Thankfully I can say that I never ratted on anybody! I prefered not to get into other folk's business. Unfortunately, folks seemed to like trying to rat me out! I lost count of how many times I was turned in for dating worldly girls before I finally married. The trouble was that I never dated outside the organization!
Forscher
Forscher
JoinedPosts by Forscher
-
34
JW's 'tattling' on each other - an ugly culture.
by Gregor inwhen i was an elder i often was approached by publishers who wanted to report some kind of bad conduct by a brother or sister.
this led to all kinds of unpleasant, unloving situations.
the first question of the accused was always "who told you this?
-
-
Forscher
-
18
Bible translation
by z ini had long dissection with my ms (friend) about the bible translation and told him how bad and not what the bible say is the nwt of course he defended the nwt my questions are
what is the earliest known translation?
who are the ones translate the bible?
-
-
Forscher
Narkissos, Leo and TD did about as good a job as can be done to answer the questions that you asked Z. What I'd like to add my ten cents worth is to your question about the NWT. Although it is on my shelf and I do use it at times because I the footnotes in the Reference addition, I think one needs to keep one thing in mind where the NWT is concerned, the WHY behind the NWT.
In 1950, the WTBTS had the following to say in the Watchtower about why they produced the NWT:
*** w50 9/15 p. 315 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures ***
9 We acknowledge our debt to all the Bible versions which we have used in attaining to what truth of God’s Word we enjoy today. We do not discourage the use of any of these Bible versions, but shall ourselves go on making suitable use of them. However, during all our years of using these versions down to the latest of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are inconsistent or unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which throw light and place proper interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth, and yet furnishing us the basis for gaining further truth by faithfully presenting the sense of the original writings; a translation just as understandable to modern readers as the original writings of Christ’s disciples were understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day. Jesus reminded us that our heavenly Father knows the needs of his children before they ever ask him. How has he made provision for us in this need which we now keenly feel?
**************************************
Please especially note the following from the passage, "More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth". The WTBTS wanted a Bible that harmonised with their teachings. I think that TD would probably agree that any translation of the Bible with that kind of an openly stated agenda must be used cautiously, if at all (but then, excuse me for presuming to say what TD might or might not agree with.). I have the refernce edition and like the footnotes. But I still say that it is not good to rely solely on the NWT for the above reason.
forscher -
10
ANNOINTED
by MidwichCuckoo inok - this is important to me - i was visited late spring by a member of the 'annnointed'.
he said he would call back.
the things he said were quite bizarre.
-
-
Forscher
The official position of the WTBTS is that the heavenly calling was closed in 1935. To this day, they question the annointing of anyone since then, with the exeption of GB members of course. Certain people who partake, i.e. visitors, newly baptised, etc... are not counted. As mentioned earlier, the publisher's cards note whether one claims to be annointed or not. Anytime one is recommended for priviledges to the WTBTS, I think the recommendation must also note the same. So Elders, Ministerial servants, Regular Pioneers, etc. who claim to be among the annointed are probably listed somewhere at headquarters.
Forscher -
158
Huge shock!
by Crumpet ini just got a major shock.
i can't believe the new levels of cruelty possible within families who are jws.. a friend on this board who i've known since i was a baby practically has managed to get me a picture of my little sister who i haven't seen for 8 years - the one who i've mentioned my dad said was working on the bethel quick build team.
the one who i've described my fears that she and my younger sister are staying single until armageddon.
-
-
Forscher
Crumpet.
I am sorry to hear about your experience. Right now I am not allowed to see several of the Grandchildren because my stepson's inlaws consider me bad association. Never mind I am not DF'd or anything like that. The love of those who worship the WTBTS really astounds me at times!
What I'd like to say is to take the high road. Reply that you are happy that your sister married and that the door is always open should she like to say hi. That, more than anything else, will get your Dad's goat and probably result in a self-righteous reply about how you have brought this all on yourself, and need to get things right with the "mother" organization. Sadly shake your head, as you read that diatribe, and pity the man for being so bound in slavery that he can't see the woods for the trees. Reply to him that the judgemental attitude is not reciprocated on your part, and that you love him. Then sit back and enjoy the fact that YOU took the better way.
If that doesn't give you some satisfaction, nothing will.
Forscher -
79
Are the gospels genuine?
by ackack ini've been reading the jesus puzzle and something interesting was this re-ordering of q. its seems like the various pieces of q in luke and matthew have different contexts.
this would support that the contexts for the q sayings were invented.. it seems that paul doesn't reference the gospels in any form.. does this support a late writing for the gospels and therefore calls into question how close the gospels were written to the alleged events of jesus' life?.
how would someone who believes in the gospels reconcile these differences?
-
-
Forscher
Greetings Leolaia,
I've done my research as well and realise the Pappias was not a scholar. rather he was more a collector of gossip passing on the little tibits that he'd gleaned from sources older people who knew some of the principles. Although I know he does not come up to the standard of modern scholarship, I think that dismissing him completely, as you do, because he does not back up textual speculation is not helpful either.
