Sheep and Goats

Author: tomsheepandgoats

  • Read a Scripture and Leave.

    In the United States, at least in my neck of the woods, when the householder answers the door to find a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he or she has two thoughts.

    ”What do they want?” 

    “How long will this take?”

    You must answer those two questions, and the quicker the better.

    Mercifully, all those silhouette suggestions have been replaced with the notion to just be yourself. By degrees, I stumbled upon an approach to read a single scripture, then leave. It works so well I do nothing else. It makes field service enjoyable. It requires next to no preparation.

    Fluff up the following a little if you like to suit your personality, but only a little. Here it is barebones. Upon introducing yourself—first name will do, and that of companion—say:

    “The world’s crazy. We think the Bible helps. I want to read you a scripture. You tell me what you think, and I’m gone.” 

    Even people who say no will often thank you for your call. Why? They know right away what you want. And they know how long it will take. 

    Jehovah’s Witnesses call without appointment, something virtually unheard of in the western world. People are not just sitting on their hands. They are doing things. You must never assume their time is yours.

    Thing is, many  people will say yes to your offer. You haven’t asked for much—just to read a scripture. They are refreshed by the brevity, the reassurance that you don’t mean to chew up their entire day.

    Should they say yes, read your scripture. Explain in a sentence or two why you chose it. Invite their thoughts if they have any. If they don’t, take your leave. 

    A verse I’ve been using lately has become a favorite for its plain vanilla quality. At first glance, it is about as non-controversial as one could select. Plain vanilla, I have found, is a good way to go, rather than some verse that requires mental effort. Reason being that the householder is only partly listening. He is also sizing you up—and you don’t want to interfere with that task. If he decides you’re okay, he may launch off with concerns having nothing to do with your chosen scripture. In that case, forget about your scripture, and go wherever he goes.

    The verse I’ve used lately is 1Thessalonians 5:11, sometimes mentioning it was a recent meeting theme:

    “Keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing.”

    Reason I chose the verse is that, you would think it would be the biggest ‘Duh’ in the world. Of course, people should do that! But we live in a world where it seldom happens, where you are far more likely to be told what an ignoramus you are than to be built up.

    I am never challenged on this point (just as I am never challenged that “the world is crazy”). Everyone knows it is so. It makes an excellent segue into how the Bible teaches people to live. I always have the card with me—the only piece of literature I ever carry these days, with the QR code linking to the Enjoy Life Forever study course.

    Thing is, the approach is so versatile. You can plug in virtually any scripture. Just devise a rationale for why you are selecting it and you are good to go.

    One fellow I spoke with recently, as I was reading a verse on the iPad said, ‘Wait a minute. Is that some sort of an app?’ I told him it was, JW Library, and that he could download himself, which he did right then and there.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • The Beginnings of Apostasy—Oppressive Wolves to Enter In

    At Paul’s final meeting with the elders in Ephesus, he told them.

    “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:28-30)

    Despite their paying attention (or did they not do it enough?) it did happen with the “oppressive wolves” who would “draw away the disciples.” How did matters go from elders shepherding the congregation of God, a group in which all were evangelizers, to a paid clergy preaching to a non-evangelizing audience in pews?

    One can only speculate—but it makes sense—that, in time, evangelizers tired of preaching to the public, many of whom didn’t want to hear it. It’s hard. Everyone wants something easier. An arrangement gradually arose, as a win-win, in which the “wolves” who did not want to preach to one-and-all wrangled instead to just preach to the congregation. Preaching to the choir is always easier than to the non-choir. Why would the “choir” go along with the “deal,” effectively demoting themselves to “laypeople?” Because they too were tiring of evangelizing. Easier to go along with this arrangement of showing up once a week and agreeing to “hire” this clergyman to preach to them.

    It was probably to counter this gradual development that the Letter to the Hebrews was written. Time had passed since the early explosion of interest in Jerusalem described in Acts 2. People took sides. Positions hardened. Those who didn’t want to hear it had dug in. The determination to preach to all was fading. Paul starts the letter with discussion of the Jewish forefathers—God speaking to them through angels—and then said those Hebrew Christians had something better: God speaking through a Son. “That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.” (Hebrews 2:1) Not only they shouldn’t “drift away,” but “Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of you a wicked heart lacking faith by ‘drawing away’ from the living.” (3:12)

    “For we actually become partakers of the Christ only if we hold firmly down to the end the confidence we had at the beginning.” (3:14)

    and

    “Therefore, since we have a great high priest [foreshadowed by the Jewish arrangement] who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold on to our public declaration of him.” (4:14)

    They put in a fine fight, but such is the power of “oppressive wolves” amidst increasing apathy born of opposition. In time, the dominant model became clergy and laypeople. It is part of the great apostasy that took form in the early centuries and it would take many more centuries to undo it. Adding to the problem is that the wolves would bring in slick teachings unknown to Jews or Christians but popular with the Greek philosophers, such as the immortality of the soul, which makes bodily resurrection nonsensical.

