Announcer 1: “What do you think is going through McEnroe’s mind right now?”
Announcer 2 (usually an ex-player): “Well, he’s gotta be thinking about that last error. He’s probably kicking himself for missing such an easy volley.”
Who knows what McEnroe had on his mind right then? Maybe he was thinking, “I really shouldn’t have eaten that second burrito for lunch.”
The fact is, it’s annoying enough in something as trivial as a tennis match, but when we try to think what a Bible character was thinking, and then drawing conclusions from that which we are supposed to use to learn life lessons, we are getting into dangerous territory. This is especially the case when dealing with a naïve and credulous flock who thinks nothing of taking the most casual assumption and turning it into life altering Bible doctrine.
Here’s a case in point from last week’s study.
7 Exiled to life outside the garden, Adam and Eve found their existence hard. Yet, when their first child was born, they named him Cain, or “Something Produced,” and Eve proclaimed: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” Her words suggest that she may have had in mind the promise Jehovah made in the garden, foretelling that a certain woman would produce a “seed,” or offspring, who would one day destroy the wicked one who had led Adam and Eve astray. (Gen. 3:15; 4:1) Did Eve imagine that she was the woman in the prophecy and that Cain was the promised “seed”?
8 If so, she was sadly mistaken. What is more, if she and Adam fed Cain such ideas as he grew up, they surely did his imperfect human pride no good. In time, Eve bore a second son, but we find no such high-flown statements about him. They named him Abel, which may mean “Exhalation,” or “Vanity.” (Gen. 4:2) Did that choice of a name reflect lower expectations, as if they put less hope in Abel than in Cain? We can only guess.
9 Parents today can learn much from those first parents. By your words and actions, will you feed your children’s pride, ambition, and selfish tendencies? Or will you teach them to love Jehovah God and to seek friendship with him? Sadly, the first parents failed in their responsibility. Yet, there was hope for their offspring. [Italics added]
(ia chap. 1 pp. 10-11 pars. 7-9)
My apologies for all the italics but there is just so much speculation and guessing in these three paragraphs that it’s unavoidable.
The point of this is to show that we are being instructed by the Governing Body with the so-called “food at the proper time” based on outright conjecture and (by their own admission) guesswork. We can all agree that it is not good to feed a child’s pride, ambition, and selfish tendencies; but to try to make an object lesson out of a single phrase uttered by Eve at childbirth is laughable. This leads us to presume that she and Adam fed Cain’s pride and ambition, while denigrating Abel. Cain becomes the spoilt favorite child while Abel is ignored and marginalized.
All Eve said was, “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” Any one of us can come up with several plausible scenarios that would justify such an utterance. The fact is we have no way of knowing exactly what she meant. We also have no way of knowing if she thought she was the woman of Genesis 3:15. We also have no way of proving that she wasn’t. Did she feel enmity to the creature who had deceived her and ruined her life, reducing her to misery and hard labor? In all likelihood, she did. Did the promised seed come from her womb? He sure did. The Bible doesn’t say that the woman would be around when the seed came into existence and fought with Satan.
Nevertheless, given the book’s frank admission that this is all guesswork, you have only to attend a Kingdom hall and listen to the comments to know that the brothers and sisters eat this food up, assuming it is from the Lord and part of the “framework of truth” that is our belief system.
How sad, given the richness and depth of the inspired word of God and the many areas we have never explored as Witnesses, that we spend a half hour every week studying a what is little more than a novel.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by The Real Anonymousa on 2015-11-05 15:25:13
It does seem that the 'quality' of this so-called spiritual 'food' is degenerating over time, such that WT publications contain less and less biblical truth, and more and more human reasoning. One of the worst things a religious leader can say is, "I THINK". What difference does it make what humans THINK? Must less, GUESS? The only thing that really matters is, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAY. To paraphrase Jesus, anything in excess of that is from the wicked one.
Reply by 1984 on 2015-11-05 17:48:41
I completely agree. Stick to the bible. Speculating and reasoning on certain passages of scripture is all very well in personal discussions when it is offered as an open minded opinion - that's all part of the process of seeking truth and understanding, but not when it is delivered as spiritual food from an unassailable leadership which cannot be questioned, claims to be spirit directed (but repeatedly proves false to that power) and then changes it's mind when it suits their purposes. How does the saying go? I would rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-05 19:44:29
I never heard that saying before, but it fits perfectly. WT has an official stance that they project to the public, wherein the R and F are supposedly allowed to ask any questions they wish, but out of the spotlight, if you ask too many of the wrong kind of questions, you are censured or disfellowshipped. Answers that you can't question, indeed. If only it were otherwise.
Reply by Katrina on 2015-11-06 09:07:02
They don't have God's spirit directing understanding of scripture. I have noticed since the GB have appointed themselves as the FDS everything has gone down very quickly. Maybe God's patience has run out.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-06 09:38:13
They are certainly a Governing Body, because they are a body of men that govern over other men. But they anything but a Faithful and Discrete Slave. They are not faithful to God or to the Bible. (One example of this is their insistence on tampering with the Bible. If they really had faith in the Bible, they would allow it to speak for itself, and not try to manipulate the translation to fit their theology.)
Their frequently rash, unwarranted and ill-conceived doctrines and policies are not discrete (or otherwise there would be no child abuse scandal at present).
And, a body of men who wield absolute authority over life and death (literal death in the case of the blood issue, and figurative death, in the case of DF/DA actions) as well as in doctrinal and policy matters, shows they are anything BUT a slave. They operate as an unforgiving, relentless, merciless dictatorship.
In truth, the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" is a faithless, indiscrete master.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-06 00:14:40
You know, there actually isn't anything wrong per se with speculation and reasoning on scriptures. All that is really necessary to prevent it from doing harm is to preface it with, "This is speculation, and we could be wrong." If only WT would simply say something was their opinion, and not a divine revelation, pretty much NONE of their modern problems would exist. But somehow, they just can't bring themselves to admit they could be wrong. So much needless suffering and problems could have been avoided, but it was not to be.
Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-11-07 08:21:05
TRA,
Have you given thought to the train wreck that occurred when Prov 4:18 and Psalm 97:11 were misapplied? I submit that all the major issues the GB face today can be accredited to this misapplication of scripture.
