Reniaa, I can understand what you have posted, especially the part about becoming a cynic. If you ever get tired paddling that boat, I will row for a while. :-) And if you read your posts as though someone else wrote them you will see this leap out at you..
She likes the bible teaching.
She likes the environment.
She considers the JW no better or worse than anyone else's.
She misses the family atmosphere the JW provided.
She has fond memories of faithful JW.
She does not see them as a cult, but instead as one of many religions who have good and bad members.
Because of this, I personally think that your hesitation and need to start a thread asking for input about whether or not you should return, must not be based on any of the attributes you have mentioned. It must be based on things that you have not shared, and btw I am not suggesting you share those things or implying you are under any obligation whatsoever to share them. You seem to be intelligent and reasonable, and so you can likely see why some are scratching their heads. Keep in mind that this forum often acts as a support group and a place to share a process, and there are those who are in the majority who are here to accompany others on that same journey who have that same need to share, vent, or ask for advice. You are one who asked for advice, and many have been trying to give it. And it seems that every attempt at advice has been met with a response from you that indicates that you have already answered your own question. Have you?
Pickled
JoinedPosts by Pickled
-
181
It looks like I will become an elder this week!
by outofthebox inthat's right guys.
as i told you before, they boe have been considering me for the eldership.
which i don't care for, but since my family is stuck in this cult, i guess i can use the new position to help them see that the holy spirit has nothing to do with me being an elder.
-
-
Pickled
-
14
No sacred trees in Eden - what would have happened?
by Awakened07 in-this is a hypothetical "for the sake of argument"-topic, where we take for granted that the biblical story of adam and eve (as it is presented in the bible we have available today) is literally true.
i think it can be an interesting exercise.. now - let's for this discussion say god did not plant any 'special' tree in the garden of eden.
no tree of knowledge, and no tree of life.
-
-
Pickled
I guess you could go back to the argument that if God was the creator of all things, and nothing exists apart from what He created, then where did evil come from that satan embraced? You can't say that satan created it himself since the ability to create only exists in God. I understand the idea that satan stirs up that tendency in some to whatever degree, but it had to first exist in order to stir it up. If God can simply think things into being, then when did he have that evil thought, and why?
The Bible never indicates that Adam and Eve knew that they were eating from the tree of life. The verses indicate that God put it there, and it is implied that He intended for them to eat from it, but never does it say that He told those humans either of those facts. When they were banished from the garden the angels with the flaming swords were placed there, according to how it reads, so that the humans would not reach out their hand and eat from the Tree of Life. However, it again does not indicate that the humans knew that they had the ability to do that at all. Having said that, what remains in the garden that the humans knew about were all the trees that they were allowed to eat from except the one solitary Tree of Knowledge from which they were told to abstain.
In the process of God banishing these humans he told the woman that He would increase the pain that she would experience in childbirth. Our ability to experience pain is based on the extraordinary amount of pain receptors that make up the way we are built. We have within us a multitude of nerve endings that alert us to anything painful, dangerous, harmful, etc. Those nerves let us know when things feel good too. The overall way that we are built, however, seems to indicate that we are walking pain receptors. This is interesting given the fact that we were supposedly designed in a perfect way to live in a pain free and perfect environment. If we believe the tree story and the creation story and the story of a perfect paradise, then why aren't we designed in a way that reflects an original intention of pain free? It is just the opposite actually.
Ok, what does this have to do with the Tree of Knowledge? The Bible indicates that the Tree of Knowledge was placed there as an unacceptable option. It was also placed there as a choice, an option to exercise free will. Exercised in favor of obeying, or exercised in favor of disobeying. I suppose that satan could have come up with several different scenarios in order to tempt them to disobey, but would those scenarios have come from God? No, they would have been manufactured by satan. It seems, in this story, that God was the one who wanted to provide a way for His creation to exercise their free will, either in a positive way, or in a disobedient way. Had satan been the one to provide that then it would not have been for them to exercise their free will, it would have been simply a way to create distance between the created and the creator. I think the underlying message, in my opinion, is that God preferred a willful sort of obedience, one that is decided upon and among other options.