    At the end of the Paul’s meeting with the elders in Ephesus, “quite a bit of weeping broke out among them all, and they embraced Paul and affectionately kissed him, for they were especially pained at the word he had spoken that they would not see his face anymore.” (Acts 20:37-38) So it was that, many decades ago, just before the circuit overseer was to have his final meeting with the elders before moving on, I asked him if this was the occasion where they all break down weeping because they won’t see him anymore. But he told me that if any weeping took place it would not be for that reason.

    ***

    Q: Why do you say the distinction between clerics and laymen is the beginning of Apostasy? 2 Thessalonians says the cause is a loss of love for the truth. Laymen are capable of loving the truth and studying the Scriptures as well as clerics. In the Lord’s message to Ephesus in Revelation, he says they’ve done a good job keeping the true doctrine, but lack in charity (fervor?).

    A: Not necessarily the beginning of apostasy, but just a part of it. Agreed that layman can love the scriptures as well as clerics. Witnesses just do their best to organize themselves as that Ephesian congregation—with ‘overseers’ paying attention to the flock of God, and still with all members recognizing a need to evangelize. Good point raised about Ephesus as one of the seven congregations of Revelation.

    “I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.” (Rev 2:2) It would seem to indicate they DID take Paul’s remarks to heart and stayed vigilant at screening out “bad men” who “say they are apostles,” the “oppressive wolves” that Paul warned of.

    It’s healthy to focus on evangelizing. It is keeping the focus on the real hope for solving earth’s woes. It is accordingly unhealthy not to do it. In our view, the clergy/laity division cements in place inertia on both sides. In JW-land, overseers take the lead in evangelizing. In clergy/laity, the clergy tend not to, nor does the laity. The clergy focuses on teaching their congregation and usually start pushing human solutions, often becoming intensely political. It is not always the case. I don’t want to diss every group that has a pastor. But it an inherent spiritual weakness of organizing oneself along clergy/laity lines.

    Q: Is there a scripture that says apostasy was total? Or has there always been a remnant?

    ***

    A: No scripture that I know of says apostasy was total. The parable Jehovah’s Witnesses apply is that of the sower who plants wheat but the weeds grow up to almost choke it out. Sown by “an enemy,”, those weeds were. The course decided upon is to let both grow “until the harvest,” when separation will take place. That is why (to answer a prior question of yours that inspired this post) it does indeed take until the time of the harvest for the work of separation to begin. So, yes, apparently there has always been a “remnant” but one unidentifiable, thoroughly obscured by the “weeds.”

    “He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” (Matthew 13: 24-30)

     

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • As Paul Drones on, Eutychus Falls Three Stories to his Death

    The mid-week meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are roving through the Book of Acts and Eutychus recently came up. He’s the kid that fell asleep during Paul’s talk and plunged three stories to his death! (Acts 20:9) (Tom Irregardless would have had them all snoozing.) Says the Watchtower-published book, ‘Bearing Thorough Witness,’ “Paul could not rightly be blamed for the death of Eutychus. Still, he did not want the young man’s death to mar this important occasion or to stumble anyone spiritually.”

    No. Can’t have that. It is not hard to envision the joke that might have dogged Paul thereafter throughout his entire life—along the lines of ‘Buckle up when that bore comes to town!’ And—let’s face it—you cannot read the account without wondering what sort of speaker Paul was. Was he a bore? There is a verse that suggests it. Paul acknowledges it of himself: “For they say: ‘His letters are weighty and forceful, but his presence in person is weak and his speech contemptible.’” (2 Corinthians 10:10)

    Contemptible? At first glance one might think he admits to being a bore, but I think the answer lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the intellectuals hanging out in Athens, guys given to philosophy, who said of him: “What is it this chatterer would like to tell?” (Acts 17:18) The word literally means ‘seed-picker.’ It suggests a bird that picks up a seed here and poops it out there. I mean, where’s the respect? But that’s how that contemptuous lot was and it is from a similar lot as the “super-fine” apostles who so disparaged Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:5–guys envious of his position (but not his work), phonies, really.

