Posts by Disillusioned JW

17

"Modern Bibles" New World Translation - Part II

by Perry in

behold, the days come, saith the lord god, that i will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the lord .

amos 8: 11. .

most of us who have been raised as jehovahs witnesses since at least the 1960s were occasionally reminded of the scholarship of fred franz and his command of eight or more languages, including the biblical languages of hebrew and greek.

Disillusioned JW

I read in one of Greber's publications (I don't remember which one), or a quote from one, that Greber said that in one Part of his NT (in "Part One" of it, I think) he listed all of the passages in which he claims to have received assistance from the spirit world. I obtained an edition of his NT but that edition didn't have that Part/section. It would be important to see if the quotes that the WT makes of verses of Greber's NT are verses in which Greber did not claim to have assistance from spirits. Maybe the WT was careful to avoid using wording that was attributed to spirits. I notice that a number of times when the WT mentioned the copy they had of Greber's NT they describe the cover of it. Maybe their specific copy is the one which had the Part/section which listed the passages which were allegedly translated with the help of spirits. However even the WT avoided making use of passages of Greber's NT which Greber claimed were translated with the help of spirits, the WT still should not have quoted Greber's NT at all in support of the NWT. That is because every single page, or nearly such, of Greber's NT scripture text pages contains wording which sounds very spiritualistic/spiritistic! His NT is loaded with such wording. Yet the WT in their literature admonishes people to stay away from spiritualistic/spiritistic writings - warning people of immense spiritual danger from even owning such writings/objects.

12

NWT informative Pamphlet FYI

by Adonai438 in

their kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures declares:

11. john 1 :1 [''god" as "a god" in order to.

gruss comments:

Disillusioned JW

I notice that vast majority of the criticism of the NWT pertains to statements regarding the subject of the divinity of Christ, but relatively few claims pertaining to other matters. Does that mean the NWT is a very good translation in regards to verses that having nothing to do with the subject of the divinity of Christ? If not, what are more examples of those other kinds of purported problems?

One thing I really appreciate about the NWT is that is does not use any archaic speech, such as thou, thee, thine, didst, etc., even in prayers and other conversations with the god of the Bible. From what I can determine it was the very first English Bible to do so. The RSV still used the archaic language in prayers and and other conversations with the god of the Bible, as did all of the editions of the NASB prior to the "Updated" edition of 1995. The first NIV complete Protestant Bible came out after the first NWT complete 'Protestant' Bible and the first NIV NT came out after the first NWT NT. I suspect the introduction of the NWT, due to it modern speech, contributed to the NIV being introduced. Prior to the NIV, one of the main "selling" points of the NWT to non-JWs was its modern speech.

I for one, in high school and during most of my adult life, struggled in comprehending the archaic language used in the KJV during those infrequent times I read it. In high school English literature class when I had to read works of Shakespheare I had a very hard time understanding them because of the archaic language (including the archaic slang). In contrast I could understand the language of the NWT since it is the same language of English spoken in the USA in this century and in the prior 20th century.

25

Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

by goingthruthemotions in

so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

i never put two and two together.

but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

Disillusioned JW

Thanks goingthruthemotions for your post clarifying matters. For some reason I had mistakenly misread an earlier post of yours as saying you believe in God, and in thinking you had become an evangelical Christian. Funny. I agree the biblical text consists of fairytales (though I would say "primarily" instead of "all"). I also agree that religions have done much harm and I also want for religion (at least the kind which claims something supernatural exists) to come to an end.

