WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

5go, Thanks for wasting your time telling me things I knew 30 years ago. The origins of the name Jehovah are in numerous JW publications and on numerous Google sites. If you had asked any first year JW aged 10, he could have told you about the name Jehovah. And your spelling is the way it is because you're not very bright. If you ever have an intelligent comment to post or question to ask please do so. If not, don't bother me, as I won't waste my 75 posts on idiots. Have a nice day. Wayne

You have 75 post a day try to waist them. There you go with the Ad hominem You haven't caught on to the trap I have laid for you let me spell it out.

Tell that to the Watchtower Society. But you can also tell it to patrons of the Internet who threaten other patrons, call them morons and fools, distract them with irrelevant issues, or simply lie about the facts. On H2O, as on any other website, people who kept doing these things suffered the worst civil penalty that an individualist society can inflict: they stopped being taken seriously.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2003_10/cox-truth.html

Let me quote more.

Birth of the Social Contract

The Witnesses' Internet wars might, at first glance, seem like nothing but battles of spy vs. spy, of polarized and mutually parodic ideologues — the "atheists" vs. the "Society men." Closer inspection showed "a continuous spectrum of opinion" (as one H2O participant put it), the kind of spectrum that appears in any large community of talkers and listeners. H2O and its sibling sites presented Jehovah's Witnesses with their first opportunity to become that kind of community, and the experiment was well worth watching — not just as a test of the Witnesses' reactions but also as a test of postmodern ideas.

Contrary to the assumptions and hopes of postmodernists who looked to cyberspace for the long-promised transvaluation of all values, the revolution of the Internet turned out to be the revolution of a type of normalcy. It continually reinstituted the "spontaneous order" that Friedrich Hayek considered the significant achievement of a free society. Even H2O was not just so many anonymous people presenting diverse points of view. It was a social order characterized by a division of labor.

On any board as popular as H2O, the "lurkers" or observers outnumber the active posters. On H2O, the posters were further divided by ideology. But that's not the only important thing. Regular posters developed specialized roles. Some were demagogues, provocateurs, advocates for the intellectually handicapped, or professional cynics and victims. Others took on the practical job of telling other people how to handle their software and maintain their websites. Still others became historians canvassing the records of the Witness movement for absurd or instructive facts, sociologists analyzing the behavior of Witness subgroups, lawyers providing advice about the complicated procedures of the Watchtower "judicial" system, psychologists picking up the pieces that the lawyers left behind, salesmen promoting some great new notion or some great new link, dramatists, story-tellers, satirists, and comedians turning the Witness experience into works of literary art. Every social role represented someone's attempt to earn the currency of the Internet — the attention and respect of other people. Together, these roles approximated the patterning of a real community.

The virtual community was almost entirely anonymous, but it's clear that some of its members were a lot better known to one another than they were to their Witness families and friends. The obsessive privacy of modern communities is often regarded as the enemy of public life. At H2O, however, one could see that privacy creates the margin of safety that individuals need if they are to discover any life at all. The plastic computer case signified both privacy and power.

"[I]n 1995 when I bought my first computer (Mac 8100) I realized what I had been associated with [in the Watchtower]. . . . It was then that a big part of myself was freed. The Internet did indeed save my 'soul.'

It was more than a question of discovering the facts about the Watchtower movement. People on the net discovered talents that they never knew they had, and they got a chance to cultivate them. Many began their involvement as naive lurkers and loyalists, only to be drawn into dialogue and develop a role as thinkers and writers — often, I would add, acute and forceful thinkers, and writers of charm and wit.

These charming, intelligent, irritating, not infrequently hostile strangers also discovered a conception of the social contract that is older than Hayekian or even Lockean ideas of the free society. Its locus classicus is the passage in Sophocles' "Antigone" where Haemon suddenly realizes what is wrong with his authoritarian father: "You want to talk but never to hear and listen.

Tell that to the Watchtower Society. But you can also tell it to patrons of the Internet who threaten other patrons, call them morons and fools, distract them with irrelevant issues, or simply lie about the facts. On H2O, as on any other website, people who kept doing these things suffered the worst civil penalty that an individualist society can inflict: they stopped being taken seriously.

The Internet's version of the social contract was based on the perceived interests of the participants, not on institutional hegemony or agreement about substantive issues. Was this a vindication of postmodernist ideas about the abandonment of truth and authority?

oh and keep the insults coming I love them. Though I wish you were more creative with them.

5go, Thanks for wasting your time telling me things I knew 30 years ago. The origins of the name Jehovah are in numerous JW publications and on numerous Google sites. If you had asked any first year JW aged 10, he could have told you about the name Jehovah. And your spelling is the way it is because you're not very bright. If you ever have an intelligent comment to post or question to ask please do so. If not, don't bother me, as I won't waste my 75 posts on idiots. Have a nice day. Wayne

I love when Catholic and other scholars admit that JWs are correct. And being a Sherlock Holmes fan, I love a good clue.

Thank you yet a nother piece of evidence. Why would you care period if you weren't a witness.

I could care less if a catholic scholar amitted a baptist or an atheist or an agnostic or a shinto one for that matter was right.

My method of Bible study is based on the "hostile witness". I love when Catholic and other scholars admit that JWs are correct.

Hello Wayne,

Perspective. You seem to have reduced the forest of "religion" to one big tree (the Catholic church) and one small branch (Jehovah's Witnesses) on the top of the next one (Protestantism, via Adventism) which you ignore. And then put them in an "either/or" relation, as if any "problem" on one side amounted to a confirmation of the other.

Apparently those are just the two religions you know best. Whence the optical illusion -- understandable, but methodologically terrible, my dear Watson .

I have 100s of "clues", where one by one the scholars have retranslated a word here and a phrase there, nearly always in the Witnesses' favour. When a Catholic bible finally admits that yes, Jesus may have had brothers and sisters (NJB), you know you're onto something good. They would never admit that JWs are right. They just quietly translate their bibles and write their works and hope nobody notices.

This nicely illustrates what I was just saying. You assume that JW's are a constant worry to confessional Bible scholars -- actually, most of them barely know anything about JWs and couldn't care less. If the Catholic hierarchy (not to be confused with Bible scholars) is concerned about something these days, it is certainly more about the quick rise of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Latin America or Africa. Incidentally those too would use the same anti-Catholic arguments (about Jesus' brothers and sisters for instance). They are many more than JWs but you don't think of them because in your mind it's "either Catholic or JW".

As to the addition of "Jehovah" into the NT, my point is simple: you cannot at the same time justify your general belief in the accurate transmission of the NT by the classic method of textual criticism (like, "the agreement of the oldest and best Greek manuscripts lead us to almost 100 % certainty about the original text") and discard the same method when it comes to this issue ("on this specific issue ALL Greek NT manuscripts must have been corrupted, so we have to use guesswork to 'restore' the 'original' text"). This is simply stupid.

As to the seriousness of this issue, I would say that the semantic damage depends on the contexts. In some OT-like passages (e.g. Luke 1--2) it is relatively minor. In Paul (e.g. Romans 10) it is devastating (the very reason for the quotation in v. 13 is lost and the argument falls).

Wow I never knew the catholic dogma changed on anything. I'ts believed the concept of eternal suffering came from Dantes inferno. I can agree that hades is just a greek word for the grave and the firey gehenna jesus talked about is something different. There's no way I agree that heaven is just a state being and not a place. All those left on earth during the "rapture" are thrown in the lake of fire or burned whenever God destroys the earth the second time with fire. IMO