Posts by menrov

7

What's up with the HEBREWS translation?

by TTWSYF in

this book states in verse 8 chapter 1 that the father calls jesus god.

the nwt is very different.

i wonder which one is the most accurate?.

menrov

Interesting topic. See also here for feedback on G3588: http://studybible.info/strongs/G3588

Other translations:

JMNT (i) 8 Yet, on the other hand, to the Son, "God [is] Your throne, on into the age of the Age, and the scepter of straightness [is] a scepter of His kingdom and sovereign activity. (variant rendering, with other MSS: "Your throne, O God, and the staff of uprightness, [is the] staff of Your reign, unto the chief time period of the Age.)

ALT (i) 8 on the other hand to the Son [He says], "Your throne, O God, [is] into the age of the age [fig., forever and ever]; a scepter of integrity [is] the scepter of Your kingdom.

NSB (i) 8 But he says to the Son: »God is your throne forever and ever. (Your throne, Oh God-like one, is forever.) A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Psalm 45:6, 7)

As you can see, not only NWT but also NSB and JMNT have GOD IS YOUR THRONE.

Personally, the rendering in NWT and the other 2, read more difficult because the previous versus are all about how special or different the Son is. The rending in NWT is drawing suddenly the attention to God.

But this is my personal view.

16

Being positively recognized

by menrov in

hi, for over a year, i stopped attending meeting and field service.

actually, passively disassociated from the congregation.

but i did not stop reading and doing my own research.

menrov

HI, for over a year, I stopped attending meeting and field service. Actually, passively disassociated from the congregation. But I did not stop reading and doing my own research. In fact, I have read and investigated a lot more than when I was an active JW.

However, this is what I wanted to share. Since I have stopped being a(n active) JW I have had 3 different people that spontaneously said to me that I 1) seems much sweeter, softer 2) very open to approach, comfortable to speak to and 3) my eyes are friendly, 'naughty' but in a positive way. And they were not aware of my change in life.

It got me thinking. I have been an active JW for about 17 years, and add some 5 years of study, in total 22 years connected to the organization, to the education etc. Not once in that whole period has anyone (both outside and inside the org) said something similar as these 3 people. I now wonder why....because when one "comes out of the word" his/her change must be most positive, taking up a new personality with new behaviors and (improved) moral. People must notice that, right? Well, I guess people did notice a different but apparently not in a positive way.

The org claims that JW's are the happiest people, living the best life ever. Well, I sense that people do not recognize that. The org claims to be a charity and spending over a billion hours to preach to people. Still, this makes no impression at all on others as the organization is not recognized as a key charity. Its members are not known as very involved In community affairs, in other charities etc.

I never expected nor realized that others recognized a positive change in me.

Others with a similar experience?

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

menrov

You can eat ALL THINGS there are in the house OR

You can eat ALL OTHER THINGS there are in the house.

The second makes an exclusion. The first encompasses all, everything.

It bible translators believe they need to add or remove a word, for whatever reason, they should explain it with a proper footnote so the reader understands what has been done and can decide if he agrees or not.

In this particular case, I can only see that in the NWT it was done inconsistently. Therefore it looks like a bias, pushing an agenda.

Let's be aware that the true original letters do not exist. All we have to base our translations on are some 5000 manuscripts that are copies of a copy of a copy etc. In other words, it is most misleading if a translation claims it is the most accurate translation because it is very close to the original text. There are no original texts. period.

I believe that about all translations are biased, because a translator has to make choices when translating phrases or words that do not exist (anymore) in the current language etc. The choices the translator makes are bases on his knowledge and intentions. As long as choices are explained, I do not mind that much. In the end, it is the message in the bible that counts. Often the context explains what is meant.

If one is really interested in an more unnoticed bias in the NWT, read and compare John 1:4

NWT reads:by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men

From Biblehub:

New International Version
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

New Living Translation
The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.

English Standard Version
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Berean Study Bible
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Berean Literal Bible
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

New American Standard Bible
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

King James Bible
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men.

International Standard Version
In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity.

NET Bible
In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In him was The Life and The Life is The Light of men.

About all translations show that Jesus has LIFE IN HIM, that HE can give LIFE. The NWT gives the impression that life was passed through Jesus, like a delivery guy.