For a site called "Jehovahs-witness.com" there surprisingly seems to be virtually no believing Jehovah's Witnesses making posts on this site. When I first joined this site I identified as a JW, but one who had become disillusioned and who acquired many doubts. Reading posts on this site about 10 - 15 years ago likely contributed to me ceasing to believe in the JW religion.

dropoffyourkeylee, I would like to read what you find out regarding Ussher using the date of 606 BC for the fall of Jerusalem. I once found a Seventh-day Adventist book that was nearly 100 years old which gave the date of 606 BC (or maybe 607 BC) for the fall of Jerusalem. Online there seems to be some non-JW's religious groups using that date also or 607 BC. In the WT edition of the KJV it has a range of dates in the ball park of 587 BC on its pages, but I'm not actually sure if it specifically had the date of 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem. I largely took the word of HowTheBibleWasCreated on that specific matter. The pages of that Bible for 2 Kings chapter 25 do say "B.C. 588" however.

12

NWT informative Pamphlet FYI

by Adonai438 in

their kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures declares:

11. john 1 :1 [''god" as "a god" in order to.

gruss comments:

Disillusioned JW

I own a copy of "The Twentieth Century New Testament: A Translation into Modern English, made from the original Greek (Westcott & Hort's text) by a company of about twenty scholars representing the various sections of the Christian Church - Revised Edition". It is copyright "1900-1901-1902-1903-1904". It uses the expression "in union with" in a number of places including in John 14:10 where it says "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father, and the Father with me?" See https://www.bibliatodo.com/en/the-bible/twentieth-century-1904/john-14 for an online edition of that NT translation. That NT translation is one of my favorites, due to its very understandable modern English (other than using thy, thou, and similar type words in prayers) and because to me it appears to be highly accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_New_Testament says The Twentieth Century New Testament's "... translators were not professional scholars ..." but it also says "Because of the translators' meticulous attention to the best scholarship of their day, Bruce Metzger concluded that their version still holds up remarkably well today, despite the lapse of over 100 years." The web page at http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-new-world-translation-bible-and.html (a JW pro NWT web page?) quotes a number of other respected NT/Bible translations which use the words "in union with".

John 8:58 in the 1973 NASB had an alternate rendering of "have been" in the margin, though the main text said "I AM".

25

Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

by goingthruthemotions in

so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

i never put two and two together.

but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

Disillusioned JW

goingthruthemotions, regarding the claim that the JW religion doesn't honor Jesus Christ, I completely disagree with that. They teach that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, the son of God, the first born (though partly in the sense of being first created) of God, that Jehovah God created all things (other than Jehovah and Jesus) through (by means of) Jesus, and that Jesus is perfect and is perfect in his worship of Jehovah God, etc.

While I was a young child being taught by my JW father in family Bible study, I studied (among other books) the WT book called "Listening to the Great Teacher" - a book (written for children) about Jesus. The WT has also published the book called "The Greatest MAN Who Ever Lived" - another book about Jesus. That latter book was used in congregational book studies. More recently the WT published the book "Learn from the GREAT TEACHER" - another book (written for children and also for adults with limited reading skills) about Jesus.

The Memorial Service of the JW religion honors Jesus Christ - it is a memorial of Jesus Christ. It is done in obedience to the words attributed in the Bible to Jesus, in which the Bible says Jesus said to do such in remembrance of him. Granted, I think/believe the Bible means Jesus wanted all devout Christians to partake of the emblems, not just to pass them around in conjunction to listening to a talk and prayers about them, and not just limiting the partaking to only a literal 144,000 persons over the past some 2000 years.

[Correction: In my prior post where I said "... the WT said Rutherford said Rutherford, prior to joining the WT religion, was told he couldn't marry the .." I should have said "... the WT said that Rutherford said he was told, prior to joining and learning of the WT religion, that he couldn't marry the ..."]

During the time that Rutherford was president of the WT, the WT religion made the odd claim that Jehovah's Witnesses were not a religion, though they did say they practiced pure true worship of Jehovah. [They now say that though false religion exists, true religion also exists and that the JW religion is the modern day true religion.] Interestingly, many Bible Church nondenominational Christians today claim that Christianity is not a religion, but rather a relationship with Jesus. Furthermore some JWs today while witnessing say they have a personal relationship with Jehovah and some of the WT literature uses the expression of 'relationship with Jehovah. In regards to the theme of the latter they even published a book called "Draw Close to Jehovah".

