Posts by witnessgirl

38

What was wrong with the 'occultic green' bibles?

by Gill in

what was wrong with the 'green bible'?.

i understand (rightly or wrongly) that the 'green' had occult connotations that some did not approve of.. is this true and were the early jws too involved with hidden, esoteric, occult meaning that 'others' found uncomfortable and so they had to go to the sobre black bibles?.

witnessgirl

I always figured that it had to do with the Paradise Earth, nature, etc., but that was just my guess. I never really thought about it until I became aware that the Society had also published genuine leather Bibles bound in green leather with green edging on the pages. Was a big color for Bibles for a long time. I think there may have been a green imitation leather one, as well. I can totally see the explanation that Fred wanted something other than a black Bible.

I can't find it on the CD, but I remember reading a Watchtower article about a surfer and his girlfriend who accepted a green Bible from Witnesses while on vacation surfing in Latin America somewhere. He said that they had the green Bible sitting on their dashboard while they were crossing a border. Apparently, the couple was used to being searched by border guards because they looked like hippies/surfers/pot smokers/whatever, but that the guards saw the green Bible and just waived them through. He said that he and his girlfriend came to the conclusion that the green Bible was some sort of lucky charm. This idea was never contradicted, corrected, or explained anywhere in the article. Maybe that's why I couldn't find it on the CD.

One of the only times I ever wrote to the Society (late '80s/early '90s) was to try to order a green Bible. They wrote back saying that they didn't make them any more. I eventually ended up with a number of copies after eBay arrived on the scene. I thought that I'd gotten rid of them all by now, but recently found one (in perfect brand-new condition) in a closet.

Pandoras cat:

I noticed that most of the sisters in the hall nowadays have the burgundy bible. Feminine color perhaps?

Interesting; never thought about it before. I always liked the burgundy pocket-sized Bible because it could fit in my purse or a coat pocket. I still keep one by my computer just to have handy. I think I was the only one in my hall who actually used one of the pocket-sized Bibles, though. I normally used the full-size black (imitation) leather Bible in field service, because it looked more like worldly people's Bibles. (It's really really beat up now.) I got a burgundy (genuine leather) pocket size KJV that I kept in my service bag because some people wouldn't use any other translation. I do like burgundy Bibles. I use a burgundy RSV as my main Bible today.

Gill:

WAsn't Russell's 'Comments on the Scriptures' or whatever they were also green

Maybe there was an edition like that, but mine (1910) are maroon, as were the later (1920's) Winged Disc editions. I know that there were pocket size editions of these that I've never seen, though.

Gopher:

Does anyone else remember a small hardcover NWT Bible with a RED cover? It wasn't as widespread as the ones with a green cover.

Yeah, there was also a brown NWT, in the 1970s I think. These are desirable collectables today, LOL.

16

Some observations and questions about the NWT

by witnessgirl in

i don't know whether anyone here has encountered a program called e-sword (with the hyphen in it like that).

it is bible study software that lets you install literally dozens of different translations of the bible to compare, plus dictionaries, maps, and commentaries (including historic commentaries like the ones ray franz describes in coc).

you can install both modern and historic translations, plus versions of the original greek and hebrew manuscripts as well as the latin vulgate and greek septuagint translations.

witnessgirl

The word I was thinking of here was הילל, which would be something like "hélél". I have no idea where I pulled the other thing out of--I was trying to do two things at once and in a rush. Thanks greatly!

16

Some observations and questions about the NWT

by witnessgirl in

i don't know whether anyone here has encountered a program called e-sword (with the hyphen in it like that).

it is bible study software that lets you install literally dozens of different translations of the bible to compare, plus dictionaries, maps, and commentaries (including historic commentaries like the ones ray franz describes in coc).

you can install both modern and historic translations, plus versions of the original greek and hebrew manuscripts as well as the latin vulgate and greek septuagint translations.

witnessgirl

snowbird:

This is an aside, but isn't that the same Hebrew word used for Abel, the second son of Adam and Eve?

I find it intriguing that Eve would use that term for her son. Had it finally dawned on her that life outside Eden was useless or meaningless? What a tragic outcome for one act of disobedience!

That is a really interesting observation! Only the vowels are different, and the vowels were inserted many centuries after the original texts were written. Without them, as it was written in ancient manuscripts, the word is the same both places--"הבל". Compare "hebel" meaning "useless" at Ecc 1:2 here:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3101.htm

With the name of the second son of Adam and Eve at Gen 4:2 here:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0104.htm

The vowels are written like accent marks under the letters. Only the consonants appear in ancient manuscripts; the vowels were added much more recently to assist reading and pronunciation.