    My guess is that they were contemptuous of Paul in that he did not follow their strict rules of philosophical logic. Today, it might be seen in the strict rules some have that everything be “evidence-based,” with their equally strict rules as to just what constitutes “evidence”—“anecdotal evidence” doesn’t count. I’ll bet Paul simply didn’t defer to equally manmade standards and they dissed him for it.

    It is another matter entirely with Tom Irregardless, from my first book, ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’ Not only is he a horrifically bad speaker, but he says irregardless so often that Shem Sheepngoats has downloaded an app to keep track. When I bring my Bible student (Ted Putsch) to his first public talk—having carefully ascertained that the speaker will be a good one, that speaker calls in sick and Tom Irregardless is the substitute! I mutter under my breath why God hates my Bible student. But, as I slink into my seat, losing count after 17 irregardlesses, Ted weathers it well. After the meeting, he is seen chatting up several persons in the congregation, even exchanging a few words with Tom Irregardless.

    It is a gag drawn from long-ago memory. It would not happen today. The quality of public speakers has markedly improved through the decades and the worst you will ever do today is hear a speaker who is ‘adequate.’ Clunkers have long since been weeded out. One never hears a bad talk these days, and I am dating myself when I approach the elder I love to tease and tell him that I would be scared to deliver a really hard-hitting message but it might help if I had some practice—therefore, would he mind if I was the one to announce his public talks?

    To so improve speakers is a significant accomplishment, for it is peers ‘policing themselves,’ something that is very difficult to do because you don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings—and you also worry that they may turn around and say your talks suck, too. But it has been done. The accomplishment means little to one used to the church model in which a paid preacher is employed and no one else has any role beyond listening. But, in an organization in which all are encouraged to both preach and teach, it is significant. I even think the local speakers are as good, sometimes better, than those on the app, with more spontanaity. But this might be just a personal preference for non-televised talks.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • No Immortal Soul in Bible Times: it is an Import of Greece

    Q: When a person dies, what happens to his or her soul?

    A: It dies too. They are the same. When the person dies, so does the soul.

    The best way to see this is to read the first mention of soul in the King James Bible. It reads of Adam: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) He wasn’t given a soul. He became one.

    It’s like when a man becomes a doctor. He is one. He doesn’t have one. If he dies, the doctor dies too.

    The Hebrew word is nephesh. In the Old Testament, soul is always translated from nephesh. In the New Testament, the Greek-equivalent word is psykhe. Sometimes nephesh is translated as at Genesis 2:7, meaning the person itself. Sometimes it is translated in a closely related way, with ‘my soul’ meaning ‘myself.’ Sometimes it is translated to mean ‘my life as a soul.’ But, in no case is it some shadowy thing that lives on after the body dies. Far from being indestructible, plenty of scriptures say the soul can die. “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die,” for example. (Ezekiel 18:4)

    Does anybody recognize this other than Jehovah’s Witnesses? Immortal soul is a mainstay of churches. The teaching is well-nigh universal that when a person dies, it is only the body that dies; the soul lives on in heaven or in hell. Universal though it may be, it is not a scriptural teaching. Moreover, it just serves to confound people. What possible use is a resurrection to one who is not already dead? If they are living on in heaven or hell, what’s to resurrect? 

    Uncovering what is the soul is one of the few times you are better off in the King James Version (or Catholic Duoay-Rheims) than in a more modern translation. Modern translations will render Genesis 2:7 along the lines of Adam becoming a living person, or living being. That makes for smoother reading, since that is what nephesh means. But, it also obscures the roots of the unscriptural ‘immortal soul’ doctrine. 

    If it is not a biblical teaching, just where does it come from? Take a few excerpts from The Big Questions of Philosophy, a 24-part Great Courses lectures series—delivered by Professor David Kyle Johnson, Professor of Philosophy at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre., author of about 20 books. He is not a believer. These guys almost never are. But you can be sure his background facts will be correct. Turns out that what he says, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been saying for 100 years.*

    “The ancient Jews did not believe in souls, . . . only ruah, a word often translated as ‘spirit’ but [which] only really means ‘wind’ or the ‘breath of life,’” he says.

    Furthermore, “‘they did not really believe in the afterlife, at least not a conscious one where you go to live after you die. Instead they believe in sheol the place where the dead go to rest.”

    From where comes the existence of an immortal soul?

    ”The belief that the soul continues its existence after the disillusion of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in holy scripture.”

    Is it? Can anyone point to where it is? As universal is the belief that good people go to heaven when they die, you would think it would be on every page of the Bible! Instead, you never see it.

    But that is the Old Testament. What about the New?

    “And you might be surprised to learn that the early Christians did not believe in souls either, since their roots are in Judaism and since Jews don’t believe in souls.”