HowTheBibleWasCreated, regarding the KJV Bible currently published (or at least most recently published) by the WT it has the 587 BC (B.C. 587) date because the scripture text pages (including the scripture cross references, page headings, alternate readings and renderings) of that edition are printed from printing plates purchased from Holman. Holman was and still is a major publisher of the KJV Bible. See page 607 (there is that number again) of the Proclaimers' book which says "... plates for the King James Version with marginal references were purchased in 1942 form A. J. Holman Company ..." However, the WT edition did include a concordance and helps prepared by JWs. In the early 1900s an edition of the KJV published by the WT (see page 606 of the Proclaimers' book) included a Bible Students appendix. I once had a copy of that edition. I noticed that in the appendix it had instructions to cross out specific verses and specific parts of verses that are not in critical text editions of the Greek New Testament (and/or Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) - words that are thought to be spurious. In the pre-NWT era the WT probably made clear that the dates in the KJV edition published by the WT were not calculated by the WT/JWs.

The Proclaimers book (see page 604 and 605) mentions that the WT had distributed an edition of Leeser's translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into English. Some WT literature has also quoted from Leeser's translation. I have a copy of a different edition of Leeser's translation and I notice he makes reference to the 586/587 date and uses the phrasing of before the common era. Leeser was a practicing Jew. The edition I have of his translation is published by "Bloch Publishing company" in 1905 and it has the double triangle six-pointed Jewish star on the title page. In that book the first sentence of the "General Remarks" says "According to Dr. Zunz, the creation of the world dates 3988 before the common era" (in other words 3988 B.C.E). The paragraph says Jerusalem was conquered in the year 3402 after the creation of the world. 3402 years after 3988 "before the common era" equals the year 586 "before the common era". That is just one year off from the year 587 BCE, but one year probably should be added back to 586 BCE because the page said the "the year 3402 after the creation" instead of "3402 years after the year of the creation" and I think it thus includes the first year of the creation.

25

Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

by goingthruthemotions in

so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

i never put two and two together.

but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

Disillusioned JW

goingthruthemotions, thank you very much for your forthright reply. While I was a believing JW (I am now an atheist and philosophical naturalist who tries to persuade people towards evolution, atheism and philosophical naturalism, and even towards the view of the Christ myth theory) I never thought of the JW religion as being anti-Christ at all, though in later years I wondered why they reduced their emphasis of Jesus and increased their emphasis of Jehovah over the years. I also knew they are very much against all other religions, especially other Christian groups.

In recent years I think about how Russell and Rutherford had abandoned Christianity prior to becoming JWs. I also think that Rutherford might have joined the WT religion and took control of it in order to attack "Christendom" due to his negative experience with the churches (the WT said Rutherford said Rutherford, prior to joining the WT religion, was told he couldn't marry the Christian woman he loved because she did not have a total immersion baptism). Rutherford's negative experience turned him into an atheist (according to the WT) prior to him reading the WT's literature.

I now think that in some sense the WT/JW religion might be anti-Christ, but I don't the religious leaders think of their religion that way. The religion condemns people turning against Christ and denying the ransom (it is something that is grounds for being thought of as an apostate and for being removed from the congregation, and/or as being thought of as someone who disassociated himself/herself from the Witnesses).

The WT religion's attitude to Christ stems from Russell having considered the Trinity doctrine to be irrational and a contradiction to the OT Bible (Hebrew Scriptures). The WT says that Russell had becoming a skeptic of religion (though without rejecting belief in the God), prior to listening to a Bible sermon by a Second Adventist. In a away, the WT/JW religion is a Judaic leaning form of Christianity (Islam is also kind that way, but even more so in some particulars).

I plan to make a much more detailed reply later.

