My highlights from the AGM (page 3)

Xanthippe

Actually it's grey.

http://www.greyorgray.com/

Jeffro

Xanthippe:

Actually it's grey.
http://www.greyorgray.com/

Someone bothered to register a domain name for that?!

The site says, "How do you spell the color grey or gray?" Obviously the color would be spelled gray, but the colour is correctly spelled grey.

Xanthippe

Yes is it pedantic

To play with semantics

Or is it romantic

To make silly ryhmes?

sherrie11

my highlight was how everyone was told to not post the information on the internet because you will spoil the surprise for the brothers and sisters who weren't invited and its grey

AnnOMaly

Thank you very much for your take and additional comments on the AGM, Apognophos!

In addition to Jeffro's question on another thread, can you (or anyone else) answer these:

Jer. 29:10 - is it still "at Babylon"?
Dan. 9:2 - is "devastations" still in the plural, or have they even used another word?
Matt. 24:39 - is the expression "took no note" still used?
Eph. 6:11 - does it still have "machinations"?
Have they retained the phrase "undeserved kindness"?
Are the plurals 'YOU' and 'YOUR' no longer capitalized?
In the Appendix regarding 1914, do they allude to any 'proof' for the date 607 BCE or is the date just inserted as if it's fact?

That's it for now. Thanks

edmond dantes

Bollocks to it I am off to read Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde .

Dorian is a cultured, wealthy,and impossibly beautiful young man who would never urinate I beg your pardon forward slash against a wall and

gets his mush painted on a canvas for posterity . The thought of his fading looks send him into a talespin so being impressionable and incredibly vain he more or less sells his soul to the devil living the life of a pleasure seeker with lots of hankey pankey and no regard for convention.

The painting becomes demonised or you might like to retranslate it as it starts to make him look like a bum but maybe translate it better as old and wrinkly.

To conclude after twenty years of burning the candle at both ends and staying out on the tiles for great lengths of time his demons get the better of him when tragedy strikes and pierces his very soul.

The End.

chrisuk

This new Bible actually looks pretty impressive, I might grab myself a hard copy.

Apognophos

I agree with the sentiment. But I don't agree with the change, because they're hiding the rampant sexism actually present in the original text of the Bible.

Yes, you are correct of course.

They actually put 1914 into the appendix of the new version? Epic fail. There is no hope for these numbskulls.

Well, I wanted to give more detail on this last night, but I was too exhausted. However, I had immediately noticed some odd things when flipping through the appendices at the meeting. Here are both of the references to 1914 in the back of the new Bible:

- Appendix B1 lists exact dates for some things, like "1943 B.C.E." for Jehovah's covenant with Abraham, but gives the date "About 1914 C.E." for this event: "Jesus hurls the serpent, Satan, to the earth, confining him there for a short time.--Revelation 12:7-9, 12." No direct mention of his enthronement, and what's with the "About"?

- Appendix B9 recounts the WT interpretation of Daniel's beasts and the statue of different materials. Each beast/section of the statue has a nation's name assigned to it and the date they took power. I found this odd -- the feet of the statue, identified as "Anglo-America", have this date information below them: "1914-1918 C.E. During World War I, Anglo-America World Power comes into being." I might be ignorant of this, but I don't recall the rise of Anglo-America being dated to 1914 before...? Correct me if I'm wrong.

- As a side note, B9 also shows on a timeline the words "Babylon destroys Jerusalem 607 B.C.E.". So yes, they are committed to this fallacious date.

As I said on another thread. updating language and improving style are great, but unless it's actually done by someone who is familiar with the original text and biblical languages, there is huge scope for making embarrassing mistakes.

I believe one speaker said that the New World Bible Translation Committee (yes, this is a new committee of the same name as the original) did go back to the original language. Of course I can't vouch for their qualifications or methods, but they did talk about having had to research the answers to thousands of questions coming from their translators abroad, which was what (they imply) led to the creation of the new Bible in the first place.

What was the story with the 'confidential envelopes'? Or was that just a rumour?

By the way, I actually have no idea what that refers to Jeffro, only the Bibles were handed out.

Have they changed John 8:58. Apart from the disputed theology, "I was" has been criticised as simply poor English. Has it been altered to "I have been" or rephrased altogether?

Good guess, slimboyfat. This verse now indeed ends "I have been"!

In fact, they are "the thinkingest people"! (a Bro. Morris quote.)

I understand he's said that in the past, but dissonance_resolved was accurate in reporting that he said "most thinking" this time. Perhaps he's had time to rethink that questionable grammar since last time.

In addition to Jeffro's question on another thread, can you (or anyone else) answer these:

Jer. 29:10 - is it still "at Babylon"? -- Yes; it now reads, "For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'"
Dan. 9:2 - is "devastations" still in the plural, or have they even used another word? -- The word is in fact "desolation" now.
Matt. 24:39 - is the expression "took no note" still used? -- Yes, this verse is unchanged.
Eph. 6:11 - does it still have "machinations"? -- Of course not :) It's now "crafty acts".
Have they retained the phrase "undeserved kindness"? -- Yes.
Are the plurals 'YOU' and 'YOUR' no longer capitalized? -- That is correct; the appendix mentions this but does not justify it and simply says "readers may consult earlier editions of this translation for this information". Um, thanks? It then goes on to say directly after this that "All adjustments in the Bible text were made prayerfully, carefully, and with deep respect for the fine work of the original New World Bible Translation Committee".
In the Appendix regarding 1914, do they allude to any 'proof' for the date 607 BCE or is the date just inserted as if it's fact? -- No, there is no space devoted to discussing archaeological evidence or Babylonian kings lists, etc. One mention of 607 is in the "Maps" section on the page about Daniel's vision of the statue, as I described above. The other is in an Israelite kings list (A6), which simply says "Zedekiah: 11 years | Jerusalem and its temple are destroyed by the invading Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah, the last earthly king in the Davidic line, is dethroned". Appendix B11 gives the second temple foundation as being laid in 536 B.C.E.

dropoffyourkeylee

Thanks Apog and all for the comments and insights.

I'm a little confused by this one:

Have they changed John 8:58. Apart from the disputed theology, "I was" has been criticised as simply poor English. Has it been altered to "I have been" or rephrased altogether?

Good guess, slimboyfat. This verse now indeed ends "I have been"!

because in the NWT I have it has always read 'I have been'. The one I have is the 1984 study version.

Jeffro

Apognophos:

Yes; [Jer 29:10] now reads, "For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'"

Seriously? That isn't even consistent with their own teaching!! The reason why the 'old' NWT said "in accord with" instead of "after" is because their version of the '70 years' isn't actually supposed to end until the Jews were home (in the 'magical' month of Tishri [October], for the same reason that Armageddon was supposed to begin in October of 1914). But now they've changed the verse so that whilst it's still wrongly using "at" (in reference to 'exile') instead of "for" (in reference to Babylon's dominance), it more correctly indicates that the 70 years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem. They really don't seem to know what they're doing!

My highlights from the AGM

Share this