Posts by Mebaqqer2

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Mebaqqer2

I think that a clear example of bias is to be found in this passage:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth." -Romans 9:17 NWT

The Greek text here reads εξηγειρα σε and is to be translated as "I have raised you up" with God as the subject and Pharaoh as the object. The passage thus means that God "raised up" Pharaoh, either in the sense of bringing him into existence or in placing him in power (cf. BDAG s.v. εξεγειρω 4 & 5), for the express purpose of destroying him so that the whole world will know the power of God. However, the view of God in this verse, as well as this chapter as a whole, which emphasizes man's utter lack of power before God's omnipotence, runs counter to Jehovah's Witnesses as well as other Christian's conceptions of free will so that it must be minimized and interpreted in keeping with those views. Jehovah's Witnesses for their part have chosen to impose on to the text their particular interpretation rather than try to interpret the words as they appear. They then attempt to justify this interpolation with the following footnote:

"I have let you remain," J17,18,22; ?AB, "I have raised you up"; Ex 9:16 in LXX, which Paul here quotes, "you have been preserved."

Their citation of three manuscripts here (?AB), which is actually the same reading of εξηγειρα σε as their base text of Westcott-Hort, shows that they clearly know what the Greek text actually says and how it is to be translated, but instead of following that Greek text they have cited 3 J-References to "confirm" their translation and claimed that Paul is quoting the Septuagint which reads "you have been preserved." In point of fact, however, Paul's citation of Exodus 9:16 here departs from the Septuagint's translation at several points, most importantly in not following its reading of διετηρηθης ("you have been preserved") but instead writing εξηγειρα σε ("I have raised you up"). The J-References for their part simply import over the Hebrew text from Exodus 9:16 thus reading he'emadtika (hiphil perfect, lit. "I made you stand") and not "I have let you remain" as their footnote maintains. However, even if the J-References had read "I have let you remain," these translations from 19th and 20th century would not constitute any evidence that Paul's own wording is to be overridden here. One should note that Paul's word choice here in fact brings his citation of Exodus 9:16 into greater conformity to the Hebrew text than the passive translation of the Septuagint and this may in fact have been the reason why his citation does not follow the Septuagint here. One should also note that Paul's word choice is serviceable to his argument made through the context as a whole where Jacob was chosen over Esau "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom 9:11), election "depend[s] not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy" (Rom 9:14), and men are "what is molded" by God the "molder" and thus have no right to ask him "why have you made me thus" (Rom 9:20). Thus the ultimate reason why the New World Translation is translated the way it is here is simply to avoid the unsavory conclusion that this passage teaches that it was God who made Pharaoh the way he was.

-Mebaqqer

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

Mebaqqer2

rmnnoute wrote "it may be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with seeing John 1:1c as ‘qualitative,' so long as the normal, regular, dictionary definition of that term is adhered to."

Humm, well let's see. According to Miriam-Webster's Online, ‘qualitative' means "of, relating to, or involving quality or kind" (s.v. qualitative). Thus, the term itself actually revolves around the meaning ‘quality.' What, then, is the meaning of ‘quality'? Among the first definitions Miriam-Webster's Online give are "peculiar and essential character: nature" (s.v. quality 1.a.), "an inherent feature: property" (s.v. quality 1.b.). It is, in fact, through this primary definition of ‘quality' that the term ‘qualitative' is being used by the above article to describe the use of the indefinite article with NOYTE as well as the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun θεος in John 1:1c to indicate that the Word is endowed with the essential nature and properties which singularly belong to God. Thus unlike your characterization, this article as well as others are not "twist[ing] their ‘qualitative' reading into a definite one," but rather assess the meaning of John 1:1c according to the primary meaning of the words ‘quality' and ‘qualitative.' The fact that such a description of the grammar of John 1:1c in Greek and Coptic ultimately proves to be highly congruent with the later statement of the Nicene Creed that Jesus is "of one essence (homoousia) with the Father" and thus the Trinitarian view of the relationship between the Father and Son is actually secondary.

