that some of the points were barely known outside of their exposure in Franz books. Perhaps even the similarities of expression and style are coincidental.

Or Furuli could have read Ray Franz' books and decided to try to debunk them as he had tried to debunk Ray Franz and C.O.Jonsson on chronology subjects.

It probably doesn't matter how similar they are. But anyone else who read both authors might have more points to weigh in on if they wish.

A friend also pointed out to me that Furuli's citation of the November 1, 1946 Watchtower was the same set of points that Ray Franz discussed at length in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom."

This is from p.101 of Furuli:

Excursus on the view of the organization in 1946
    The view of the organization in the middle of the 20th century was the
diametrical opposite of the present view that is described above. The
article "Let God Prove to Be True" in The Watchtower of 1 November
1946, pages 330-332, shows the contrast between the hierarchical
Catholic Church and the Christian organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Below is a long quotation [from that Watchtower].
   The written Word of God, therefore, does not need the addition of
traditions which are the private interpretations of men and of
religious organizations. It is not on our own authority that we say that
the Bible is sufficient without such .... (2 Tim. 3:15-17, Douay) Had
the oral traditions of religious men been necessary to complement
the canon of the Bible, Paul would not have said that the inspired
Holy Scriptures were profitable to the point of making the men perfect
in faith and devotion to God....
    Now a final argument is shot at us by those who uphold an
ecclesiastical or hierarchical organization. They say: 'Even doing away
with religious traditions, the Bible cannot be left for each reader to
interpret for himself; we still need the visible organization of the
faithful to act as a "living magisterium" or teaching power in order
to interpret the Bible and make plain the will of God from it. Look
at how the Bible, left to each one's individual interpretation, has
resulted in the religiously divided condition of Protestantism.' To this
we say, Protestantism's multitude of sects and cults is no proof that
the Bible is a divisive force to those who take it, and it alone, as
adequate. The Bible is not is a divisive Book, for it is harmonious
from cover to cover and agrees with itself, in all its canonical books.
   The divisive force among the Catholic and Protestant religionists of
Christendom is the religious traditions which they follow. The truth
of the Bible is a unifying power. After Christ Jesus prayed: "Sanctify
them through thy word: thy word is truth," he immediately prayed
that all his believers, those then following him and those yet due to
believe, should be united in one, just as he and his heavenly Father
are one. (John 17:17-23) It is now that this Christian oneness must
be attained; now, at this end of the world. It has been attained by
Jehovah's Witnesses, who have come forth from inside and outside
of the multitude of religious organizations and who now unite in
God's service despite their former religious disagreements.
How is this? How is disunity over each one's individual interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures now overcome and avoided? Is it because they an united around
a visible human organization or around a visible human leader? The answer is
No. It is because they recognize Jehovah God and Christ Jesus as The
Higher Powers to whom every Christian soul must be subject for
conscience' sake. (Rom 13:1) It is because they recognize Jehovah
God as the one true and living God, the Most High or Supreme One,
and Christ Jesus as His anointed King and Elect Servant, whom
Jehovah has appointed as the Leader and Commander to the peoples.
(Isa. 42:1; 55:3,4: Matt. 12:18; Acts 13:34) It is, too, because they
recognize Jehovah God as the living, ever-present Teacher of His
church on earth, and that he teaches the "church of God" through
her Head, Christ Jesus.-Isa. 54:13; John 6:45.

Also on the previous thread, I remember that R Franz spoke of the hierarchical similarities between the GB and the Catholic hierarchy. And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

On 5/26/2020 at 1:00 AM, JW Insider said:

But Furuli's book is starting to sound more like a Raymond Franz sequel (on those few points where they agree). Comparisons between the organizational hierarchy and the Catholic Church are even stronger here than in Franz' books. He even seems to acknowledge (or idealize) that there was a short period of time that immediately followed when R.Franz presented the scriptural meaning of elder, etc., to Knorr and FW Franz, and they humbly accepted the loss of power and authority.

To that same point about the comparison to Ray Franz, The Librarian, that ol. . . . . , (Wait, now you've got me saying it, TTH). Anyway the Library wondered if he just copied Fred Franz viewpoint, which was barely known by anyone outside of Gilead Students and Bethelites in 1975, until Ray Franz pointed out this talk in his book:

On 5/25/2020 at 2:30 PM, The Librarian said:

I wonder if he just copied Fred Franz' viewpoint?