Narkissos:

The real problem, imo, is the evolution of modern languages (in that case, English): vanity probably was a correct translation two centuries ago, as the usage of the word was closer to the Latin vanitas -- "emptiness," whence "uselessnes," "meaninglessness" or "futility," bordering on the more recent use of "absurd" and "nonsense". Unfortunately there is a certain inertia in the world of Bible translation (also due to the reaction of the conservative public which easily complains when translators or revisers "change" THE Bible, i.e. the version they have known from childhood), and it takes too much time before translations take changes of usage into account.

Naturally, a huge problem with the NWT here is that it is claimed to be a modern language translation; in fact, this is often presented as the main "sell point" for it over other translations (a red herring, BTW). That aside, though, you've made an outstanding point here, and I've also observed the same thing. I have seen people from the King James Only camp attacking other translations of the Bible simply because they do not say what the KJV says at certain verses, with no consideration whatsoever given to what the original Hebrew or Greek might say--in fact, I've seen these arguments presented as though there were no manuscripts of the Scriptures that predate the KJV!

A good example would be a (non-JW) site that I recently saw linked on here somewhere. The webmaster (who claims to hold a number of theology degrees, although I really have to question this claim) was arguing that the NIV was Satanic because it did not use the word "Lucifer" in a verse where the KJV did, using the word "morning star" instead. The argument is presented here:

http://www.nivexposed.faithweb.com/about.html

Nowhere does he even consider what the original Hebrew might say. He certainly does not grasp that either would be an acceptable rendering (KJV transliterates where NIV translates). You can see the original Hebrew text of the verse in question (Isaiah 14:12) alongside a Jewish translation that greatly predates the NIV here:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1014.htm

If you've got a Hebrew lexicon, it will take you less than five minutes to discover that the word used here, "Lu-Shfr", means "light-bringer, or morning star". Nothing about the usage suggests that it must be a proper name. Yet the webmaster here is utterly convinced that the NIV must be Satanic because it does not preserve the KJV's rendering of the word by transliteration rather than translation, nor is the fact that there even is an original Hebrew version ever addressed. Wouldn't that be the first place to go in comparing two translations? Apparently not to this guy.

Thanks again for reading my very long post!

16

Some observations and questions about the NWT

by witnessgirl in

i don't know whether anyone here has encountered a program called e-sword (with the hyphen in it like that).

it is bible study software that lets you install literally dozens of different translations of the bible to compare, plus dictionaries, maps, and commentaries (including historic commentaries like the ones ray franz describes in coc).

you can install both modern and historic translations, plus versions of the original greek and hebrew manuscripts as well as the latin vulgate and greek septuagint translations.

witnessgirl

I don't know whether anyone here has encountered a program called e-Sword (with the hyphen in it like that). It is Bible study software that lets you install literally dozens of different translations of the Bible to compare, plus dictionaries, maps, and commentaries (including historic commentaries like the ones Ray Franz describes in CoC). You can install both modern and historic translations, plus versions of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint translations. I recently installed it and was checking out favorite verses in different translations.

One of the translations you can get for e-Sword is NWT, which I have mostly because it's the Bible version that I'm most familiar with. When looking at the NWT text of Ecclesiastes 1:2, I was struck by two things: one, that the text wasn't even close to what I was used to the NWT saying, and, two, that it was a very, very good translation of the original Hebrew (I was raised Jewish and can read Hebrew). This really startled me and made me wonder if the NWT had been revised. No luck; a little Googling revealed to me that what I was actually looking at was a copy of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translation rather than the NWT.

A little hunting around and I found a real copy of the NWT for e-Sword. What I had previously installed had been mislabelled. So, if you've got a copy of e-Sword, double check and make sure that your NWT really is the NWT. The real one is 6.87 Mb whereas the mislabelled HCSB is 12.2 Mb.

But this all raises some interesting (to me, anyway) questions about the NWT, as well as a few things that have been bugging me since back when I was an active Witness. The first chapter of Ecclesiastes is one of the first things that I look at in Bible translations that I haven't encountered before, as I can immediately tell whether the translators are working from the original manuscripts or are simply paraphrasing older translations.