The problem for the debate, and thus the reason these articles lend themselves to misrepresentation by Jehovah's Witnesses, is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not think of the terms ‘quality' and ‘qualitative' according to these primary definitions, but rather according to secondary possible meanings. Thus returning to Miriam-Webster's Online, this dictionary also gives the definitions "degree of excellence: grade" (s.v. quality 2.a.), "social status: rank" (s.v. quality 3.a.), and "a distinguishing attribute: characteristic" (s.v. quality 4.a.). While each of these secondary definitions can be included within the primary definitions given above so that the Son's endowment with the essential nature of God also gives him the characteristics and rank of God, it is these secondary definitions which are taken as primary to Jehovah's Witnesses so that they interpret articles which ascribe a ‘qualitative' meaning to John 1:1c as denoting that the Word simply has the characteristics and rank of ‘a god' but does not share the nature of ‘the God' (ο θεος). That is to say, whereas the writers of these articles understand ‘qualitative' as relating the Word to the singular reality of God at an ontological level, Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret their intended meaning of ‘qualitative' through the lens of their own representational Christology so that John 1:1c is understood to mean that the Word is ontologically distinct from God and simply "reflects" the characteristics of God.

At the very least then, Jehovah's Witnesses should honestly call attention to their distinctive use of this terminology while articles such as this should clarify their own meaning so that they do not run the risk of misrepresentation. This is just one of many areas of this debate where each side needs to fully clarify their position for the sake of the discussion.

Mebaqqer

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

Mebaqqer2

I found this to be a most interesting and informative article. However, I have reservations that it will in any way affect the way Jehovah's Witnesses cite Coptic translations in support of their translation ‘a god' for the anarthorous θε?ς in John 1:1c and may in fact be co-opted to serve their argument. My reason for this is based on the article's extensive use of the words ‘quality' and ‘qualitative' throughout. Note how the article concludes:

"We propose that the best way to take the indefinite article in John 1:1c is as an attempt by the Copts to interpret the anarthrous θε?ς descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted and translated John 1.1c to mean that ‘the Word' possesses the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible'."
-Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti, "From ‘God' (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God' (ΝΟΥΤ?): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1c and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament," The Journal of Theological Studies 62/2 (2011): 511

Compare this against what Jehovah's Witnesses state in their publications:

"[Colossians 2:9] show[s] that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily."
-"Questions from the Readers," The Watchtower (August 1, 1962): 480.

"Jesus as ‘a god' merely reflects his Father's divine qualities"
-Reasoning From the Scriptures, rev. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1989): 416.

"What qualities would you respect the most in a leader? Courage? Wisdom? Compassion? What about perseverance in the face of hardship? As you study the record of Jesus' life course on earth, you will find that he possessed those qualities-and more. The perfect reflection of his heavenly Father, Jesus possessed every divine quality in full measure. He was all that a perfect human could be."
-Come Be My Follower (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2007), 9.

While the article no doubt intends to argue through its use of the word ‘qualitative' as a grammatical term that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1:1c serves to indicate that the Copts' interpreted this verse to mean that the Word was endowed with those ‘qualities' that are inherent to the very nature of God, one can well imagine that the Watchtower Society will care little about what Wright and Ricchuiti actually intended by their use of this word and imbue it with their own meaning so as to give the impression that this article fully agrees with the representational Christology of Jehovah's Witnesses. One should remember that this is exactly what happened to the article Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1 by Philip B. Harner which, although explicitly arguing against an indefinite translation of ‘a god' in John 1:1c, was co-opted due to Harner's use of the term ‘qualitative' by the Watchtower Society to update their justification for the translation ‘a god' for the 1984 revision of the New World Translation. Because the present article specifically states that "Our purpose . . . is to apply the results of our Coptic study to this debate [of the meaning of John 1:1c] to see how this early version sheds light on the history of interpretation and potentially helps one translate and interpret these verses" ("From ‘God' (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God' (ΝΟΥΤ?)": 508) and connects this with the translation ‘a god' of the New World Translation, one would have hoped that the authors would have been more cautious and better defined what they meant by ‘qualitative' so that others could cite that definition once this article is co-opted in order to demonstrate the misuse of this article. As it stands, the Watchtower will publish something like this, which will then be cut and pasted without any further thought all over the internet:

In defense of the unscriptural teaching of the Trinity, some have sought to assail the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Is there any validity to the claims of those making such assaults? In discussing the criticisms of Bruce Metzger to the rendering ‘a god' in John 1:1, one recent article noted that "His primary argument in both noted publications congregated around Greek grammar (i.e. Colwell's Rule); it remains a popular argument today. But scholars have shown the need for clarification, adequately demonstrating why that argument leaves much to be desired". This same article goes on to note that early Coptic translations of John 1:1 contain an indefinite article for the word God here in the same manner as the New World Translation and concludes by stating that "the best way to take the indefinite article in John 1:1c is as an attempt by the Copts to interpret the anarthrous θε?ς descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted and translated John 1.1c to mean that ‘the Word' possesses the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible'"". These ancient translators thus evidently saw the truth of what John intended here and thus agree with the appendix of the New World Translation which states "John's statement that the Word or Logos was ‘a god' or ‘divine' or ‘godlike' does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself". One can thus clearly see how the attacks of Christendom fall flat before Scriptural truths. (Apologies for not better imitating their material, but you get the drift)

At any rate, thanks for informing me, and everyone else, about this article. One thing is certain, it is definitely more fuel for the fire.

????
Mebaqqer

19

Can you say plagiarism?

by Mebaqqer2 in

so i ran across this statement today in doing some research:.

take, for instance, the stories and legends regarding the origin of man.

although details vary, the belief that man was made from the dust of the earth is widespread.

Mebaqqer2

So I ran across this statement today in doing some research:

Take, for instance, the stories and legends regarding the origin of man. Although details vary, the belief that man was made from the dust of the earth is widespread. One Greek legend says that Prometheus molded the first humans from clay and Athene breathed life into them. The Peruvian Indians used the term alpa camasca (animated earth) to describe the first man. A North American Indian tribe, the Mandan, believed that the 'Great Spirit' made two figures from clay and brought them to life by the breath of his mouth.
-"Many Religions-Why?" Awake! (8 January 1984), 5-6

Interested in finding out more, I ended up running into this:

Among many peoples is found the teaching that man was made of the dust of the earth. The Greeks represent Prometheus as moulding from clay the first human beings, and giving them life by means of fire which he stole from heaven. The Peruvians called the first man Alpa Camasca, or 'animated earth.' The Mandans, a tribe of Indians of North America, believed that the Great Spirit formed two figures of clay, which he dried and animated by the breath of his mouth. To the one was given the name of the 'first man,' to the other, 'companion.'
-Dobbins, Frank S., S. Wells Williams, and Isaac Hall. Story of the World's Worship (Chicago, Illinois: The Dominion Company, 1901), 64

While I am sure there are many more such examples to be found, most ironic here is the fact that the statement in the Awake! article appears under the subheading "Independent or From One Source?" My money is on one source, namely Dobbins' book...

Mebaqqer

9

The Watchtower, November 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

the watchtower, november 15, 2009. http://www.mediafire.com/?umgex2tymtn.

my friend did not make this pdf.. so, some pages are not contained.. .

well, the watchtower, october 15, 2009 is here.. http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5386.

Mebaqqer2

When I loaded the page from he provided a link appeared on that page that said "Click here to start download.." on the right. Clicking it brought up my browser's download dialogue box (i.e. where do I want to save it to box). Seems fine to me...

Mebaqqer

9

The Watchtower, November 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

the watchtower, november 15, 2009. http://www.mediafire.com/?umgex2tymtn.

my friend did not make this pdf.. so, some pages are not contained.. .

well, the watchtower, october 15, 2009 is here.. http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5386.

Mebaqqer2

Thank you P-san for informing others where they might download this and making it available to all!

Mebaqqer

P.S. I am not going to be downloading this one either...

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

Mebaqqer2

So if I was on your forum and Mr. Firiosa, your moderator, told me stop doing something I could just say, "Who are you to tell me anything? Your just a MODERATOR" and continue no problem? I really doubt it...

I said a moderator had talked to you. But what do you think they moderate? (hint, forum conversations) Who puts them in that position? (hint, administrator) Boy your lack of ability to make logical connections is truly astounding.

Besides, she referenced a rule given by the administrator and all you did was try to make a personal attack that was not even on the point! She did not take issue with what you were trying to provide, she was taking issue with how you go about doing it as we all have been. Thus your attack on her did nothing to shift the blame off of yourself.