But that then leads me to the overall design of the creature. Did he design the creature with millions of pain receptors just in case? We could be walking around right now as lumps of flesh that scarcely notice when we have a gash in our leg or bump our elbow on a door jamb, and without tear ducts, taste buds, or sinus passages that register all things foul simply because we were designed to live in a state of perfection. But we are not made that way. So without spouting what I do or do not believe about the validity of the Bible account, it seems that this tree, to me and according to the story, was planted there by their creator as a free will option, and in personally giving this option himself, he also made a way to survive both physically in form, and spiritually through a mediator, just in case they exercised the option to disobey.
Based also on the Bible's descriptions of the devil it seems, in my opinion, that satan would have been able to come up with any number of ways to cause them to arrive at the same act of disobedience. But would he also have provided a way for them to survive their decision? Would he have included a form of restitution? Admittedly, I am not a big fan of the Bible for right now in my life, but if I look at just the story itself and set aside any thoughts I might have about inspiration or nonsense, and just focus on what seems to be the theme and intent, this is how I personally would answer your question...
The difference between satan offering a tool to disobey and God offering a tool to disobey looks like apples and oranges. One is to exercise free will in either direction with a built in design and plan if the wrong decision is made. The other looks to be just for the sake of disobedience without any chance of redemption, like some twisted version of free will that, when chosen, still only leaves you with the one option. -
181
It looks like I will become an elder this week!
by outofthebox inthat's right guys.
as i told you before, they boe have been considering me for the eldership.
which i don't care for, but since my family is stuck in this cult, i guess i can use the new position to help them see that the holy spirit has nothing to do with me being an elder.
-
-
Pickled
Chikikie, do you have any personal experiences that you can share with your sister that would convey just how difficult and devastating the WTBTS was in your own life? I think what some of the members here are feeling is normal, however militant it may come across, considering the raw pain that resulted in their own lives as a result of their association with the WTBTS. My own experience with the JW on all accounts was to observe their overt suspicion of anyone who was "on the outside." As a matter of fact, one of the many things that caused a light to come on in my head occurred at a Memorial service. People sitting in chairs around me were introducing themselves to one another and there were quite a few "visitors" and non or ex JW present. One who was visiting who was a JW from another congregation in another city introduced herself and said in a hushed tone with a solemn secretive nod, and while her eyes furtively glanced around her as though she was among the enemy, "I am a JW." It wasn't what she did that got my attention, it was that it looked so normal to the Witnesses listening to her and nodding in acknowledgment.
So given the fact that your sister is considering returning to this religion of the secret handshake and the fact that the interpretations of a book that is already over 3000 years old that anyone can buy off the shelf are treated as though they are top secret, could her experience here on this forum be viewed as a reintroduction to a mindset that she will herself possess once she is reinstated?
What sort of thinking is it if you don't feel uncomfortable with the JW view of the world (and that includes you, you have said), and yet you feel indignantly uncomfortable with the ex-JW view of anyone who sympathizes with the WTBTS? As outspoken as some may be on this forum it may bring you a certain measure of comfort to know that no one here is looking forward to your inevitable destruction. They are simply posting their views in an effort to be heard and to arrive at a better understanding of your views as well. What they are not doing is copy/pasting information off of a disc that they have been given as the only source of information they are allowed to have, and then when you don't agree, just casually walking off firmly convinced that you are slated for destruction anyway and they, thankfully, will be left to pilfer all of your wretched belongings once you have received what you truly deserve.
No, that is the mindset of the Jehovah's Witnesses. THIS is a forum of free thinkers who are willing to blast away and take their lumps as well. The majority here have chosen to not replace their brain with a disc, and the result of that can be argumentative, colorful, hysterically funny, stubborn, sad, and all those things that make up genuine human experiences when allowed to move about in a state of free expression. The truth is, however offended you are by some here compares only slightly to how offended you are going to feel when your sister returns to the fold and lets you know one day that she is looking forward to life in paradise and having the opportunity to take part in the privilege of scooping up your ashes.
Yes, that sounds horrible, and very much like something members of a cult would believe. -
181
It looks like I will become an elder this week!
by outofthebox inthat's right guys.
as i told you before, they boe have been considering me for the eldership.
which i don't care for, but since my family is stuck in this cult, i guess i can use the new position to help them see that the holy spirit has nothing to do with me being an elder.
