Posts by Carl

9

The Two Bibles

by ProdigalSon in

[we are;] for we are not peddlers of the word of god as many men are, but as out of sincerity, yes, as sent from god, under gods view, in company with christ, we are speaking.

2 corinthians 2:17, new world translation of the holy scriptures.

heres what was translated as peddlers: kapeleuo from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

Carl_Hernz

Thanks, Joseph. I have tried countless times to correct it, but I just get an ERROR message.

But that is indeed what I meant to say. Please refer to Joseph's correction, everybody. Thanks.

48

Is the NWT really the most accurate translation of the Bible?

by godsgurl in

i have heard jw claim that the nwt is the most accurate translation of the bible and the persons who translated the bible were inspired by the holy spirit.

but if this is so then why was the nwt revised so many times?

did the holy spirit get it wrong the first time?

The only change I could ever see, and that I noticed the first time I picked up the translation in the mid '80s, is it doesn't read smoothly. Also, though arguments about inclusive language rage on in the current translation realm of Scripture, some use of horizontal inclusivity might seem warranted as it has become common place, even among Witnesses (i.e., many of the epistles use of "brothers" to occassionally mean "brothers and sisters" as we tend to use the phrase today). That the entire inclusive thing has even come up for them is a case in point that they are out of touch with what is occuring in current Bible translation.

P.S.: Just in case someone hasn't learned this about me yet (because some people might get irrate and say I am for or against "inclusive language'), I'm just making statements that don't necessarily reflect my personal views. Unlike some people who only adhere to statements they believe in, there can often be a great difference between what I say, know, and write about, and what I adopt as ideology. I say this because I know that "inclusive language" is still a hot bed in current translation circles.

13

THE WATCHTOWER JANUARY 15, 2008 New Study Edition

by Magick in

the new study edition of the watchtower.

we would like to explain some of the features of the new format of this magazine.. .

the study edition is published for jehovah's witnesses and progressive bible students.. .

Carl_Hernz

I’ve wondered what they mean by “Jehovah’s blessing has been seen on this arrangement.” How? “Circulation continues to increase.” In numbers? In areas being served?

Just because someone gets their work published more and more is not “proof” of blessing from heaven. How many times was I so ill that I could not use my stack of mags out in the service for a month? How many of us had stacks of old mags we never could place? Sure, headquarters counts how much they get into the hands of the public, but that doesn’t show real increase numbers since it is never compared with how many printed mags never get out of the hands of the R and F Witnesses, a number that never gets reported.

According to them Jehovah blesses all their new arrangements.

9

The Two Bibles

by ProdigalSon in

[we are;] for we are not peddlers of the word of god as many men are, but as out of sincerity, yes, as sent from god, under gods view, in company with christ, we are speaking.

2 corinthians 2:17, new world translation of the holy scriptures.

heres what was translated as peddlers: kapeleuo from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

Carl_Hernz

Hello, ProdigalSon. While your post seems quite detailed and I gather you adamantly believe in what you posted, I am not sure where you gathered your information from.

While Gnostic writings were circulating quite early in the church’s history, Gnostic gospels were not a main source of reading for the early Christians as literacy is a modern phenomenon. You also speak of “Gnostic Bibles written as early as the first century” and hidden away to be later discovered and hailed as accurate renditions of the texts we have today.

No copies of the New Testament were written at any time during the first century because the early church opposed adding any texts to the Hebrew Scriptures in the Greek Septuagint. The early church was primarily taught orally. It was not until the end of the first century and into the beginning of the second century did all the books we have in the New Testament , and still there was no move to lift them up to inspiration status. The most popular books for reading for Christians around this time were The Shepherd of Hermas and The Apocalypse of Peter, among those who could read.

In the second century, the Gnostic reformer Marcion arose and developed the first “canon” of Scripture. He rejected all of the Hebrew canon and used portions of the gospel of Luke and some of the epistles of Paul to support his views as proof texts to his teachings. While there were other gospels that today we consider “Gnostic,” none of these were chose by Marcion for his canon. This new form of Gnostic thought grew rapidly and threatened the early church.

