the wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
peacefulpete : Can anyone show the argument for adding 30 years to 1844 and then the 40 years to 1874? I recall it being a typology eisegesis on 30 years of Jesus, 40 years in the wilderness.
A diagram in The Time is at Hand (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II), p.247 alludes to these parallels.
jehovah's witnesses basically define the term "apostate" as someone who was once a member of the "organization" (a jehovah's witness) but no longer follows the teachings, rules, regulations and practices.
the society gives their official definition in the following manner: "apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship and service of god, actually a rebellion against jehovah god.
some apostates profess to know and serve god but reject teachings or requirements set out in his word.
so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.
but i don’t want to ask them my question.
but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?
truth_b_known, interesting video although I don't quite understand why he thinks homo naledi must have caused the soot in the cave. Could it not have been later? I await with interest the dating of the soot and a peer-reviewed article on the find.
You can see Lee Berger's announcement of this find here and read other articles about it here and here.
https://www.thenewselephant.co.uk/oh-shit-theyre-finally.... "oh shit, they're finally seeing through our bollocks!
" say church leaders after england and wales revealed to be minority christian countries.
good !.
The current news is that "Paranoid racist halfwits devastated as Census reveals only 6.5 percent of British are Muslim".
a 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.
a 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.
Which one do you think is photoshopped?
(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.
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.
romans 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.
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.
acts 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..
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.
on 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.
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.