If the NWT is based on the original manuscripts, why does Ecclesiastes 1:2 use the word "vanity" to mean "useless" or "meaningless"? The only way that such a rendering would make sense is if one were trying to imitate the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate text, a medieval translation of scripture that the KJV is based on. If you've got a Bible where the first chapter of Ecclesiastes uses the word "vanity", it is not working from the original manuscripts--it is either translating the Vulgate or attempting to revise the KJV. The word "vanity" does not mean "useless" in modern English, but it is similar to the Latin word used in the Vulgate ("Vanitas vanitatum dixit Ecclesiastes, vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas").

Bibles that translate the original Hebrew word "hebel" correctly, as "useless", "meaningless", or something similar, include the TEV, NJB, NIV, CEV, and HCSB, as noted. Bibles that use the word "vanity" (apparently in an effort to imitate the Vulgate but at the expense of English meaning) include the KJV, ASV, RSV, and NWT, only the last of which claims to be based on the oldest available manuscripts (the others either being the KJV or revisions of it).

Why would the Society translate the word this way, obviously in imitation of the Vulgate (which they condemn), when copies of the original Hebrew text are readily available at any Christian or Jewish book store (and almost certainly in the Bethel libraries)? My guess is that they just based their "translation" on a translation that relied on the Vulgate without realizing that doing so caused them to show their hand. The problem is that they were obviously just comparing and revising earlier English translations rather than making a new translation based on the oldest manuscripts available, while claiming to be producing something totally new and based only on the oldest manuscripts.

This has been bothering me for a LONG time.

If my incredibly dry and boring rambling about Biblical semantics hasn't put you to sleep (or at least caused you to leave the page) yet, this gives me an opportunity to bring up a few other questions about the NWT that have been bouncing around in my head. In putting together a new translation of the scriptures, and claiming to be guided by Jehovah God in doing so, isn't it remarkable that the Society arrived at the exact same 66 books as being "inspired" that Babylon the Great did centuries ago? Not even one of the New Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired? Not even one of the books that Babylon the Great deemed worthy of inclusion in the canon was not actually so?

Babylon the Great was exactly right in their blind guesses regarding the authorship of each and every one of the books of the Bible? Not even one of those books was actually written by someone else? (I could write essays on why Solomon almost certainly wasn't the author of Ecclesiastes, nor were any of the Gospels likely written by their namesakes.)

Not even one of the Old Testament apocryphal books was actually inspired and worthy of inclusion? Martin Luther wasn't wrong about even one of them? Luther's removal of the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible would have presented an excellent opportunity for the Society to argue that things were being removed and "covered up" by Christendom, but instead they determined that Luther's actions were 100% correct.

How strange that these humans working without divine assistance in compiling the canon centuries ago managed to still get every one of their guesses right. That is what the composition of the NWT would have us believe, anyhow.

I'll try to wrap things up with the one that has been bugging me the most. The more that I think about it, the more that it becomes obvious to me that the use of the word "Jehovah" as a translation of the Tetragrammaton (I'm not even going to start on its use in the New Testament) is no more appropriate than the use of the word "LORD" in its place. Even the Society admits that "Jehovah" is not a particularly accurate rendering of the Tetragrammaton. (There is no letter J in Hebrew, Greek, or even Latin; the word is a corruption based on mideval misunderstandings of Hebrew.) Whether you use the word "LORD" in place of the Tetragrammaton or the word "Jehovah" in place of it, you are hiding and covering up the original word, the actual name of God, "YHWH", or possibly "Yahweh".

If it is so vitally important to use the Divine Name, if one cannot possibly know God without knowing the Divine Name or expect answer to prayer without including it, wouldn't "YHWH" or "Yahweh" be what you would HAVE to use? Doesn't using the word "Jehovah" cover it up and remove the actual divine name just as much as "LORD" or "father" or any other name or title would?

Just some things that have been bugging me. Thanks for letting me get it out, and thanks so much for reading such a long and rambling post.

Peace,

Heather.

115

Do YOU Look Like YOUR Avatar/JWD mini-pic

by RAYZORBLADE in

jw
friends

do you look like your jwd profile pic?.

just curious.. that stupid pic of me in a columbia rain jacket is real.

it's 2 yrs.

witnessgirl

Yes, it's me. But I don't get loose issues of the mags any more and the only songbooks left in the house are hardcover. (I honestly thought I'd gotten rid of the songbooks years ago but recently came across two hardcover copies in a closet, along with a few genuinely neat surprises that I thought for sure I'd gotten rid of--purple Kingdom Interlinear, two green 1961 NWTs, and, best of all, a copy of the old "Divine Purpose" book that was sort of a forerunner to "Proclaimers".)