Therein lies the crux of the whole problem and discussion. Certain groups of scholars reject the ancient witnesses in favor of textual criticism which is nothing more than speculation. While you may dispute that one of the assumptions is regarding the literacy of the writers, that and assumptions of content are implicit in the very framework of the hypothesis. There is no manuscript or other direct evidence to test that speculation with. Remember that the oldest known fragment of the Gospels is a fragment of John, whom everybody agrees was probably the last of the Gospels written and is not even a synoptic Gospel.
The argument that the apparent reliance on the LXX as the basis for the scriptural citations is on shaky ground as well. Remember that the MT is a later construction which the discoveries at Qumran show follows one particular line of transmission. The texts discovered at Qumran showed several different variants, some of which were very close to LXX and may very well have been the basis for it. So it is entirely possible that Matthew, if he did write his Gospel first in Hebrew as Jerome claimed, may well have used a text from that tradition. Remember that the LXX tradition represented a text minus a sigificant portion of the MT database, sort of an ancient reader's digest version. I have no doubt such a database was cheaper to produce I am sure that made it attractive. I realise that is speculative on my part, but since speculation seems to pass as good scholarship in modern circles, please forgive me the indulgence. Besides, if we want to go down the same road we take with the Gospels, then it can be argued, as some do, that the LXX represents the more accurate tradition than the MT. But then, that is another argument altogether. Any way, the reliance on LXX or its Hebrew precusor proves nothing. Please forgive the digression.
Anyway, Since the issue of whether Matt. wrote his gospel first in Hebrew has little relevance to the discussion of which Gospel came first, I really don't see the point in pursuing that particular issue.
You mentioned earlier, Matt. contains something on the order of 90% of the material that Mark does. It that really proof that Mark cam first? What would prevent Mark from lifting his material from an earlier written Matt.? Nothing at all! Modern Higher critics use a historical-anthropological argument that the earliest written records of a figure like Jesus would consist of nothing but a record of sayings. Later writers would add explanatory material with the simplest material representing the earliest and more complex the lastest. They point to the Koran as an example where most of the record consists of the sayings of Mohammad to which are added the later Haddiths. From the materialist perspective, which denies any existence beyond the material universe, that is the only reasonable explanation.
However, what if they are wrong? Unlike Mohammad, Jesus appears to be something of a genious. All he needed to do in order to short-circuit the process was to pick somebody with the ability and mind set to preserve his sayings, check public records, and write effectively. Roman tax collectors fit that profile to a tee. And the Gospels tell us that Matthew was just that! Since Luke follows Matthew more than Mark in his writing, then it follows that Luke gave more authority to Matt. Where Luke differed from Matt., remember that he was going on more than just a manuscript or two, he was also going on personal recollections of eye witnesses to events etc., as he affirmed. Given the education and training of Roman physicians, which we are finding out more about as time goes by, it just makes sense that Matt. likely followed the older and more authoritative of the records Luke had available when he authored his Gospel. That assumes that Mark was written before Luke, something which cannot be adequately proven one way or the other. That is also speculative, but it fits the evidence just as well, or better, than "textual analysis" without any reference to historical data.`
Great day to you Leolaia!
Forscher -
21
Education and the WT: my story
by Pistoff inthe influences on my life, education decisions, and baptism in 1971
(bold, highlighted added).
how many had a job because they have a degree?
-
-
Forscher
I know whence you cometh! I passed up a chance for an education in 1975 at my choice of top-notch institutions because I listened to that tripe from the organization. although I've since gotten a bachelor's degree, it may be a bit more symbolic than of any use since I am right at 50 and my chances of STARTING a career aren't the best.
All I can say to any lurkers who may be reading, is DON'T LISTEN TO THE WTBTS ON THIS ONE! GET YOUR EDUCATION! Belive me, you will regret not doing it more than getting that education.
Forscher -
79
Are the gospels genuine?
by ackack ini've been reading the jesus puzzle and something interesting was this re-ordering of q. its seems like the various pieces of q in luke and matthew have different contexts.
this would support that the contexts for the q sayings were invented.. it seems that paul doesn't reference the gospels in any form.. does this support a late writing for the gospels and therefore calls into question how close the gospels were written to the alleged events of jesus' life?.
how would someone who believes in the gospels reconcile these differences?
-
-
Forscher
I wasn't ignoring your post Leolaia, This is a busy time for me where I have to pop in and out. You said:
Forscher....The Griesbach view of Matthean priority is imho just not credible; Matthew reproduces about 90% of the text of Mark (600 out of 661 verses), while Luke reproduces only 53% (350 out of 661 verses), and since Matthew also adds almost double the amount of content of Mark (much of it also shared by Luke, often against Mark), and since Luke also follows Markan order closer than Matthew (which has the pericopes in a different order), the best explanation is that Matthew and Luke used Mark and either Luke used Matthew as well or both Luke and Matthew used an additional common source.