See also

 

OK, "a while" is up. I indicated to someone in the other Furuli thread that I would follow up on the comparison between Furuli and Franz.

I'll start with just a repetition of what I put in the other thread, with only slight edits because it would otherwise be too far out of context here:

=============

So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels.

Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one:

Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them:

I do not question
the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are
held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful
and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's
Witnesses as their government with unlimited power.

Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book:

This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have
the right to . . .
overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on
the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to [a] point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem [based on a rumor] may have started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may [not have been very] revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary.

One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. TTH might have nailed it when he wondered just how Furuli knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Psalm 141:5 . . .“Should the righteous one strike me, it would be an act of loyal love; Should he reprove me, it would be like oil on my head, Which my head would never refuse. My prayer will continue even during their calamities.” 

Such an amazingly great scripture. It can take years to fully get our hearts and our head around it.

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.

Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 

There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.

I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Are you saying he [Furuli] should have counseled the GB not to keep using references from Zondervan?

To discourage worldly interpretation such as acceptance of homosexuality, then yes!

At least you are consistent in saying that you think the GB should be counseled about this, too. If counseling the GB is really the right thing to do, don't you think that you should counsel the GB not to quote from Zondervan publications, now that Furuli has failed to do so? You would be the right person to do this since I doubt that any other Witness around here would have even thought about this. I'd bet that no others here even agree with you on this point. So, it looks like it's up to you if you really think it's the right thing to do. 😉

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yet, you contend, that I don't like to accept when I am wrong, where does that leave you, since you want to continue a nonsensical argument.

I don't want to continue it, but since we've both had ample opportunity to consider the evidence for or against your original claims, I don't see any point in belaboring it either. You've already moved on to "adjusted" claims, so I think that each of us have made the point we hoped to make.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What was the point you disagreed with, that you saw similarities between Rolf and Raymond?

Someone else who hadn't even seen the discussion here, just recently asked me if I had noticed the same thing. He mentioned items that match what was already brought out here in the discussion and even more. So, yes, this is a good topic. Perhaps we should start another topic since this topic is already quite lengthy. 

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Then you continue to insist on a false premise just because you got it wrong to what I saw pointing out about Zondervan publishing house that you to continue to try to clean up at all cost?

Classic!

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The fact I have proven your false claim with my evidence of where I was referring to, and you get upset because you can't read my mind only shows weakness.

Your false claim was based upon false evidence. That was obvious, and is even more obvious now. But I do admit that it would be interesting to understand your mind. I like people and enjoy learning about them and learning from them. And watching how people think has always been of great interest to me. Perhaps it is a weakness, but I have learned much from the discussion.

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I’m not sure where all this Zondervan stuff started, but I wish that somewhere Rolf could have pointed out the conflict-of-interest in putting Big Business in charge of distributing the Word of God. . . .    He might also point out how such a channel means that rigorously translating a ‘trinity’ scripture will not doom the Bible in the marketplace, as it would in Zondervan’s case.

Far be it from me to discuss something here that belongs in a different topic, 😉 but I was thinking the same thing. Outta Here pointed this out with a reference to something I had never seen before, and which appears to be a true sentiment of translators who let tradition invalidate parts of God's word. In this case, it refers to Zondervan's NIV:

On 12/15/2018 at 4:50 AM, Outta Here said:

An example . . . would be the response of one Edwin H Palmer, (Executive Secretary for the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV), on a question as to why the name Jehovah had been ommitted from the NIV translation. He said in 1979: "we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation, and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Ps.23 as, "Yahweh is my shepherd"." 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You falsely thought you had something to argue, and you were proven wrong as usual.

That's not what the evidence shows, though, is it?

Somehow I got a reputation around here for being too patient with people like you, and it turns out that getting into verbal fisticuffs with someone is a prerequisite for TTH's "Bible 101" class. 😉 You were handy.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, for the fourth time, to me it was about Furuli not doing a thorough research to use a certain publishing house you are trying so hard to defend now, since "Wisely Hill's" book is another illustration of Zondervan works.

I'm not defending Zondervan. They are just another Bible publishing house with books and Bibles that the Watchtower has seen fit to quote from dozens of times. In fact, the very publication that you pointed out, one that Furuli also quotes from (Zondervan's Expositor's Bible Commentary) has been quoted by the Watchtower publications at least 15 times. Other Zondervan publications have been quoted in the Watchtower about 75 times.

