Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,803 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  69

  2020-10-Publications Approved For Discard! (as of 2020-10-29)

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  2020-10--publications approved for discard.. .

  reply below and i'll meet you back at the pm breakroom for coffee and a link.. .

  petra!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  JW GoneBad:

  My Book Of Bible Stories & Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand!
  

  But only the original versions, the revised editions of both can be kept.

  
  
• 
  9

  Members or Individuals

  by Dazed_Confussed in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Even if not legally binding, they may think it may save them public shame. For example, in a case of child sexual abuse, they might say, oh they’re not a member of our denomination, just someone who attends our services.
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Vidqun:

  I still believe that he had some original ideas, whether right or wrong.
  

  Of course. That’s why they needed their own translation. However, though Jeremiah 29:10 is a good example of doctrinal bias, the NWT rendering there is also taken from the KJV. (It is of course nonsensical because the passage says attention would be given to their return after the 70 years were completed and it would be pointless giving attention to their return once they’d already returned.)
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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’.
  
  
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
  
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  He likely also translated Jeremiah 5: 8 which says:

  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.

  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).

  “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.”
  
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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:

  Will tasteless things be eaten without salt,Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?

  I'm stumped at this.

  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.
  
• 
  41

  The 1950s NWT (1984)

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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'.
  
• 
  9

  Members or Individuals

  by Dazed_Confussed in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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’.)