What prompted the misapplication? Back in the 20's Rutherford needed to replace some of Russell's flawed teachings. To legitimatize his new interpretation and time predictions (some of which were less scriptural than Russell) and in effect say that "Russell got it wrong", he needed divine authority. Here's where Prov 4:18 entered the picture. His cleverly misguided interpretation became his "trump" card, the teaching that Jehovah provides leadership with increased understanding over time. The R&F anticipated it, and actually got all warm and fuzzy around conventions where new light was to be revealed (remember how hard it was to stay awake during those heavy talks with book releases during evening sessions after eating a heavy meal?)
Though a train wreck in the making, it was a brilliant strategy and had marvelous success in its early days. Through the years it has been a cherished inheritance of each generation of leadership. It is the most closely guarded doctrine of our faith. For it alone gives the next generation of leadership the authority to invalidate and discredit any prior group, with no questions asked. And, the R&F are compelled to accept (and teach) the new light, or be viewed as apostate, and be escorted to the door.
Although having knowledge as an attorney, Rutherford was very short sighted. Perhaps it was because Armageddon was imminent. He may have recognized the future implications of such a "carte blanch" policy, but he was so self-absorbed he couldn't resist. Peripheral teachings that have little effect on the physical life of members can be altered on a whim, to carry out an agenda, simply by the majority vote of leadership. While failed time predictions do have a profound effect on our life (our life choices) it would be difficult to prove liability. The court would say, it was your choice to believe it. Buyer beware.
But the "rope" of latitude that Prov 4:18 gave leadership proved enough for them to hang themselves. Frankly, they got to clever. Policy packaged as a scriptural command from God that involves forced compliance (by threat of sanction) when a life or death medical decision is involved, has the potential of significant wrongful death liability. Once this policy was enacted (in the early 50's) and the first victim died in faithful reliance that the teaching was in fact a directive of God, the policy was set in stone. It could never ever be rescinded. When 1975 came and went, leadership recognized that Armageddon might not save the day after all. They have since disassembled blood piece by piece, making all the pieces acceptable. Originally the entire apple was prohibited (pour blood on the ground - don't use it). Now the is the apple with the peel that is prohibited, though one is permitted to eat the peel separately.
Since 1975 each generation of leadership has prayed that Jehovah will provide a viable blood substitute to take the organization off the hook. Why hasn't Jehovah answered their prayers?
Another policy packaged as a scriptural command from God is the misapplication of the 'two witness" rule in cases of child abuse. We are now seeing only the tip of the iceberg in regards to the organization's liability. In addition,we have our harsh (unscriptural) treatment of sinners who are disfellowshipped. This can cause psychological harm, which may lead to addictive behaviors, sadly there have been cases of suicide. Teachings that result in the harm and suffering of members is a very serious matter.
Imagine how different the organization would look today if Prov 4:18 had never been misapplied? Sound, scriptural reasoning would have been incumbent on the FDS should any new teaching be presented. Leadership would have to prove (scholarly) that their thinking is more scripturally sound than the prior group. They would have to convince us that, contrary to what the prior group had claimed, Jehovah was not blessing them with wisdom and understanding. A tough sell. What if we felt the new understanding was less supported than the old? What if we just didn't buy into it?
If not for the misapplication of Prov 4:18, I'd like to think that maybe they would have acted modestly and prudently. When something wasn't clear, refrain from having an opinion. If they had an opinion, state it as speculation and conjecture. That we have no official opinion on this matter because the Bible is not conclusive.
Then we'd all be somewhere other than venting our frustration and disappointment here at BP.
Phileo,
SopaterReply by Deborah on 2015-11-07 10:41:58
Fine thoughts, Sopater.
If Watchtower leadership had applied what was written just a few verses after verse 18, they would have remained true to God even while misapplying scriptures here and there.
(Proverbs 4:24-27) . . .Remove from yourself the crookedness of speech; and the deviousness of lips put far away from yourself. 25 As for your eyes, straight ahead they should look, yes, your own beaming eyes should gaze straight in front of you. 26 Smooth out the course of your foot, and may all your own ways be firmly established. 27 Do not incline to the right hand or to the left. Remove your foot from what is bad.
School, we have been in a classroom where Jehovah God has opened our eyes to see the gross folly that comes from following men and not Christ. Those of us awake to what has happened in the Watchtower and who have with God's help managed to maintain our faith are truly blessed.
It has a purpose far more important than our own individual salvation.
Appreciated your post, Sopater, and yes well do I remember listening to evening convention talks, the pleasure of volunteering, standing with hundreds eating a meal together, watching and feeling the hope, the smiling faces, the sincere love and brotherhood that existed among many during the Yankee Stadium summer conventions. Hot, uncomfortable and a sacrifice but the electric energy carried us. We believed. We believed and we trusted.
There is only one thing truly wrong with the Watchtower- poor leadership. We came close to something better with Ray Franz and Ed Dunlap but as with Cain and Abel they were snatched away from Bethel by jealousy, envy and pride.
DeborahReply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-11-07 19:07:37
Deborah,
We are fond of those days when we believed all and trusted all. It's as if we had been given a beautiful puzzle of an original painting of a famous artist. All the pieces fit nicely in place (with numbers provided on the back of course). We were so proud of the finished product. Then one day we see an actual original of the painting we so love, and are shocked that our puzzle doesn't look at all like the artists original work!!!
I personally feel Jehovah gave the GB the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and completely reform the organization during the late 70's fallout. All of our unsupportable teachings could have been tossed in the dumpster. For example: 607, 1914, the other sheep and earthly hope, Armageddon and the second death, the generation of 1914, hateful shunning, and the list could go on. To settle the blood issue would have required that the organization temporarily sought Chapter 11 protection. As unsettling as this would have been, would it not have shown good faith on the part of leadership of the day? Would it not have saved thousands from wrongful death?
Think of an automaker. Imagine that corporate leadership has been made aware (through internal memo's) of design flaws in several of their best selling vehicles. The failure of the parts could result in major and costly repair, ultimately wrongful death. What do they do? Do they voluntarily come forward with a recall, replacing the flawed parts with safe, redesigned parts? If they do, we view them as responsible and can respect them. It may be a very costly fix, and yes there will be negative media attention and damage to the brand. And yes, they might lose some loyal to the brand.
But what if instead, leadership chooses to ignore the findings and fire the engineers that discovered the flaws? Leadership's denial exposes the automaker to grave punitive damages. Perhaps hundreds if not thousands of incidents involving injury and wrongful death.
I for one applaud the courage of Ray and Ed. Not only in their diligence in discovering the design flaws, but also their courage in refusing to violate their conscience by remaining silent. They were ordered to shut up or be fired. Though they had everything to lose and no place to go, they refused to remain silent.