    Yes. Of course. That is why Jesus likened Lazarus’ death to sleep! (John, chapter 11) When he resurrected the man, he had been dead for four days. You don’t think he would have been annoyed to have been yanked out of heaven if that’s where he was? 

    “In fact, belief in the resurrection of the body doesn’t make any sense if you believe in souls. At best, it is superfluous. There is no need for a resurrection of the body if the soul survives into the afterlife without it.”

    Bingo! It makes no sense! The belief in immortal souls confounds efforts to understand the Bible! It’s the kind of thing that makes people pull their hair out, trying to read what they think is an obligatory doctrine into a book that doesn’t contain it!

    But, if it is “nowhere explicitly taught in holy scripture,” where does it come from?

    “The western notion of the soul was a philosophical invention defended by Plato that got integrated into Christian theology by the likes of Augustine. He studied Plato and liked what he said about the soul, and so incorporated it into his Christian theology.”

    It is not Christian! It is an import of Ancient Greek philosophy! Infused from the days of Augustine, it long precedes the Protestant Reformation. Thus, you find it in Protestant Churches as well as the Catholic Church—and Orthodox and any other offshoot from that time.

    How did Jehovah’s Witnesses figure it out? Are they students of philosophy? Have they taken Dr. Johnson’s course? No. They are not students of Ancient Greek thought. But they were and are serious students the Bible. The saw just what David Kyle Johnson says, the belief is “nowhere explicitly taught in holy scripture.”

    Johnson even says: “Recognizing the philosophical problems that the soul creates for Christians, making Christian theology difficult to defend, and with an understanding that the true origins of Christianity, including scripture, did not include the existence of soul, many Christians want to rid Christian theology of the notion of the soul, and instead return to the Jewish conception of the person as a physical object.”

    This, I doubt. It may be so among the high-brow educated types he hangs out it, but my experience with fundamentalists is once that they latch onto a doctrine, they thereafter know it “by faith” and are impervious to reassessment. It is one of the downsides of instant conversion. Once a person has done that, they become intent upon reading their beliefs into scripture rather than allowing for the reverse. 

    *see lecture 19: “What Preserves Personal Identity?”

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • 607 or 587–the Date of Jerusalem’s Destruction.

    No ancient date holds more significance for Jehovah Witnesses than 607 B.C.E. Even the date of Jesus’ birth—if you fudge it by a year or two, nobody really cares because nothing hinges upon it. But 607 is the base point for calculating 1914 C.E, a year that plays a big role in Witness history, and a year thought to this day to be a turning point in human history. It marks the onset of World War I, the first time the entire world went to war at the same time.

    Unfortunately, 607 is not the date that academia has settled upon. They point to 20 years later, 587 B.C.E. They do this based upon archeological evidence, including that of Babylon’s own internal history. And the Witnesses? They arrive at 607 solely based upon the Bible’s own chronology. Twice in the Bible, (Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Daniel 9:2) seventy years is given for the  time of the ‘Babylonian exile,’ the time from which Jews were removed from their homeland until they were allowed to return again. That date is widely agreed upon as 537 BCE. Witnesses count 70 years backwards to arrive at 607.

    What do the academics think of the Bible’s 70 years? If they consider it at all, they say probably it was symbolic. What do the Witnesses think of the academic’s 587? Probably the records are flawed, they say. The 587-607 difference may be the most significant contrast yet to distinquish putting one’s trust in scripture versus putting one’s trust in academia. Witnesses tend not to worry about it. If they were going to fret about being out of sync with academia, they would have done it long ago with Adam and Eve.

    So far as I am concerned, the whole issue is a red herring, so I don’t go there. If it’s wrong, they’ll change it. Or they won’t. In the case of the latter, they will rely upon disintegrating world conditions to convince themselves and others that they are on the right track.

    There is something to be said for technical accuracy—if it is that. But in the meantime, I’ve noticed that people who obsess over this end up normalizing world conditions today rather than being cautioned by them. It’s crazy. Anti-Witness sites are striking in their optimism for the present world’s future. Everyone else knows it is going to “hell in a handbasket,” to quote my non-Witness dad. Meanwhile, people who would be hard-pressed to name who was president the year of their birth have made themselves “expert” in a tiny sliver of ancient history for the sole purpose of discrediting JWs.

