Posts by Jeffro

8

"Congregation Bible Study" - Pure Worship

by Jeffro in

the pure worship book will be 'studied' at the weekly jw 'congregation bible study' starting next week.

anyone 'lucky' enough to attend might like to consider my review of the book for some salient points in the coming weeks.... .

Jeffro

'scholar':

Printing out this document as a PDF could be improved by a larger print and some of the charts are not colored as the desktop document so the overall presentation needs a slight improvement in order to facilitate a proper examination of its content especially for those who prefer a hard copy.

I haven't made a PDF version available, but may do so if there is sufficient demand. Trivial matters of presentation don't prevent anyone from making a "proper examination" of the content though.

It's not clear what you mean by "some of the charts are not colored as the desktop document" since only I have access to the original document; if you mean that not all the charts exactly mimic the layout in Pure Worship, I don't see any need to do so unless readers indicate specific instances where something is unclear. (Alternative, maybe you’re referring to the background colour of wide tables on mobile devices layouts?)

Feel free to point out any errors though.

8

"Congregation Bible Study" - Pure Worship

by Jeffro in

the pure worship book will be 'studied' at the weekly jw 'congregation bible study' starting next week.

anyone 'lucky' enough to attend might like to consider my review of the book for some salient points in the coming weeks.... .

Jeffro

Road to nowhere:

They are explaining right now how we will find confusion over the hard print and the revised one on the computer. NEW LIGHT

Haha. Really? There are some changes but not major. See appendix 2 , also noted where relevant in the main text.

8

"Congregation Bible Study" - Pure Worship

by Jeffro in

the pure worship book will be 'studied' at the weekly jw 'congregation bible study' starting next week.

anyone 'lucky' enough to attend might like to consider my review of the book for some salient points in the coming weeks.... .

Jeffro

The Pure Worship book will be 'studied' at the weekly JW 'Congregation Bible Study' starting next week. Anyone 'lucky' enough to attend might like to consider my review of the book for some salient points in the coming weeks...

34

Many Jw’s Love to Speculate About the New System

by Davros in

jw
friends

a comment on another thread cracked me up where the poster related what some elder said on the platform that: .

in the new system, we likely will not have genitals.” lol.

i’ve heard so much speculation from many jw’s on what will and won’t be allowed in the new system.

Jeffro

Davros:

A comment on another thread cracked me up where the poster related what some elder said on the platform that:
In the new system, we likely will not have genitals.” Lol

Official JW belief, though rarely talked about, is that people may be permitted to have children only during the 1,000 years, supposing that it would not be appropriate to have children after that because those children would not need the ‘benefit’ of the ‘ransom’.

11

I don't believe there are 8 million JWS

by Hotpepper in

jw
friends

with all the closing of halls.

and all the csa cases.

and all the jws not only slipping out the back door.

Jeffro

neat blue dog:

You're right, there are really over 20 million, if counted by the standards of any other religion.

It is true that the way JWs count their 'membership' results in a smaller number of ~~members~~ 'those in the congregation'. However, their method of counting artificially inflates their growth rate.

22

But you told us about those dates.

by Lost in the fog in

you couldn't make it up!

saw this wt quote on a friend's page.

it is from the awake magazine of 1993, march 22nd apparently.

Jeffro

Lost in the fog (quoting The Watchtower, August 15, 1950, page 263):

nor is it dogmatic

🤣

The Watchtower, 15 April 1986, page 31:

□ What is required if one is to become an approved associate of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Such a person must accept the entire range of Bible teachings, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But yeah, totally not dogmatic... 😂

41

The 1950s NWT (1984)

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

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?

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

The NWT is a worry for scholars because it challenges them in a way that they have never had to deal with before and is similar to how WT scholars have a Bible Chronology that with such dates as 607, 537 BCE amongst many others also confounds such scholars causing them much dispute and controversy.

🤣😂 Seriously, you’ve got to be just trolling at this point. I needed the laugh. Thanks 🤣

41

The 1950s NWT (1984)

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

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?

Jeffro

So tedious. Acknowledging that your preferred reviewer is simply showing their own doctrinal bias is hardly a credible endorsement. And your pitiful assertion about Jeremiah 29:10 does not even attempt to deal with the flawed JW interpretation. It’s pointless dealing with you, and I’ve only ever done so for the benefit of other readers.

41

The 1950s NWT (1984)

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

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?

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

All translations of the Bible have an inherent theological or doctrinal bias. BeDuhn's examination and comparison of 8 translations acknowledging at the same time the presence of bias common to all that the "NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared ".(Refer p.163).

Huh? I pointed out that BeDuhn is himself biased toward nontrinitarianism, so your elaboration about BeDuhn’s assessment is pointless.

Newsflash: Nontrinitarian endorses nontrinitarianism. 🤦‍♂️

41

The 1950s NWT (1984)

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

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?

Jeffro

scholar:

The simple fact of the matter is that the translation of Jer.29:10 is accurate and in accordance with rules of grammar pertaining to Hebrew prepositions. Further, whether the phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at/in Babylon' makes no difference to the correct understanding of the 70 years as a period of exile-desolation-servitude in accordance with current Biblical scholarship.

hahahahaha. Aside from issues with the grammar, the NWT rendering and interpretation is completely illogical in reference to the context of the passage. After Babylon's 70 years are ended, attention is given to the Jews' return. It is completely irrational to insist that attention is given to their return after they're already returned. You really are a lost cause.