As you know, Griesbach's view is based on historical tradition found in the early church fathers. The theories you consider credible are based on speculations which make certain assumptions as to origins. First, the assumption is made that all of Jesus' followers were basically illiterate and had no great understanding of the Greek of their day. Therefore the Gospel that is both short and has relatively crude Geek must be the oldest of the gospels. It also assumes that the first writings would be like the Koran, a collection of sayings with little else.
Matthew was a tax collector, which implies that he was literate and posessed a much better comprehension of the greek lingua franca than his compatriots in order to communicate effectively with his Roman overlords. He would also be literate in order to keep good records and communicate by writing with those same Romans. Thus, a Gospel attributed to that apostle should be expected to show a little bit more sophistication than, say, Peter, who was a fisherman, a peasant. So, the sophistication of the Gospel of Matthew is not an effective argument against it being first in order IMHO.
The argument as to which came next, Luke or Mark, that gets a little muddied and I think the argument can go either way. Could Mark have written his before Luke with Luke basing his, in part on Mark? Of course it is possible.
I find the lack of backbone on the part of some scholars not confronting the secular speculation and trying to find a schema which both rejects "Q' and affirms a primacy for Mark astounding. I reckon it just goes to show how far secular scholarship has infected religious departments who should know better. And how afraid even theologians are to be thought of as "supersticious", or "fanatical".
Forscher -
79
Are the gospels genuine?
by ackack ini've been reading the jesus puzzle and something interesting was this re-ordering of q. its seems like the various pieces of q in luke and matthew have different contexts.
this would support that the contexts for the q sayings were invented.. it seems that paul doesn't reference the gospels in any form.. does this support a late writing for the gospels and therefore calls into question how close the gospels were written to the alleged events of jesus' life?.
how would someone who believes in the gospels reconcile these differences?
-
-
Forscher
Greetings Leolaia,
You make a good case for Luke being the last of the the three closely related Gospels written and based on the earlier two. Their is nothing in my earlier post which would contradict that case since I do agree with it. The likely scenario is that Matt. wrote his first, mark a little later incorporating material from Matt. in his along with his own recollections. Then Luke Wrote his for, Theophilus, incorporating material either from Mark's Gospel (being a coworker with him he likely had a copy of or access to Mark's), or both.
That the names are ascribed by tradition I do not dispute. However, other ancient works, such as some of Plato's writings, are accepted as authored by them on the basis of tradition as well.
sorry, I have to run!
Forscher -
79
Are the gospels genuine?
by ackack ini've been reading the jesus puzzle and something interesting was this re-ordering of q. its seems like the various pieces of q in luke and matthew have different contexts.
this would support that the contexts for the q sayings were invented.. it seems that paul doesn't reference the gospels in any form.. does this support a late writing for the gospels and therefore calls into question how close the gospels were written to the alleged events of jesus' life?.
how would someone who believes in the gospels reconcile these differences?
-
-
Forscher
Ok Ackack,
First, before anybody accuses me of just lifting this information from the watchtower literature, I want you to know that while I was a student at a university I verified the sources I am going to mention. I reckon I was already leary of the way the WTBTS cites material and wanted to prove to myself the veracity of their citations.
Josephus in his "The Jewish Antiquities" mentions both Jesus and his half-brother James in book twenty, section 200. I am aware that the Jesus Seminar types charge that the passage was added by a later Christian copyist. However, they have no proof of their assertion since all ancient copies of the work contain the passage.
Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian mentions him in his "Annals" @ book 15 par. 44.
Seutonias, in his work, "The Deified Claudias", explaining the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudias' reign, mentions one "Chrestus", which may well be a reference to the Christians, as instigating of problems and riots among the Jews. I realize this is a weak reference, but many hold it to be among the sources.
Justin Martyr Mentions that Jesus' existence was documented in the official Roman records of his day. Since he challenged his readers to check it for themselves, then the documentation was there and we can take his writing as independent verification of Jesus' existence. Remember that Justin Matryr gave up his life for preaching about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
That does not include other ancient sources that were primarily Christian in nature. So, there you have it. One Jewish historian, who was no friend
to the Christian faith, two Roman historians, also no friends of the Christians, and one very early Christian convert who'd checked out the Roman records himself and verified what he wrote about. All of them extra-Biblical.
Forscher -
19
Taken advantage of
by Nicole24 inhi....so here's my story....i was working at a local salon, and met an older guy ( i was 18) who seemed quite fun, and we soon became friends.
he was 45 and recently divorced, and he knew i needed extra money for college so i began to clean his house.
it quickly escalated into a much deeper relationship.
-
-
Forscher
Put him in the past and learn from the experience.
Be thankful that you saw the truth about that organization in time to drop it like a hot potato.
Learn the warning signs of cults and high-control religions and avoid them like the plague.
Stay informed on that organization and warn anyone you know about the dangers of getting invovled with it.
Learn to trust your instincts, they served you well in this instance and probably will continue to do so.
Welcome to the forum!
Forscher