Posts by whereami

26

3RD WITNESS RAMBLINGS

by whereami in

jw
friends

many believe that defending the jehovah's witnesses or praising it for the accomplishments of the organization is idolizing the wt.

but aren't we really praising jehovah when we praise what the organization has accomplished.

perhaps someone does not follow their praise of the organization by saying how jehovah deserves the credit but no doubt many understand that that is to be assumed.

In fairness to you, the author of this comment, I refrained from observing any other responses before I posted mine.

#1 - The United Nations NGO issue is not 'twisted'. The UN will confirm that the WTS belonged as an NGO for 10 years. The WTS will confirm the same, though here is where the 'twisting' begins as they attempt to justify attachment to what they call the 'Counterfiet of God's Kingdom on earth'. Please back with facts, your assertion that 'apostates' are acting in evil manner. I actually know personally many persons on this board, and I cannot name a single one that fit's your discription. Further - isn't that a 'straw man argument'? What matters is the sins of the organization that we left - anything else is a red herring.

#2 - The Child-Molestation issue is not false. It has been recently proven rather to be true in court. Further, over 7000 abuse survivors have come forward to attest that this is not overblown.

These two issues were paramount in my leaving. Your broad-stroke condemnation of those here who have left is without basis. We are individuals, most of whom have left due to the lies of the organization - not to pursue some 'fleshly desires' as you imply. IN doubt? Come on over to my house - I will show you how this apostate lives - and you will be wont to find any 'evil' to condemn, even from WTS standards.

If you joined the UN as an NGO - you would be disfellowshipped. If the WTS does so, you excuse them. Seems like the 'use of two different weights' to me. And isn't that 'something detestable to Jehovah'?

Jeff

Sorry Jeff, maybe i should have made myself clear. These are not my ramblings, but 3RD WITNESSES.

26

3RD WITNESS RAMBLINGS

by whereami in

jw
friends

many believe that defending the jehovah's witnesses or praising it for the accomplishments of the organization is idolizing the wt.

but aren't we really praising jehovah when we praise what the organization has accomplished.

perhaps someone does not follow their praise of the organization by saying how jehovah deserves the credit but no doubt many understand that that is to be assumed.

whereami

Many believe that defending the Jehovah's Witnesses or praising it for the accomplishments of the organization is idolizing the WT. But aren't we really praising Jehovah when we praise what the organization has accomplished. Perhaps someone does not follow their praise of the organization by saying how Jehovah deserves the credit but no doubt many understand that that is to be assumed. That goes without saying.

If I owned a large company that did many good things and people praised my company, I would be glad. And if that company was named 3rdwitnesses Company, then everytime my company was praised my name would be said and I would be praised as well. Would I be angry that someone doesn't follow every comment about my company with the words, 'All credit should go to 3rdwitness.'? Praising what my company has done is praising me also. That goes without saying.

This being said I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for ever 'listening' to the WT bashers. I should have known from the start that it was mostly lies. From the NGO to the child abuse policy of the WTS. It is all of it twisted to discredit JWs and I can see that now, whereas when I first began to read about it, I considered that it might be and probably was true. It is sad that so many come to the "JW" sites and are misled and their faith is thrown down by apostate reasonings to the point that they stand up against the WTS and the local elders as if they definitely have the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt and have been 'enlightened' to such an extent that they are so wise and so all knowing and they must stand up for the truth and for Jehovah otherwise they would be a liar and a sharer in the sins of the WT and they are so righteous and could never do such a thing as that. Meanwhile, what are many (not all) doing in their personal life? Practicing works of the flesh? But 'oh no, I can not stand by and be a part of such a lying and reproachful organization. I have a zeal against wrongdoing beyond compare.'

Acknowledging the organization that Jehovah is using to bring people the truth on earth takes humility in itself. Prideful and self righteous ones do not want to be in subjection to anyone. Oh, except for 'Jehovah and his son Jesus.' Which is actually just a way to say, 'I am too proud and too righteous to listen to any organization of imperfect men.' It is easy to be in subjection to an invisible being when we can merely interpret His words to suit what we wish to do. Will a noble subject himself to a great king? Where is the humility? But it is much more difficult to subject ourselves to imperfect men who are at best only our equal and many of which we consider not even our equal. Will a noble subject himself to a slave? That would take great humility.

Should we defend and acknowledge Jehovah's organization on earth? I believe so. Do I believe that it is perfect? No. Do I follow it blindly? No. By being in subjection to the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses are we committing idolatry or are we showing humility and acknowledging Jehovah's headship? I believe it is the latter.

If we are not able to say to others, 'Look at the organization of JWs. They preach the good news of the Kingdom. They make known Jehovah's name. They have unity and love and do not kill each other in war. They do not have paid clergymen. They remove unclean practicers of the works of the flesh. and so on. Now look at the other religious organizations. Are they doing those things? Which do you suppose has Jehovah's blessings?" then the question is how can we point out to persons the organization that God is using today, His household?