And as for your not mentioning your site, I doubt anyone has a problem with telling people about your site in posts or even appending the URL to your posts. But your connecting registrations to your site with providing material is wrong spirited. This is what other people told you months ago was wrong, but you kept on and even now can't admit was the improper course.

You really need to follow proper decorum in here...period.

hazukashii tte omoinasai! amaeru na! dare mo P-kun no jisonshin o kusugutte, anta ni kobiru tame ni kitehen de!

koko de wa wa o mamoreya!

Think (your actions have been) shameful! Stop treading on people's kindness. Nobody comes to suck up to you and stroke your ego.

In here, follow the harmony! (i.e. go with the flow)

Mebaqqer

P.S. I'm done beating this dead horse...as they say in Japanese, abayo P-kun...

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

Mebaqqer2

Your right, even after a moderator has talked to you about your actions, you continue to insist that you are the one in the right...you are truly shitsukoi.

I guess you forgot your own words, "In many forums and bulletin boards, you have to respect the administrator's view" (P-kun post 674, 11/15/2009, emphasis yours). You don't think that applies to you in this forum?

I see you have confused my gambari (hanging in there) in trying to get you to see the correct perspective in how relate harmoniously in this forum with shitsukoi. Of course this is your usual way, to twist people's words and actions to make everyone bad and youself good, so it is no surprise.

Perhaps if you didn't put so much stock into all the self-affirmation stuff you do then you wouldn't lose touch with people around you. The constant telling your self "I am good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like me" has only lead you down the road to narcissism it seems.

Mebaqqer

P.S. Possible-kun's site has a large section to discuss the ideas of Joseph Murphy who was a Divine Science minister (check wikipedia to see more about him). P-kun's self affirmation methods seems to be highly influenced by him...I only mention it since others can't read P-kun's site.

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

Mebaqqer2

Let me try to explain things in a manner possible-kun understands...

In Japan we are saying person like this one "mou ee chu- nen" (it's enough) because stupid.

Possible-kun is master of kamiawanai hanashi. This one is meaning talking and listening self and not another people.

Many people's not liking pu-kun's attitude, but he making stupid to all! Such person is not kind and is display ganko (hardhead) character generously.

He better than thinking another person first, self second!

Maybe he is coming to be adult in future, but future is far I am thinking...

Mebaqqer

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

Mebaqqer2

Let’s take this line by line…

Possible-kun said:

Although you have expressed your opinion, it is your own view.

That is not my opinion/view.

What is not your view? The two points I mentioned? Let’s see…I said that:

1. Possible-kun desires that the material only be made available from his BBS or through a channel of people he deems worthy based on his own subjective criteria of whether he likes you or not (think Jehovah's Witnesses' idea of "deserving ones").

2. Possible-kun demands that you thank Mr. firisofa who is the actual producer of the material.

Let’s see what you yourself said:

Possible-kun (post 415, 5/4/2009) [emphasis mine]:

FYI, in my Japanese forum (only a registrant can look), the English Watchtower PDF (09 6/15) has uploaded.

…

Since I myself have not uploaded it, I cannot make the direct link to that file.

And probably, it will be deleted in several days, as usual.

- http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/174937/1/JW-only-Watchtowers-in-pdf-anyone-still-do-them

Possible-kun (post 489, 6/28/2009) [emphasis mine]:

Now, in my Japanese forum, the Watchtower August 15, 2009 (PDF, 32MB) is downloadable.

But only a registrant can access.

- http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/177825/1/PDF-the-Watchtower-August-15-2009

Possible-kun (post 554, 7/19/2009) [emphasis mine]:

Now, in my Japanese forum, the Watchtower September 15, 2009 (PDF, 33.8MB) is downloadable.

But only a registrant can access.

Possible-kun (post 556) [emphasis mine]:

That PDF is opened only to the registrant in my forum.

- http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/178911/1/The-Watchtower-September-15-2009-PDF

The statement that the file was uploaded by someone else to your site so you’re not able to offer a direct link is strange to say the least. Even if it was, why is it impossible for you, the “possible” one, to upload it elsewhere and give acknowledgment to the file’s creator when informing people of where to download? This is what you would do if you were interested in providing the material for other people’s benefit. This is exactly what Atlantis does, even when he is not the creator of the material and the material is anonymous, and you say you appreciate it when you get it. But as evident by your statements above, your intent is to get people to register to your site.