The response was to officiate a canon in the face of Marcion claims (Marcion had the nerve to be “surprised” to be excommunicated for his actions), but it was not met with enthusiasm as oral tradition was view as superior by many. It is believed that the reason for Luke’s gospel being chosen despite his not being an apostle, and for Paul’s letters to make up the largest portion of the Christian canon was partially to show that Marcion’s teachings were false and could not be substantiated.

Some of the statements you make are correct, but others are very incorrect and out of line with historical accuracy.

Also, your post seems to be one of many that seem to be flooding in here with a “bone to pick” with somebody or some religious ideology. While I am not sure what is causing this, I think that some are writing out of reaction instead of response, so to speak. This is a forum for discussing Jehovah’s Witness related information. Many on here have left that judgmental religion behind and now have various beliefs and ideologies differing from one another. It is important that we not try to stay balanced in our comments as to show respect for the newly adopted beliefs of others who are trying to make their way after having had their lives shaken up by an unreasonable religious machine.

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Carl_Hernz

First, thanks, Sweetstuff. I hope I do too.

As for the comment of Serotonin Wraith…

Hasn’t the religion been based on the written accounts?

While many epistles like the Pauline letters were distributed among churches, these churches still
existed first before any letter was sent to them. If the churches had to wait for the epistles to
be sent to them first before they developed, there would have been no place to send the epistles
in the first place.

This is not to say that the early Christians did not regularly learn their faith from what was
written. They did. In fact, according to the earliest details available from persons like Pliny
and Justin Martyr, the first church services included not only readings from the Hebrew canon,
but “memoirs of the apostles” as well. The current liturgical practice of a 3-year cycle in
religions like Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican Churches, Lutheran, and others is based on this
ancient practice.

But was the religion based on these texts? No. As the Apostolic Fathers and history testifies,
until the Marcion apostasy, many Christians opposed learning the faith from texts. Why? Because
Christianity originated from an oral tradition, from people who literally walked and talked with
Jesus of Nazareth when he lived on earth. Resistance to making their faith something that
came from a book was very strong. Even the bishop Papias (c 60-130) stated: “It seemed to
me that I could profit more from the living voice than from books.”

Even the Gospel books in the canon today suggest that their information came from an oral
tradition. Matthew, for example, drew from what is known as the “sayings source” or Q. John’s
gospel makes what scholars believe to be direct reference to his source by numbering the
miracles of Jesus, not literally (as if the wedding of Cana was the first miracle performed)
but from an obvious well-known memory aid that many scholars call the “signs source.”
The claim that the faith required “proof texts” developed out of the Gnostic challenge,
especially from the rise of Marcion and his canon of the second century.

How about books like Revelation?

While the book was obviously passed on to the congregations mentioned, again they existed first,
not afterwards. These congregations did not come into existence because of this written document.
Of interest to note is that while Revelation is included in the present canon, it was not well
received nor was it well known at the time of its inclusion. The Apocalypse of Peter was
probably the best known of all apocalyptic Christian writings in circulation at the time.

Doesn’t this show the Bible just as uninspired?

Likely in the minds of many it does. My reasons for including these statements is not to suggest
belief in the inspiration of the texts. I am concerned with the publication of verifiable data.
Just because I have written this information it doesn’t mean that I hold it credence in my personal
belief system, if I have any. I do know that this latest information is the best out there.

As for the religions that do hold that these writings are inspired, they do so not on the basis
that their faiths are to be based on their contents, but on the criteria of how well the contents
matched with their faith. There were many gospel accounts and books in circulation that were not
included, some because they were thought unnecessary but others that conflicted with the truth as
well as the church knew it. Whether we are to believe in them or not is a personal matter that
I will not take up here.

As for your last comment about Muslim radicals, I am not sure if your point is mainly to try to
discredit my writing or to offer practical advice. I believe that most people on this board are
good thinkers and have educated themselves about religious fanaticism from their experience of
the Witnesses to know I wasn't speaking in those terms. My statements regarding treating others
respectfully do not include turning a blind eye to criminal behavior, whether done in the name of
religion or not. I don’t approve of hatred towards others because a religion tells us we should
view others as “infidels.” I don’t approve of anyone who reflects such hatred to others either
through violence or, as you put it, “a healthy dose of disrespect.”

