In the past I have seen newer releases, that actually have been taken from older publications. I have seen these newer releases, with new names, that have identical information with variations of chapter headings, etc. Can someone tell me again where some of these are??? I know I have some in my library, but can't remember which ones they are. Would appreciate any help out there. It does seem strange that the WT needs to "recycle" publications. With enough time-lapse, it would seem like a steady stream of "new" information!! Thanks in advance.
Little Bo Peep
JoinedPosts by Little Bo Peep
-
11
New Publications from Older Publications
by Little Bo Peep inin the past i have seen newer releases, that actually have been taken from older publications.
i have seen these newer releases, with new names, that have identical information with variations of chapter headings, etc.
i know i have some in my library, but can't remember which ones they are.
-
-
-
15
Jesus as the mediator for the 144,000 only
by marsal in.
does anyone know what wt issues claimed that jesus was the mediator only for the 144,000?.
i need to be able to prove it to someone who is certain that the wts never stated that.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
I too, was shocked to hear this. One nite, about three years ago, after coming home from Thursday nite meeting, my husband ask if I knew the WT taught Jesus wasn't really my mediator? I told him I thought that was just "apostate" lies. He said he was reading it right from a Watchtower (on the net). I spent the next couple hours researching and couldn't believe what I found. Here are a couple more places that confirm the belief that Jesus is our mediator only through the 144,000. WT 3/1/1992, page 31, Questions from the Readers; WT 12/15/1989, page 30, Do You Remember; and the Aid to Bible Understanding, page 1130. As a side note, when I looked these up tonight, I noticed the WT 5/15/86 (which had some to say about the mediator), page 12-15, para 17, talked about the new "things revealed", that in 1923 Jesus' prophecy about the sheep and goats was properly understood, that the world was under judgement...this changed about 1995. I wonder how many really know that this TOO has changed! What is left??? Most JW's don't realize the WT teaches this! Also, the WT separates the position of mediator and the position of high priest, so we all have Jesus as our high priest, but only a few have him for mediator. Hopefully, more will see this question and have the desire to look further.
-
17
War Bonds WW2 Australia
by JW83 inthis information is taken from thesis by peter strawhan, 1984, re jws in australia in ww2.
rees was head of jws in australia, who were banned 1941-43.
jws contributed 10,000 to war bonds from cash accumulated during ban, reported to knorr july 1943. rees: ?of course the fact that we took out the bonds has not been publicized, but we have seen to it that the government officials such as security, army, manpower, etc, know of it.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
I did look up your reference in my old 1983 Yearbook, pages 95-99. The information is dealing with some commercial activities during "the previous five years". It said these provided some full-timers with work during the "ban". They said, "the organization had actually gone too far by establishing commercial enterprises, and this had a disturbing effect on many brothers." There was a resolution at the assemblies that year "confessing their sins" before Jehovah and Jesus. No details were gives as to what these commercial enterprises were, and nothing said about any war bonds being purchased. It basically ended with the "aim was to work hard to counter the depressed spirit many brothers felt because of the events of the World War II years".
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
Found an interesting post within the "Bible Research & Study Articles" forum. For anyone who seems confused by the question, and many differing answers, the post, "586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach---no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed," by Alleymom, posted today, does simplify things, for a seemingly good place to start.
-
15
The New World Translation and Honesty
by Little Bo Peep inafter having researched my beliefs of 45+ years, finding so much was really different than what the bible context really taught, i decided to "read" the bible for for the first time to see what it really was saying, taking off the "blinders" of the wt.
i began reading the greek scriptures first.
i used the new world translation, knowing if we were to ever reach our grown children, i would need to use that translation to prove anything.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
I just would like to clarify...much of what I found, I found as a result of the reading and research my husband and I had done from sites like this. That, in turn, caused me to "look" as I was reading. Once I knew what I was looking for, I saw many of these additions and contradictions. I'm not a "Bible scholar" by any means, but have found, reading the Bible for what I says, is very "eye opening".