You have evidently looked for things that sound salacious in Wesley Hill's book, as an illustration of "Zondervan works." That sounds like a disgusting thing to do just to try to prove that you might still be partly right in a claim that is still false. But it's still not a book about "gay sex" as you claimed. In fact, I've just looked up 5 places where the book is discussed or reviewed and all of them say it's a book about gay celibacy, and all of them quote the author himself to show the evidence. I'll offer just one of them here, although I suspect you already passed up several similar quotes when you were looking for salacious bits:

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/washed-waiting-gospel-story-celibacy

In Chapter 1, Wesley explains why he believes scriptural witness and church tradition require him not to act on his homosexual desires and how the gospel enables him to fulfill this demand.

He begins by briefly addressing some of the same biblical passages we addressed in our discussion of Torn—Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 19:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:8-11; Romans 1:18-32—as well as Genesis 1-3 and Jesus’ teachings on divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-8, which Wesley says “presents marriage between one man and one woman as the God-given context for human sexual expression and thus, in principle, rules out homosexual practice.”

“On the basis of texts such as these,” Wesley concludes, “the Christian church has consistently and repeatedly said no to homosexual practice.” (p. 53)

Wesley doesn’t gloss over the challenge of this conviction .

“To say no over and over again to some of my deepest, strongest, most recurrent longings often seems, by turns, impossible and completely undesirable. If a gay Christian’s sexual orientation is so fixed and ingrained that there seems to be little hope of changing it, should he or she really be expected to resist it for a lifetime?”

And it goes on to show why the author believes the answer is that a gay person must resist for a lifetime, and that this outlook is supported in scripture. So, while it's true that he admits some details about what he struggles against, you should not to use selective quotes to misrepresent an author. It seems clear that this was what you did, and what you intended to do. I find this to be evidence of more dishonesty from you.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, that was your incorrect research not by factual proof you are desperately trying to deny now.

Also, please don't project your obvious desperation on me. The facts are very clear-cut so there is really no argument at all. There has not been anything to deny.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Read the books in their entirety instead of searching for snippets in google.

That sounds like more projection, too, but I have no desire to read his entire book. His own review of it, and intro and conclusion should be enough. And his own statements are borne out by 100 percent of the 5 reviews I read. In fact, from you yourself I can tell that you have mischaracterized the book, based on reading your own references.

And, it's still not relevant to the point: that you used false claims as false evidence about Zondervan to discredit Furuli's due diligence, when it was unrelated to his point.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It doesn't matter if they have published bibles or bible commentaries. With a serious book such as Furuli's, well deserved research would have gone further.

Are you saying he should have counseled the GB not to keep using references from Zondervan?

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Incorrect. Once again your dishonesty goes without challenge. You seem to be, wanting to prove me wrong and as usual you get caught being deceptive by diverting challenges.

As with a lot of things, the actual point is not that important. But honesty is.

(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

But by this I don't mean that all dishonesty needs to be challenged. Love can also cover over a multitude of sins. But this topic started out as a serious discussion of Furuli's work on the "FDS=GB" doctrine. If I had said that I think Furuli didn't do his homework because he used some silly fonts in his e-book, you would have a right to correct me. If I said that he shouldn't have used a certain font because that font was used in a certain book on spiritism, and another on porneia, you would have a right to correct me. But if I started evading and diverting and saying I didn't really say what I said, but had really said something else, then someone should probably point out that this type of conduct appears to be dishonest. 

I'm not sure why you thought it was necessary to make this false claim about Zondervan, in the first place, and then double down with a second false claim about them, when the first didn't pan out. But is was shown to be a false claim, nonetheless. Even if it were true, it would still not prove that Furuli did anything wrong, any more than you would be proving that the Watchtower Society is doing something wrong by also quoting from Zondervan. From what I can tell, Furuli's Zondervan sources were perfectly correct on the points that Furuli is making, as they are about the meanings of Biblical Greek words and passages. Remember, that Furuli is an accomplished linguist, and his sources from Zondervan are the NIV Bible and other Bible commentaries about Biblical Greek.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This post was about the challenge you seemed so desperate to disprove about Zodervan not being a good spiritual publishing house.