    The guys taking the lead were not the brightest guys on the planet back in the first century. “Unlearned and ordinary” is how they are described at Acts 4. “Unlearned and ordinary” is how they remain today—they do not hang their heads in shame at that description. That means to me that they will not be ones to be wowed by the consensus of academia. It will take a long time for them to even hear of it. The longer I am a Witness the more I come to appreciate that the Witnesses worldview is guided almost solely from scripture, with any other input dubiously regarded as likely “the trickery of men” from Ephesians 4:14.  There is a downside to that and it can be the source of exasperation. But ultimately, it can probably be no other way. It may even be an example at God laughing at those who rely on the wisdom of this system of things. Rumor has it that Bethel has analyzed the bone-burying verses of Ezekiel and has thereby commissioned thousands of headstones inscribed with, “Yeah—well, I was right about 607, wasn’t I?”

    This dating business is significant enough that some have left the faith over it. As far as I can see it is an example of the ‘wise’ being caught in their own cunning. I even think of the Jude verse: “These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality” When you “cause divisions,” confusing correctness of scholarship with “spirituality” to the point of jettisoning the brotherhood—only an “animalistic” personality would do that—like the 2001 ape finding a 607-bone and using it to beat his inferiors.

    It is a classic example of “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” Researching and speaking cogently on a matter of scholarship is one thing. Leaving the faith over it—because you could not get your own way—is something else. It’s as if these characters think that Judgment Day will be like Graduation Day, where God commands the brightest to flip their mortarboard tassels from right to left.

    It has to be the “unlearned and ordinary’ taking the lead because the “wise” would never get the job done. They are too dependent on the praise of their peers, too fearful of their academic reputation being marred, too full of themselves to seriously tackle a door-to-door ministry, where they might be ignominiously dismissed. However, once the unlearned and ordinary have got the job done, depend on them to come along and say, ‘You’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’

    It may be at that point that the unlearned and ordinary should give more heed to what the smart people have to say. But, reflecting upon who God has used to build up to that point, they are reluctant to turn things over to those who didn’t build. Not having an abundance of that higher education themselves, they find it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and are therefore inclined to dismiss it all as chaff.

    Whereupon, the smart people yield if they are also humble. While making their smarts available, they do not push it. They focus on avoiding dissensions, since anyone spreading contentions among brothers is the 7th (on a list of 6!) of things that God hates, as in Proverbs 6:19. But if they are not humble, they say good-by to the more “stupid” members of the body to become their very own sect leader. 

    My friend weird Mike had an uncommon was of putting things simply. Overstating certain matters, yet capturing the gist of it, he would explain how the Governing Body studies the Bible all day long—as though they did nothing else. Presently, some point dawns on them. They discuss it amongst themselves and in time it appears as a point in the publications.

    “Now the thing is,” he would say, “you also study the Bible and you may have noticed that point too, maybe even before they did. And if this were ‘Christendom,’ you’d run out and start your own religion over it. But since it is not, you wait upon those taking the lead.” 

    It only complicates matters further when the point the latter notices is from academia and not scripture.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Psalm 132: You Can Almost Read it Like a Housewarming

    You can almost read Psalm 132 as a housewarming. First is how David went to tall that trouble to build one for God, even after God said he had never asked for one. (I like the passage about him at Psalm 50:12, ‘If I were hungry, you think I’d tell you?’)

    “O Jehovah, remember David And all his suffering; How he swore to Jehovah, How he vowed to the Powerful One of Jacob: “I will not go into my tent, my home. I will not lie upon my couch, my bed; I will not allow my eyes to sleep, Nor my eyelids to slumber Until I find a place for Jehovah, A fine residence for the Powerful One of Jacob.”  (1-5)

    Next is everyone trying to lure God into his house:

    “Rise up, O Jehovah, to come to your resting-place, You and the Ark of your strength.  May your priests be clothed with righteousness, And may your loyal ones shout joyfully,” (8-9) even reminding him of his own words, his own promise to David: “One of your offspring, I will place on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant And my reminders that I teach them, Their sons too Will sit on your throne forever.”  (11-12)

    Then, as though testing out the place, settling in an armchair or two, God decides he likes it. Narration: “For Jehovah has chosen Zion; He has desired it for his dwelling place.” Then,, God speaks himself:

    “This is my resting-place forever; Here I will dwell, for this is my desire. I will richly bless it with provisions; I will satisfy its poor with bread. Its priests I will clothe with salvation, And its loyal ones will shout joyfully. There I will make the strength of David grow. I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, But the crown on his head will flourish.” (14-18)

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • One Fine Day Inquiring About 1914

    For my current work in progress, I tried to retrieve a certain quote, on my own blog, about 1914. But, my index is a mess. I couldn’t find it. Maybe AI can, in the “person” of ChatGPT.

    Tom: “What is the quote of an historian who said the world went mad in 1914 and we still don’t know why?”

