Which one do you think is photoshopped?
Earnest
JoinedPosts by Earnest
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Earnest
-
6
Something that bothers me personally
by Blotty in(i apologise if this is the wrong section for this - its the one i think suits best)this may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, which i will list as questions in the near future)i recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - i find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. they wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.
i.e on the divine name, i listed scholars such as george howard - i got the answer "try a real scholar"or another example i cited beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "he doesn't teach greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)once again i apologise if this is wasting anyone's time.
-
-
Earnest
Blotty, you may find an earlier thread Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 1) and Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 2) addresses the prejudice to which you refer.
-
7
It appears Paul utilized Wisdom of Solomon
by peacefulpete inromans 1:18-31.
18 the wrath of god is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about god is plain to them, because god has made it plain to them.
20 for since the creation of the world god’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.. 21 for although they knew god, they neither glorified him as god nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
-
-
Earnest
It may have been that Paul utilised the Wisdom of Solomon. Or it could be that both Paul and the author(s) of the Wisdom of Solomon utilised the Hebrew scriptures esp. Isaiah. It's interesting but I don't know that it tells us anything we don't already know. We already know that the book of Enoch is cited by Jude, but that didn't make the book of Enoch canonical or that Jude was any less inspired. The fact is that a lot of what is in the Bible can also be found elsewhere, which is not surprising considering the milieu in which it arose.
-
13
Acts 20:28
by Fisherman inacts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
-
-
Earnest
In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1974, pp.480, 481, Bruce Metzger explains why "congregation of God" is probably the original reading.
... it is undeniable that theou [of God] is the more difficult reading. The following clause speaks of the church "which he obtained dia tou haimatos tou idiou [with the blood of his own]." If this is taken in its usual sense ("with his own blood"), a copyist might well raise the question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change theou [of God] to kuriou [of Lord]. If, however, kuriou were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase [which would lead the copyist to change it].
Instead of the usual reading of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [with his own blood], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean "with the blood of his Own." (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou [son] may have dropped out after tou idiou [(his) own], though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios [(his) Own] is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that "his Own" (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to "the Beloved" (ho agapetos); compare Ro 8.32, where Paul refers to God "who did not spare tou idiou huiou [his own son]" in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22.16, where the Septuagint has tou agapetou huiou [the beloved son].
Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that tou idiou [(his) own] is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [his own son], the Committee judged that the reading theou [of God] was more likely to have been altered to kuriou [of Lord] than vice versa.
-
14
2013 New World Translation
by Jerome56 inon their website in the video "organizational accomplishments" watchtower devotes this segment to praising the superiority of the new world translation.
about half way through, david splane relates the reason for a change in wording from the old 1984 nwt reference bible to the 2013 revised nwt.
he said this was because of the recent discovery of an older manuscript that contained the greek word for overseer that was unavailable when the reference bible was being compiled.
-
-
Earnest
This is just a verbose explanation of slim's post above, so skip it unless you want mind-numbing detail.
In the Introduction to the 1984 NWT Reference Bible it says that the basic Greek text used was The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort (W&H). The Greek texts of Nestle, Bover, Merk and others were also considered.
Quite simply, W&H did not include episkopountes in 1 Peter 5:2 and the translators of the NWT concurred. Why did they not include it when there was sufficient reason for the King James Bible to translate it as "taking the oversight thereof" in 1611? Because they concluded the early mss did not support it.
In the Appendix to the W&H Greek text there is a section Notes on Select Readings which include "miscellaneous rejected readings sufficiently interesting to deserve special notice". The rejected reading of episkopountes at 1 Peter 5:2 is included and the notes are shown here:
What does that mean? That there is quite a lot of support for episkopountes, but manuscripts without it include Sinaiticus (original reading) and Vaticanus 1209, and W&H maintained that when these two important witnesses agreed on a reading then it was usually given more weight than alternative readings. Although the Emphatic Diaglott is based on Vatican 1209, the codex doesn't have episkopountes at 1 Peter 5:2 and so the Emphatic Diaglott has the word in square brackets to show it's not in the main text.
How was the basic Greek text of 2013 Revised NWT different to the 1984 translation? The Watchtower of 15 December 2015 explained (p.17):
The original New World Translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the respected Greek text by Westcott and Hort. The study of ancient Bible manuscripts has continued to advance, shedding light on the reading of certain Bible verses. Readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls have become available. More Greek manuscripts have been studied. Much updated manuscript evidence is available in computer format, making it easier to analyze the differences between manuscripts to determine which reading of the Hebrew or Greek text is best supported.