This is further proved by your responses to those who have made your material available publically …

You attacked ynot when she made it available for other people’s benefit saying:

Possible-kun (post 447, 5/9/2009) [emphasis mine]:

Please do not provide the people here unconditionally with the materials obtained from my website/forum.

You attacked Atlantis (what!?) when he made it available for other people’s benefit saying:

Possible-kun (post 492, 6/28/2009) [emphasis and parenthesis mine]:

Well, I feel that this is meaningless that I said "PM", "e-mail", and "registration."

If this PDF is opened to everybody, why am I urging "registration"?

…

And you can provide with it the person who sends PM/e-mail to you (i.e. Atlantis).

Moreover, I said to Mr. Atlantis like this in e-mail.

You can share this file to other people. However, you can provide only for the person who does PM/e-mail to you.

You attacked Switch when she made it available for other people’s benefit saying:

Possible-kun (post 558, 7/20/2009) [emphasis and brackets mine]:

Who is the person who sent e-mail to you [with the material you uploaded]?

Shall I do so that he cannot access my forum because of your fault?

Again, all this points to your desire to have total control of the material by not only making it available through your website only but even trying to control the usage of the people you give it too!! Your intent in distribution is obviously not to benefit others. Why do you want to control who is able to get the material? Here is your reasoning given to MissingLink when he asked you why you do not upload materials somewhere and make them available publically:

Possible-kun (post 493, 6/29/2009):

Please read my remark of the following threads.

I do not forgive people without appreciation, and the person who makes a fool of others.

- http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/177825/1/PDF-the-Watchtower-August-15-2009

It’s funny that although you yourself admit that you are not the producer of the material, nevertheless you feel its distribution should be based on your view of others. But what do the threads you produced show? On what basis are you deciding who is a “deserving one”? From the 4 threads you gave:

From http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/171940/1/March-15-2009-Watchtower-pdf we saw that passwordprotected had a slow download and asked if someone could upload it elsewhere. Possible-kun did and passwordprotected never responded in that thread making possible-kun sad.

From http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/174937/1/JW-only-Watchtowers-in-pdf-anyone-still-do-them we saw that possible-kun directed everyone to his site to register to his BBS and get material, but ynot made it available for download to anyone. Possible-kun attacked ynot on this by saying he doesn’t want people to “unconditionally” get this material and referred to another thread ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/175232/3/Elimination-of-Jesus-from-Song-Book ) where Mr. middleman had told him “possible-san, now go back to your cage...........play time is over!!! While you're at it...no more flingy poo poo...” and from this possible-kun banned Mr. middleman from going to his BBS to download. Of course Mr. middleman was actually saying calm down and stop talking down to passwordprotected whom Possible-kun had originally attacked on his point about equality of honor to the Son and the Father. Possible-kun said, “I feel that your explanation looks stupid” and attacked passwordprotected on some perceived inconsistency in his argument here compared to earlier one that he had given that I do not care to go into. Point is, Possible-kun banned Mr. middleman from his magic downloads because Mr. middleman told him to stop talking down to people.

The third thread was already referred to in the second so from the last one http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/177937/12/Jesus-God-or-Gods-son we saw that possible-kun did not like reniaa or Spike Tassel’s statements. Reniaa had been talking about Jesus and his subordination to Jehovah and possible-kun jumped in saying, “Jesus is not YHWH as I explained repeatedly. Probably, the head will get confused if reniaa talks with people who say such” evidently in support of Reniaa. But then Reniaa and possible-kun part company because she follows Witness ideas and possible-kun seems to follow some kind of Trinitarianism (I say some kind since in this argument he does not apply the divine name to the entire Godhead as many Trinitarians would). They then get into arguments back and forth talking past each other when Spike Tassel jumps in ultimately leading to their still disagreeing. Point is, Possible-kun was unhappy that people didn’t agree with him.

So what do all these show? If someone doesn’t say thank you or disagrees with you, they are unworthy of the material your friend creates and uploads to your BBS so nobody should be putting the material from your friend produced out there. This is the opinion I had ascribed to you because of your own words. I do not see how I have misrepresented you in the least.