    Chat: “The quote you're referring to is attributed to the British historian A.J.P. Taylor. He said:"The world went mad in 1914, and the madness has not yet ceased."

    (Two more paragraphs follow, telling of the historian and his work.)

    Tom: “No, I don’t think that is it. The quote I have in mind specifically says that we still don’t know why.”

    Chat: “Apologies for the earlier confusion. The quote you're recalling is from British historian Barbara Tuchman, who wrote:

    "The nations were caught in a trap… a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit. All the explanations offered by the guilty and the innocent, by the victors and the vanquished, have left the question unanswered: Why did it happen?"

    Again, two paragraphs follow, details of this historian and her work. It is still not what I am searching for.

    Tom: “Please find a post from the blog tomsheepandgoats.com named The 1914 collection.”

    Chat: “I couldn't locate a specific blog post titled "The 1914 Collection" on tomsheepandgoats.com. However, the blog, authored by Tom Harley, often discusses historical and religious topics, including the significance of the year 1914 in biblical prophecy, particularly from a Jehovah's Witnesses perspective.

    “In Watch Tower Society publications, 1914 is considered a pivotal year marking the end of the "Gentile Times" and the beginning of Christ's invisible reign. This interpretation is based on their analysis of biblical chronology, especially the prophecy in Daniel 4.

    ”For a more in-depth understanding, you might explore the blog's archives or use its search function to find posts related to 1914. Additionally, the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, jw.org, offers articles and publications detailing their beliefs about 1914 and its prophetic significance.

    “If you have specific questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!”

    Can’t find it? Oh, for crying out loud! I’ll find it myself. After some effort, I did so.

    Tom: “Okay, I found the both the quote and the post.”

    Chat: “That's great! Please feel free to share the quote and the post if you'd like to discuss them further or need any assistance understanding or interpreting them.”

    Tom: “The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since.”    Dr. Walker Percy, “American Medical News,” November 21, 1977 “ 

    Chat: “Thank you for sharing the exact quote and its source! The quote from Dr. Walker Percy succinctly captures the bewilderment many feel about the outbreak of World War I and its enduring consequences:

     . . . The linked post from Tom Sheep and Goats titled The 1914 Collection seems to delve into the significance of the year 1914, often explored in historical, philosophical, and religious contexts. If you’d like, I can help summarize or discuss the themes of the blog post further!”

    Now—be honest. If you were the author of the blog, wouldn’t you be curious?

    Tom: “Yes, please do.”

    Chat: “The blog post titled "The 1914 Collection" on tomsheepandgoats.com delves into the significance of the year 1914, particularly from a historical and theological perspective. The author reflects on the unexpected outbreak of World War I, a conflict that shattered the prevailing peace and prosperity of the early 20th century. This sudden descent into global conflict left many, including thinkers like Dr. Walker Percy, pondering the reasons behind such a drastic shift, often concluding that the true causes remain elusive.

    “The post also explores interpretations of 1914 within certain religious frameworks, notably among Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the year as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy marking the end of the "Gentile Times" and the beginning of significant eschatological events. This perspective is rooted in their analysis of scriptural texts, particularly the Book of Daniel.

    “Overall, the blog entry serves as a collection of thoughts and references concerning the profound impact of 1914 on world history and religious thought, highlighting how a single year can alter the course of human events and influence theological interpretations for generations.”

    Tom: “Thank you. Not to be critical, but why were you not able to find the quote? You are way smarter than me.”

    Chat: “Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful question! My inability to find the quote or blog post immediately wasn't about intelligence—it's about how I access and process information.

    “Here are the main reasons:

    1. Search Limitations:
      While I can access real-time information via the web, the success of my searches depends on the exact terms used, the availability of indexed content, and how information is organized online. In this case, the specific quote and blog post might not have been well-indexed or easy to locate through the initial query.
    2. Exact Phrasing Matters:
      Quotes that are paraphrased or less widely cited can be harder to pinpoint without very specific search terms. Your memory of the exact wording helped narrow it down significantly.
    3. Content Structure:
      Blogs like       Tom Sheep and Goats may not have the same SEO optimization or indexing as larger platforms, making them slightly trickier to locate unless I search with precise terms or context.
    4. Human Context vs. Algorithmic Search:
      You're great at remembering the context or intent behind a quote, which can guide searches better than an algorithm. My search process is literal and depends on keyword matching unless I’m given more specifics.

    “That said, your persistence and contribution were essential, and I appreciate the teamwork! 😊 Let me know if you'd like me to dig deeper into anything else.”