-
-
Pickled
Chikikie, do you have any personal experiences that you can share with your sister that would convey just how difficult and devastating the WTBTS was in your own life? I think what some of the members here are feeling is normal, however militant it may come across, considering the raw pain that resulted in their own lives as a result of their association with the WTBTS. My own experience with the JW on all accounts was to observe their overt suspicion of anyone who was "on the outside." As a matter of fact, one of the many things that caused a light to come on in my head occurred at a Memorial service. People sitting in chairs around me were introducing themselves to one another and there were quite a few "visitors" and non or ex JW present. One who was visiting who was a JW from another congregation in another city introduced herself and said in a hushed tone with a solemn secretive nod, and while her eyes furtively glanced around her as though she was among the enemy, "I am a JW." It wasn't what she did that got my attention, it was that it looked so normal to the Witnesses listening to her and nodding in acknowledgment.
So given the fact that your sister is considering returning to this religion of the secret handshake and the fact that the interpretations of a book that is already over 3000 years old that anyone can buy off the shelf are treated as though they are top secret, could her experience here on this forum be viewed as a reintroduction to a mindset that she will herself possess once she is reinstated?
What sort of thinking is it if you don't feel uncomfortable with the JW view of the world (and that includes you, you have said), and yet you feel indignantly uncomfortable with the ex-JW view of anyone who sympathizes with the WTBTS? As outspoken as some may be on this forum it may bring you a certain measure of comfort to know that no one here is looking forward to your inevitable destruction. They are simply posting their views in an effort to be heard and to arrive at a better understanding of your views as well. What they are not doing is copy/pasting information off of a disc that they have been given as the only source of information they are allowed to have, and then when you don't agree, just casually walking off firmly convinced that you are slated for destruction anyway and they, thankfully, will be left to pilfer all of your wretched belongings once you have received what you truly deserve.
No, that is the mindset of the Jehovah's Witnesses. THIS is a forum of free thinkers who are willing to blast away and take their lumps as well. The majority here have chosen to not replace their brain with a disc, and the result of that can be argumentative, colorful, hysterically funny, stubborn, sad, and all those things that make up genuine human experiences when allowed to move about in a state of free expression. The truth is, however offended you are by some here compares only slightly to how offended you are going to feel when your sister returns to the fold and lets you know one day that she is looking forward to life in paradise and having the opportunity to take part in the privilege of scooping up your ashes.
Yes, that sounds horrible, and very much like something members of a cult would believe. -
61
Why exactly do you come to this board?
by R.Crusoe ini wondered if anyone, after starting to post here after so long being worried about doing, now just does it because they acn and hasn't stopped to ask why the still feel the need or even pleasure.. so why do you come here?.
do you know?.
it's not easy to completely explain what it is substiruting for imo!.
-
-
Pickled
I thought I was immune and then without noticing at first I nearly got sucked into a cult. The tactics were manipulative, covert, and 100% agenda based. When the scales dropped off, all the lying to me pissed me off. So I came to this first board ever to share every sliver of thoughts that I can muster about it until I feel I have let it go and/or helped to prevent just one other person from getting sucked in as well. I may be here a while to accomplish either, and I apologize in advance for any debates, arguments, only seeing my own side for now, suspicion toward anyone sympathetic to the WTBTS, overly critical or hammer like statements, or general crankiness about the topic in general. If I get carried away just tell me to put a cork in it. I take suggestions well.
Pickled -
181
It looks like I will become an elder this week!
by outofthebox inthat's right guys.
as i told you before, they boe have been considering me for the eldership.
which i don't care for, but since my family is stuck in this cult, i guess i can use the new position to help them see that the holy spirit has nothing to do with me being an elder.
-
-
Pickled
Reniaa,
If he doesn’t get people out by any means available,
and he doesn’t leave and therefore alienate his family,
and he doesn’t become an elder and get in over his head,
and he changes his mindset completely concerning his current attempts to “make a statement”……..
That only leaves settling down and becoming a “good” definition of a Witness, doesn’t it?
Did you intend another option that I am not seeing? (Not asking sarcastically, I really would like to read another alternative that you think would be more balanced and practical given his current view of the WTBTS) -
11
Walsh Trial questions.
by Fatfreek ini've pasted a portion of the transcript below.
my question is in regard to the identity of the q. and the a. persons.
is the q = to covington or clyde?
-
-
Pickled
Leolaia, you always provide such great information on this forum. Thanks for making that effort.
-
42
Evidence of Jesus Outside the New Testament (long article)
by lovelylil in.condemned him to be crucified, those who had .
finally, the claim that on the third day jesus appeared to his disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-christian!.
we read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats.
-
-
Pickled
Thank you Lovelylil for posting this info. Very interesting to read about.