Not at all. They could be a great spiritual publishing house, or they could be a terrible spiritual publishing house. It was never about that at all. It was about using false claims as false evidence to indicate that they were not a good spiritual publishing house.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You are the one making a big deal trying to make people think that Harper Collins published the Satanic Bible and the joy of sex, when I was referring to a different book published by Zodervan.

Patently false, and dishonest, too, I'd have to assume. Here are your own words as a reminder.

Quote

authors from the Zondervan publishing house. A publishing house that printed the Satanic Bible.

Quote

The fact Brother furuli didn't do due diligence in his research puts a black mark on it since that publishing house not only published the "Satanic Bible" but has published material meant for homosexuals.

Quote

Funny, Harper Collins published the Satanic bible, while Zondervan published gay sex.

As evidence you even provided a website link that only mentioned the Satanic Bible and [Joy of] Gay Sex, with no other books mentioned. The idea that you could avoid admitting the mistake by claiming you referring to a different "gay sex" book was predictable. And then that fell through because "All But Invisible" was a book about celibacy, not sex.

Your second attempt to avoid admitting a mistake again, imo, is now similar:

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

. . . I was referring to a different book published by Zodervan.  The posted author is gay. Had you done proper research just like Furuli, you would have found "Wisley Hill" and his book published by Zodervan "washed and waiting 2010" speaks of his experience of being gay.

Again, your second try, "Washed and Waiting," is also about gay celibacy, not "gay sex."

But, even if you had been right, what would it mean? Are you saying that a writer who wants to publish a book can't quote from a book from a publisher that has ever published or promoted or distributed OTHER books by OTHER authors who wrote about spiritism or wrote material directed at a homosexual audience. I'm sure you are aware that the Watchtower has written material directed at a homosexual audience (nothing wrong with that, as it is counsel and advice), and the Watchtower publications have also promoted or distributed books about spiritism (in the distant past). The Watchtower Society has also quoted from several different commentary publications from Zondervan, not just several Zondervan-published Bibles.

What you should do is point out what you think is wrong with the actual argument that Furuli made, without "poisoning the well," as it were, by making false claims about his sources.

22 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

A Hebrew to English translation would be helpful to me I think. And possibly a different Greek to English also. 

I think the interlinear translations are great. Of course, you can do this online now. But I have J.P.Green's Hebrew Interlinear and think it's good. I think I bought mine for 20 while at Bethel, and I see it's now several times higher in price on Amzn. The KIT was always the best priced Greek Interlinear, and the word-for-word is just fine, even if you don't like the NWT in the margin.

For the NWT, I was referring to any of them prior to 2013. The black one you refer to is nice for old eyes, and more room for writing in the margins.

I also really like the Bibles that have 4 translations to a page, and I also have one with 8 translations on a page. This way you only have to glance over at another translation if you want to see how someone else translates the same verses/passage.

[edited to add: by 4 an 8 translations per page, it's really only 2 and 4 per page, but when you open to any page it uses both open pages, side by side, left and right, to display the same set of verses. So the "8" really only has 4 translations on each side. You typically won't read all of them, but it's a good way to find both a more literal and a more readable on the same page with easy access to both.]

11 minutes ago, Anna said:

Lately I find myself not bothering to reply to others like Witness for example when she says that buying liquor (Morris) is a sign of not being sound in mind.

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent.

Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

If one is already very familiar with a very literal translation, that stays close and consistent to the original Hebrew and Greek tenses and expressions, then almost any translation in more modern or flowing language will work.

I like the original NWT for a very literal translation because I'm familiar with it. The Hebrew Scriptures are a bit "stilted" and not very flexible, but that can be good for a literal translation. The Greek is very good and more readable even for a literal translation. You should already be familiar with all the controversial portions of the translation to make up your own mind on stauros, parousia, synteleia, etc.

Other good literal translations include the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) which also has excellent footnotes. I have not found it available online. The ASV and RSV and YLT are good for this too.

After the literal, then you are ready for almost anything. The NWT 2013 is a good compromise between literal and simple ease of reading. But just about anything will work as the second translation you read, even another literal.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You seem to want to make a point here. It appears you are discrediting my assessment about Zondervan not being a good spiritual publishing house. As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years.

All But Invisible

By Nate Collins, Wesley Hill

·  Publisher: Zondervan

I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays (LGBT) (HOMOSEXUAL) into their churches in the name of unity. I have no idea what you are trying to articulate.

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:

(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.

So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.

