Posted by AF [AF] on October 31, 1999 at 22:57:19 {MDPAlM8llY1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: **Discussion summaries posted by Friend on October 31, 1999 at 15:56:08:
:: Friend quoted only a part of the paragraph in question, leaving out the most relevant part,…
: That is an amazing little innuendo there, AF. Did it ever dawn upon you that I quoted the same portion as did nimrod, and that for a specific purpose?
Sorry, I should have written "dealt with" instead of "quoted".
: Besides that I did rebut issues having to do with the remainder of the paragraph (and question asked)
Well that's where we disagree, isn't it? Rational, Gedanken and I contend that you didn't rebut anything - you only think you did.
:: …and failed to consider the question at the bottom of the page.
: That is just dead wrong. Here, I not only considered it, I answered it and commented on Gedanken's own alternate answer.
You're right, I missed your comments on it. Sorry.
Nevertheless, I disagree with your comments. In fact, in rereading the thread and looking at your answers, it's evident that your comprehension of English is not perfect. Rational and Gedanken made statements that you responded to, but your response failed to deal with the point they made. You appeared to go around their points in some cases instead of tackling them dead on, which means either that you misunderstood them or you ignored what they said. I choose to think that you misunderstood their English.
:: In other words, right now -- right now in 1984, when the book is being published -- this is when the parable is being fulfilled, and any claim that it might be fulfilled at a later time, whether that be next year or a thousand years hence, is wrong.
: That statement is not entirely accurate.
It is fully accurate, as I will explain in detail. Rational already explained this, but you apparently did not understand what he said.
: In 1984 it was taught that the sheep/goat/judgment was in progress. Therefore claiming that the sheep/goat/judgment would continue throughout "the conclusion of the system" would have been considered a correct claim, even if that happen to include the "next year" or subsequent years prior to the Millennial rule.
Good, we agree on those points.
: My single reason for participation on that "Serious Mistake" thread was because of nimrod's constructed claim that the Society had committed their own supposed "serious mistake" when they had not.
I agree with nimrod.
: Context makes plain that the supposed "serious mistake" had to do with teaching that the sheep/goat/judgment would happen beyond the subject period, "the conclusion of the system".
This is where you're misreading the Society's English. The text is admittedly a bit convoluted and hard to follow, but is clear enough to the average native English speaker. (Analyzed carefully, the sentence in question actually says the opposite of what the writer intended to say; that's why it's hard to unwind the meaning from the double negative in it; see below for an explanation.)
The overall context includes both "the conclusion of the system" and "now", where "now" means "today in 1984 when you, dear reader, are reading this book for the first time". You've failed to recognize this, and argued using only the one concept. Obviously, "now" ("today in 1984") is included in the time period of "the conclusion of the system".
To prove my contention all we need do is look at the flow of thoughts of "now" versus "later" in paragraphs 14 and 15. Beginning at the end of paragraph 14 on page 120 we find the following flow of thought. Concerning the survival of the sheep through the "great tribulation" the book says:
That blessing will be theirs because they are making the right decision on the Kingdom issue now. . . It would be a serious mistake to reason that ... the parable could not apply until later on . . . What he describes takes place . . . while his "brothers" are still in the flesh . . . We are living in that time . . . to put full confidence in the Kingdom but to help others to see the importance of doing so now.
That last "now" unarguably applies to "today in 1984" and helps narrow down the meaning of the other "nows". In other words, the text is not talking only about the broad period of "the conclusion of the system" as "now" but also about the narrow period "today in 1984". In particular this flow of thought indicates that the "now" in the last statement in paragraph 14 includes both senses of "now".
Now let's look at the last statement in paragraph 14 and the first statement in paragraph 15 together (note that the Society has italicized "now": "That blessing will be theirs because they are making the right decision on the Kingdom issue now. It would be a serious mistake to reason that . . . the parable could not apply until later on, perhaps during the Millennial Reign of Christ." Since "now" includes two senses, logically the "later on" must include two senses: later on in the sense of "after the conclusion of the system" and later on in the sense of "later than today". Those two senses are proved by the construction of the second sentence: ". . . apply until later on, perhaps during the Millennial Reign." That could equally well be phrased as ". . . apply until later on, for example, during the Millennial Reign." In other words, the sentence construction implies that "during the Millennial Reign" is only one of several alternatives. What are the other alternatives? Rational already discussed one: at the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon. Other possiblities exist but are not relevant to my discussion.
The next sentence in paragraph 15 contrasts the alternative "during the Millennial Reign" with its only logical counterpart: just before "the Millennial Reign": "On the contrary, Jesus gave this parable as part of the sign of `the conclusion of the system of things.' "
The next sentence can be understood to include both senses of "now": "What he describes takes place after he is enthroned but also while his `brothers' are still in the flesh".
The next sentence also includes both senses of "now" but emphasizes the "today" aspect: "We are living in that time, and it is fast running out." This shows that our phrase under discussion, "until later on", includes the sense "beyond today" or "later than today" and is not limited to "after the conclusion of the system".
The last sentence in paragraph 15 proves conclusively that "now" includes the meaning "today in 1984": "How vital it is, therefore, not only to put full confidence in the Kingdom but to help others to see the importance of doing so now." Obviously this can be understood in a general sense of helping others during the entire "conclusion of the system", but equally obviously it refers to "now, today in 1984". That's the point of the Society's emphasizing the "preaching work".