-
18
Someone needs to shout the dangers of the Society off the roofs!
by escaped inthe world doesnt know how dangerous or divisive the cult is.
i woud liken it to "jim jones", but the death of the members is emotional and longer as they lose their identities, families and potential futures.
they rip your life from you to further their agendas and the hell know what those agendas really could be.
-
-
Pickled
Welcome escaped! So glad you are talking about it. Everyone's experience is a little different from the other's here, but if you start to share you are bound to catch the attention of someone whose experience closely resembles your own. I am sure there are posters here who were also home schooled and would welcome the opportunity to share how they moved past the same point you are at now. Keep sharing, keep posting, keep reading.
-
75
Why Guess About Dates At All?
by Pickled ini posted this on another thread and realized that it was really off topic, so i made it a separate topic because i would really like to read your thoughts about this... .
does anyone know if any reasons are given by the wtbts about why they feel it is such an important part of their teachings to keep guessing about dates and the years things are going to happen?
it seems that it adds nothing to whatever they believe about the bible, and it has only served to create such confusion among their members over the years.
-
-
Pickled
More of the transcript from the Douglas Walsh Trial. Please pay close attention to how questions are answered when the "Witness" does not want to give a straight answer. Then compare the loops, turns, vague wording, and evasiveness to articles that have appeared in the Watchtower explaining why they got a date or a doctrine wrong....
1954 Walsh Trial
Hayden Cooper Covington/CROSS
Pages 81 – 92 of Transcript
Q. Each of these bodies has its own Charter or, as we say, Memorandum and Articles if Association?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a Vice President of both the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Societies?
A. Yes, the Pennsylvania Corporation, and the New York Corporation.
Q. Are you also a Director on the Board of Directors of both Companies?
A. Yes, as Vice President of each I am on the Board of Directors.
Q. Are you on the Board of Directors of the International Bible Students Association?
A. No.
Q. To become the Director of, if I may call them, the two Watch Tower Societies, is there a form of election?
A. There is a form of election at the annual meeting.
Q. Is that the Annual General Meeting of the Company?
A. That is the annual meeting of the membership of the Society, and all who want to are privileged to attend.
Q. But all who want to attend, I suppose, must be shareholders in some way of the Company?
A. No, the members of the Corporation attend either personally or by proxy, but the annual meeting is announced by law in the columns of the Watchtower, and whoever want to attend this annual business meeting can attend and see the proceedings.
Q. At one time members of the Companies were shareholders, weren’t they?
A. Whoever had given a contribution of 10 Dollars is entitled to one share.
Q. That was originally in the Articles of Association, was it, of the Incorporation?
A. Yes.
Q. And in return for his contribution of 10 Dollars did the member get a Share Certificate?
A. He was notified, a receipt of his contribution was given to him, sent to him, and he was informed that he was entitled to one voting share, and therefore, when the election of the organization of the Society was to take place he was informed that he was privileged to be present, or to have his vote cast by proxy.
Q. Privilege to be present wasn’t really a privilege, but a right in virtue of his shareholding?
A. Yes, certainly, but he could be there by proxy.
Q. Quite, so that the member didn’t require to vote himself, but could provide a proxy?
A. Yes.
Q. Had the proxy, the person who voted in place of the member, to have any special qualifications to do so?
A. He must be one also who was a voter.
Q. That is to say when there was a contribution of 10 Dollars, or whatever it may be, the voter, the member of his proxy, must be a shareholder?
A. Yes, he must be a shareholder.
Q. Was that true of both Societies?
A. No, the New York Corporation was a different Society, but it was a membership corporation.
Q. Do you mean that the New York Society never had a contribution basis of membership?
A. No.
Q. What was the basis of membership of the New York Society?
A. Well, the member of the Corporation was appointed by the Society and there was one thousand dollars put to his credit.
Q. The member was appointed by the Society?
A. Yes.
Q. And instead of paying anything, do you say he was credited with a thousand dollars?
A. If he was not possessed of that himself. For instance, I was made a member of the New York Corporation and there was a credit made to my account.