Phileo,
SopaterReply by Deborah on 2015-11-08 10:37:48
Well stated, Sopater
If Jehovah wills, His people will find what we in our youth should have had- True worship and a true brotherhood where the only measure is Christ's teachings and God's Love.
Where no man will have the authority to say to his brother- Either agree, remain silent, or leave.
Some may think this impossible but as we know with God all things are possible- Even with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Deborah
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-07 11:04:33
Sopater,
A very interesting comment. Personally, I haven't seen all that much [mis]application of Psalm 97:11, but lots and LOTS of it around Proverbs 4:18. The whole point of Proverbs 4 is that making good choices in life and picking good associates will result in our lives turning out well, and the more good choices we make as our lives progress, the better it will be. This has nothing to do with spiritual truth, but is simply counsel about the benefits of striving for godly conduct.
In my youth, a few people went around telling this joke: Q: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? A: I don't know, but you better get the heck out of the way.
As I see it, the "train wreck" happens when the "unstoppable force" of the misapplied Proverbs 4:18 meets head-on with the "immovable object" of 1 John 1:5-6: "And this is the message which we have heard from him and are announcing to YOU, that God is light and there is no darkness at all in union with him. 6 If we make the statement: "We are having a sharing with him," and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth."
If "old light" must be corrected by "new light", then the "old light" must have had elements of darkness in it. But, if the "old light" came from God, then God must necessarily be the source of that darkness. Yet, 1 John 1:5 says that is impossible. Thus, when WT claims it receives new light from God, they are by implication calling God a liar for all His past 'mistakes'. Since the Bible makes it plain that God does not and cannot lie, the "new light" dogma amounts to blasphemy against God on the part of WT.
As for the "two witness rule", Deuteronomy 22:23-27 shows that rule to be unscriptural, as that rule does not act as a shield against sexual assault.
See the article on Silent Lambs for more information:
http://silentlambs.org/twowitnessrule.htm
Train wreck? You aren't just whistling Dixie, so to speak. This is a total train wreck.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-07 02:51:30
Yeah and the reason why they have answers we cant question is because they are questions they cant answer .
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-11-05 16:25:08
Yes so true, just as 2 Thess 2:4 says: He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god
Reply by Bklyn Kevin on 2015-11-06 00:32:10
In regards to 2 Thessalonians 2: If the man of lawlessness is Christendom as taught by the watchtower, how is it that Christendom is preaching that Jesus Christ is yet to come ? In other words Christendom is not exclaiming that Jehovah's day is here nor is Christendom saying that Christ has already come,
So how can the watchtower possibly conclude that Christendom is the man of lawlessness ?
If one does a little research they will soon find out that the only ones that have been professing that Jehovah's day has already come is none other than the watchtower tract society and in fact they have been preaching this for the last hundred years, so in my conclusion I would speculate that the scriptures at 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 concerning the man of lawlessness applies to the watchtower tract society. And I also believe that the watchtower is under the operation of error concerning their 1914 scenario.
Comment by Deborah on 2015-11-05 17:05:36
I agree Meleti, very much so.
The Writing Dept has been producing inferior material for some time now. Perhaps the writers of the Caleb videos are doing double duty and an infusion of new writers is in order.
A suggested Ad in the NYT:
Christian Fiction Writers Needed- No Experience Necessary- Some Bible Knowledge Helpful but Optional- apply at Brooklyn Watchtower.Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-05 17:48:41
Very funny. Also, it's regrettably true.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2015-11-06 11:45:52
So true! These fanciful stories remind me of some the aprochrpha type "stories". The devil is sneaky. This is comparable to the Devil's " Is it really so that God said........"
Comment by S on 2015-11-05 17:07:06
I thought the exact same thing while reading paragraphs 10-18 of the same chapters. Nothing but speculation, and this time it isn't even admitted but presented as fact
Comment by kevin on 2015-11-05 17:20:49
However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith,, paying attention to "misleading inspired statements".1 Timothy 4:1-2 Sounds just like the new book .
Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-11-05 17:21:41
All so true Meleti. At our meeting we enjoyed a comment that went like this:
"If it wasn't for this book from the faithful slave we'd hardly know anything about Abel."
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-05 17:46:22
Thanks Apollos. I needed a good laugh today. But you're right, it is also very sad that they will say such a thing without any idea of how ludicrous it sounds.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-05 17:59:13
You mean, if it wasn't for this book, we'd hardly have any unwarranted and unsubstantiated speculation. It's one thing to "surmise" the events surrounding Abel, but without real facts, they don't "know" anything at all beyond what the Bible states in writing. A slave that was truly "faithful" would be faithful to what the Bible says.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2015-11-06 11:43:23
Oh but it gets better ....
16 Jehovah’s servants. Abel did not find any good examples in the human family, but humans were not the only intelligent creatures on the earth at that time. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, Jehovah made sure that neither they nor their offspring would gain access to that earthly Paradise. To guard the entrance, Jehovah posted cherubs—very high-ranking angels—along with the flaming blade of a sword that turned continually.—Read Genesis 3:24.
17 Imagine what it was like for Abel to see those cherubs when he was a boy. In their materialized form, their appearance surely bespoke immense power. And that “sword,” ever aflame, ever turning, inspired awe as well. As Abel grew up, did he ever find that those cherubs got bored and left their post? No. Day and night, year after year, decade after decade, those intelligent, powerful creatures stayed right in that spot. Abel thus learned that Jehovah God had righteous, steadfast servants. In those cherubs, Abel could see a kind of loyalty and obedience to Jehovah that he could not find in his own family. That angelic example no doubt strengthened his faith.
I would have commented something like this:
"The fact that the cherubs remained at their post impresses upon me the need to take theocratic assignments seriously. They were committed to fufilling their assignment by God. The paragraph mentions that they NEVER left their post and that THEY never got bored. The brothers constantly give us timely reminders about how we should not approach our god given assignments such as the preaching work with apathy."
I am pretty sure I would get a "great application sister" or great comment! =praise from men for praising men.
Sigh...the indoctrination even after 2 years is very strong....
~ShannonReply by Deborah on 2015-11-06 15:14:12
Thanks Shannon.
"As Abel grew up, did he ever find that those cherubs got bored and left their post? No. Day and night, year after year, decade after decade, those intelligent, powerful creatures stayed right in that spot."
Fred Franz would not have tolerated this trash. He is "turning in his grave".
