JW Insider

I went to the site and read about the kinds of testicular medical problems you can get from tight pants, and it reminded me of a dirty joke. Which you can find here: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/tight-underwear/1057145/
Or, it's a pretty old joke, so I could just copy it:
The doctor said, "Joe, the good news is I can cure your headaches. The bad news is that it will require castration. You have a very rare condition, which causes your testicles to press on your spine, and the pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles."

Joe was shocked and depressed. He wondered if he had anything to live for. He couldn't concentrate long enough to answer, but decided he had no choice but to go under the knife.

When he left the hospital he was without a headache for the first time in 20 years, but he felt like he was missing an important part of himself. As he walked down the street, he realized that he felt like a different person. He could make a new beginning and live a new life. He saw a men's clothing store & thought, "That's what I need - a new suit."

He entered the shop and told the salesman, "I'd like a new suit." The elderly tailor eyed him briefly and said, "Let's see ... size 44 long." Joe laughed, "That's right, how did you know?" "Been in the business 60 years!" Joe tried on the suit. It fit perfectly.

As Joe admired himself in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about a new shirt?" Joe thought for a moment and then said, "Sure." The salesman eyed Joe and said, "Let's see, 34 sleeve & 16-1/2 neck." Again, Joe was surprised, "That's right, how did you know?" "Been in the business 60 years!"

Joe tried on the shirt, and it fit perfectly. As Joe adjusted the collar in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about new shoes?" Joe was on a roll and said, "Sure." The salesman eyed Joe's feet and said, "Let's see ... 9-1/2 E." Joe was astonished, "That's right, how did you know?" "Been in the business 60 years!"

Joe tried on the shoes and they fit perfectly. Joe walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, "How about some new underwear?" Joe thought for a second and said, "Sure." The salesman stepped back, eyed Joe's waist and said, "Let's see... size 36."
 
 
[wait scroll for it]
 


Joe laughed. "Ah ha! I got you! I've worn size 34 since I was 18 years old." The salesman shook his head, "You can't wear a size 34. A size 34 underwear would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache.

No wonder I have so many insecurities. My own father used me as a bookmark!
Now that’s what I call child abuse!   #PoorMe 

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.

Most probably the others avoid "theatrical" spectacle because it implies acting on a stage. While this could have been the meaning, it is an interpreted one, and not necessary to imply in translating. In the context, it was much more likely that Paul was referring to the procession of those who were taken to theaters to be killed. No acting required!
Contemporary English Version
It seems to me that God has put us apostles in the worst possible place. We are like prisoners on their way to death. Angels and the people of this world just laugh at us.  [A pretty bad translation that implies angels are just laughing at people like Paul]

Good News Translation
For it seems to me that God has given the very last place to us apostles, like people condemned to die in public as a spectacle for the whole world of angels and of human beings.  [Much better in that it links the condemnation directly with the idea of being a condemned spectacle, a very common sight in Greek/Roman theaters at this time.]
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For I suppose that God has appointed us Apostles at last, as for death, that we would be a stage play for the universe, for Angels and for men. [Same idea as the NWT]
 

 

Good (טוב)
tov, Strong's #2896? What is good? From our modern western perspective this would be something that is pleasing to us but, from an Hebraic perspective the Hebrew word tov, usually translated as good, means something that is functional. A complex set of gears in a watch that functions together properly is tov. However, if the gears are not functioning properly then they are ra [str:7451], usually translated as evil or bad but the more Hebraic meaning is dysfunctional. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (tov). And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. When God saw his creation it is not that it was "pleasing" to him rather, he saw that it functioned properly.



What does "good" mean? The first use of this word is in Genesis chapter one where God calls his handiwork "good". It
should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well - oiled and tuned machine. In contrast to this word is the Hebrew word "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional". Strong’s 3966 exceedingly (meod)  -  Strong’s 2896 good (tov) Genesis 1:31  God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very excellent.


**The word "perfect" that we knock around so much is often misunderstood. We tend to apply an unqualified philosophical meaning to it and have it mean "without flaw" or "without error" or put it into other absolute categories. It then becomes easy to say that Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:48), "Be therefore perfect,
even as your heavenly Father  is perfect," is a laudable goal, but one that is impossible for human beings to achieve.  That is even easier to do from certain doctrinal or theological positions that assume human beings cannot ever respond to God beyond their contaminated sinful nature.