Q. Was that simply a book entry or did cash in some way pass to the credit of the Company?
A. Well, it was credited, as I say. There was a book entry.
Q. Was a pure book entry, or was it represented in any form by cash or capital?
A. Well, I never handled the cash.
Q. You cannot tell us about that?
A. No.
Q. Did you have to pay up your thousand dollars in any way?
A. No. I was already a member of the headquarters family.
Q. By that do you mean that you were already a director?
A. No.
Q. Well, I am just a little adrift to know what you mean by the phrase, a member of the headquarters family?
A. A member if the family that operates at 124 Columbia Heights. That is the headquarters staff.
Q. Is that something different from the Incorporation?
A. Different from the Incorporation.
Q. From the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, New York?
A. Different from the Incorporation? The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was incorporated in 1909 in New York City and that was before I was a member of the Bethel Family at headquarters.
Q. Where was thus Bethel Family located? Not in the registered office of the Company, was it?
A. No, but they had their main office there at Brooklyn. New York. But they had a registered office in Pittsburg, none the less, and we always held our annual meetings – you mean, of the New York Corporation?
Q. Yes?
A. Yes. In the New York Corporation the offices are there in the Bethel Home.
Q. I am sorry, but I just wanted to get this clear. You said that you were credited with one thousand dollars?
A. Yes, that is my recollection.
Q. To make you a member if the New York Corporation?
A. That accompanied it.
Q. That is so though, isn’t it?
A. That is my recollection of it.
Q. But you said that you were already a member of the headquarters family?
A. That is right.
Q. Is the headquarters family something distinct from the New York Corporation?
A. Yes. The membership of the New York Corporation does not include all the family members.
Q. What is the headquarters family and who are its members?
A. Well, the headquarters family to day comprises some 430 men who are engaged in the various operations of the organization there, the office work and the legal work and the printing work and the shipping work, and all the housekeeping that requires to be done.
Q. There are, are there not, big printing presses operated by the New York Company?
A. Yes, at 117 Adam Street, Brooklyn.
Q. Do the employees who, among other things, operate these printing presses live in the headquarters family?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a kind of hostel so far as the building is concerned?
A. No, it is a home for the lodging of the members if the family, to keep them together, and also to provide for their sustenance at the most economic rate.
Q. Are they sustained from the physical point out of the resources of the New York Incorporation?
A. They are sustained by contributions that are made to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.
Q. Would you answer the question? I am trying to keep apart the Brooklyn Incorporation and the Pennsylvania Incorporation. Are those who are in the headquarters family sustained from the physical point of view by the New York Incorporation?
A. The New York Corporation holds the properties there in New York.
Q. Who pays the people living in that headquarters family?
A. Specifically you will have to ask the Secretary-Treasurer, who knows directly about that.
Q. In addition to being a Director of both Incorporations, I think that you said that got in on the editorial capacity with a Committee?
A. Yes.
Q. Am I right that you are chiefly responsible for the books and tracts and other publications of the Incorporation?
A. I have to examine them and carefully check them, and nothing is passed without my O.King them.
Q. At the present moment what size is the Committee which assists you?
A. That is something that is not disclosed. We do not disclose names.
Q. I am not asking at the moment for names, but I am asking for numbers?
A. Well, it consists of a number of men.
Q. How many?
A. That may vary according to the amount of work that is to be done.
Q. How many at the moment?
A. Well, there are a number who contribute and the number is not static.
Q. Pardon me, but I am asking you a very simple and direct question. How many serve on your Editorial Committee at present?
A. Well, I will have to compute them. I will say seven.
Q. Plus yourself?
A. Including myself.
Q. At meetings of the Committee do you preside?
A. No, the President presides.
Q. Mr. Knorr?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that Committee convened prior to the issue of each tract or book?
A. No, but the Editor (myself) and Mr Knorr have to put the final O.K. to the material that is submitted for publication.
Q. By the Committee?
A. By the Committee.
Q. Does that Committee perform functions of translation as well as interpretations in English of Scripture?
A. No, it does not perform matters of translation. We have translators there who translate the material that has already been published in English.
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself if undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorized to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Q. Are the translators members of the Editorial Committee?
A. That is a question which I, as a member if the Board of Directors, am not authorized to disclose, because when the translation was donated to the Society at a meeting of the Board of Directors there, the Translation Committee made it known that they did not wish their names to be disclosed, and the Board of Directors, acting for the Society, accepted the translation upon that basis, that the names would not be revealed now or after death.
Q. Are the translators all members of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. That again is part and parcel of the agreement that their names shall not be revealed. They are consecrated men as the forward to the translation discloses.
Q. It is awfully important, isn’t it, to beware of false prophets?
A. That is right.
Q. Is it the view of your theocratic organization that the qualifications of the translators and interpreters of the Scriptures should be kept secret?