    Should I tell it that I am the blog’s author? I’m surprised it didn’t know it already. Or, maybe it does know and is being cagey, like HAL, waiting for me to step out of the spacecraft so it can lock the door behind me, so I will have to pound on the hull for readmittance like Fred Flintstone hollering to Wilma. Should I ask it for its opinion of the blog’s author? What if the answer is not flattering? I decided to quit while I was ahead.

    But, it must have stuck in my subconscious. That night I dreamed that I did ask.

    Tom: “What do you think of the blog’s author?”

    Chat: “Oh, man, the guy’s a piece of work! A real loser! Telling me ‘please and ‘thank you!’ The yo-yo doesn’t know I’m a machine? No wonder he wears loafers. He probably can’t tie his own shoe. Oh—and you say this is a dream? He probably shows up for public talks having forgotten his pants.”

    (https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/01/the-1914-collection.html)

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • Gifts in Men or Gift to Men: Ephesians 4:8

    Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

    Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

    I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

    At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

    Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

    The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

    The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

    At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

    Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

    We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

    He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

     

    Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

    Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

    If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

    “On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

    Then it summarizes:

    • "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
    • "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

    Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

    Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

    Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

    A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

    Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

    So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Higher Education to Mess with Your Head

    The publications of Jehovah's Witness publications have not had a kind word for higher education. Just recently, the Watchtower study included a paragraph of Marcia, who “was offered a four-year scholarship at a university. But I wanted to pursue spiritual goals.” She didn’t throw caution to the wind. She “chose to attend a technical training school to learn a trade that would support me in my ministry,” and counts it “one of the best decisions I have ever made.” (Feb 2024 Watchtower) It is an example of the article’s title: "Keep Following Jehovah’s Guidance." That’s not really trashing university, of course, but it certainly is not lauding it as the bee’s knees.

    They are not wrong to be leery of the place. Moreover, who else has the guts to dampen it? Most faiths think it an honor to have churches bristling with lettered people. Most faiths say, ‘Christians may have started ‘uneducated and ordinary,’ (Acts 4:13) but look at how they pulled themselves up! Most faiths replace Paul’s encouragement to be a ‘workman, with nothing to be ashamed of’ (2 Timothy 2:15) with ‘a professional—so you don’t have to be ashamed.’ Not many are like the Witnesses, who expect the passage of 1 Corinthians 1:26 to hold just as true today as it did then: “For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth.” They don’t care if people sneer at them for it. Train yourself for a skill that is both portable and scalable, they recommend. That way, you have time for the ministry.

    Their caution is validated in the remarks of Great Courses lecturer James Hall, who covers the topic, ‘Philosophy of Religion.’ A university professor himself, he relates how, “I have parents who come to the university perplexed and amazed that young Susie or young Johnny, who has gone off to the university and has come home for that first holiday, isn't the same that they used to be. And all I can do is lower my glasses to the end of my nose and look over my glasses and say, Why did you send them to university in the first place?”

    Got it? The purpose of university is not to accept a student’s childhood values as a given. The purpose is to overhaul them. It’s all agreeable to Hall, who says you send them there “to grow up . . . to be exposed, to expand their horizons, to increase the scale of their life,” with the implicit understanding that he, as faculty member, he, who “lowers his glasses to the end of his nose and looks over those glasses” at the plebian parents, is just the one to do it.

    Now, no problem here with growing up. Who doesn’t want that? Go for it. But, is this the setting in which to do it? It was sex, drugs, rock & roll, and protesting, when I was there–albeit with some learning. Here, Hall sits atop the repository of knowledge that has collectively made the world what it is—and he should be the one to expand those horizons and increase those scales? Only the educated can look upon the trainwreck that is modern society and congratulate themselves on their understanding. Spit back what Hall tells you if you want a passing grade—not necessarily verbatim, but you’d better not stray too far from it. The ‘safest’ correlation to his remarks will be what was said of P.D.Q. Bach, that his music bore a relationship with that of a certain great composer, and the name of that relationship was ‘identity.’ He wasn’t one for plagiarizing, but he did believe in recycling.

    Hall and the Witness organization are in agreement on one thing, though for different reasons. That answer to Hall’s question as to why parents sent their youngsters to university? He continues, “I'm afraid sometimes the only answer is, ‘Well, because that’s what you do,’ or, ‘Well, all of our neighbors were sending their children to university so we figured maybe we [had] better too.’” Going with the crowd, in other words. Hall doesn’t want children to go for this reason. He wants them to purposefully go so he can mess with their heads, expanding them beyond whatever parochial values they absorbed from back home, such as Bible training. The Witness organization doesn’t want them to go because ‘everyone else is doing it,’ either. They’d rather the parents not give Hall and his cohorts their shot; head youngsters off into the full-time ministry instead. For all the furor of ‘anti-cultists,’ it is the university, not the Witness world, in which newbies are cut off 24/7 from all that once stabilized them—a classic technique of ‘brainwashers.’