The problem in this thinking is that the Hebrew word (tam or tamim) does not carry the meaning of "without flaw" as does the term "perfect" in English.  It normally means complete or mature or healthy (for example, Lev 22:21). That meaning of mature dominates most use of the equivalent Greek term in the New Testament (telos). Something, or someone, can be complete or mature yet not be "without flaw." In fact, it is much easier to be mature and still have flaws, than it is to be without error or without flaw. Many people are mature, but few if any are "without flaw." A six year old can be mature, and still have a lot of growing to do, just like a person can be "holy" and have a lot to learn about spiritual maturity.



John Wesley used the term "perfect" frequently and argued that it was a biblical term. But, the term is only "biblical"
in English. That is what creates our problems since the word has a different range of meaning in English than the biblical words it translates. I would certainly not discount Wesley’s ability in biblical language, since he wrote grammars for both Greek and Hebrew. On the other hand, in the past 250 years we have come to understand a lot more about the biblical languages, especially the thought world and culture that lay behind Hebrew. It is not that Wesley was wrong.
"Perfect" may have been the best choice for 1740. But perhaps if he had the command of Hebrew and knowledge of Hebraic culture that we do today, or if he were communicating in our culture, he would have chosen a different way to express the idea.



The term "perfect" is associated with too many metaphysical connotations in our culture, and describes something different
than do the biblical terms in either Hebrew or Greek. Most people in our western culture outside of the church no longer use categories of thought that speak of ultimate absolutes like perfection, especially applied to people, or if they do they reject them as impossible. We quickly admit that such things are rare, especially among human beings. We are much more inclined to think
existentially in terms of how we function in the world at any given time. That is why I think a more existential term will communicate better to people for whom the term "perfect" identifies something that is impossible to achieve.



Both Hebrew and Greek terms carry much more that existential dimension of meaning anyway than they do the absolute overtones that we have come to associate with the term perfect.  From the biblical perspective, "perfect" describes something that functions as it was intended to function or of someone who acts appropriately
(note that in Romans 12:2, the Greek term "perfect," teleion, is used with "good" and "acceptable"). And of course for Wesley,
perfect was always qualified with the category of love, so that any perfection of which he spoke was in the context of loving God and neighbor. That is why the true Wesleyan concept is perfect love, never perfection as a general category.




 Wesley himself fought against the concept of perfectionism, and the accusation leveled at him by many Calvinists that he promoted it. Wesley did not promote any form of perfectionism. Yet sadly, that strand of thinking entered the American Holiness tradition later and heirs of that tradition have been struggling with a tendency toward perfectionism ever since.
Modern Wesleyans do not believe in a perfectionism that translates into "without error." But they do believe in being perfected in love in which human beings are transformed as a result of God’s grace into mature, growing, and healthy Christians governed by love rather than self-interest. That is all Wesley ever meant by "perfect," and I am convinced that is the meaning in Scripture, most especially in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (5:48).  That is why I think Jesus' command is more than an impossible goal for which we struggle in vain strive. It is the very achievable goal of all Christian living, as God enables us with his strength (cf. Phil 4:13).

Perhaps this restriction is mitigated by the principle in Titus where the verse says that wives should be "workers at home" which could easily be interpreted to mean that they should not work outside the home. Yet the primary principal appears to be so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. In different cultures, or as cultures evolve and change, certain practices that once distracted from the message no longer distract.
(Titus 2:4-5) 4 that they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. A custom among Greeks and Romans at the time was that most wives did not leave the house. Marriage usually meant that a woman left her mother and father's house and might never see them again. She would be kept safe through childbearing at home, and there could be no question about the paternal inheritance rights of the son because this practice protected women from seduction and predators while the husband was away working. For those women who did leave the house, the practice might still have been to have the women sit separately from the men in the congregation, as they did in Jewish synagogues, which might be partly why they had to wait to ask their husbands when they got home.

Found an excellent and very comprehensive review of the evidence on the topic. It's only 357 pages, too:
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/22823/2/meyer_anthony_r_finalsubmission2017october_phd.pdf

[over a dozen examples]
Oh yes . . . that, too.

I agree, and I also agree that a few of the poster's other comments have given me the impression that JWs are being selectively chosen as if they are uniquely afflicted with certain problems. But for this particular question, it struck me as one that took a completely different tack:
It was almost like saying, hey we know that all kinds of groups are troubled by such crimes, but there is one group that has claimed a lot of examples of angelic protection, especially while engaged in the ministry to outsiders. So why is it that individuals are almost certainly NOT being protected from a problem that can occur right within the congregation itself.
I don't think anyone is arguing for an Ananias and Sapphira style judgment. (Although I'd like to see at least certain parts of such criminals deadened by the holy spirit.)
To me, the question reminded me of the claims by some snake-handling sects who might be protected from venomous snakes and scorpions (Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18, NWT 1984):
(Mark 16:18)  18  and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. Persons from these sects, will often proudly show off their snake-handling skills, but they will not be nearly so likely to show off their ability to digest arsenic. If persons from these sects were loudly proclaiming the protection (from snakes) by angelic forces or holy spirit, then It would be a perfectly legitimate question to point out the number of persons from these sects who might have died by poison or even alcohol abuse.  
The question would have nothing whatsoever to do with how many other sects were afflicted by deaths from poison or alcohol abuse.

