by Ultimate Reality 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
take a look at this from Strongs concordance
Strong's G2356 - threskeia θρησκε?α
Transliteration threskeia | Pronunciation thra-ska'-ä (Key) | |
Part of Speech feminine noun | Root Word (Etymology) from a derivative of G2357 | |
TDNT Reference | Vines | |
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) religious worship
a) esp. external, that which consists of ceremonies
1) religious discipline, religion
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 4 AV — religion 3, worshipping 1 Thayer's Lexicon (Help)
Imo the real issue is not with the exact meaning or translation of this particular word (both "religion" and "worship" seem basically correct to me) but the context and perspective of the epistle as a whole. The epistle "of James" is an insider's criticism of post-Pauline Christianity. It is artificially ascribed to James who was known as a foremost opponent of Paul (cf. Galatians), directly contradicts the most famous axioms of Pauline theology (cf. the passage of "faith and works" and many other antagonistic allusions to Romans), but from a quite different angle than "James the Just" could ever have possibly held. He doesn't care about circumcision or ritual law or the ceremonial separation of Jews and Gentiles. His target is the post-Pauline church as a religion of speech (confession of faith, doctrine, teaching roles) instead of alternative moral, and especially social, values and practice, which is apparent from its repeated references to "the rich" and "the poor" (including orphans and widows). Pauline churches sociologically depended on the financial and social protection of wealthy patrons in whose domus they met; the rich among them would naturally enjoy considerable respect, attention and, in (no) time, power. This is, to the author, the "worldly" perspective with which Christianity should practically break free rather than focusing on belief and doctrine (and the official position of teachers). The epistle in general is fairly consistent, and 1:27 in particular makes a lot of sense from this perspective.
I wonder how many flagrant violations of that scripture the witlesses are guilty of. They do visit nursing homes and hospitals, but only to detract from field circus (and count that as time anyway). But I doubt that many ever actually do what the above says to comfort them, and to help them in practical ways (and practical does not mean just making sure they get to the Kingdumb Hells and share in field circus, or get their Washtowels and tape transcripts of boasting sessions).
Unspotted by the world? I think they do a better job of hiding their involvement in the world's dirty activities. They were NGO members of the UN (that is common apostate knowledge) between 1991 and 2002. They protect pedophiles that initiate force and/or fraud to molest children, and then they silence the victims (and keep quiet, vehemently denying doing such). They are as guilty as anyone else of offenses like DWI, using drugs, thefts, and various loose conduct. What makes it more reprehensible is that they proclaim that it doesn't go on within the religion or that they are aggressive at disfellowshipping those who do engage in those activities. (What they are aggressive in disfellowshipping is anyone that questions the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger).
We should not apply all advice of the Scriptures to others, and we every person should apply it to ourselves.
Ultimate Reality, Thank you for teaching us a beneficial thing.
Well, I think that the Scriptures is filled with symbols and figurative expressions.
Therefore, for me, orphans and widows are figure of speech.
I interpret that those orphans and widows are within us in fact.
"the poor" told Jesus is the same meaning.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_019.htm#bk21
possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
In the Rutherford days the JWs said they were not a religion but instead were true worship. In the Rutherford days they said all religion is bad ("religion is a snare and a racket") and false. Later they began saying that they were a religion, the true religion, and that there is a distinction between false and true religion. There former view of religion probably influenced their NWT translation of James 1:27.
Page 104 -105 in Rutherford's book called "Religion" (copyright 1940) says "Again let the people be reminded that religion is a snare and a racket, originating with the Devil, the leader of the demons, and forced upon the people by the demons: the snare of the Devil, in which to catch the people, and the racket of the religious leaders to rob the people. All the practitioners of religion, and the adherents thereto, will find no place of safety or escape at Armageddon."
