i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
HTBWC:
As for influence from the KJV i haven't seen it but I wish they had used it. Somehow I always laugh inside when I read 'pisseth against the wall'
Actually, you’ve provided a good example of similarity to the KJV. Whilst the majority of translations just say ‘male’ at 1 Samuel 25:34 (recognising the meaning of the Hebrew idiom), the original NWT ‘faithfully’ renders the KJV text, but just changes ‘pisseth’ to ‘urinating’.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
You’re entirely welcome to disagree, and whilst it’s obviously not so similar to the KJV to be comparable to the NKJV, it is quite definitely based on the KJV and ASV. Their biggest departures are the verb changes and updated vocabulary, with some doctrinal bias thrown in, though not as much as is sometimes claimed. The 2013 revision is a bit of a different story, though there are various notable instances where it is closer to mainstream translations than the original NWT.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
Vidqun:
This proves that the NWT is an original translation, even though funny.
For the most part, the original NWT is a modernisation of the King James Version, influenced heavily by the American Standard Version, with an over-emphasis on making verbs more tedious.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
He likely also translated Jeremiah 5: 8 which says:Along similar lines, the Watch Tower Society's 1971 attempt at interpreting the book of Ezekiel (“The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah”—How?) felt the need to quote Ezekiel 23:20 in full... not once, not twice, but three times, all on the same page (twice from the NWT and once from the New English Bible).Horses seized with sexual heat, having [strong] testicles, they have become. They neigh each one to the wife of his companion.
Huh? sorry I have checked the Hebrew text against a Lexicon as well as multiple translations and sadly there are no horses testicles in this verse. Unless... your a pervert.
“And she kept lusting in the style of concubines belonging to those whose fleshly member is as the fleshly member of male asses and whose genital organ is as the genital organ of male horses.”
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
I guess the NWT decided a mallow plant as they did in the 2013 NWT. But in the 1950-1984 era they chose this hilarous line:The original meaning of the English word "marshmallow" was indeed the 'mallow plant' (that is, mallows that grow in marshes). The modern confectionery is named after the plant because it was, in antiquity, made from that plant. So they weren't actually wrong with this one.Will tasteless things be eaten without salt,Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?
I'm stumped at this.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
2. Dungy idols. Now let's be honset. It's not in the text. Only a foold would do this.Their 'reasoning' for this actually quite odd. Their argument is that the word translated 'idol' (גִּלּוּל, Strong’s H1544) is related to a word for 'ball of dung' (גֵּלֶל, Strong’s H1561). However, the only connection is that the root etymology of both words is related to the concept of 'rolling'.
any truth to the thought that instead of being considered "members" of the jw organization, that they will shortly be considered only as "individuals" of the organization?.
Yes. ‘Members’ was removed from the 2020 revisions of ‘Shepherd the Flock of God’ and ‘Pure Worship—Restored At Last’. In the case of the latter, it is the only change made in that revision, so they must consider it necessary. Almost certainly for legal reasons related to reducing organisational liability. (It’s not just a doctrinal thing because they still use ‘members’ when referring to ‘first-century Christians’.)
**announcement october 28, 2020 for congregations** .
[read after the watchtower study the week of october 26, 2020.\] 2021 regional convention: many have expressed great appreciation for the special arrangement to benefit from the 2020 regional convention during this coronavirus pandemic.
because of the uncertainty of holding large gatherings in 2021 and the evidence of jehovah’s blessing on this year’s convention program, the governing body recently approved the following arrangements for the 2021 regional convention program.
“Evidence” 🤣
i've been absent from the forum for about 10 months while deep into a divorce and working long hours.i heard mention in another thread about a change in 1914. is this actually being taught?
i'm very curious.
a extended non jw family member of my soon to be ex spouse finally decided to really do the deep investigation on the jw, and is in the phase of wanting to "ask the direct questions" and inform them of the facts of the jws.
Changes to their generation definition have been made over the last 25 years to reduce their dependence on the ‘short time’ since 1914. But there has been no recent formal change to the 1914 doctrine as the start of the kingdom which is still required as a basis for their supposed selection in 1919. If anything, they’ve doubled down on it. I’ve covered various aspects of this in my review of their Pure Worship book, particularly chapters 8 to 12, 16 and 20.
back in the first century we read that the apostles would "lay their hands" on someone and the holy spirit would be imparted to that one.
appointments of older men were made in this way - at that time.
in modern times the wts has claimed that their own elders ,min.
The term "holy spirit" is not well defined in the Bible, but whatever it is that it is 'supposed' to be (in the context of the story), Acts 19:2 indicates that it definitely isn't what JWs say it is. If the 'holy spirit' really were just 'God's power', then the disciples of John the Baptist certainly wouldn't say, "we have never heard that there is a holy spirit".