Again and again, what is presented for adult consumption is kindergarten babble- Caleb's Dad sitting on his son's bed delivering a child's teaching moment- Caleb, the cherubs listened to Jehovah and did not get bored. So Caleb how can you and Sophia apply this lesson to the meetings?
To reiterate, "As Abel grew up, did he ever find that those cherubs got bored and left their post? No. Day and night, year after year, decade after decade, those intelligent, powerful creatures stayed right in that spot."
This is mind numbing stuff, it is purposely forcing a mature adult toward emotional and spiritual immaturity.
The fault lies with the Governing Body. It appears they are content to allow the publishers' hearts and minds to spiritually wither, shrivel and die for lack of clear thinking ability, common sense, and the need to stick to the TEXT!
There is one entity who must be pleased with this and it certainly is not Jehovah or His Son.
Perhaps the Enemy has been allowed to enter the camp.Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-11-06 18:11:34
Deborah,
I feel the first objective of the GB is to dumb down the R&F. They are avoiding the deeper things of God (1 Cor 2:10) because these days, deep thinkers in the audience are too savvy to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Sorry, been there done that. We will conduct our own due diligence, thank you. (Acts 17:11)
I feel the second objective is to frustrate those of us who are offended by this twaddle..... to the point that we just can't bear it. We become distressed. In all honesty, I couldn't bring myself to comment on a single paragraph in this study. I sincerely wanted to..... but was too distracted with all the fiction. It felt like I'd be spreading fiction if I commented.
So we struggle commenting, for fear we'll be taken in the back room if we speak our conscience, and it challenges official dogma. We get less and less out of the meetings, we miss more. Our hours naturally decline, we may become inactive. Well meaning friends in the congregation wonder what's happened to us, we are judged as weak and unappreciative of Jehovah's provisions. We are marginalized.
We are no threat to the GB at this point. Should we stop attending altogether, few will notice or even care. It's doubtful we'll receive a shepherding call. If the elders are truly conscientious, we may receive one visit.
The strategy worked, we're out of the picture.Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-06 19:15:19
Thank you sopaterofberoea, you have expressed what is in the hearts of many JWs. Though we remain silent in the KH, we know we are not alone.
Your post was overwhelming in the brutal truth of it. You spoke the truth as Jesus spoke the truth...that not all is right with those who claim to be leaders of God's people.
I found your post very encouraging, thank you again.
Deborah
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-07 08:35:52
Sopater, I think you're absolutely right about the "dumbing down" of the RnF. We can see it in the shorter meetings, shorter articles, reduced time allowed to answer, emphasis on just answering the question and getting to the point. WT has turned their religion into "JW Lite". (Still a great waste of time, but now less satisfying.). With books like this, "Studies in the Scriptures" has morphed into "Highlights for Children".
Comment by Nick O on 2015-11-05 17:29:35
When this was first released, I was stunned by the amount of speculation contained in this publication. Speculation can have it's place perhaps within the mind of one meditating on God's word. But to move beyond imagining a hypothetical situation, into the territory of creating object lessons based on what COULD have happened, the authors might as well just add some new bible stories of living people at that time. Bible 1.5 "The Lost Years" might as well be the title.
Easy to see as you said Meleti, this is "dangerous territory." Especially when the question and answer type study of this speculation becomes in the minds of the followers something that actually happened. The same takes place with the analyzing of photos. So much of an illustration is broken down into commenting on what the illustrated person is thinking based on the photo.
I might not be so irritated if comments were phrased as "Had the situation actually occurred this way, we then could draw the lesson...". I still do not agree with it, but it would be less irritating.
Comment by 1984 on 2015-11-05 17:34:04
Ha! I can't believe you just wrote this! I remember saying almost the EXACT same thing to my wife when I first read it upon its release two years ago. Actually, the rest of the book is pretty good, but I didn't know if I was going to get past the first chapter when I first read it. How can this "example" be worthy of imitation when they've just invented most of the story? Of course Abel is to be imitated, but not based on their conjecture. The bible gives enough detail about Abel - stick to that!
On a separate but related matter, I had the same issue with the drama on Jesus at the latest convention. Admittedly we only got to the Sunday, but about fifteen minutes into that Jesus drama on the Sunday afternoon I got up and walked out. Initially I started following along in the bible, but when they started adding dialogue and conjecture I started to get agitated. I felt like they were writing their own gospel and I had a strong gut reaction to that, along with the whole style of the drama. Admittedly this was two days after I'd watched Geoffrey Jackson lie to the RC for three hours (after swearing on their 2013 revision of the NWT to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth.) So I was a little sensitive. Actually, I haven't been back to a KH since. I knew as I stood up in full view of the assembly and walked out that it was my final exit. I'd already ditched the tie that morning, and as I walked through the foyer my last memory was of brothers and sisters sitting or standing still and staring at the screens in unison. I couldn't help think of the scene in I Robot when the robots are sitting motionless in front on the TVs getting their latest program updates downloaded (just before they are given instructions from their deluded leader to take all humans as captives for their own good and rule the world!) Only the red glow was missing. I felt a mixture of relief and sadness as I walked out, but I'm glad I did and I'm all the better for it.
Comment by anonymous on 2015-11-05 18:54:58
Its even speculation to say whether Eve even heard that conversation between God & satan. She might not have even been aware of that Divine announcement about the promised seed
Comment by Deborah on 2015-11-05 20:37:19
I would add another comment.
The Watchtower writer would have done himself and all the brothers a favor if he had continued reading...
(Brenton) And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and called his name Seth, saying, For God has raised up to me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." (Gen. 4:25)
Eve did not refer to Cain as her "seed" (H2233), but rather the "seed", according to the scripture, was Abel. Seth being the one who replaced Abel as the "seed".
A fitting designation since Seth's line gives birth to the Messiah.
Jehovah approved of Abel's sacrifices, this and likely good traits on his part, may have caused his mother to believe Abel was the seed in the prophecy. A hope we can all understand, the hope that relief from life's troubles will come soon, in our lifetime.
