I posted this on another thread yesterday but realized that it was off topic.
Why does The WTS insist on inaccurately substituting the word "impalement" for crucifixion in all of its literature including the NWT? "Impale" is defined: (1) To pierce with a sharp stake or point (2) To torture or kill by impaling. American Heritage Dictionary . Many fans of vampire lore may be familiar with the account of Vlad the Impaler, the 15th century leader of what is now Romania. The modern day Dracula stories are based on him. His favorite means of torture and execution was impalement. Here is a brief description:
Impalement was and is one of the most gruesome ways of dying imaginable. Usually a horse was attached to each of the victim's legs and as they were held apart a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Usually the stake was inserted into the body through the rectum and forced through the torso until it emerged from the mouth. There were also instances where victims were impaled through other bodily orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the same stake forced through their mother's chest. The other end of the stake was then planted in the ground displaying the skewered victim to the population.
Taken From"The Historical Dracula" by F.Ray Porter
Impalement can hardly be compared to crucifixion. I wonder if the Brooklyn boys are even remotely aware of the meaning of impalement, perhaps just assuming that it has the same meaning as crucifixion? The cross/stake issue has been the subject of many articles and talks over the years while impalement/crucifixion info. has been non existent. Could it be that originally it was just some clerical error and not having been a focus of contention they've just left well enough alone? If not, what point could they be trying to make?
When I brought this question up to local JW elders several years ago they reasoned (sic) that the term impalement was indeed the correct definition, explaining that the penetration of the nails through Christ hands and feet meant that He was indeed impaled. One stated that the witnesses were the only ones who "had it right." I had him read Matt 27:38 in the NWT: "Then the two robbers were impaled with him". Obviously since the robbers were bound with rope and not nailed the impalement argument lost its steam. He said he would get back to me in a couple of days with "the societies" explanation. Never happened of course.
Anyone else dealt with this question before? What could the WT be trying to prove?
chappy