@Jack Ryan might have a lot of issues, or these might not even be his own issues. At any rate, this particular question is a good one, in my opinion.
(And @Gone Away it doesn't really matter if he should expand it to include all persons who get hurt from all types of crimes and injustices. He has started with a specific, narrow example and this should help us to focus on the point of the question.)
Back to what you were saying that I requoted, @Space Merchant: In this case, J.Ryan is not treating pedophilia and child sexual abuse as if it were just a JW-only thing. In fact, the nature of the question very clearly shows that he is questioning why we are quick to imply that angels have often run interference for JWs who are in the midst of the preaching work. He is right that we have shown images of angels in protective mode and guiding mode as they watch over the preaching work. I know of several of the images he is referring to. There have been dozens of examples of experiences printed in yearbooks, Watchtowers, and from the convention platform that thank Jehovah for specific cases of angelic protection in the face of all kinds of dangers.
Most of these more recent articles about angels, with one exception, no longer depict a ghostly angel hovering over the door-to-door work, although one recent one, below, indicates that they are "over" the cart-witnessing work. Most of the more recent articles show several examples of angels in Biblical times then show the preaching work, but without the depiction of the angel in modern times. Still, the wording that goes along with the pictures is telling:

Watchtower, 5/15/2009 p.23 and 24
 
When viewed alongside the recent pictures that try to give us a sense of the hundreds of millions of such angels standing at the ready it really does, and really should, make us wonder about specific activities that angels are handling in modern times. Did those angels in the Yearbook experiences really make a person miss when they shot bullets at point blank range during times of war and persecution in modern times? Did angels make a person of the right heart condition glance over at a cart? Or was it the receptive heart condition that caused them to glance? Did an angel send a Witness to the door exactly when the householder finished praying for guidance in their search? Other religions have told of the same experiences. What makes our claims different?
These questions will also touch on why Jehovah permits wickedness, and why someone's prayer might be answered when another one's is not. It may also touch on human nature. When almost everyone except an especially photogenic young child is saved from an explosion, a burning building or a crashed train or airplane, we will often hear the media interviewing people who say that God must have had a special purpose for that child. We will hear about how wonderful God is in sending an angel to swoop down and save this one or that one. We will not hear about the injustice and loss to the others who died.
At any rate, not that anyone has a complete answer, but this is still a good question.

Angels help declare the good news throughout the earth
-- Watchtower's caption, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017169

@Jack Ryan might have a lot of issues, or these might not even be his own issues. At any rate, this particular question is a good one, in my opinion.
(And @Gone Away it doesn't really matter if he should expand it to include all persons who get hurt from all types of crimes and injustices. He has started with a specific, narrow example and this should help us to focus on the point of the question.)
Back to what you were saying that I requoted, @Space Merchant: In this case, J.Ryan is not treating pedophilia and child sexual abuse as if it were just a JW-only thing. In fact, the nature of the question very clearly shows that he is questioning why we are quick to imply that angels have often run interference for JWs who are in the midst of the preaching work. He is right that we have shown images of angels in protective mode and guiding mode as they watch over the preaching work. I know of several of the images he is referring to. There have been dozens of examples of experiences printed in yearbooks, Watchtowers, and from the convention platform that thank Jehovah for specific cases of angelic protection in the face of all kinds of dangers.
Most of these more recent articles about angels, with one exception, no longer depict a ghostly angel hovering over the door-to-door work, although one recent one, below, indicates that they are "over" the cart-witnessing work. Most of the more recent articles show several examples of angels in Biblical times then show the preaching work, but without the depiction of the angel in modern times. Still, the wording that goes along with the pictures is telling:

Watchtower, 5/15/2009 p.23 and 24
 
When viewed alongside the recent pictures that try to give us a sense of the hundreds of millions of such angels standing at the ready it really does, and really should, make us wonder about specific activities that angels are handling in modern times. Did those angels in the Yearbook experiences really make a person miss when they shot bullets at point blank range during times of war and persecution in modern times? Did angels make a person of the right heart condition glance over at a cart? Or was it the receptive heart condition that caused them to glance? Did an angel send a Witness to the door exactly when the householder finished praying for guidance in their search? Other religions have told of the same experiences. What makes our claims different?
These questions will also touch on why Jehovah permits wickedness, and why someone's prayer might be answered when another one's is not. It may also touch on human nature. When almost everyone except an especially photogenic young child is saved from an explosion, a burning building or a crashed train or airplane, we will often hear the media interviewing people who say that God must have had a special purpose for that child. We will hear about how wonderful God is in sending an angel to swoop down and save this one or that one. We will not hear about the injustice and loss to the others who died.
At any rate, not that anyone has a complete answer, but this is still a good question.

Angels help declare the good news throughout the earth
-- Watchtower's caption, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017169

No. I don't make mistakes. I did it on purpose to show I felt his pain and was at one with him.
Obviously.
(Oh, all right. I'll go back and fix it.)

I suspect you reversed this convention.

Probably the nature of the test might give a clue?

POPE FRANCIS TRIES HIS HAND AT TECHNOLOGY PREDICTIONS
A paper from the local Vatican press office, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html , L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, has reported on a speech that Pope Francis gave last month while looking out from above Vatican Square and addressing a crowd of visitors below. Most of the speech was intended as spiritual encouragement in a changing world. I'll only attempt to quote a very small portion of the article that deals with a specific technical prediction:
Looking out over a crowd of persons, mostly tourists in Vatican Square, Pope Francis was no doubt responding to the sea of smartphones aimed up at him. To the delight of the crowd, his apparently unscripted speech veered into the arena of technical forecasting, and he made an astounding prediction. He began by saying that it was now hard to imagine that so many past generations lived without ever seeing the many inventions that we now take for granted. He said that the current generation has seen a lot of changes in their lifetimes, too, but that the younger generation has already grown up on iPods, iPads and iPhones, and that they take these things for granted to such an extent that they will not be surprised in the least if they find themselves getting from town to town in self-flying cars long before their own generation passes away. This is where the Pope, evidently paying some homage to the Olivet sermon, added: "But truly I tell you that this generation will not pass away before self-flying cars will be taking us from one town to another, and even from one part of town to another." The above sermon never happened (as far as I know) which is why I put this in "controversial posts." It's fake news. I know it is fake because I just made it all up myself 2 minutes ago. 
I made it up because we just don't talk enough about the meaning of the term "this generation," as found in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32.
I use the example because it addresses the fact that generations overlap. Even in Jesus' day, let's say that the average person lived to be 65 years old and the average person got married and had a son at age 25.  And if that son grew up the same, and his son grew up the same, etc., then any person hearing Jesus would, on average, be alive for a few years while their grandparents were still alive, and their first 40 years while their own father was still alive, and their last 40 years while their son was still alive, and their last 15 years while their grandson was still alive. For most of their life there would be 3 overlapping generations. The length of time between each new generation was about 25 years, using this example.
Yet, it's also obvious that when Jesus said "this generation" that he didn't need to be addressing only the youngest generation that was just then coming up. He was more likely addressing the entire group of all overlapping generations and treating them as if they were one group of people who would not completely die out before they saw "these things occur." (Remember that the original question was "When will these things occur?" (Referring to the destruction of Jerusalem's temple when not a stone will be left upon a stone.) It occured 37 years later, so that even a 50+ year old grandparent might live to see it, and even a 25+ year old father would very likely live to see it, and his children in the very youngest generation would almost all live to see it.
So we can easily see that Jesus was more likely referring to all these overlapping generations as contemporaries. Meaning, all these people who were then alive at the same time. So the question might come up:
Could Jesus have been addressing people who had not been born yet?
There would be people born over the next 37 years who would also see the destruction of the Temple ("these things") occur. That would be natural. But is that who Jesus was addressing, or was he addressing all the people alive (contemporaries) in the audience?
Scripture becomes very flexible when we need it to mean something that it never meant, but we are less forgiving when it comes to contemporary humans who claim they meant something when they said something else. For example, what would we think if 50 years from now, people still weren't seeing these flying cars, and supporters of the Pope starting claiming that he didn't mean his own generation, or the generation of parents, but he meant only the youngest generation of children, the ones who were just then growing up on their iPads and iPhones? That's clearly not what he meant, but we'll accept the possible interpretation as not too far off. But what if 100 years from the time of the speech, even that younger generation had died off?
Now the only possible way that the Pope could be right is for people to defend him by saying that the Pope meant that these things would be seen by people who had not yet been born at the time of the "speech." He meant that as the people died out and didn't yet see it, that they would overlap with a new group of people, born as many as 80 or 90 years after the speech, whose lives might have just barely overlapped with those who had actually heard the speech in Vatican Square. They would start to claim that this is the real meaning of the term "this generation." 
At this point we would probably think that those defenders of the Pope were just lying.