Given the above, it should now be clear that the Society's intended meaning was something like this:
14 . . . That blessing will be theirs because they are making the right decision on the Kingdom issue now.
15 It would be a serious mistake to reason that, because the destruction of the "goats" is everlasting, the parable might not apply today but could apply later on, for instance during the Millennial Reign of Christ. On the contrary, Jesus gave this parable as part of the sign of "the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:3) What he describes takes place after he is enthroned but also while his "brothers" are still in the flesh and experiencing the hardships that he mentions. We are living in that time, and it is fast running out. How vital it is, therefore, not only to put full confidence in the Kingdom but to help others to see the importance of doing so now.
: Since the Society has never taught that the sheep/goat/judgment would occur after "the conclusion of the system" then they have not made the "serious mistake" as it was presented in context.
This is a good example of your not understanding the full implications of the English, i.e., that "now" has two meanings which the writer was not careful to distinguish between. The writing is just plain sloppy and lends itself to misunderstanding.
Addtionally, in all your writings on this topic you have not shown that the contrast between "now" and "later on" means a contrast between "during the conclusion of the system" and "after the conclusion of the system" - you've merely claimed so.
: Does all that mean that teachings regarding the sheep/goat/judgment remain identical with that taught in 1984? No. Pre-1995 it was taught the sheep/goat/judgment was in progress throughout the subject period of "the conclusion of the system." Post-1995 teaching is that the sheep/goat/judgment is only for the latter part of the subject period of "the conclusion of the system."
That's right, but nimrod's contention is correct because the Survival book discounted the latter possibility. As I stated, the book said in other words that right now -- right now in 1984, when the book is being published -- this is when the parable is being fulfilled, and any claim that it might be fulfilled at a later time, whether that be next year or a thousand years hence, is wrong.
: That means that in 1984 had a JW answered question 15 to the effect that the sheep/goat/judgment was future between now and the end (Armageddon) that he would have been corrected and told that it is already in the works but will continue as they said. In that respect the teaching has suffered a constriction but not a contradiction. Please, don't jump on that last comment about constriction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed "serious mistake". I have offered it only to describe what happened with the teaching and what everyone knows to be the case.
You're trying to split hairs atom by atom here, and you leave me no choice but to "jump on that last comment". The point of paragraph 15 was that the parable applied "now in 1984", not at some later time, whether that be during the Millennium, just before Armageddon, just before the great tribulation or 11 years later than 1984. It implied that applying the parable to any later time would be "a serious mistake". Therefore, according to the Survival book the Society's current teaching is a serious mistake, and that's all that nimrod said.
: My only point is that nimrod (and those agreeing with him) have taken the supposed "serious mistake" WAaaaayy out of context; it is applied to a time beyond the subject of the paragraph, period.
Not at all. To prove your contention you're going to have to prove wrong my above arguments, as well as those of Rational and Gedanken that you've failed to deal with.
: The expression "until later on" clearly means later on beyond the subject period of "the conclusion of the system."
You've provided no proof or even argumentation for this claim. All you've done is make a claim without any supporting arguments. You can write "clearly" until you're blue in the face but unless you supply supporting arguments it's an empty claim.
: The expression "We are living in that time" has also to do with the same subject period of "the conclusion of the system." What I don't understand is why everyone wants to deny that the expression "until later on" is contextually tied to the same subject period as the rest of the paragraph. Ripping that context away from the initial sentence is dishonest.
As I said above, I think that there are two problems here. First, your comprehension of English is not as good as that of a competent native speaker. Second, the Survival book suffers from sloppy, unclear writing. However, many native English speakers are quite able to get the meaning from sloppy, unclear writing. I think that in this case you're assuming that the Society's writer was clear, when it is obvious to any native English speaker that his writing is rather ambiguous. Let me explain the problem I mentioned above, where the writer said the opposite of what he meant:
The first sentence of paragraph 15 says this: "It would be a serious mistake to reason that, because the destruction of the "goats" is everlasting, the parable could not apply until later on, perhaps during the Millennial Reign of Christ."
This sentence makes a very common mistake of mangling a double negative, somewhat like when people say "I could care less" when they mean (and the older expression is) "I coudn't care less". Technically the first is meaningless, but with usage everyone comes to know what it means. The meaningless expression takes on meaning via usage and becomes an idiom.
Now, we could rewrite and simplify the above sentence like this: "It is false that the parable does not apply until later." This more clearly shows the use of the double negative. If we eliminate the double negative, we get this sentence: "The parable applies later." But this is exactly opposite to what the writer intended to say!
The fact that neither Gedanken nor Rational nor I initially picked up on this gross mistake by the Society's writer merely shows that native English speakers usually read through oddities like idioms and certain common mistakes without giving it any thought, and get the sense of the writer's words even when the writer has not expressed himself properly. I'm sure that this applies also in your native language. I know that when I was trying to learn French last year I had a lot of trouble with this kind of idiom. In English a double negative almost always cancels out to a positive, whereas in French it often is a reinforcing mechanism. An example is "je ne comprend pas", literally, "I not understand not".
AF