144

The New World Translation is a Mess

by Amazing in

jw
friends

the new world translation (nwt) contains thousands of serious errors.

the following regarding john 1:1, one of the most noteworthy verses to jehovah's witness and ex-jehovah's witnesses alike, provides a case example of how and why the nwt cannot be trusted.

there some few scholars that translate the word was "a god" or "a god" or "divine" but they are in the very low percentages.. in greek john 1:1 says: "en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

Disillusioned JW

Amazing, would you consider the following to be a more literal English translation of John 1:1 and better conveying nuances of meaning?

"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with the God (face to face -toward) and the word was god."

25

Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

by goingthruthemotions in

so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

i never put two and two together.

but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

Disillusioned JW

I found an official statement by the Society on the matter and it states a number of the reasons mentioned in some of the prior posts - and it refutes the accusation of it being for anti-Christ reasons. See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009094 which says the following regarding it:

"Awake!—2009

g 3/09 p. 30

From Our Readers

Ancient Manuscripts—How Are They Dated? (February 2008) This article upset me. It is my understanding that C.E. stands for “Common Era” and B.C.E. stands for “Before the Common Era.” In all of my 70 years, I have seen the terms B.C. and A.D. used as a time reference, referring to before and after the birth of Jesus. It seems to me that using B.C.E. or C.E. somehow denies the birth of Jesus.

R. W., United States

“Awake!” responds: Although A.D. (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of our Lord”) and B.C. (before Christ) are used in lands where professed Christianity predominates, we have chosen to use the terms C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era). Why? First, there is considerable evidence pointing to the year 2 B.C.E. as the date of Jesus’ birth. Second, the literature printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses is widely distributed in languages read by many non-Christians. Third, the title “Christ” means “Anointed One.” Jesus became the Messiah, or Christ, when he was anointed with God’s spirit at the time he was baptized in 29 C.E. (Matthew 3:13-17) Thus, Jesus was not born Christ; he became Christ the year of his baptism. Significantly, the descriptions C.E. and B.C.E. are growing in usage, and they appear in almost all modern dictionaries and in many scholarly works. Please be assured that Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Jesus and his sacrifice indispensable to the outworking of God’s purposes and our personal salvation."

------------------

Update: I now notice that Jeffro posted the information from the Society before me, however my post gives the web page where the Society makes its statement.

30

Evolution a proven fact? LOL

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

some interesting quotes from evolutionists.

natural history, vol.

' new scientist, vol.

Disillusioned JW

Cygnus, thanks for providing context for the quote of Mark Ridley. But I am surprised that Mark Ridley says that it is a "... false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. ... no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Apparently he is not the only scientist convinced of evolution who had that view prior to the year 1982. That surprises me because when I read science books and science articles published from 1970 through 1981 I see good fossil evidence for evolution! I wish I had been much more aware of them prior to early 1981, however. Fossils of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, ER-1470, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis had been found and published - collectively providing strong evidence of human evolution from ape-human-like beings. There were also fossils of jawless fish, early fish with jaws, Eusthenopteron (a lobe finned fish which had a passage which linked its nostrils with the roof of its mouth, unlike the earliest fishes that had nostrils), early amphibians with fish-like tales, reptile-like amphibians, mammal like-synapsids (at the time called mammal-like reptiles), early mammals, Archaeopteryx, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Dryopithecus, and more.

I now have a college textbook (with CD-ROM), copyright 1996, called "EVOLUTION - Second Edition", by Mark Ridley. Chapter 19 of that book is called "The Fossil Record". Page 548 of that book says "The origin of mammals is the fossil record's best transition for the origin of a major taxon. Section 21.1 (p. 582) discusses this development as an example of a macroevolutionary change."

11

Are JW's Fundamentalist Christians

by What is Truth? in

top ten signs you're a fundamentalist christian.

10 - you vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.. .

9 - you feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the biblical claim that we were created from dirt.. .

Disillusioned JW

I think of the JWs as being semi-fundamentalists. The WT literature spiritualizes many Bible verses (especially prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures) that were intended (in my opinion) to be interpreted mostly literally. In contrast, Christian fundamentalists are known for interpreting scripture literally.