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Carl_Hernz

I gather that perhaps the difference between what some are saying about Christianity
(and Judaism for the matter) is that it is based on simplistic mythical stories found
in the Bible.

What I find confusing (and alarming) about this comment made by those who criticize
the origins of these religions is that they are not BASED on the Bible. These religions
came first.

The Old Testament is a product of Judaism, and the New Testament is a product of
Christianity. These religions didn’t base their faith on these writings, these writings
explained their faith.

What is alarming about how the Bible stories get attacked and treated as a poor foundation
for any type of belief is that this harkens to the Jehovah’s Witness view that religion is
supposed to be based on the Bible. I may be mistaken, but I fear that many of us never
unlearn some of these incorrect views of the Witnesses when we leave, and thus we make
choices like rejecting or choosing some sort of ideology based on these views.
With respect to those who take an atheist view after leaving the Watchtower (because in my
opinion it is a brave thing to be able to leave in the first place, not to mention reject
such innate beliefs as contained in a religious system), some of the criticisms made against
religion sound less like logic and more like subconscious adaptation of Witness views. This
is also the same with some that make comments about other faiths or the Witnesses as well.

There are some traits to authoritative religions that people have to be careful about
deprogramming from themselves. While this is not meant to suggest that all people who have
made negative criticizing comments on these boards have yet to do such things, I hope that
some who do recognize how deeply the Witnesses may have affected our way of thinking can gain
some help:

1. Authoritative religions like the Watchtower foster a sense of superiority in the
individual, allowing them to ethically accept the degrading of others who employ a different
ideology or belief system from ours. While we may strongly disagree with the views of others,
to ridicule their belief system minimalizes the value other people innately possess, judging
their abilities to be lower than ours, and thus imitating the Watchtower which teaches that
those who do not share its view are worthy of rejection.

2. Claims that religions are based on the books of worship are often an earmark of
authoritative religions. JWs teach that their books of worship, the Bible, is the touchstone
of doctrinal worthiness. However this view is incompatible with the history of the Bible’s
own development as a documentation of religious experience. Neither the Jews nor the Christians
(nor the Muslims, for that matter) awaited the composition or canonization of the Bible before
developing their worship systems. They came first; their writings reflected their beliefs.
Only later religions, like the JWs, from the Second Great Awakening period in America hold
to the belief that Christianity is based on a book. Those who use this means of measuring
other’s beliefs are reflecting a modern religious take of late developed and promoted by
those like the Witnesses.

3. Turning back to judge the Witnesses as evil or demonizing can often be traced back
to emotional responses that are normal after suffering; but a consistent pattern that refuses
to let go of such a view after healing has occurred might reflect less of an educated opinion
and more of a failure to release the belief that individual judgment of others is ethical. This
is often either a learned traits of the Witnesses or one they foster in converts who have yet
to mature from this view themselves. Even many abuse victims often forgive and move on, even
in the midst of pain that never completely erases. Those who labor to continue in a
judgmental state may have yet to deprogram what the Watchtower taught was okay to do.

With atheism usually comes an understandable pride that one has been able to relieve themselves
of the shackles of unreasonableness, falsehood, and superstition. This is an achievement in itself.
People are rarely as free as they desire to follow their conscience in matters such as these. Such
freedom to follow one’s conscience in such matters as adoption of ideology and or religion should
be promoted and protected, as well as defended.

In light of this, we must also look at our response to those who hold differing views and if it
still mimics a system we have abandoned (or at least claim to). When the behavior has not changed,
only the subject matter has, total detachment from such a system of the Watchtower may have yet
to be achieved. This is not to demean the individual who still mimics, but to highlight the
insidious nature of the JW religion.

P.S.: Forgive any misspellings, etc. here. I have multiple sclerosis and am in the middle of
a severe flare up of symptoms, and have to post without final review at the moment. Thanks to
those who have read my severely long pontification—I hope it doesn’t come across as opposition
to the many atheists here, but as a caution to look for more areas where we may not have see
that the Watchtower has robbed us of the ability to act like the respectful people we are.

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Carl_Hernz

I am not opposed to atheists, but as a professional writer I must strongly differ with some of the things mentioned.