Are we praising (not worshipping) the organization by telling of its accomplishments? Surely we are. How has the organization been able to accomplish what it has? Of course it is Jehovah. Pointing out the accomplishments of the organization is one way of helping persons see where Jehovah's people are gathering today, the people as a whole that he has blessed with truths from the Bible.

reader: Let's just say that I vehemently disagree with you regarding the WT[?] abuse policy (lived through that personally) and the NGO thingy as well as the idolatry. But let's leave it at that and still be friends.

Of course we will still be friends. I do not take exception to anyone believing that the WT is or were wrong for being an NGO. What I find to show a total lack of humility is when a person insists that they are absolutely right and the WTS is not only wrong but that they are outright liars about the whole matter. And so a person feels the need to challenge the WTS and the elders on the matter to the point of insisting that he is right and the WTS is wrong and thus DFing takes. Lack of humility will not allow them to even consider that they may just be wrong or that Jehovah will handle the matter in his due time. Not only do they get themselves dfed but they encourage others to do the same by both their example and their praise of others who take such a stance against the WTS.

But as a side point I would be interested to know where you feel I am wrong in what I wrote in the blog about the WTS as a NGO. To date I have not had one person try to overcome any of my points. Watchman was so quick to write an entire essay pointing out the faulty reasoning of a person who previously defended the WT as a NGO. He went point by point explaining how he was wrong. Yet, he totally ignores my defense of the WT as a NGO. And he wants to silence it all together by removing anyone who puts a link to it on his website and removing the link as well. Go put on link to it on the paradise cafe and see what happens to you or the link. But go put a link to some apostate sight and see that it is received without question. My question is why? What is he afraid of? That someone might see that the facts are being twisted and thus his book that has been sent off to be published already and cannot be changed will be full of inaccuracies and deceptions? You tell me. Is my essay written so poorly that it does not even have to be pointed out where I am inaccurate because it is obvious to all? If that is the case, then why was the link removed from the cafe and the person who put the link on removed without further ado? After all, it is so badly written and offers no proof so what would it matter if anyone read it. I also put the link on the Son of comforts site where it asked for comments. Well guess what? The next day my comment was removed and comments were not even allowed (at least temporarily). Is there something sinister here that is not readily seen? Time tells all tales.

2

Where's all that bad publicity????

by whereami in

jw
friends

what's going on?

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/insidefox/detail?contentid=479446&version=1&locale=en-us&layoutcode=vsty&pageid=5.7.1

whereami

Sorry your going to need to copy and paste. http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/Detail?contentId=479446&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=5.7.1

2

Where's all that bad publicity????

by whereami in

jw
friends

what's going on?

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/insidefox/detail?contentid=479446&version=1&locale=en-us&layoutcode=vsty&pageid=5.7.1

whereami

What's going on? http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/Detail?contentId=479446&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=5.7.1

41

wow, what a response!

by Matt_fs in

i simply asked a friend of mine to explain to me deut 20:20-22 and he wrote this:.

"its really quite simple what i think about deut.18:20-22. i don't.

the hebrew scriptures describing aspects of the original law convenent ended when the new convenent came into place by means of christ's death.

whereami

Mad, please just get out if the closet!!!!

51

"NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared..." ???

by whereami in

this is for all you scholars out there.

is this acurate?

please show examples were the nwt is clearly wrong.. .

whereami

Come on guys, help me out here!! I was sent this as "proof that our version is more acurate than any other". Show me some clear examples of where WTS "scholars" twisted things to their advantage. Do we know for a fact that this person is an apologist towards the WTS? What's his motive for swaying towards the NWT. It does sound a little weird when he says that the NWT is so this & that, & that JW's are were so unbiased when doing their translation. What say you scholars & people in the know?

51

"NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared..." ???

by whereami in

this is for all you scholars out there.

is this acurate?

please show examples were the nwt is clearly wrong.. .

whereami

This is for all you scholars out there. Is this acurate? Please show examples were the NWT is clearly wrong.

TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington.
The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are:

- The King James Version (KJV)
- The Amplified Bible (AB)
- The Living Bible (LB)
- The New American Bible (NAB)
- The New American Standard Bible (NASB)
- The New International Version (NIV)
- The New World Translation (NW)
- The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
- Today's English Version (TEV)

Excerpts from his book:
Chapter Four: Examples of translation of the Greek word "proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, "... in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use "worship" where the NW uses "did obeisance": "Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW."
Chapter Five: A discussion of Philippians 2:5-11: "The NW translators... have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not robbery to be equal)..."
Chapter Seven: A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. "Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek."
Chapter Eight: A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: "... the position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened."
Chapter Nine: A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., " the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred."
Chapter Ten: A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." "There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am.""
"The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language." "The NW... understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW."
Chapter Eleven: A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John."
"John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel." "All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."
Chapter Twelve: A discussion of holy spirit: "In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy spirit" in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors."
Summary: "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals." "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations."
"...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament."