-
15
The New World Translation and Honesty
by Little Bo Peep inafter having researched my beliefs of 45+ years, finding so much was really different than what the bible context really taught, i decided to "read" the bible for for the first time to see what it really was saying, taking off the "blinders" of the wt.
i began reading the greek scriptures first.
i used the new world translation, knowing if we were to ever reach our grown children, i would need to use that translation to prove anything.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
After having researched my beliefs of 45+ years, finding so much was really different than what the Bible context really taught, I decided to "read" the Bible for for the first time to see what it really was saying, taking off the "blinders" of the WT. I began reading the Greek Scriptures first. I used the New World Translation, knowing if we were to ever reach our grown children, I would need to use that translation to prove anything. I have found much comfort in my readings, but one thing really stood out in contrast to what I had been brought up to believe. The NWT wasn't the honest translation I had believed. Two of the most outstanding contradictions I found are the use of "Jehovah's name" in the Greek Scriptures and the non-use of brackets [ ] for words that are NOT in the original writings. These two things really can change the meaning. Even if they do not change the meaning from what was originally intended, we aren't given the choice to make up our own minds what the writer was saying, but rather, the WT decides for us.
My husband and I have been having a discussion with a very dear friend (who left the WT over 30 years ago) on the honesty of the NWT. He feels it is a terriffic translation. Recently I sent him this information. The following are but just a few scriptures using the name "Jehovah" which are not quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures. When you read the context, it seems to possibly be referring to Jesus. Mark 5:19,20;Acts 2:21; 4:12,30; 8:25; 10:33; 12:24; 13:12, 44-48; 14:23; 15:35,36; 16:31,32; 18:25; 19:17-20; 1 Thess 1:3,8; 4:14-16; 5:2,23; 2 Thess 2:1,2,13; 3:1; 2 Tim 2:18,22.
Rom 10:9-15 is a scripture I have always used to show the need to preach about Jehovah's name, but in reading the context, it really seems to be talking about Jesus. I had a hard time fitting the context with using Jehovah's name, until I read 1 Pet 2:3. In the reference NWT, there is a footnote to this scripture, which I think might explain the confusion in Romans. It is talking about using "Lord" instead of "Jehovah", even though it is a quote from Psm 34:8. In part it says, "Peter is not here making a formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and applying it in his own manner." Could Paul be "borrowing O.T. language" in Romans 10:13?
There are quite a few more Scriptures, where it is questionable who is really being referred to, "Jehovah" or "Jesus". In the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, by Gregg Stafford, on page 32-35, he lists 61 scriptures where there is no quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, but the context indicates the reference is to "Jehovah", and another 83 scriptures where there is no quote at all, but the "NWT used the divine name in the NT simply on the basis of their interpretation of the context, is their prerogative as translators."
I always was led to believe the NWT only used "Jehovah's name" where there was a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures. The above book also says that the "NWT did not clearly communicate the fact that not all uses of the divine name in NT were based on O.T. quotations or paraphrases. Still, in view of the space they have devoted to explaining their use of the divine name in the NT, I am not sure that even this would be a legitimate argument." I found this admission very disturbing.
The other "huge" problem I found within the NWT is the "non-use" of brackets [ ]. According to the forward of the Reference Bible and the Kingdom Interlinear (KIT), brackets would be used any place words were added to help in the understanding. Unfortunately, many, many words are added, without the use of these brackets, leading the reader of the NWT to assume what they are reading is what is actually written. A check in an interlinear clears up much. Even checking the original Greek in the KIT, will tell this.
In the book of John, the words "in union with" are added in 7 scriptures, and another 13 times throughout 2 Corinthians, Colossians, and 1 John. The word "other" has been added in Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9 and Col 1:16-20. "In relation to" has been added in Mt 5:19 and Col 1:20. These and many more places, you'll find words inserted, that are not in the original writings, giving a biased rendition.
I thought for 45+ years, the other translations were biased, but not the NWT. I suppose they are all biased in one way or another. Even the three different interlinears we have vary in their translating different words. We now have a Bible with 8 translations, plus several others. Between these 10 translations, we can get a better idea of what is being talked about, when a question arises.