The Big Bang theory was developed in the 1920s by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. It was hotly debated by atheistic scientists when it came out because the consequences of its mathematics pointed to a beginning of the universe. Today it is widely accepted, and by atheists who adhere to it as if it were a tenet of theirs, strangely enough.

Only Fundamental “radical” Protestants don’t believe in evolution; mainstream Christianity has not seen a problem with it. It is even discussed as fitting side-by-side with Christian belief in the widely published Catechism of the Catholic Church, and has been a widely published stand of theirs for decades.

Again, only Fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal hell; they are in the minority. The majority of Christians in the world do not have such an official teaching; the largest denomination, Roman Catholicism for example, teaches it is a symbol for eternal separation from God, equal in the eyes of some theologians to non-existence.

And the basic building blocks upon which Christianity is built is not the death or resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but on his teaching that humans really do matter to their Creator, despite the suffering and hatred on earth, and that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and love. His death and resurrection are seen as evidence that his message was true, but they are not the message that Christian denominations have been built on. Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa of Calcutta claimed to be living examples of Christianity. Neither of them were crucified nor have risen from the dead. That is not what their religion is about.

While not writing to advocate Christianity and dispute the sensibilities of my atheist friends, I do often wonder how what should be basics to those who are talking about religion are unknown, at least the stuff about the Big Bang. Come on, atheists are supposed to be more enlightened than the “silly” religion folks. Don’t want to give the group a bad name!

When I see that people have not taken time to check the facts or are purposefully omitting them, it makes me wonder if the words of G.K. Chesterton are not in fact true: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

3

Tax collector or publican

by jacethespace in

luke chapter 18:9-14 says- 9 and he spoke this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others 10 two men went up into the temple to pray the one a pharisee and the other a publican 11 the pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, god i thank you that i am not as other men adulterers or even as this publican 12 i fast twice in the week i give tithes of all that i possess 13 and the publican standing afar off would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast saying god be merciful to me a sinner 14 i tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone that exalts himself shall be abased and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.. now to be fair i have met some people in the tower who are generally humble, but i was wondering out of this parable who does the rank and file jw and governing body, elders, circuit overseers basically follow after.the tax collector or the lowly publican?.

i mean it is certain that the watchtower does despise others [ worldly, etc] and they do generally have the tax collector attitude of " i thank you god that i am not like other men.and a lot of them are anything but humble and abased.. this is evident even in the ministry when i was out there were some that would leave the houses muttering " its there funeral at armaggedon.. one elder even said once to me that the best part of the truth is that the wicked dont have a say in whether there going, jehovah will just remove them whether that want to go or not.. what do you think?

who does the tower represent the tax collector or the publican?

Carl_Hernz

So I gather, Jace, you are meaning to ask if the Watchtower is either the Pharisee or the tax collector (publican), correct?

While it is easy to be judgmental of the Witnesses, especially since so many of us, including myself, have literally suffered due to their brand of religion, we wouldn't want to make the same mistake the Watchtower makes in misapplying texts to others.

Tax collectors were considered rejects and failures among the Jewish people. As a general rule, they were ruthlessly pushed aside by the self-righteous Pharisees, considered unworthy of God's love.

But the object of this parable asks the question: How does God view his own creation, even those that fail, make mistakes, criminals, society's outcasts? Jesus answered that the sinful tax collector was more righteous than the Pharisee in God's eyes.

While the religion of the Witnesses and many within its organization have truly been guilty of hypocracy and have failed to live up to the Gospel they preach, does this mean we are to push them aside as un-worthies? True, they sit themselves as judges over us, saying we are unworthy, but should we look upon our neighbor through the same judgmental glasses they do? Jesus said that wicked people love their own kind, but godly people loved those that hated them.

I think instead of trying to label Witnesses as one thing or the other, we should learn patience and mercy. They obviously don't hold that for us who have either disassociated from them or been disfellowshipped or the like. But we aren't learning from them anymore. Hopefully, despite any pain they have inflicted upon us, we can prove that the way they believe is very wrong.

And we do that by not acting the way the expect us to.