I was reading up on the Russian Orthodox Church and noticed that they have an unusually high number of books (apparently) which defend the idea that the "Church" must have more mystery. Both these articles you linked tend to want to make the relationship of God to Christ [and the holy spirit] a "mystery." The first guy says it's a mystery so we shouldn't have tried to make up stuff about it. The Trinity defender says it's a mystery and that's why we should keep using the terms as they have developed over the last couple millennia about the Trinity.
For thousands of years, I suppose that priests (including the "academic priesthood") have discovered that even so-called knowledge is power.

No need.
JWs role is to testify that it has been removed, restore it where possible, and leave the indictment, trial, judging, and execution of sanctions  to the Judge of all the earth and the man that he has appointed.

I have a library lending-exchange program with @The Librarian (the old hen)

Yes he is, and this is absolutely the last time I let this dog on a Bible translation team! Just look at what it did to Matthew 15:27!
"She replied, 'Yes Lord, but really, the little dogs do eat of the steaks and hamburgers falling from their master's table. They are also partial to sausage, too. Pork chops go down nice. Um, pass the ketchup please. And, by the way,.."   #NotInAnyManuscriptIKnow

They are born.....
So many stars are born in the universe,
And so small I feel before You!
What glow is the dust of a verse,
How much is Jehovah worth my life?
How Jehovah is worth a star
When galactics come out of your hand - Are you alive?
Too Great God, what is my life?
A moment from your eternal eternity!
But your supreme gesture rages me,
When for man You let him die,
From your first universe Violin,
The holy word for the first time!
Everything you loved most, the first son,
To taste death for everyone
It is in spirit that man becomes alive
And death to be ashamed!
Your Jehovah's love barks me,
And you give me power to overcome the fall,
The pain worlds do not hurt,
Taste Your Sweet Word Like Honey!
 ? .•*¨`*•..¸???¸.•*¨`*•. ?

Hey! I wasn't the one doing the "lifting." ?

Yup.

Yep:
I could not give it proper attribution ahead of time or it would have ruined the combination of straight news and Onion absurdity !
I used to tell "Shaggy Dog" stories ... the goal of which is to get the listener to completely believe the premise and get sucked into the story, so when I sprang the "punch line"  their heads would spin around on their necks ... uh... so to speak.
But people got used to me telling these tall tales, and would interrupt me with "Is that a true story?', which disrupted the whole thing, and I had to stop and answer "Well... um... no."
... at that point you lose your "straight man", and any peripheral audience.
I suppose comedy should be left to the professionals ... but hey .... sometimes a JW Insider type shows up late enough to complete the schtick, tip the waitresses, and exit ... stage left!

I must admit my confusion at the two different writing styles. Turns out that almost the entire post was a verbatim copy from the FoxNews article from the start, right up until the sentence just requoted (without attribution, I might add).
[ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/27/water-on-mars-does-sciences-theory-about-origin-life-hold-up.html  ]
Then you threw in a couple paragraphs just before the end from The Onion, of all places, before finishing with Michael Guillen's last sentence again:
With every passing year in our search for extraterrestrial water and life, we are getting closer to finding, if not outright proof, then a resolution to Clark’s assertion. Is intelligence ultimately a blessing or a curse? Surely, the answer will make for the biggest headline of all. Michael Guillen  Ph.D., former Emmy-winning ABC News Science Editor, taught physics at Harvard and is now president of Spectacular Science Productions. His thriller, "The Null Prophecy," was released in July, 2017. His upcoming book, "The End Of Life As We Know It: Ominous News From The Frontiers Of Science," is coming out October 16th. The Onion article was where all this paragraph started:
Shortly following a transmission sent by the Mars Express spacecraft verifying that its instruments had detected a subglacial lake a mile below the planet’s surface, the European Space Agency confirmed Thursday that the orbiter’s surface-penetrating radar had disturbed the eternal and unspeakable dreaming of an aeons-old, world-ravaging malevolence, waking it from its 500-million-year slumber in the underground Martian reservoir. etc. etc.  [ https://www.theonion.com/world-eating-leviathan-awoken-from-500-million-year-slu-1827928509 ]