It was not to be, Abel was killed, but another seed came, Seth from whom Christ was born.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-05 22:55:18
What a good catch, Deborah. It would seem that we get nothing right. Even in little things, the JW doctrine is off the rails. You make an excellent point which adds weight to the argument that Eve is the woman referred to at Gen. 3:15, not the angelic host as the Watchtower claims.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-07 08:27:09
That is interesting, but I am having trouble seeing the whole picture. If Eve is really the "woman" of note, was the literal serpent also addressed rather than Satan? What about the "enmity"? Was that really between Eve and the serpent? If the "woman" in 3:15 is not Eve, how should we understand this narrative?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-07 09:38:08
We should bear in mind that the serpent was Satan's avatar. The woman never saw Satan, nor could she see a spirit. Whether she understood who was behind the serpent or not is unclear. The Bible gives us no information beyond what is written, so it would appear that Jehovah did not clarify things for the women, but simply used the means Satan had utilized for his first protagonist in this prophetic drama. The serpent, who we now know was a mere puppet in the hands of the evil resister (satan) spirit, is the "person of the first part" and the woman (Eve apparently) was the "person of the second part." So the fact that the serpent represents Satan doesn't require that the woman represents someone other than Eve. The serpent was Satan's avatar, not God's metaphor.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-07 10:41:40
That all seems clear enough, but what about the enmity part? Was God putting enmity between Satan and Eve? How could that be? And why would He bother, anyway? Eve was condemned to die. What difference would it make if Eve and Satan didn't get along? They were both enemies of God from His point of view. I will admit that the "Eve was the woman" concept has some interesting aspects going for it, but it seems like the idea needs to be fleshed out a little more to make it convincing.
Anyone wishing to take on that task will have my appreciation.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-07 10:53:56
It's on my ever-growing to-do list. :)
Reply by Bruno on 2015-11-07 13:11:00
One point to consider is that when Jehovah asked Eve why she ate? she said "the serpent deceived me so I ate". Jehovah then turned to the serpent and said "because you have done this" indicating that he held satan ultimately responsible for what had just happened. After sentencing Adam and Eve to death, which he was obliged to do as his own law required it, He then went on to kill an animal and make clothing for Adam and Eve. This was not necessary for God to do. It was undeserved kindness. Jehovah didn't make any kind gesture towards satan! Eve also viewed Jehovah appointing to her another seed in place of Abel in a positive light. This seed would one day destroy satan , Genesis 4:25.
Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-07 15:48:24
Eve is the "woman", if we allow the text to speak for itself.
The woman was deceived. She believed what a spirit person, described to us in scripture as a serpent, said to her. She allowed what he said to take root in her mind. She came to like it, wisdom it would bring. She was of course fooled since "wisdom" is found in obeying God- anything else is fool's gold. But she bought it, took the fruit and ate.
Here are a few interesting features of this inspired account:
Eve thought that to merely touch the fruit was forbidden but that was NOT a part of the command. Thus when she grasped it and nothing happened it opened the door to going further.
When Eve ate, again nothing happened.
It was only when Adam ate that then both their eyes were opened. This is interesting because it was only Adam who had received the direct command from God not to eat of the Tree. Adam was not deceived, he did not believe the "serpent", he disobeyed knowingly.
Now, what was Adam's punishment? Toil and finally Death.
What was Eve's punishment? Living under the domination of her husband and hard labor in childbirth.
Note- Eve did not receive a death sentence.
Only willful unrepentant sinners against God will not have life.
There is much "digging" to do in this account.Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-08 11:49:50
I don't think we can attribute all that much to the fact that Eve did not "receive" a death sentence. The law about not eating was extremely clear, and, disregarding the part about not touching, she knew that eating would result in death. Note in the account, Eve says, “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’” Note that Eve says GOD has said this - not Adam. If it were Adam that elaborated and embellished on the law, why didn't Eve say, "Adam told me not to touch this tree or eat from it"? This suggests that the prohibition against touching this fruit came from God himself, not Adam.
And, in spite of that, she ate. We can surmise that she understood that she would be punished for her actions. Adam was explicitly given a death sentence, since as the "head of the household" he was responsible. We must also note incidents in the OT where a sin by a man resulted in death to his household.
Whether Eve is eligible for a resurrection is another question (which you seem to infer in your comments), but it's clear that Eve did get a death sentence. Otherwise, as a perfect human, she would not have died. But, clearly, there is no 6,000 year old woman running around the earth somewhere, so it's safe to assume she died. At the very least, she would have died if she were not on Noah's ark, but no mention is made of that. Finally, the Genesis account shows no one as repentant, neither Adam, Eve or the serpent.Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-08 15:24:07
If the Genesis Adam and Eve account was merely a history of events I would agree. But from the start Genesis 2 reveals itself to be much more than that. What does God "Cause to Become" specifically in Genesis 2, the Key to life everlasting- Obedience leads to Life, Disobedience leads to Death.
The symbolism in Genesis 2&3 is spread throughout. For instance, in Genesis 1 God said:
(Gen 1:29) Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
God gave the man and woman EVERY tree which had FRUIT YIELDING SEED.
Yet, in Genesis 2 God forbade Adam from eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Is this a contradiction on God's part? or does the Tree of Knowledge represent something? The most basic requirement all intelligent sons and daughters of God must first meet- Obedience. Then when we have matured we learn to LOVE our Father and our neighbor.
(It's not in the text but a beautiful picture is painted here because truly where there is NO SEED, there is no future life. Seedless fruit cannot propagate. So, perhaps we can view the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge as not having seed (thus God did not contradict himself) which symbolically means the fruit was associated with death. But that not being directly stated in the text must be put in the margins of opinion, so to speak, until God himself makes it clear.)
The text does not say why Eve thought that to even touch the fruit was forbidden but we do have the command from God written in the text and it does not say anything about touching the fruit.
Opinion- This could be regarded as a lesson in the folly of adding to the commands of God. Perhaps Eve was being extra cautious, as many Christian conservative leaders are wont to be, but it is always best to stick to the commands of God as they are written- leaving any cautions and opinions again on the margins outside of God's commands. In this way we keep ourselves and those who listen to us safe within GOD'S loving warnings and not our own.
The woman Eve disobeyed God's command and she obviously died but she did so because she BELIEVED A LIE. Christians have believed lies about God. Christian churches have taught lies about God and Christ for almost 2000 years. They manipulated the Bible and have, like the serpent, claimed to have the truth of the matter. Yet, we ourselves had and do have Christ's words and teachings before us, why then did so many go along with lies? We were deceived, we trusted, we wanted to believe, it seemed good to us.
Will Jehovah eternally put to the death the deceived?
Christ said there was only one sin that could never be forgiven- the sin against the spirit.
The man Adam in Genesis 2 knew God's voice, he communicated directly. He lived in a place made for him by God. He named the animals as they were brought to him by God. He knew everything in that Garden was from Jehovah God himself. He did not learn it from an ancestor or read it in a scroll, no, HE KNEW FOR HIMSELF!
He was there when Jehovah provided him with a helpmate, he knew directly how God had lovingly provided him with flesh of his own flesh.