Probably consideration of Papyrus 72, which is the earliest known manuscript of this letter (and can be viewed at the Vatican Library here [p.20, top of the page]), revised their judgment on this.
-
25
God Has Only One Visible Organization on Earth!
by Vanderhoven7 inwhy is it important to some that god only have one visible organization to represent him on earth?
why is it important to jehovah's witnesses that people recognize their organization as such?
what makes a witness more moral or righteous or save-worthy if they accept that it is his one and only organization?
-
-
Earnest
punkofnice : Watchtower, September 15, 1895: "Beware of 'organization'. It is wholly unnecessary. The Bible rules will be the only rules you will need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours."
This has been quoted regularly but it's not quoted in context. It was in an article entitled Concerning Profitable Meetings which was written because several requests had been received as to how to conduct meetings. The advice is as follows :
(1) You would best first re-read some things already written which bear upon this subject - in our issues of
May 1, '93 page 131 [The Commission of the Apostles];
Sept. '93, page 259 [The Church of the Living God];
Oct. 15, '93, page 307 [Unequally Yoked];
Mar. 1, '94, page 73 [Applying Truth to Oneself];
April 1, '95, page 78 [Views from the Tower (Religious View)];
May 1, '95, page 109 [Priestcraft Opposed to Liberty].
(2) Beware of "organization." It is wholly unnecessary. The Bible rules will be the only rules you will need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far as you can understand God's Word today, and so continue growing in grace and knowledge and love day by day.
It then goes on to discuss what happens at the meetings which includes the study of the Bible "in the light of the DAWN [Millenial Dawn, also known as Studies in the Scriptures]" which is a divinely provided help for the cutting of the food into eatable portions.
Two months later (November 15, 1895) there was an article Decently and in Order (1 Corinthians 14:40) where it concludes:
... the true church, 'whose names are written in heaven,' is undoubtedly an organization, even in the present time, while it is subject to many vicissitudes - its membership constantly changing, etc., but it is a heavenly organization, not an earthly one.
So, an earthly organization is bad, God's heavenly organization is good. Your quotation to beware of 'organization' was referring to earthly organization, not heavenly. That remains true today.
-
13
Acts 20:28
by Fisherman inacts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
-
-
Earnest
Acts 20 : 28 reads according to the NWT Interlinear
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου
the blood of the own (one)
which literally says : "the blood of his own", a subtle difference.
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Earnest
slim, there are three Hebrew online bibles in the JW library. They are New World Translation of Scripture, Torah and Prophets Written in Contemporary Hebrew and the Traditional Bible. I think both the New World Translation of Scripture and Torah and Prophets Written in Contemporary Hebrew are JW publications and they render the tetragrammaton as (יְהֹוָה) which is pronounced Yehova so I imagine that is how they read it.
Most Jews simply read adonai (Lord) whenever they come across the tetragrammaton. Perhaps Kaleb could tell us whether secular Jews pronounce it.
-
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
Earnest
slimboyfat : I think in some languages they even use forms closer to Yahweh
Appendix A of the NWT Study Bible lists languages and dialects containing the divine name in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. These include :
יהוה (Hebrew), YHWH (Spanish*), YAHWEH (Indonesian), Yahweh (Spanish*), YAHWE (Kalanga, Zulu), Iáhve (Portuguese), Yahvé (Spanish*), Yawe (Bangi, Bolia, Iliku (dialect of Lusengo), Lingala, Lomongo, Luo, Ngando, Ntomba, Sengele, Teke-Eboo), Yaave (Ila) and Ya’wĕn (Seneca).
* I think the various Spanish uses must be different translations. Some English translations also use Yahweh.
I am inclined to accept the view that just as all other names in the Bible are expressed according to the language/dialect in which the Bible is written, that should also be true of God's name. After all, did Noah pronounce God's name the same way as Moses? Or Nehemiah? Or first century Jews? Did Noah even speak Hebrew?
-
14
Request----2022 Circuit Overseer Guidelines in PDF!
by Atlantis in2022 circuit overseer guidelines pdf.. .
https://www.filemail.com/d/kphgslnjfxwgjxk .
atlantis!.
-
-
Earnest
dropoffyourkeylee : What is Harbor Witnessing
Witnessing from ship to ship in a harbour. Our Kingdom Ministry of July 2014 reported that "harbor witnessing is established in 38 major ports in the United States. In January 2014, the harbor witnessing groups in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle reported that 98 brothers visited 274 cargo ships."
There is a short video of "Preaching from Ship to Ship" here.