(+qb--stands for: plus question booklet).
"babylon the great has fallen" god's kingdom rules!this is a very large file of 710 pages with maps and total index pages included.
chart of dates see pages 682--690.
Sorry, matey, but I am getting the same message as Garybuss. Hmmm... let me see.......
Oh no! It can't be.........................can it?
The [evil] Empire strikes back! Maybe the gremlins at WTS HQ have been let loose. They are onto us, matey.......you think?
Cheers
everybody can look at the 237 citation of yhwh in the new world traslation appendix, as in the kingdom interlinear 1985 version.
the translator comitee decided to use yhwh for theological reasons where the original text containsx kyros.
i know that in the kingdom interlinear , 1969 version (i never seen it, aniway) the citation of yhwh were a lot more.
I am sorry, but I am a little dense this morning, but I am having difficulty understanding your question.
Having consulted the two editions of the KIT I can't see any difference in the number of citations. Both editions use the Tetragrammaton 237 times in the main body of the text, with an additional 72 times as a footnote, making a total of 309 occasions where it is used.
The only difference is the number of authorities [the J sources] that have been consulted. The ' 69 edition consulted 21 of these sources, while the ' 85 edition used 27. It would of course make no difference if the WTS quoted an additional 100 other sources, unless it was proved that the original writings did so.
It seems hollow to think that after 34 years of intensive searching for additional documents, the WTS could only find an additional 6. Of these: two were released after the original edition of the NW Translation in 1950. [J 22 in 1979, 23 in 1975] another one, J25, is in fact a 20th cent publication, and is not even a translation. One, J24, was published in 1863, one in the 18th cent J27 [1796] and the sixth, the oldest was released in the 16th cent. [J26 in 1533]
There are other anomalies in citing these sources:
1 In the ' 85 edition of KIT, the WTS does not reveal that J 2 and J 3 are essentially the same work, only that J 2 was revised into J 3
2 In the original edition the source known as J 10 "Gospels in Hebrew" published in 1800 in London, has been changed to read: "The New Testament ...... in Hebrew and English" published 1789-1805.
3 In the original edition, J 19 is described as : "John in Hebrew" Published by the "Jews Society of Haifa, Palestine, in 1930, arranged by T C Horton". The revised edition of KIT, however, tells us that this is in fact "John, Heb, by Moshe I Ben Maeir of Denver Colorado, and published in 1957 For some unfathomable reason, the original ' 69 edition listed "John" in italic print. It is replaced by normal print in the ' 85 edition.
For a fuller treatment of this subject, you can consult the book "Witnessing the Name" written by WTS researcher, Doug Mason. It is available from Freeminds.org
There is also currently a thread running on JWD making the original 69 edition of KIT available to researchers.
Cheers
( credit for this pdf goes to my friend who would like to remain anonymous) 1969 kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/kit.htmlclick the link below and when the next page appears scroll down to the bottom.
wait the requiredseconds for a small box and code to appear.
then type the code in the box and click the download button.. http://www.badongo.com/file/1851444 cheers!
Thanks again, friend. By making this publication, and others like it, available to those want it, you are lighting a torch of freedom that will never go out. If there is any one publication that is necessary to show how much the WTS has deviated from the Scriptures, it is this one. Doubltess because of this, the publishers produced so few copies of it, thus allowing it to go out of print.
Seeing that at that time the world wide membership was in the region of 2mil, the WTS only permitted 1/2 mil copies to be released, so that even then, not everyone could obtain a copy. Compare that with a publication like "The Truth that leads to Everlasting Life" which ultimately proved to be utter nonsense, and had to be withdrawn, which had a total printing run of 110 mil in 116 languages!
Oddly enough, I honestly believe that we know more about this book than the very people who claim to use it, the followers of the WTS. More of us have copies of it than they. With the membership now in the region of some 6 mil, the book is even more remote to them.
Ta, matey And keep up the good work, oh good and faithful slave.
Cheers
the jw's concept of the resurrection is that at some time in the future a duplicate physical body of a person will be created and onto this duplicated body's brain, the person's memories will be impressed.
the jw's are very clear that the individual does not possess a "soul" that continues on after death, so there is nothing unique to transfer from the original person to the re-created body.
why should the idea that some impostor in the future who was given my memories and who also believes that they were once me give me any hope today?