Commenting on bias in translation: "To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their "truth" enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith."

288

Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!

by AnnOMaly in

watch out for the questions from readers in the may 1st 2007 watchtower.

"when does the calling of christians to a heavenly hope cease?

" it's a good'un.. included are the statements:.

whereami

I think we might be jumping the gun on this one. Spoke to some people inside Bethal & no one is really going crazy over this. All are saying that none of this is really new. As of yet no shockwaves are being felt over at the castle.

36

Rolf Furuli

by Alleymom in

the following message posted on the b-hebrew discussion list may be of interest to jwd members.. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-march/031707.html.

.

whereami

It's all your (apostate) fault Furuli is getting hammered by his peers. That's what this site says at least, http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2636&reply=9#msg9 It's always the apostates fault that the reson apologists can't defend themselves. These people just don't want to wake up from this dream! Why is it so hard to admit that they might just be wrong on certain things. Anyway check out the site it's very funny to see them trying to make up excusses to defend Furuli.

10

When does the calling of Christians to a heavenly hope cease?

by whereami in

well here it is folks!!!

the wts new "light" on the subject.

read it & weep.

whereami

Well here it is folks!!! The WTS new "light" on the subject. Read it & weep.

5/1/07 QFR- Heavenly Calling Continue Past 1935?

The Bible does not reveal a precise answer to that question. We do know that the anointing of Jesus' disciples with a view to their heavenly inheritance began in 33 C.E. (Acts 2:1-4) We also know that after the death of the apostles, genuine anointed Christian "wheat" came to "grow together" with counterfeit Christians, "weeds." (Matthew 13:34-30) Then, starting in the late 1800s, anointed Christians were again prominently active. In 1919 "the harvest of the earth," including the gathering of the final ones of the anointed, began to be reaped._ Revelation 14: 15, 16

From the late 1800s until 1931, the main thrust of the preaching work was the gathering of the remaining members of the body of Christ. In 1931 the Bible Students took the Bible-based name Jehovah's Witnesses, and in the November 15, 1933, issue of The Watchtower, the thought was expressed that this unique name was the "denarius" referred to in Jesus' parable recorded at Matthew 20: 1-16. The 12 hours mentioned in the parable were thought to correspond to the 12 years from 1919 to 1931. For many years after that, it was believed that the call to the heavenly Kingdom had ended in 1931 and that those called to be joint heirs with Christ in 1930 and 1931 were "the last" called. (Matthew 20:6-8) However, in 1966 an adjusted undersanding of that parable was presented, and it became clear that it had nothing to do with the end of the calling of the anointed.

In 1935 the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9-15 was understood to be made up of "other sheep," Christians with an earthly hope, who would appear on the world scene in "the last days" and who as a group would survive Armageddon. (John 10:16; 2 Timothy 3:1; Revelation 21:3, 4) After that year, the thrust of the disciple-making work turned to the gathering in of the great crowd. Hence, especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly call ceased in 1935. This seemed to be confirmed when almost all who were baptized after 1935 felt that they had the earthly hope. Thereafter, any called to the heavenly hope were believed to be replacements for anointed Christians who had proved unfaithful.

Without a doubt, if one of the anointed unrepentatnly falls away, Jehovah does call another individual to take his place. (Romans 11:17-22) However, the number of genuine anointed ones who have become unfatihful is likely not large. On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized afte 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.

How should a person be viewed who has determined in his heart that he is now anointed and begins to partake of the emblems at the Memorial? He should not be judged. The matter is between him and Jehovah. (Romans 14:12) However, genuine anointed Christian do not demand special attention. They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special "insights" beyond what even some experienced members of the great crowd may have. They do not believe that they necessarily have more holy spirit than their companions of the other sheep have; nor do they expect special treatment or claim that their partaking of the emblems places them above the appointed elders in the congregation. They humbly remember that some anointed men in the first century did not qualify to serve as elders or ministerial servants. (1 timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13; Titus 1:5-9; James 3:1) Some anointed Christians were even spiritually weak. (1Thessalonians 5:14) And sisters, although anointed, did not teach in the congregation.--1 Timothy 2:11,12

Hence, anointed Christians along with their other sheep companions strive to stay spiritually strong, cultivating the fruitage of the spirit and working for the peace of the congregation. All Christians, whether anointed or of the other sheep, work hard at preaching the good news and making disciples, under the direction of the Governing Body. Anointed Christians are content to do this for as long as it is God's will that they remain on earth as Jehovah's servants.