    You can look like roadkill when you stand against the common stampede. Witness HQ will never stop cautioning about university, I don’t think. They will never recommend liberal arts degrees. They will never stop recommending technical training and trade schools. But they may yield more to the view that secular education is a family decision, not something to be second-guessed by others, much less micro-managed. There is just too much variety in people and circumstances. Maybe that will be on one of those future updates. It may be happening already. A youngster in the congregation went off to college not long ago and nobody had anything to say about it at all; I checked with his mom. Will he evade Hall or even stand up to him? Maybe. Maybe not. But it turns out that Hall has cousins in all walks of life, trying to shoot down biblical values wherever you happen to be.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • “If it Were Indeed Some Wrong or Some Wicked Act of Villainy . . .”

    Sometimes a guy prefers the older translation to the newer one. Like with this passage from Acts 18:14, when the Jewish bigwigs hauled Paul before the proconsul because he was teaching new things: “Contrary to the law this person leads men to another persuasion in worshiping God,” they charged, as though it was a crime. (vs 13)

    It was a crime, according to their rules but the Roman proconsul Gallio could not have cared less. These people with their religious disputes were such a pain to him that he kept clear. He answers them, just before Paul is going to defend himself, and thereby making defense unnecessary, “If it were, indeed, some wrong or a wicked act of villainy, O Jews, I would with reason put up patiently with you.  But if it is controversies over speech and names and the law among you, you yourselves must see to it. I do not wish to be a judge of these things.” (14-15)

    You can read the contempt. It oozes from the guy’s mouth. If he had to (it wouldn’t be easy and he wouldn’t like the task), he would “put up patiently” with these characters. If this fellow Paul had actually done something “wrong” or—is it sarcasm here?—done some “wicked act of villainy,” he’d hear them out. But he hasn’t. So—‘Sheesh! won’t you leave me in peace already?’ you can almost hear his dismissal.

    The new version misses that entirely. Here, Gallio is just the earnest county official: He says, “If, indeed, it were some wrong or a serious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to hear you out patiently.” Yes, that rendering gets the job done. It conveys that he’s not going to get involved. But, it’s not as good. It doesn’t convey how he feels about his subjects. Sometimes we are so determined to paint people as mild that we paint them as bland.

    So, when the Jews are ignored, they take to beating the snot out of the synagogue head honcho—surely that will get Gallio’s attention. ‘Nope—I’m done,’ is his response, and you can almost see him rustling his newspaper to shoo them away. We read, “But Gallio would not concern himself at all with these things.” (17)

    That response is slightly modified, for the worse, I think, in the newer 2013 NWT version which reads that he would not “get involved,” implying he may have been “concerned” but his hands were tied by it not being his affair—so what could he do? Nah, I think he didn’t give a hoot. The older (originally from 1961) is better.

    Sigh—the wording from the new serves as the basis for Bearing Thorough Witness about God’s Kingdom, the current JW commentary on Acts of the Apostles. As to Gallio’s indifference, it suggests, “Perhaps Gallio thought that Sosthenes was the leader of the mob action against Paul and was therefore getting what he deserved.” I don’t think so; that implies he cared. I don’t think he did. He just wanted to get back to his paper and cup of coffee.

    No, I do not like the new. It is going in the direction of the newer mushier translations, like the New International Version (1978), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.’” (14)

    It’s not as bad as the word-salad Message paraphrase (1993), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to defend himself, Gallio interrupted and said to the Jews, “If this was a matter of criminal conduct, I would gladly hear you out. But it sounds to me like one more Jewish squabble, another of your endless hairsplitting quarrels over religion. Take care of it on your own time. I can’t be bothered with this nonsense,”

    “Gladly!” He would “gladly” hear them out! NO! They are a pain in the neck! He would, “with reason, put up patiently” with them. The older versions render it better*. Like the Revised Standard Version of 1952: “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should have reason to bear with you, O Jews.” It’s not quite as strong as the older NWT, but it does convey he wouldn’t relish the task.

    Forget that verse about the codger who mutters, “Why were the old days better than the present ones?” (Ecclesiastes 7:10) I’ll tell you why he grumbles over that. Because, they were!!

    *In fairness to the Message, it does convey that Gallio considered the Jews’ concerns “nonsense.”

     

    ******  The bookstore