Can we then safely say, having viewed the matter objectively, that the WTS does not teach the "resurrection" in any way that defines the biblical concept. What they actually teach is "recreation" [V might say this is "reincarnation"] tarted up to look like they teach the resurrection. To mislead the unwary.
Incedently that quote by Leolaia of Ip pg 175 par 16 must be an editorial gremlin for the WT writers, which they unintentionally let slip through. It is the only reference to "recreation" in their literature I can find. [They do use the term in the NWT, at one place Matt 19:28. Theirs is the only translation I can find that says this]
By the way, Leolaia, just to keep our references straight, what is the literature designated "Ip"?
Cheers
this has been posted before but i just was thinking about eph 4:8 where the nwt renders it gifts [in] men while most other bible render it gift's to men.
i just looked this scripture up in the kindom interlinear and sure enough, it renders the greek as 'gifts to the men'.
you have got to love the balls that this cult has.
The intentional misinterpretation defends a certain WT agenda. In that sentence, the word "men" is in the "dative" case, ie, it is an indirect object.
Now if you say "gifts [IN] men, you are implying that the various men [in this case, according to the WTS the local elders] get all the gifts equally. The "distributive" quality of the dative is shifted to "Men" In other words not all men get gifts, only some, ie the elders in each congregation And each elder gets all the gifts.
However if you say "Gifts [TO] men" you then are implying that all the men get various gifts. They do not each get all the gifts. The "distributive" quality then is placed on the object of the sentence which is "Gifts"
Does this make any difference? Sure does. If each elder gets only some of the gifts, then every elder will claim that he was'nt given the gift of "evangelism" If that is the case then why go out and flog the WT literature? Can you imagine what that would do to the sales figures?
So every elder, as a model for the rest of the congregation, must be made to realize that ALL of them get the gift of evangelism.
So up and at 'em tiger - its Saturdee mornin' and time to excercise yer gift.Keep those presses busy [and profitable]
Incidently the word "men" here could have a generic meaning, ie "people" [including women] So that everyone - men and women as believers - gets at least one gift which can benefit the local community of believers.
Cheers
pleeeeaaaaasssseeee?????
pretty please????.
i tried to get the cd-rom download, but it didn't work for me....any tips?.
Oddly enough, it was'nt always so.
The founder of the WTS, CTR, taught, evidently under divine sanction, the very opposite. That in fact Jesus was not the mediator between God and the "Church" as he put it. In the July 15, 1909 WT pg 4437, [ pg numbers arelisted that way in the standardized reprints edition] he affirmed: "The apostle does not here [ie 1Tim 2:5,6] refer to the church but to the world. The Apostle tells us that Jesus is the Mediator between God and the world - men" He reaffirmed this in the Nov 15 WT 1909 pg 4515 this way: "Jesus is the Mediator between God and the world of mankind. The Scriptures foretold a New Covenant between God and Israel, and through Israel, with the world"
Footnote: Remember, under the guiding light of "god" that CTR was led to believe that the natural Jews had a place in the Divine Plan of the Ages, it is through their agency that the "benefits" of Christs Mediatorship flow on to humans as a whole.
What then of the Mediatorship of Christ and the "Church"?.... I mean was'nt Christ their Mediator as well? Nope. Not according to CTR. He made a subtle difference between the word "Mediator" and "Advocate" Here's his [divinely authorized] explanation: "We no longer use the word Mediator in respect to our Lord's various and valuable services for the church,but as our "Advocate with the Father" [July 15 WT 1909 pg 4437]
Then JFR, also claiming "divine light" - only brighter - changed this to say: "It has been said by us that Jesus is the advocate for the church and mediator for the world, but the scriptures do not warrant that conclusion. There is nothing inconsistent in Jesus being the mediator for the church, and also the advocate for the church. In the Heavenly Mt Zion, Jesus both mediates and advocates" April 1 WT 1934 pg 105 - April's Fool's Day maybe?