When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.

Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.

Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."

I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.

----------------

I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.

First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.

On 5/31/2020 at 8:08 PM, César Chávez said:

I will admit, I love his references like authors from the Zondervan publishing house. A publishing house that printed the Satanic Bible. This just tells me, Furuli didn’t do a thorough research.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm

The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.

Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:

Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.

Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 

So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:

On 6/1/2020 at 3:42 PM, César Chávez said:

The fact Brother furuli didn't do due diligence in his research puts a black mark on it since that publishing house not only published the "Satanic Bible" but has published material meant for homosexuals. If you research the history, there was nothing here for you to clarify to begin with.

The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.

But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:

On 6/1/2020 at 3:52 PM, JW Insider said:

Harper Collins published the Satanic Bible and also a book about "gay sex." . . . When Harper Collins bought Zondervan, it still didn't mean that the Zondervan suddenly became the publisher. . . .  However, it is very likely that discussions about homosexuality as a issue related to religion have been published by Zondervan.

To which CC responded:

On 6/1/2020 at 4:01 PM, César Chávez said:

Funny, Harper Collins published the Satanic bible, while Zondervan published gay sex.

So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:

On 6/1/2020 at 7:03 PM, JW Insider said:

there is a common complaint all over the Internet that Zondervan published the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex. ... But unfortunately the gay sex book was not published by Zondervan. Perhaps you have done more research into the other books on homosexuality published by Zondervan, but from what I can tell, most of them are about gay persons trying to live a celibate lifestyle and the potential conflict between grace and sin.

But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.

The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.

As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------

So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

Just for "fun" I did a comparison by flipping through three major cable networks last night while also doing a deep dive into twitter videos from several different perspectives on the issue.

CNN for several hours focused on Trump's photo op that was evidently driven by his anger over it being made known that he had been taken to a bunker, so that he needed an outside appearance to make up for it. To set this up he and his entourage ran over to the partly burnt church across from the White House. To make his paths straight and smooth, he ordered the clearing of the streets where protests had been perfectly peaceful for 8 hours. With a few minutes to go before they had to all clear, the police formed a riot wall to begin pushing them violently, and exploding tear gas in their faces. As two were knocked over by one of the policemen, one got up to help the person who fell with him, and the police knocked him down again so he couldn't reach the other person. They were pushed quickly so that a lot of teargas and slamming by the police knocked some others down, or made them trip. Most of the protesters were white. Trump made it to the church, among a very disorganized entourage of old white men (and Ivanka, who smartly held back from the photo op, almost hiding behind everyone). Someone handed Trump a Bible as he stood in front of the church, and he hardly knew how to hold it. He mostly held it up as if showing it off or waving it menacingly. With hardly any speech or response to reporters, Trump then leaves with no church-related message, just the picture, and walks back. CNN pointed out that Trump was hypocritically declaring his support for peaceful protest at the exact same time he had ordered them the one in his way to be violently broken up so he could make this photo op quick.

MSNBC spent a little more time interviewing local mayors and governors of the states where rioting issues were occurring. This tended to make for a more newsworthy discussion that touched on many of the subjects that had come up or were important through the day. Of course, MSNBC tends to look for supportive persons to interview, otherwise they can't control the narrative.

FOXNEWS was spending a lot of time just making fun of statements or condemning the most outrageous of the statements made by certain governors or mayors that appeared to be supportive of protestors instead of being supportive of ALL persons.

TWITTER/INSTAGRAM was overloaded with videos:

• videos of white persons looting,
• videos of white persons looting with black persons trying to stop them -even making human chains in front of businesses to protect them from both white and black looters,
• videos of white persons bringing trucks or cars full of expensive new bricks and dropping them off in the middle of downtown areas
• videos of the same where black persons were pleading with one white driver not to bring the bricks into her neighborhood
• a video of two white women coming out from looting a fairly ritzy store as if they had treated it like shopping, but who dropped their bags and ran when they saw police.
• The DW (Deutsche Welle) news team where the spokesperson was shot with a rubber bullet while live on TV. (This gave credence to the CNN story of one of their journalists being arrested. Not that it didn't happen but that it could have been staged for attention from higher ups so that the persons it was happening to wouldn't have known it was staged.)