Let’s continue…

Possible-kun said:

I think that the thought of "ga o korosu, lit. to kill one's self" is harmful.

That is the same as the thought of the Watch Tower basically.

In my opinion, probably, if he continues killing himself, he will become a "mental disease" (depression, neurosis, etc.).

You should know that Japanese society is not asking you to be a robot. The idea of ga o korosu is that you have to know when to use honne (your true self) and when to use tatemae (the society face). When you are in the position of dealing with other people, you should know that you can’t always live by honne like Botchan. Ask yourself possible-kun, until now has your method been the most beneficial in helping people and received much praise or has your method caused people to be puzzled and unhappy with you? Think of this forum as society. You said:

Although Japanese people respect harmony with other people, they have his own thought/belief.

You must not force other people into your view.

If your way of making publications available is completely different than other people and causes so many problems everytime, then is it other people’s fault or your fault? It is fine to think whatever you want, but if the material is for other people then you have to think about other people’s opinion! If I was the only person talking to you about this, maybe you could think it is my problem, but I am not the only one.

Possible-kun said:

I refuse to make into my view your view which does not respect others' opinion.

My view respects the idea of the forum as a whole and thus EVERYONE’S opinion. Your view makes your material available only to those people you like and agree with. How is that thinking about and respecting other people?

Possible-kun said:

P.S.

The Japanese word "kun" is a word disrespectful in a certain case.

In many cases, that is a word which the person of his superiors says.

Furthermore, he said to me, "impossible-kun."

Yes, one should notice that instead of –san I have used –kun. Kun is similar in function to san except it is used to address those who are in relatively lower positions to the speaker. Whereas Westerners have a belief in egalitarianism which holds that all people in society should be valued as equals, Japanese believe in what is called tateshakai or a vertical society where everyone is ranked relative to each other based on age, profession, sex, knowledge, etc. In this context, kun is often used with shortened forms of boys names as a way for parents and teachers to address male children (-chan is for girls). Though it may also be used as a term in addressing good friends, it is the former meaning that is the meaning here. The reason for this usage is twofold, first, Possible himself speaks to people like they are children by talking down to them and telling them to say thank you even though everyone would already do so. He also acts like an amaenbo (spoiled child) and like Botchan does not know how to balance his inner self against the rest of society (other users of this forum). Thus, the usage of kun is entirely appropriate.

You also said:

If a certain permission is required in order to acquire some information, many people respect that.

Sure, some people do it because of necessity but I am sure they are not happy about it. Look at the people who have had hardship going to your site and registering. Look at the people who call your method a means to get people to “ass kiss” and “bow down” to you. Do you think they are really respectful of you even though they obeyed?

Possible-kun said:

In many forums and bulletin boards, you have to respect the administrator's view.

Yes, but you are in this forum where you are not an administrator and applying a standard for your material that is not followed by others in here. So yes, on your site do what you like. Here is not your site so abide by the group here and be harmonious. In here the majority of people want to help others with the material they provide and so take requests, (all to their own hardship) to make such material available to everyone. In fact, seeing such selflessness people are inspired to say “thank you” without being demanded.

Possible-kun said:

In here, we must not be obligated to provide unconditionally PDF with which we provide only special people in my forum.

You are going to get it without appreciation.

Again, this goes to the point: What is your motivation in providing the material? You say “special people.” We here do not make some people special and other people not. You are not obligated to provide things unconditionally, but not doing so shows disregard of your fellow posters. Kind of like bringing a bike on the train in Japan. No sign says “Do not bring bikes on the train,” but nobody does because they think about other passenger’s feelings. Same here. the purpose of the forum is to help others. If you motivation in providing things is not to help people unconditionally, then your attitude is problematic.

I express that, "He is impudent."

?

Should not you just make PDF?

I do not make PDFs because I am not a Witness, do not get their new publications, and am otherwise in no position to provide such material.

Mebaqqer

P.S. If you have anything further you shouls probably 1. Answer everything I have said until now rather than just answering a few things and 2. Talk on PM since nobody probably wants to hear us discuss this further.

Sorry for any spelling and/or grammatical errors or incomplete thoughts....