A. That is the business of the Translation Committee. They can make a donation on their own terms and we can accept it. The Society can accept it on their terms.
Q. You are speaking now of donations?
A. Yes. The translation was donated to the Society on the understanding that it would be published.
Q. But surely by arrangement with the Editorial Committee. People don’t come forward and say “I wish to donate you a new translation, for example, of the Book of Daniel”, do they?
A. A Committee can do that.
Q. The Committee must arrange with somebody, mustn’t they, to come forward with a translation, if the Committee decides that translation is desirable?
A. Well, it was the President of the Society who presented this translation to us, the Board of Directors, and he had it examined there, and then the Board of Directors was the one that voted to accept the translation.
Q. The Committee and the Board of Directors discussed beforehand the desirability of having a translation?
A. The matter was presented fresh to the Board of Directors and the President of the Society, as it has already been published in the Watch Tower and stated in the public meeting in Yankee Stadium, had portions of the translation read to the assembled Board of Directors as instances of the style or translation and of its accuracy and of its modernity, and it is on that basis the Board of Directors signified their wish with regard to the translation.
Q. Did the Editorial Committee itself, that is by its individual members, know the qualifications of the persons who were giving translations?
A. No, that is something that that the Editorial Committee is not concerned with. The Editorial Committee does not determine for the Society whether a translation shall be accepted or not. It is the Board of Directors who are the advisory and governing body who determine that.
Q. In fact it is the Board of Directors in both the Pennsylvania and New York Incorporations which decides upon and authorizes the issue of either translations of the Scriptures or books or pamphlets interpreting the Scriptures?
A. In this case the Board of Directors voted to accept the translation.
Q. I am now asking you a general question, if I may. (Question repeated)
A. No, the Board of Directors of the New York Incorporation do not decide on those matters.
Q. Well then, which body decides?
A. It is the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania that decides in these matters.
Q. Is there any difference in personnel between those who are Directors of the New York Incorporation and those who serve the Pennsylvania Corporation?
A. Some of our members are members of both Corporations and Directors of both Corporations.
Q. The president and vice-president are members of the Board of Directors of both Corporations?
A. Yes.
Q. And the same with the secretary and the treasurer?
A. yes.
Q. You yourself are multilingual?
A. Yes.
Q. At what age did you go to Cincinnati University?
A. I entered the University in 1913 after graduating from Woodward High School and I continued there until 1914.
Q. When did you go to University?
A. In 1911, and I continued there until April 1914.
Q. Did you graduate?
A. No, I did not. I left the University in 1914 because I realized according to Scriptures that that was the crucial year which was to be marked by the outbreak of a great trouble, and I realized that the ministerial work was the most important thing in the world to do and I wanted to get into the ministerial work before the great trouble broke, and so I wanted to get in earlier but my father refused to permit me to leave the University because I was still under 21. In April of 1914 he acceded to my wishes and allowed me to leave the University, and I immediately entered full time ministerial service as a pioneer.
Q. What subjects were you studying at Cincinnati University?
A. I was studying in the Liberal Arts College and among other things taking up Chemistry, English, Latin, Greek and German.
Q. Had you done any Hebrew in the course of your University work?
A. No, I had not, but in the course of my editorial work my special research work for the president of the Society, I found it was very necessary to have a knowledge of Hebrew, so I undertook a personal study of that.
Q. What subjects did you hold passes in when at Cincinnati University?
A. Passes?
Q. I do not know whether you work there the same as we do here, but after the anguish of examination you got a certificate saying you have passed certain subject. Do you work that was in America?
A. Well, I passed the junior year of the University, and I did not complete the third year. I left in April and the term terminated at the beginning of June.
Q. What subjects did you have passes when you left the University?
A. I had passed through Greek and Latin and I had also taken two terms in German.
Q. Did you do Helennic Greek?
A. Yes, as well as ocined(sp?) Greek, the Greek of the New Testament.
Q. Were you yourself responsible for the translation of the Old Testament?
A. Again I cannot answer that question, in harmony with the gentlemen’s agreement made by the Board of Directors and the Translation Committee.
Q. Why the secrecy?
A. Because the Committee of Translation wanted to remain anonymous and not seek any glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto.
Q. Writers of books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?
A. But I believe translators are generally acclaimed and go down in history as the translators.
….see page 93 of transcript for further testimony.