18

If the WT ever turned on Booze like they did Cigarettes....?

by Open mind in

what percentage of jws would comply?

.

om

witnessgirl

Years ago, I used to be such a geek that I fantasized about being a Bethelite or a Gilead missionary one day. Recently, I've been able to sit down and read the stories of former Bethelites on the Internet (one of the first things that I looked into when I decided that I was finally at a point where I wanted to learn about the Org behind the scenes), and was horrified to learn about how much drinking goes on at Bethel. New boy on here put it best, I think:

They don't tolerate much at bethel.......but if they kicked everyone out of Bethel, for drinking to much, the place would have shut down years ago.......So I'm driving down the FDR drive one Sunday, taking an old timer back to Bethel, (been there about 40 years) after giving a talk at my hall............ he points over to the Schafer Brewery and says " Son,......if the ever shut down that factory ........ they would have to shut down..... that one too!"..........pointing to Bethel. LOL

Source: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/129460/1.ashx

5

Watchtower MP3

by scotsman in

just came across this.

www.jw.org.

just listening to the over enunciated contents gave me the dry boak..

witnessgirl

Actually, for most of the Org's history you could get the mags without ever seeing a JW by subscribing through the mail. Every year when your subscription was about to expire, you would get yellow and blue paper slips in the mail. If you wanted to keep getting the mags, you checked a box and returned the slips to the society and you kept getting your mailbox crammed full of Jehovah's Food ™ without having to have it served by Jehovah's Witnesses™.

Then sometime around 1991 they announced in letters to all congregations and letters to all bodies of elders that they weren't going to be offering subscriptions through the mail anymore. Then a month later, another letter came. Suprise! The fun-loving society was just kidding. Subscriptions would continue as normal.

Then sometime around 2000 they did away with subscriptions for real. Having been around for the earlier expected time of the end and having seen it come and go without anything be any different, I was skeptical. Unfortunately, Jehovah decided to punish me for questioning the society's predictions and killed subscriptions for real, just like Lot's wife. I am very sorry.

Fortunately, as you've noted, the new situation with online distribution (even of the Study edition) means that it doesn't matter anymore. The audio versions of the mags (I remember when they came on cassette tapes) were always harder to get anyway, making it even better.

12

JW's and weddings

by nana1957 in

i am sure this has been discussed before, would appreciate anything on this.

i was always under the assumption that a jw was not allowed to be an attendant in a 'worldly' wedding.

meaning that you would not be able to be a bridesmaid or groomsman if you were baptized.

witnessgirl

Like I mentioned in another thread, it's currently a conscience matter (WT 15Nov07p31), but it really does depend on the elders in your cong. Half-decent elders versus tough elders makes a big difference in a cong (I switched to a different hall in my town for this very reason, which probably isn't an activity that's thought highly of, but nobody said anything).

Now, if the wedding is at the Church of Satan or something, all bets are off....

5

Congregation Photos Online

by AlphaOmega in

http://www.thesyke.com/gallery/index.php?cat=5.

http://www.thesyke.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=7&page=2.

i know that the wtbts frown on this sort of thing, but it's obvious it still happens.. it just surprised me to see pics online of anything other than a district convention.. .

witnessgirl

In the Pioneer Service School graduation photo, the chick on the far right wearing the pink sari with gold trim covered in semiprecious stones is totally wearing something modest.

13

Hey, have any apostates done this?

by Lady Zombie in

jw
friends

i'm almost positive that someone(s) have done this, but since jws like to leave tracts in doors, waiting room tables, as tips .

man, i'd sure like to leave those kind of tracts all over the place!.

witnessgirl

I've seen a few anti-JW tracts, but most were not written by "apostates" but rather by people who had never been JWs and had no idea what sort of things might actually make a JW question their faith. I've actually seen entire books like this, and read them when I was in The Truth™ (because I knew that I was so Spiritually Strong™that I didn't have to worry about it), and they did nothing for me. I already knew about the jellyfish story and Miracle Wheat from the Witchtower Babble and Trick Society's own literature, and attacks on the character of C.T. Russell wouldn't make me change my whole life and leave The Truth™ and all my friends anyway.

EDIT: Here is one anti-JW tract written by people who were never JWs:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_1.htm