4

Bizzare fixation with dates.

by blueviceroy in

Carl_Hernz

It’s also likely due to the origins of the Watchtower. Russell was heavily influenced by the Adventism of William Miller who was obsessed with dating things in the Bible, convinced that precise calculations of important events could be found in the Scriptures.

Miller’s background was that of someone who lived during the Second Great Awakening, a time when a Protestant movement saw itself in radical separation from Catholicism, Orthodox, and more traditional Protestant denominations. These religionists not only expected God’s Kingdom to come through historical developments, they also saw America as playing a large part in the world’s conversion to the “true faith.” Add to this was a belief in the “Great Apostasy,” a time when these people believed true Christianity was lost and hidden.

Because of belief in this Great Apostasy (which, incidentally is not historical and takes a belief in historical conspiracy—the belief that Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants purposefully changed historical and church records), individuals arouse who claimed they had the key to the “Restoration” of the true faith. Many felt this restoration included special insight or knowledge of the Bible (not unlike Gnosticism) that included, among other things, the ability to foretell events like the Second Coming of Christ.

For Russell, therefore, the fixation with dates was actually a given since he placed his belief in the tenets of Adventism. In his mind it was fact that the traditional religions were wrong and that the Restoration could only include this “special insight” into Bible prophecies. He never challenged these things in his own mind, and so this fixation with dates was transferred as a basic tenet of the Witnesses.

The Witnesses have never challenged whether or not knowledge of dates is even essential, let alone if a restoration of religion was necessary or if a great apostasy ever really took place. These are foundational “givens” in their theology that don’t get examined or even touched (most forms of belief, including non-religious, generally have these earmarks of “givens” at their foundation—it’s generally normal).

People today do not know religious history except what they hear from a filtered source. That is all fine if the source is trustworthy, but we often forget to test the source.

You kind of answered your own question, Blueviceroy, using the words “meaning,” “fulfilling,” and “satisfying” in your post. Religious thought that developed from the “givens” of the Second Great Awakening ask a circular and bizarre question to begin with: “How can a religion not be meaningful, fulfilling, and satisfying without uncovering the hidden dates found in the Bible?” For this ideology, this fixation with dates in inseparable from “true” faith. There is not one without the other.

48

Is the NWT really the most accurate translation of the Bible?

by godsgurl in

i have heard jw claim that the nwt is the most accurate translation of the bible and the persons who translated the bible were inspired by the holy spirit.

but if this is so then why was the nwt revised so many times?

did the holy spirit get it wrong the first time?

Carl_Hernz

The claim of the JWs that the NWT is the most accurate Bible translation is what an apologist would call
a “red herring” tactic. Stop and think what it means to have the “most accurate translation” of Scripture.
Not much if the interpreters are faulty.

The problem with the Witnesses is that their line of doctrinal reasoning doesn’t stand under test, and
neither has having what they claim to be the most accurate translation helped them, has it?

For example, since its release in 1950, how often have the Witnesses had to change their doctrine or
introduce “new light”? Did it help them from making mistakes regarding 1975 or enlighten them that
their 100-year understanding of the word “generation” was wrong? No.

Therefore having in your possession an accurate translation doesn’t help if you don’t really know how to
use or even read the article that has been accurately translated. The Witnesses prove that.

It’s a “red herring” because the claim is meant to make you say “Wow? Really?” or “Prove it!” That is
what they want. The way we should really reply to their claim is: “Why is that important?” Two religions
can use the same translation and still have opposing doctrines, so the way something is rendered has
little difference in the long run.

As noted above, there are many authoritative sources to show that the NWT is not the “most accurate
translation” of Scripture. And, what, did they win some kind of award that proves theirs is better
than another? In fact, to have that would require an unbiased group of translation evaluators, and
such a group doesn’t exist. (Who would judge such a thing, anyway?)

The NWT is quite old now, even after its 1984 revision. After Franz’s death, the Witnesses have no lingual
“scholars.” In fact, they have never had any. Since they forbid university education, they aren’t likely
to ever have any in the future (those that make Bible scholars are generally associated with religions
anyway). Add to that, most Bibles currently on the market are open for full public research on the accuracy
of their translation. If there were something really seriously wrong, it would be quite easy to tell.

Carl_Hernz

Posts by Carl_Hernz