And he alone received the word from God's mouth concerning the Tree of Knowledge.
How many miracles had Adam witnessed with his own eyes? This was a man privileged and accustomed to speaking to God himself. Look how he almost casually speaks to God after the fall. This was an established relationship, a close relationship.
Adam ate the fruit not because he was deceived, he was not deceived. Why then did he eat? God explained why Adam ate: "Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';"
Adam listened not to God but to his wife's voice. Note how this is written, it does not just say that he listened to his wife but to his wife's VOICE. Compare these verses:
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Adam listened to the voice of someone else thereby disregarding God's voice yet he KNEW HIS GOD AND WITNESSED THE VISIBLE WORKINGS OF GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT. If the Scribes and Pharisees were in danger of sinning against God's spirit how can it be said that Adam did not sin against God spirit? By accepting and eating the fruit Adam effectively sided with the serpent and betrayed God as Judas betrayed God's Son also for his own reasons.
An interesting detail with regard to God's voice in the scriptures above is that it could very well have been the Word of God speaking thus causing God's admonition to Christ's disciples -This Is My Son LISTEN TO HIM- to form a full circle. As the Word spoke in God's Name at the beginning so he also spoke when on earth and so he continues to do.
Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-11-12 13:59:39
Hi:)
The "second death" is the only "true" death in which theres no resurrection according to the scriptures. I don't believe we can surmise from scripture whether this was the death sentence given to the first pair.However, they did eventually die as God said that they would. . If Adam and Eve were sentenced to the second death as we teach from which there's no resurrection from, then so do we. (offspring) Jesus' blood lifted the sentence of death for all mankind. How can it not include Adam and/Eve? We all have sinned willfully.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-11-07 22:58:36
In Genesis 3, "the woman" is mentioned 9 times. In all 8 times outside of verse 15, "the woman" is Eve. "The woman" is Eve in verse 13, right before, and verse 16, right after the prophecy about the seed. Where, pray tell, did this other-woman idea come from? How would the earnest Bible student know to take a right turn at verse 15, without a revelation?
I do not see any justification whatsoever for assigning a special identity to "the woman" in verse 15.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-07 23:26:13
I love expository Bible study. It's Bible study for the common man, not that you're in any way common Andere. :)
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-08 11:35:56
Just thinking out loud: I wonder it it's possible that Eve really was the woman that would have enmity with the serpent. Let's say God really meant Eve rather than a purported heavenly organization. Is there then a reasonable way to understand this narrative? I think so ...
Consider that Eve was clearly deceived - both by her own admission, and as indicated by subsequent testimony in the NT that discussed her (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14). That being so, and because Eve had in effect 'taken sides' with the serpent, could Eve have been further deceived into forming an alliance with Satan? Imagine the consequences if Eve, concluding that God had rejected her, decided to throw her lot in with Satan. In our day, we understand all too well the harmful consequences of "undue influence" on other people. If Satan had free access to Eve, that would certainly qualify as undue influence. If that were allowed to continue, and seeing that Eve would live a long time before dying, it could have resulted in centuries of Satanic undue influence infiltrating mankind. As bad as the pre-flood days were, imagine how much worse they might have been if a human/demonic alliance were allowed to exist. from the start of human history.
Would God thus have had good reason to see to it that Eve and Satan developed a state of "enmity" between them? Yes. If you like, call it having a "falling out" or "bad attitude" toward each other. Eve could have resented Satan for tricking her, and Satan could have blamed Eve for the punishment he was going to receive, even though he deserved it for his own actions.
If God deliberately induced Eve and Satan to hate each other, that would have put an end to any possible undue influence by Satan over mankind at such a vulnerable early point in mankind's history. Their bad attitude towards each other - an attitude put into their hearts by God - would cause a division between them, preventing any alliance or cooperation from taking place.
Yes, this is speculation, but it seems like a reasonable possibility, at least enough so that to assume Genesis 3:15's "woman" is Eve does not appear too far-fetched.
Reply by 1984 on 2015-11-05 23:24:14
So true. Just shows that the Watchtower's interpretation of Gen 3:15 and Revelation 12 is just more claptrap designed to prop up a false doctrine (1914 and all that) and their own self-ordained authority.
Reply by Bruno on 2015-11-06 07:14:09
Technically speaking Eve was correct in thinking she was the woman in Genesis 3:15 as her DNA was present in the body of Jesus. The watchtowers own literature indicates this.
Creator 1998 page 96
In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female!!!
Reply by menrov on 2015-11-06 10:40:23
Hi D, well done. The book said: Did Eve imagine that she was the woman in the prophecy and that Cain was the promised “seed”?
Gen. 4:25 shows the reality: Thomson(i) 25 And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and brought forth a son and called his name Seth, saying, "For God hath raised up for me another seed in the place of Abel whom Cain slew."
So, to even consider tat Eve was thinking what is said in the Imitate book is ....well, nonsense.
Comment by Out of Africa on 2015-11-05 22:14:38
Thanks for the article Meleti. I was sitting in the meeting last night wondering if you would post an article on this book.
Two questions struck me: 1. Paragraph 17 speaks of the cherubs being materialized. Is this in the bible? And where does it state that it was the same two cherubs that kept to their posts for thousands of years?
2. Paragrapy 27 says that Abel's life span was about a century long. If he was 100 years old, died before 3896 BCE (see timeline in front cover) he'd have been born in 3996 BCE, making Adam 30 years old, by which time man would had already fallen into sin. That makes his birth 6000 years ago from 2005. What happened to the theory that the creative days are 7000 years long, the last 1000 years are in the paradise, hence Armageddon should have come in 2005 at the latest. Has there been any new light on the matter?Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-06 12:47:24
Out of Africa,
I believe in the years leading up to 1975 the Watchtower taught that the 7th Day of Rest started AFTER the creation of Eve (God working until her creation). With the Bible record being silent as to how long Adam was alone until her creation it was thought there would be an unaccounted for lapse of time until the actual end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th day. They attempted a guess as to how long that would be but failed.