49

Elder's letter requesting details of solicitors, barristers and accountants

by jwfacts in

there was a letter sent to elders in australia on 18th november 2015 asking for details of publishers that are solicitors, barristers and accountants.

what would be their motive for these details?

the rest of the letter outlines 8 specific pieces of information to compile and send to bethel's legal department, and reiterates to collect the information only be "as you understand, without consulting the publisher.

menrov

Practices we saw in the KGB and GESTAPO and DDR.....creepy for a so-called religious org

25

Is Religion Dying Out? - AWAKE! NOVEMBER 2015

by GrownMidget in

"have you given up on organized religion?

in many countries the number of people who describe themselves as not religious is growinga trend that suggests an uncertain future for institutional religion.

some of those lands are shown here.

menrov

In harmony with those principles, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not charge for their literature or for Bible instruction

well, this is done because of tax issues in the US. Originally they sold the magazines and books and booklets. Cheap but still. SO the statement is not true

Also, not one religion charge for so-called BIBLE INSTRUCTION.... is that a new theme?

17

Awake - February 2015: What do you know about JWs

by Designer Stubble in

true false - 8 questions1 jehovahs witnesses are christianstrue - we are the only true christians.

however, jesus is always secondary to yhwh or yahweh, who we for some reason call jehovah.2 jehovahs witnesses are creationiststrue, we are just not young-earth creationists3 jehovahs witnesses do not believe in doctorsfalse - of course we believe in doctors.

if we can believe in an invisible sky daddy, surely we can believe in the doctor standing before us in flesh and blood.

menrov

8 Says: " respect everyone" ... why is this between " " ?? and the verse they refer to reads:

Honor men of all sorts,+ have love for the whole association of brothers,*+ be in fear of God,+ honor the king.+

Well, to honor is not the same as "respect" between quotes.....grrrr

17

Awake - February 2015: What do you know about JWs

by Designer Stubble in

true false - 8 questions1 jehovahs witnesses are christianstrue - we are the only true christians.

however, jesus is always secondary to yhwh or yahweh, who we for some reason call jehovah.2 jehovahs witnesses are creationiststrue, we are just not young-earth creationists3 jehovahs witnesses do not believe in doctorsfalse - of course we believe in doctors.

if we can believe in an invisible sky daddy, surely we can believe in the doctor standing before us in flesh and blood.

menrov

5 says: In the introduction of one Bible translation, there is a list of the names of 79 people who in some way contributed to the production of the translation.

Grrrr......which one.....????? Why so vague?????

Also, at least you know the 79 people involved....for the NWT???? I guess they writers exist but invisible, similar to Christ ruling now....

9

obsession to count

by menrov in

just returned from a funeral service for the (non-jw) husband of a jw in a funeral home.

it was rather crowded.

no jw discourse.

menrov

Just returned from a funeral service for the (non-JW) husband of a JW in a funeral home. It was rather crowded. No JW discourse. But one elder suddenly stood up, walked to the back and started counting.....amazing... why ????? It is not a KH, not a meeting, not a JW organized meeting.....

Obsessed with counting????

14

2015 October 5 and 6, BOEs!

by Atlantis in

2015 october 5, boe.. .. click the green download button.. .. re: recommending convention speakers and interpreters .

http://wwwb.fileflyer.com/view/ppyuxbk.

.. .. 2015 october 6, boe.. .. re: convention speaker ratings for bethel brothers .

menrov

Also, why emphasize this: sent to your circuit overseer—not to the branch office

14

2015 October 5 and 6, BOEs!

by Atlantis in

2015 october 5, boe.. .. click the green download button.. .. re: recommending convention speakers and interpreters .

http://wwwb.fileflyer.com/view/ppyuxbk.

.. .. 2015 october 6, boe.. .. re: convention speaker ratings for bethel brothers .

menrov

I read: Does he have a reputation for being opinionated and dogmatic? Is he known as one who is harsh in judgment? Does he view his own opinion on matters as the final word? Does he procrastinate or handle assignments in a cavalier fashion? Are there questions about his dress or grooming? Would using a certain brother be offensive to some in the audience because of past problems or family difficulties? If you have answered yes to any of the questions listed above and the brother was not listed last year, then you should not list him at this time. However, you should endeavor to help the brother with his weakness so that he may qualify in the future.
We are talking about elders here right?? If that elder has these qualification, why is he an elder?!?!?!?!