Other videos were confusing enough to make one think this is all about someone paying for riots to help Trump win on a law and order ballot, or to try to do the same but in the hopes it would backfire on Trump, or to purposely destroy neighborhoods of color, or to take advantage of Covid-19 pent up energy for any of a dozen nefarious purposes. 

54 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

And then you finish up with  " we find that we should be able, as you said, to identify WHO really is a faithful person taking the lead "   

But can we ?

Yes. The scripture in Hebrews 13 said very clearly we can do this by watching how their conduct (acts, activities) turns out, and then imitating their faith. If you want to argue that some scriptures have no meaning outside of the first century, then go ahead and throw those parts of your Bible away. Personally I find nearly ALL scripture useful and beneficial for teaching, etc.

44 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Quote, " The ones who excel at teaching, and speaking, and decision-making will naturally take the lead for such a useful position. "

No mention of excelling in spirituality then ? You talk as if it's running a worldly business.

Who said they wouldn't be spiritual? See the qualifications for elders and overseers in Timothy and Titus. What type of teaching did you think the Bible was referring to where I highlighted "teachers" in 1 Cor 12? If you require a book attached to each post, to cover all the bases for you, and fill in all the imaginary gaps, then you might just assume that I am using Bible definitions unless otherwise noted.

42 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Please explain or enlarge upon your use of the word 'overseeing' here. 

I meant it exactly in the ways that the Bible uses the word "episkopos" which literally means overseer. It can be used of elders who oversee a congregation. Perhaps the needs of all the congregations in Achaia or Galatia, for example, would have needed an overseer of several congregations, much like a "circuit overseer." Titus, for example, had to qualify as an overseer of elders and overseers in city after city:

(Titus 1:5-9) 5 I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you: 6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery or rebelliousness. 7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.

An overseer is like a shepherd who looks after a flock, a congregation. Jesus looks after the whole world of congregations in a way that these local overseers and bodies of overseers cannot possibly do on their own. He is the great shepherd, and thus the great overseer.

(1 Peter 2:25) . . .For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.

Yet, humans can be called overseers and shepherds, too:

(1 Timothy 3:1) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work.

BTW, Titus 1:7 shows that all overseers should also be faithful and discreet slaves, "as God's steward, an overseer must be free from accusation," etc.

1 minute ago, Arauna said:

Notice - it also asks a question..... WHO is the slave...... YOU as an individual need to recognise it to be able to give the answer. 

Notice that Jesus also gave a parable about the question . . . WHO is the real neighbor . . . .YOU as an individual need to recognize it to be able to give the answer. 🙂

In fact MOST of Jesus' illustrations and parables are effectively answers to such questions about WHO proves themselves to be the right kind of plowman, shepherd, builder, seeker, father, listener, sower, harvester, vine worker, neighbor, householder, servant, domestic, steward, investor, bridesmaid, friend, master, watchman, etc.

Of course, we all agree that we should be able to recognize who is the right kind of slave. To me, this is because we all need to be that right kind of slave who does not take advantage of the master being delayed, but stays always faithful and wise. The fact that some will have the ability to preside, and lead, and organizer better than others is a separate issue. I can't see why anyone would complain that a group of elders could be seen to be qualified for such a position of overseeing multiple congregations in the same way that some committees of elders qualify for a position to oversee a single congregation. The ones who excel at teaching, and speaking, and decision-making will naturally take the lead for such a useful position. And you are right, that taking the lead in spearheading a more efficient world-wide preaching, teaching, and disciple-making work can make use of skills that only a few would qualify for.

(1 Corinthians 12:28, 29) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?. . .

So, the idea that a committee of elders can qualify for such work as the GB have taken on, shows that they are desirous of a fine work. But Jesus illustration about the unfaithful and indiscreet slaves in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are probably not a source predicting a special set of men who would be appointed to a position mindful of those superfine apostles from 1919 on. To impute this meaning into it requires a very inconsistent method of dealing with Jesus' illustrations and parables.

That doesn't at all take away from the need for having some take the lead in a different way from others. We can find this in other scriptures.

(Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

There in Hebrews, too, we find that we should be able, as you said, to identify WHO really is a faithful person taking the lead, so that we can contemplate their conduct and imitate their faith.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

But Luke 21 and Math 24 deals with the time of END of Jewish system and the greater end. It talks about preaching in the entire inhabited earth! So this slave will feed fellow believers all over the earth with proper food at right time.  For this one needs a central dispensary which is efficient and quick!

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)

But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:

Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?