Comment by Another anonymous on 2015-11-05 23:54:30
Making comparisons with Biblehub commentators in these scriptures, it seems many of the ideas come from there, so not original with the WT writers
Comment by Junia on 2015-11-06 09:07:59
Matthew Henry says, 'When Cain was born, Eve said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Perhaps she thought that this was the promised seed. If so she was woefully disappointed.' This is very similar to the words used in the Imitate Their Faith book. If you think that was speculative, look at the chapter on Noah
Comment by Father jack on 2015-11-06 12:04:06
What on earth are they teaching now . Why fabricate stories about imperfect individuals in the bible in the first place . Especially ones from the old testament . This is a red herring . For goodness sakes we are supposed to be following jesus christ . Why not just study the New testament gospels through word by word in context at the meeting and lets take in accurate knowledge of the son of god . We may have a chance of being like him then . What happened to john 17 ; 3 this is the main problem with the witnesses they dont really know the christian scriptures . Why do they come up with these books ? If we are going to have a bible study then lets have one , says a lot to me this
Comment by Buster on 2015-11-06 12:54:03
Yes, thank you for finally getting to this book, when I brought the topic up months ago on Discuss the truth I mentioned this was the book we were going to finally get around to. Almost 3 years since we got it but hey its time to get that spiritual food...Right.
Some points.....
1. On the first day that we did the book, we Had, again we Had to read the Letter by the Governing Body, ( it is before the actual introduction) yes the kingdom ministry said we had to read it, look it up your self... amazing. And after we read it the conductor asked Questions, Nope not making this up, I was like wait now we asking questions were there is a Letter and no questions are on the page... Yup sounds Right! And because of that we had to cut off the last paragraph of the introduction, I said so wait a minute we had to read a letter from these 7 men and give then acclaim and ask questions because that was so important. Reminds me of Rutherford books of the past where he had a introduction about himself and he was unleashing truth to all the people and the world...Amazing.
2. Of course then came paragraph 7-9 where the Nonsense meter went haywire. Of course we try to make a big deal of Eve said about Cain, my answer to the question is that it was and nothing to do with the prophecy ( now if you wanna believe that more power to you) but had to do with the next verse in Genesis 3:16, where Yahweh ( Jehovah) talks directly to Eve and Says you will have children and it will be hard for you. So I answered it is more likely way more likely she was giving Praise to the Almighty. And that all of this was guessing. The whole meeting was silent. Yup I went there.
3. And I laughed and starred at the wall when we tried to make a maybe into a topic in paragraph 9, and later I talked to some relatives and said that was a half hour of nonsense, they looked at me and said no it is all reasonable, I said well for that matter maybe Abel and Cain were Riding Dinosaur's and unicorn's that is reasonable also, and they just stared at me.
4. Then in this week we talk about paragraph 22 where is it possible that Abel...well let Me type the whole paragraph.
Why did God favor Abel? Was it the offering itself? Abel did offer a living, breathing creature, shedding its precious lifeblood. Did Abel realize how valuable such a sacrifice would be? Many centuries after Abel's time, God used the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb to picture the sacrfice of His own perfect son, "the Lamb of God", whose innocent blood would be shed. However much of that surely lay well beyond Abel's Knowledge or understanding.
Yup, and you remember a few months ago, in the Watchtower they hinted at Abel wishing and hoping men would be perfect again, and trying to tie that in with Jesus.
And if you really see nonsense jump to the Joseph part of the book and in Paragraph 17, where Jesus was watching his adoptive dad Joseph hard at work, it gets a little weird.
I will end this with GB ( Guardian's of Doctrine) Anthony Morris saying in the Annuel Meeting we do our teachings on the bible.....REALLY!!, look at whole Abel account on this Book and see how your bible talks about Abel, yup Spiritual food alright, Oh yeah!!!
Love to all from Buster
Comment by Brenda Evans on 2015-11-06 14:24:12
Cracking study Meleti,
I got thinking that Abel sets a nice and simple example to us. To simply just hold Jehovah in the natural and right respect, to obey and, to love Him.
I got thinking, as I read the piece, just how much had been extrapolated from the information we are given in the Bible. And it is dangerous to conject something that may or may not have been thought, felt and experienced at the time. I was reminded how we can see too much in something which is or isn't there - such as the codes you get in different books, including the Bible - and this was during a Bible study.
I have always seen Eve as the woman, as, by logic, when you think, the line goes through the generations to Jesus, so even by simple interpretation, you can get to this
What is worrying, is that, during recent Bible studies, I was told that the book being studied is the Imitate Their Faith book - and the accompanying thoughts and beliefs were there in the comments that I was told - that the amount of information given in this example is so great and so much, then the comment was made that there was such a small amount in the Bible. And wasn't this wonderful - so much the reader is given in this first piece - there was growing excitement and, obviously, appreciation.
At first, I agreed - oooohh how wonderful! But then, a couple of moments later, a thought crossed my mind - where did all this vast extra information that folk could read and enjoy come from? Had they sourced another source of information that was secret but gave more insight about what happened to Abel during his life and his very sad passing? Was there some new document found in some cave over near the Dead Sea which nobody had accessed and privy to? I was in awe.
Or was there something else afoot? And suddenly, we are in storybook form.
There is a great example and plain lesson here for us, when reading about Abel: to simply follow Jehovah; ask Him when we are not sure or simply need direction. As I have often said, even to the ones who I do the Bible study with - I would rather go to source than fiddle about with anything else - I put it like this to them so as not to offend, but my meaning is not to listen to such people.
What gets me, is that, as I have been reminded quite a few times in Bible study over the last few months, Jehovah never changes - and why should He, I ask? I know I speak for many, I would rather Him as He is rather than chopping and changing for this reason and that. However, in contrast, the chopping and changing that has been going on recently with the teachings from such a responsible group of people. Where does this right come from? There is such tremendous responsibility, not only to the people in the organisation, but also those who answer the doors. And then the technicality increases and the detail increases - but what are we taught by One who would really know? Jesus tells us to keep our eyes simple.
There is so much in the Bible - so much we can apply to our lives, and share with others. It is vast. Does it need anything more than what it gives? No. We also have to remember that the Bible is the Holy word - how dare we pull it this way, pull it that way, push it to the boundaries and back again, mess around with its words, paraphrase it into other publications purporting to be called the Bible, so much so, that when you compare one with another, there are words left out.
I have often thought, what if someone else, let's call him Joe Bloggs out and about shopping, went round saying they believe they are the Faithful and Discreet Slave, particularly to a brother or sister, My goodness, the reaction you can almost hear. So, what is the difference between this Joe Bloggs off the High Street and a group of men?
Thanks for putting up with this rant. It just gets to you a bit.
Much love to you all, as always.
BrendaReply by 1984 on 2015-11-06 20:20:40
Yes Brenda, very true - the Holy word, not Holly wood! Maybe they don't know the difference anymore?
