Talesin, thanks. Only when one leaves the WBTS it becomes obvious and clear that it is the WBTS that hardly does any charity at all and that, in contrast to the WBTS teachings, many other religious organizations spend plenty of their funds and network to do good in the community and beyond.
menrov
JoinedPosts by menrov
-
7
An Atheist gives Credit To Religions
by smiddy ineven though i now consider myself an atheist and have little time for religion as such , i have to acknowledge that some religious institutions , and even some i would consider a cult more so than others , do a fantastic job in the field of charitable works.. for so many in our communities who are disadvantaged ,in one way or another , the down and outs , for a better phrase , those that have succumbed to alcoholism , drug dependency , mental illness in it`s many forms , homeless people , juveniles suffering abuse of one sort or another at home , domestic violence , etc.
etc.
the list just goes on and on .. yet their are religious charitable institutions who are at the forefront of helping these people offering and lending a hand both physically , emotionally , and even financially to support these people without judging them .. so even though i consider myself an atheist i can commend what these religious institutions do to for these people... i can`t say the same thing for jehovah`s witnesses who will take , take , take and give nothing in return.. smiddy.
-
-
-
16
CHILD BAPTISM
by megabyte_vijay init is strange to read the last week watchtower that encouraging child/teenagers' baptism.
even jesus was baptised as his 30. jws encouraging marriages at an older age.
but why they are encouraging children to get baptised.
-
-
menrov
There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that supports child baptism. But JW's need numbers and control.
The last WT article on this is actually very scary as it does not involve the role of the parents at all. A baptized child (yes, anyone legally not allowed to make its own legal decisions , ie. enter into a contract) becomes accountable to the organization, not to its parents A teenager who has sex will likely be punished and / or DF'ed and the parents have officially no say in this at all.
Most scary.
-
10
questions
by Schilderijtje inwe are two students from holland, who would like some information about jehovah witnesses.
especially about the invisible return of jesus.
on which bible scripts do you ground this?
-
-
menrov
Jullie kunnen mij een pm sturen. Ik wil jullie best helpen. Ik hoor het wel. -
16
New Anti Gay Cartoon Video not available in German
by Daniel1555 inthe lesson 22 video or better called anti gay video went viral.. there is another thread that main dutch media covered it in their articles.. i wanted to write to one of the biggest swiss newspapers about it.
that newspaper also covered the controversy about the "meeting" cartoon, where the message is made that if jw children don't listen at the meetings they might get killed finally.. then i realized that it is not available in german.. it is available in so many other languages, like guarani (never heard of that language), but german is missing.. are they afraid to offer it in german?
do they expect too much controversy in germany?.
-
-
menrov
Hi, I am Dutch (stubborn, inactive JW etc etc :-) ) You said above: there is another thread that main dutch media covered it in their articles
Where can I find that?
Thanks. Bedankt
-
7
Prince will Be Resurrected
by Wild_Thing ini'm sure prince has already been talked about to death on this site, but a jw family member just liked a video posted by a jw group on facebook that is an interview of prince about his conversion to jw.
it's the comments made by jws that this post is about.. prince was a great artist!
and the world has lost a musical genius in my opinion, but he lost me after he converted.
-
-
menrov
I hear Prince took an overdose a few days back and had to be taken to hospital urgently, In other words, it seems he was still a "user" .... if all true, do JW's stil think he will be with them in the future?? -
12
TheAtlantic.com - Disowning a Daughter Over a Church
by defender of truth ina reader from south carolina has a heartbreaking story:" i am 31 years old.
i was raised in a strict bi-cultural (af-american and nigerian) jehovah’s witness family, one of six children.
though it’s generally looked down upon for jws to attend liberal arts universities (vocational schools are recommended), i somehow convinced my parents to allow me to go to university and major in theater (!!
-
-
menrov
I do not understand why governments do not apply a policy that allows them to revoke the tax exempt status of an organization when such organization applies a policy of shunning. Shunning means a discrimination of people who have different ideas. Charities should not be discriminative in that regard. I am 100% convinced that if a government would apply such a policy, the WBTS (and other religious organizations) would stop the shunning practice immediately. -
30
"New light"?
by winstonchurchill inhttps://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-june-2016/man-with-inkhorn/.
so i guess baptism is no longer the "mark for survival".. as a matter of fact, that key aspect of the 'old light' is not even acknowledged in this article.. they are just publishing new understanding without even bothering to explain the full extent of the change, hoping nobody will remember how it was... and they may be right about that..
-
-
menrov
Strange, I thought the WBTS would no longer apply the type-antitype views. I must have been wrong :-)
It is a very strange comparison. The people to be marked were not living during a tribulation. It was jut a time of great abominations. False worshipping by Israel, His chosen people. The ones marked are groaning and moaning. This has nothing to do with being judged,
Well, what can one expect from those that form the gb of the WBTS.......
-
26
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment inhow credible are nwt's critiques?
: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.
occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.
-
-
menrov
Wonderment, thanks for the review. It is interesting albeit a rather long story. My view: all translations are the result of the agenda of the translator(s) and their (paying) organizations. The NWT is nothing different. It have been shown in various ways that the translators have changed wording, word order or meaning of verses or words to serve their doctrines. But also other translations are guilty of that. I therefore prefer translations that have good footnotes to explain why the translators decided to translate a verse or word the way he did but also shows that there are other options or views. You can then either agree or disagree but at least you are informed. The NET is not a bad example in that sense. But likely there are others.
The NWT however hardly have footnotes that actually add any value or clarify something. Check out John 1:4 and compare this with other translations. Nothing in the NWT indicates they have rendered this verse rather differently than many other translations.
My view on John 8:58 and the rendering in NWT versus others. It very much seems the NWT is inconsistent in their translation of that particular word. I am not saying that grammatically it cannot be I have been but in about all 138 occurrences of εἰμί it is translated as I AM. Did Jesus in his reply in John 8:58 actually wanted to teach his audience he was YHWH? The context does not give that impression. In my view Jesus just wanted to show that he was not jus the son of Josef (and therefore merely a mortal person) but that he was from heaven, and existed far before anything else. In my view the expression I am in this case gives the impression that Jesus wanted to show that it is not relevant how long he lived before Abraham, just that he existed before Abraham.
The NWT is so worried that the Rank and File might think more of Jesus than what the WBTS wants them to think of Jesus (WBTS prefers to minimize the role of Jesus and act as if the organization is more important than Jesus), that they decided to deviate from a normal translation and applied a translation that technically (grammatically) can be correct but seen from the context or from perspective of consistency, it s a most peculiar translation to say the least.
-
-
-
menrov
The article not only omits the DF'ed ones but the ones mentioned are not at all what Jesus said who your neighbor is. If you read the parable (or is it prophecy now :-) ) you see that the religion nor race nor nationality is mentioned. Only of those that are pictured as not showing love at all, except for the Samaritan.
So, according to the WT article, only JW's, your JW marital mate or those who you encounter while doing your job s a JW are you neighbor. Go figure.....
-
10
Thoughts on John 7:53-8:11??
by BarelyThere ini always accepted that the nwt said that these verses in john were not in the most reliable manuscripts.
i thought it was strange that while the "old" nwt at least included the verses, the "revised" nwt completely omits them.
now i'm trying to do research on my own, but my head is still spinning from all of the information i've taken in the past week.
-
-
menrov
Hi, here is the footnote from the NET bible:
139 tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.