Apart from the change from CTR's upper case lettering for "Mediator" and "Advocate" J.Hoofer turned the teaching around 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what he is supposed to have said 25 years before.
"Make Sure of All Things" said likewise: "Christ is the only Mediator between God and Men" [Subject Heading] pg 68, 109. [published in 1953, revised 1965. This bit did not change, however.]
Then came J.Hoofer's final [?] word on the subject, WT April 1 1979 pg 31. Quoted above. Ever notice how many "flashes of new light" seem to come on this day?
< sigh> the light keeps gettin' brighter and the truth keeps gettin' truer.
[Hey! Is there a song in there or what???]
Cheers
I'm on it
the jw's concept of the resurrection is that at some time in the future a duplicate physical body of a person will be created and onto this duplicated body's brain, the person's memories will be impressed.
the jw's are very clear that the individual does not possess a "soul" that continues on after death, so there is nothing unique to transfer from the original person to the re-created body.
why should the idea that some impostor in the future who was given my memories and who also believes that they were once me give me any hope today?
I feel the problem stemmed from the original ideas held by the founder of the WT movement, CT Russell. Seeing himself as standing apart from "Christendon" and unable to reconcile a God of Love with his faulty concept of a burning hell, he supplied a definition of "resurrection" that was ultimately inadequate.
He defined the word "resurrection" as "Being brought back to life" Period. In this definition, if a person does survive death albeit in some other form, a spirit, say, then that person was already "alive" and there would therefore be no need to "resurrect" him/her. To solve this problem, since CTR was no deep thinker in the mold of the Greek thinkers of antiquity, nor did he have any theological or philosophical training,he assumed that the person had to be totally dead in his/her very being. Which leads to annihilation, a state of non existence, nothingness.
In this respect he failed to see that there was indeed no continuity between the two states of being before and after "resurrection" The being who is "resurrected" has no continuous link of the psyche, the ego, id, call the essential kernal of human existence whatever you want, with the one who died. He/she is like the person who died, even to the extent of being 100% like him/her. But the reality is that they are two different persons. The original simply no longer exists.
If Russell had consulted even a basic theological dictionary, written for 5 yr olds, rather than rely on his own human reasoning, he would have read that "Resurrection" means "Bringing back to life of the body" The real cruelty of death is that it does something that was never originally intentended to be: The seperation of the "outer" person with the "inner" or "psyche" Evidently this state of being, called by some theologians the "intermediate" state is a cause of sorrow and brings on a sense of weariness, where the resurrection of the body is awaited. [Rev 6:9,10] Joining the two, which is what the resurrection describes, keeps that continuity intact.
The most diabolical part of the WT view is what they really teach about Christ Jesus. When He died he too was annihilated.In other words, passed into nothing.He ceased to exist.When "He" was resurrected by jehooverver, the memory banks that constituted His previous existence, His computer software programme [which remember has no personality, it is merely an abstaction], if you like, was implanted into another being created by jeehoover.
So the guy who is sitting at gods right hand at this moment, and evidently conversing merrily with the "annointed ones" who have gone before, is an imposter. He did not die for you and me. He merely has the memory of that person implanted into him. The Jesus who died for you and me simply no longer exists.
Grotesque. And I actually believed this stuff.
Cheers
blondie will probably hit me with a pie for posting this, but she hasn't been feeling well for a few days and i just thought we would let her know we are hoping she feels better soon!
(could you make that blueberry?).
and to all the friends out there that are not feeling well.
Get well soon Blondie.
You got a hell of a lot of people going blue waiting to hear that alls well with you.
Cheers
ok... i admit that josh groban is not a jw... i just wanted to use a cheap gag to get your attention!
check out the title of his latest cd... awake .
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/b000i5x81k/ref=amb_link_30564001_11/103-0482201-9342200.
I'm a classics nut myself, but was'nt there an album called "All Along the Watchtower"..... or something? Bob Marley? or was it Bob Dillan?
I only like three Rock groups:
1 Fleetwood Mac
2 Fleetwood Mac
3 Now lettt me rremmemberrrr.....Oh yeah Fleetwood Mac
Cheers