Comment by Buster on 2015-11-06 23:43:43
I also love when brothers and sisters talk about you known those Hollywood films like Noah or the New Exodus film and say "Oh no that is not what the Bible Says" granted it is true, bur those people are the same ones that buy this book as it was the Bible...Sad.
Hey I enjoy those films, they big epic films do they add a bunch of things, yup, but as big Hollywood films i dig them, but i know they don't follow the bible and add a lot of things, but the So called Truth ( JW Organization and this so-called book ) adds Truth where it does not belong. Yup Amazing.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-07 08:21:10
I used to say, "Wouldn't it be great if the organization made films. Then we'd see the Bible accurately depicted." Then we get the Jesus video from this year's regional assembly. How very disappointing that was. Not only did they add much that wasn't there, but even the things they did depict were skewed from what is plainly stated. The bible videos that the Mormons put out are far more faithful to the actual account than anything the Organization has produced. I don't endorse the Mormon theology at all, but credit should be given where credit is due.
Reply by Buster on 2015-11-07 13:13:08
I beg to disagree my brother, oir Jesus video this summer was something Special , when the so called character talking about Jesus back in the day, said in his introduction and " You will see that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth", that is 150 percent correct. Even if Yahweh name never appears in any Greek scriptures and the Witness's name was not put into place until 1931,
;)
Comment by Father jack on 2015-11-07 17:50:53
Sorry to take us away from your article meleti , but i was studying 1 john 2 this evening along with bible commentries . It was very interesting indeed it seems likely that 1 john 2 v16 where it says the showy display of ones means of life is translated in other bibles as the pride of life could be refering to the human trait of those who seek to dominate and control others because of thier pride . Seems to make sense to me this certainly is one of the traits of the world that john warned about .
Its also interesting that at 1 john 2 v24 john encourages us to abide in that which we heard from the beginning . Many would feel that it would be refering to what a christian would be taught at the start of his discipleship , but it probably means the teaching that was expounded by the apostles and christ in the first century , which are found in the new testament today . Just wanted to share that with you hope you dont mind . Your brother kev cReply by menrov on 2015-11-08 04:54:26
hi, regarding 1 John 2:16, the word used for showy display (or as In some translations, pride of life) can mean:
LSJ Gloss: ἀλαζονεία
false pretension, imposture, quackery
Dodson: ἀλαζονεία
boasting, show, arrogant display
boasting, show, arrogant display, ostentation; plur: occasions of ostentation.
Strong's: ἀλαζονεία
braggadocio, i.e. (by implication) self-confidence
Derivation: from G213;
KJV Usage: boasting, pride.
G213
Thayer:
1) empty, braggart talk
2) an insolent and empty assurance, which trusts in its own power and resources and shamefully despises and violates divine laws and human rights
3) an impious and empty presumption which trusts in the stability of earthy things
Trench's New Testament Synonyms
•Boastful
and has one other occurrence in James 4:16:
ALT(i) 16 But now you boast in your pretentious pride; all such boasting is evil.
Etheridge(i) 16 They glory in their pride. All glorying such as this is from the Evil.
And a few more variations.
Not sure if the verse refer to those who seek to dominate or control but by boasting the person tries to show he is better than others. It is a sort of dominance I guess.Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-08 09:52:05
I believe the NWT is actually not all that bad when it says "showy display"; it's a reasonable translation. But you make a good point, which is that much of this Greek word involves not only being "showy" but of being prideful and boasting about it. The person doing this is not merely making a "show" out of their life or their life's possessions, but they are bragging about how great these are. They are self-centered egotists, demanding attention to themselves and everything about themselves.
Thanks for this insight, it is quite illuminating.Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-08 18:46:45
Yeah thanks . Just looked at it again and perhaps i may have read a bit more into it than i should to be fair . The actual words in the commentry were the idea behind the pride of life is a person who lives for superiority over others mostly by impressing others through outward appearance .even if deceptive . Its the studylight . Org commentry on 1 john 2 v16 . Checked out the greek word as well .like you menrov and there may well be some pointers there as well where it says that this person trusts in thier own power . I think also enlightening is the fact that during the temptation of jesus that the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world basically offering him power over them . I think as well that its true that apostates tend to want to draw away the disciples to follow themselves not the christ .
Comment by Father jack on 2015-11-08 03:40:30
Just reading the comments about eve as has been said every time the woman is mentioned in genesis 3 it seems to be refering to eve herself . Thus giving good reason to think that verse 15 is also concerning eve . However the seed mentioned seems to be christ . I think its interesting though that the sentence passed on her as an individual ie the chronic child birth pain which ties in with bearing seed has been passed on to womankind in general . So it could well be that as eve was the first woman she is classed as the mother of all including the mother of mary who personally bore the true seed who is christ .
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-08 10:04:39
With all the fuss over this book, I decided to read some of it this morning for the first time. Wow, this book is so simplistic, I am beside myself. There is so little real information, expressed in so few words, one could easily read the whole thing in an hour. And they are going to make all the congregations in the world meticulously study this thing for months on end? The language they use is so simple, it seems like their target readers must be 12 year olds. It is easy to visualize this as a comic book, or "graphic novel" where the (minimal) text is contained in dialog balloons. It almost qualifies as "content free literature".
This is the best they can do? THIS is what they call food at the proper time?Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-08 11:31:02
The Governing Body is a spiritual desert. They have no water, no food.
Even the material they recycle from the previous generation is diminished. What more can be expected from men who had the temerity, the gall, to teach the overlapping generation nonsense.
There is something very wrong with the Governing Body.
Comment by Boanerges on 2015-11-21 20:50:32
The closing speaker at our last circuit assembly used this speculative Cain theme for the Las Vegas Circuit. I was smitten. How could someone extrapolate so much supposition from a single scripture? I'm surprised to hear it is included in the WT canon. I thought it was the brother's personal viewpoint used as an opening illustration, not new dogma!
Comment by David Merrill on 2015-11-25 16:45:39
Last night at the meeting there was a perfect example of conflating speculation and fact. The elder who was conducting the study said that Abram was never mixed up in worship at the ziggurat. How do we know this? Since Terah was an idolater it is likely that Abram was raised to worship the Moon God. He was not called on by God to leave Ur until he was an old man. Perhaps at some point he came in contact with Shem or another of Shem's descendants and converted to Jehovah worship.
This is the problem when you start speculating. You can get mixed up on what is speculation and what is fact (of which there is very little in some cases). And yet JW's are now being required to spend .5 hours each week (that's approx. 4 million person hours) studying the speculation of someone in the writing dept. at Bethel.