-
30
Are we really free or are we just kidding ourselves?
by cyborgVision inhope i can get some positive feedback., and i really mean it, don?t want to offend anyone but .. .
reflecting on your own experiences are people on this website mainly open to new points of views, new ideas, or is this mainly a site for criticizing even when there?s no concrete evidence just for the sake of it.
reason why i?m asking this is because i?ve been a member here for just under a week here and already had unpleasant experience of being dragged into pretty nasty argument just because i dared to disagree with someone.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
Although I have only recently begun posting, I have been reading this site for some time now, and have learned that there are so many different feelings being expressed, some very bitter and angry, and probably with reason. I realize that everyone has the right to express his opinion. It really feels good to be able to see many sides of an issue, weigh the findings yourself, and decide what makes sense to you, not an organization telling us they have done all the research, and this is what it means (only to change it down the road). One thing I have learned since beginning to read the Bible "in context" is there is so much we DON'T know, and probably won't, as there simply isn't enough information given. Many times it is rather vague what the writers really had in mind for their audience and what they were thinking when they wrote what they did. On the other hand, archeology is always finding something new, that gives added support to many conclusions. To be "dogmatic" is being just like the WT that many of us left. It truly is wonderful to feel the freedom Jesus gave us. As my husband just said, "Name calling is a propaganda technique used by the WT to discredit another's opinion. Everyone on this site has been beat up, let's not beat one another up."
That's my two cents worth. I appreciate being to express my feelings, which for so long I've had to hold in. There have been just my husband and I, and it's nice to talk to others again.
-
8
carnal is it in the bible?..what do it really mean?
by sad and lonely inby brother-in-law who claims he's a preacher,though he preaches out of his house and the only members are his wife,kids and about 3 other people he took of the streets gave a sandwich to,then talked them into letting him baptize them ,in his large body-lenght foot tub.
tells me that jesus is the father and that the reason i don't see that dispite the fact that jesus said himself his father is greater than him,i wasn't in the carnal...if i was then i would see how deep it is.and he said god!
wants us to be at his understanding level.but i thought somewhere i read or heard that we could never be at gods level.and also i read out of a dictionary about the word canal.ant it didn't seen spritual to me.it wasn't in my bible dictionary(the wordly one)as my sista said it was in the bible dict.,can anyone explain that to me...please!!!
-
-
Little Bo Peep
Hello, I'm also new to this board. I too checked the definition of carnal, and basically in your brother-in-law's context, I think he means worldly or not spiritual. There is a wonderful site you can go to that gives many Bible topics with much sound, scriptural references. It is commentarypress.com. There are a couple of articles you might benefit from. One is A Love Beyone Comprehension, and the other is What Can I Do? Perhaps reading this encouraging information will help put a smile on your face...I hope so.
-
28
Is hemoglobin now a conscience matter?
by ithinkisee inaccording to the ajwbr.org website, it says.
"june 15th 2004: the june 15th watchtower expands on the june 15, 2000 article.
for the first time, the rank and file jehovah's witness learns that the single largest blood component (hemoglobin) is now permitted as a matter of personal choice.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
I looked up our copy of the June 15, 2004 Watchtower, for the chart, and as you probably know, there is no description details of "fractions", just what they are, red, white, platelets, plasma. I think Blondie mentioned Northfield Labs, so I emailed them last nite to find out if they consider their "extractions" to be fractions. The site tells the exact description ofPolyHeme, its characteristics, as well as how it is made, with diagrams. I found it to be very interesting. I will post their answer, if I hear from them. I'm new to posting to your site, but have been watching it for quite some time...Thanks all for your valuable input.
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Little Bo Peep
Hello all, I've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful. I must say, at first I was very "scared" at what I might find, but contrary to what I grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the Watchtower organization. I haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many I've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "I'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research. My husband has been coming to your site before me, but I was "chicken" to listen or look for a long time. When I finally did, I found references that I could check to substantiate all that was being said, from the "lips" of the Watchtower itself.
Last week, I think our grown children said they are about to start studying the Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy! book again. When I studied it last time, I hadn't even begun my "journey" out, but recently started studying it again, to see what I had missed before, and to perhaps have something to share with them. Somewhere in all of my reading, it seems someone made mention of the dates. Anyway, today, I looked up the dates and found quite a contradiction. Page 18, says Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne in 624 BCE, page 46 says his second year was 606/605 BCE, and page 63 says he ascended the throne in 624 BCE. I found this worth noting, as some questions could be asked regarding the differences, and the "missing" twenty years. You don't suppose that this was inserted, so they could later refer back to a "correct date" do you?
Little Bo Peep