If Scholar knew any of the people running his church he could have heard firsthand from their mouths Freddie Franz was the only person who was the New World Translation Bible Committee.
Scholar, please don't post and run...
by in a new york bethel minute 99 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
Their identity must remain a secret and their identity is unimportant so that their scholarship is a praise to Jehovah God.
Now if I were Jehovah God I would be really pissed with such a claim.
Fear of God is good for the rank & file, isn't it?
-
Woodsman
I heard from a poster on Channel C that the new edition of the New World Translation in his language, Swedish?,has changed the wording of Jeremiah to 70 years FOR Babylon from 70 years AT Babylon. Perhaps a change is in the works at the society on this chronology.
-
joelbear
scholar,what historical reference is used for the dating of the fall of Babylon for us to check please.
However, the city was overcome by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, per Wikipedia and every other source I have ever checked. Wikipedia does give the release of Hebrews from Babylon as 537 BCE. but applying an arbitrary 70 year number to this to get to 607 BC only works if you are trying to get to that number. show documentation for the fall of Jerusalem being 607 BC without any, oohooh, we're the truth, so we knows when it was voodoo and i'll accept it as fact.
-
OldSoul
I think Scholar is trying to open a window I have not seen anyone crawl through yet. I'll take a stab:
Agents of God according to the Bible (incomplete list):
Noah, known
Moses, known
Gabriel, known
Jesus, known
12 Apostles, known
Saul/Apostle Paul, known
Jeremiah, known
Ezekiel, knownWhy, these men were simply glory hounds! They actually did things and admitted who it was that did them. In fact, there are rarely "agents of God" that the Bible records who were unknown. Did God share his glory with these men? According to Paul, yes. (2 Corinthians 3:18) Odd. This now smacks of false piety, false humility, obfuscation of truth, and an attempt to shield those who translated from coming under any scrutiny as to competence for the task.
Let us see what the publishers claim regarding the translators:
w74 12/15 p. 768 Questions from ReadersSimilarly, we note that they say little about their personal qualifications or educational background. In translating God’s Word, the New World Bible Translation Committee has felt that the particulars of their university or other educational training are not the important thing, though the translation itself testifies to their qualifications. A close examination of their work should direct the reader, not to the translators, but to the Bible’s Author, Jehovah God.
How many of them went to a University? How many of them had any formal training beyond high school? We don't know. How can we test their scholarship or lack thereof? We can't, directly. The only way is by referencing the comments of others whose qualifications are available for review. Their comments make it very clear that the translation definitely testifies to a gross lack of qualifications. Therefore, the publisher's claim that "the translation itself testifies to their qualifications" is certainly true, if devious in its contextual assertion.
w69 11/15 p. 696 "Between-the-Lines" Translations of the BibleNo claim of divine inspiration is made for these translations in modern-day language. The translators had to do what even the inspired Bible writer, "the congregator," King Solomon, had to do, and that is, search to "find the delightful words and the writing of correct words of truth." (Eccl. 12:10) Nevertheless, in all this searching they have trusted in the guidance, not inspiration, of God's holy spirit. Solomon indeed wrote his books in the Bible with "delightful words." The translators tried to imitate him.
Now we have the true source of their qualified translation: guidance by God's holy spirit. Oddly, they claim to have "imitated" Solomon. But they claim that Solomon was inspired, then they specifically note they were not inspired taking pains to differentiate between "guidance" and "inspiration." One dictionary defines "inspire" this way:
in·spire verbin·spired, in·spir·ing, in·spires verb, transitive
1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin CompanyMerriam-Webster Online defines the word this way:
Main Entry: in·spirePronunciation: in-'spIr Function: verbInflected Form(s): in·spired; in·spir·ingEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French inspirer, from Latin inspirare, from in- + spirare to breathe
transitive senses1 a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration b : to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on inspiredby the Romanticists c : to spur on : IMPEL, MOTIVATE inspire people to work d : AFFECT inspired him with nostalgia
The primary definition of inspire in this dictionary is "To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence," or "to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration". So, what is the difference between guidance and inspiration? For that matter, what is the essential difference between "spirit-directed" and "spirit-inspired"? There is none. It is a semantic difference that allows Jehovah's Witnesses to quickly respond like offended gullible idiots whenever someone challenges their religion's history of false prophecy. I used to respond like a gullible idiot, too.
"The Faithful and Discreet Slave class are guided by holy spirit, but they are not inspired by it. They never claim to be inspired." What a fool I was. A trusting, gullible fool. I didn't realize that "guide," "inspire," and "direct" are absolutely interchangable terms when it comes to a spiritual force accomplishing the verb. They all mean the identical thing.
But wait! Should all claims of spirit guided writings be credited with authority? Not according to the publishers of the New World Translation:
w62 4/1 p. 220 A Look at MormonismThere can be no question about Mormon sincerity in their beliefs, but sincerity does not make their beliefs true. Truth is not established by personal conviction. Many persons since the days of the apostles have claimed to have had visions and to be prophets of God. The firm conviction of those who believed them did not make the teachings of these persons true. Usually these self-appointed prophets had to proclaim their own writings as holy scripture in order to find the support for their teachings that the Bible does not give. The best protection against such deceptions is to compare religious teachings with the Bible. Use it as the measuring rod of truth. Follow John's advice: "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."---1 John 4:1.
In my opinion, this is excellent advice. Oh, if only Jehovah's Witnesses would follow it!
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
Jeffro
On 26 September, 'scholar' said:
Believe you me celebrated WT scholars have carefully examined the Egibi documents and others that you like but from a close inspection of the material it was found that these materials have little impact upon biblical chronology but are of great value to the secular chronologist.
For him to know this, he would have to be either one of the anonymous "celebrated WT scholars", or a liar.
-
Hellrider
he would have to be either one of the anonymous "celebrated WT scholars", or a liar.
I think he is. One of the "celebrated WT scholars", I mean. That is probably why he refers to them as "celebrated", because he is referring to his own grandios, fantastic, megalomaniac ego. But to the entire world of real scholars, he is just a joke. I`ll explain this to you once and for all, Scholar, where your "celebrated WT scholars" got it wrong. You see, the WTS has with the 607-claim made a problem out of nothing, and embarassed themselves for nothing.
Had the WTS claimed from the beginning that the "desolation of the land" referred to in Daniel and Jeremiah, referred to Babylons power over Judeah, in the sense of a "spiritual desolation", no worship of the true God (this could very well be a valid interpretation - it`s certainly better than the one you currently got) - due to the reign of Babylon, this could have solved the problem. Babylons power began around 609, and lasted till around 539. That`s close enough to 607 to be acceptable. Noone would have raised an eyebrow at your claim of 1914 then, because the 2520 years would match (the whole "day for a year"-rule is of course another matter, it is completely ridicolous to rip a passage out of Numbers, and apply it to Daniel and Jeremiah - but as I said, thats another matter). The destruction of the Temple is only a detail in all of this, and not very important. Yes, Jerusalem was the center of the power, the Temple held the (oh whats the english word - for the "box with the stuff in it", ha ha) - but the covenant was with the entire jewish people.
-
stillajwexelder
true to form - he posted - hs usual predictible stuff - and then ran
-
LittleToe
Stilla:
That was exactly what I was thinking, when I saw this thread down the list.He came, he saw, he
conqueredbuggered off... -
LittleToe
Seems my PC wants to make the point that I've posted more on this thread than he has...