Posts by thomas15

31

A Day With Betty

by sacolton in

jw
friends

another day with betty (dorothy) dunlap.

first ... inside the nursing home:.

it's really not this dark ... it's a very pretty foyer.. .

thomas15

Great thread, good work sacolton. I salute you sir.

8

The banjo thread

by JimmyPage in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2sfdd2lls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzae_sqbmde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrlqq1_vzve.

The above picture was actually taken during the sound check. The reason I remember this is because the guitar player is not in the pic. This was a 10:00AM service and at 9:00AM the approx time this was taken it was already in the mid 90s. A real Motley Crew?

8

The banjo thread

by JimmyPage in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2sfdd2lls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzae_sqbmde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrlqq1_vzve.

thomas15

OK Jimmy Page...

Got one on you.

thomas15 playing banjo

Thomas15 playing banjo with his praise team. Outdoor church service, Pennsylvania August 2008

21

What happens when you pull an instant fade?

by bluecanary in

jw
friends

i left the jws one year ago by moving accross the country and not going to a new hall.

the dubs in my last hall knew i was moving and they know i haven't requested my card for a new hall.

what do they usually do in such a circumstance?.

thomas15

bluecanary,

I'm a volunteer firefighter in a semi-rural part of NE PA. We don't really get that many house fires, maybe 1 per month including mutual aid with the surrounding towns. One of the factors in fighting fires is that we don't have hydrants in most of the township. So, we have to truck in water using tanker trucks. This takes time to set up and maintain. In the meantime, the fire doesn't slow down just to make it fair.

Last thursday we were called out for a house fire in the next town over. I rode on my companies first truck out and we were on-scene very quickly, before the "home team" started flowing water. The house, a large 2 story with attached garage was fully involved, fire on both floors, the attic and basement. As I exited the truck I said to one of my fellow firefighters "this house is a gonner". And it was, the family lost 100% of everything they owned. We spent 4 hours on-scene and finally left at 12:30 AM. I got home at 1:30AM.

My point you ask. Even though it was clear to everyone that we couldn't save this place and the fire itself wasn't our fault, we still did the absolutle best we could for the homeowners. We did draw the line on one thing, that is we didn't place ourselves in a dangerous position to save the unsavable. We did however maintain our pride in a job well done.

And that is my advice to you. You cannot save everything, You can do the best you can but remember you are #1. Do what you can, be professional and sincere, feel the pain of the patient but don't put yourself in a position that endangers your well being. You can't save them all.

Just my advice,

Take care (of yourself),

Tom

8

Last night conversation with wifey

by winstonchurchill in

jw
friends

she commented on how clear the blood components/fractions issue was stated in the new book (we studied it this week).

i went along and yes, the chart is very clear on what's allowed and what not.. we were having dinner.

after a pause i asked her: "if i can eat potato, and i can eat beets, and i can eat carrots... then why can't i eat the whole salad?

thomas15

Next time She serves you a salad, grab 3 or 4 clean plates and then place the various fractions of the salad on each plate. Lettace on one, onions on another, tomato on the third, salad dressing on the fourth. Then eat one plate at a time, say nothing except great salad dear.

14

Watchtower says Baptism does NOT save you -- or DOES IT?

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses teach that you must be baptized in order to be saved?.

the watchtower, november 15th, 2008 issue, pages 20-22:.

"we are "saved through faith," "not owing to works" of the mosaic law or of those performed as christians.

thomas15

If we actually look at the Scripture given in the article: "We are "saved through faith," "not owing to works" of the Mosaic Law or of those performed as Christians. Our faith should be more than mere professed faith. (Eph. 2:8-9; John 3:16) It should move us to godly action. [...]

Eph 2:8-9 For by Grace are you saved... not by works... and John 3:16 ...that whosoever believes in him...

Salvation is by faith in the Son of God and nothing else. Acts 4:12 "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved."

I conclude that by saying "no other name..." that the Old Testament believers are also saved by the shed blood of Christ. There was no baptism for them, only faith in the yet to be revealed savior, Christ the Lord.

51

Bible scholars/researchers: What is your favorite version of the Bible?

by restrangled in

jw
friends

i only have the nwt.

i went to the bookstore and picked up the scofield study bible iii version of the niv.

i have 2 weeks to return or exchange it.

thomas15

Hi jonathan dough,

At the risk of sounding like a salesman for the NIV, I comment as follows. The NIV is no more a paraphrase than the ESV or the RSV. It is possible to find examples of "paraphrasing" in the NIV, true, but no more than in the RSV. Any translation from one language to another is going to have what some would call paraphrasing. Unless of course you use Young's Literal Translation which is basically a word for word translation and is not suitable for study.

A very interesting article by Rodney Decker who is a Greek professor at Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit PA (a very conservative baptist seminary). Decker has written a review of the ESV where he points out the good and not so good from his perspective, which you may not appreciate of course. In the review, he talks about the NIV and the TNIV. The TNIV, which has not come up in this thread yet, is an update of the NIV which uses gender inclusive language. You may not agree with anything Decker says but I'm sure you will find it an interesting read. I give the link to Deckers main web site so that you can see his credentials and other articles he has posted. Go to http://ntresources.com/ click on Book Reviews and Summaries, then click Review of the English Standard Version... There is an unabridged and abridged version of his review. Decker writes a well thought out, honest and reasoned review. It is not 3 paragraphs of hype.

jonathan, I have in my personal library your interlinear with Green's literal translation which is close to Youngs and keyed to Strongs. In addition, I have Vine's , the TDNT, NICNT, on and on, A.T. Robertsons Word Pictures and his NT grammar, Vincent's word studies, Thylers greek lexicon and everything by Spiro Zodhiates to name a few. But without knowing greek grammar, I have to say that this is of limited value to the OP in my opinion.

I appologise to everyone for taking this thread off into the wild blue yonder.

Tom

51

Bible scholars/researchers: What is your favorite version of the Bible?

by restrangled in

jw
friends

i only have the nwt.

i went to the bookstore and picked up the scofield study bible iii version of the niv.

i have 2 weeks to return or exchange it.

thomas15

Narkissos,

You sir are a gentleman. Thank you.

Tom

51

Bible scholars/researchers: What is your favorite version of the Bible?

by restrangled in

jw
friends

i only have the nwt.

i went to the bookstore and picked up the scofield study bible iii version of the niv.

i have 2 weeks to return or exchange it.

thomas15

Sorry, r. I made a mistake in my post above, the NRSV I have that you may have (If you want it) is the Harper Collins Study edition, not the Oxford. I can't remember off the top of my head if the Oxford that I mention is a Revised Standard or a New Revised Standard Version. There are no major differences between the two. You are welcome to have one if you want.

I hope also that I'm not coming on too strong, which is not my intention. Narkissos, I respect very much as he knows much about the languages of the Bible. He, by his own admission approaches the Bible much different than from myself as he uses the historical & literary critical approach, which I think is commonly called higher criticism. I on the other hand take the historical/gramatical approach. Probably more information than you want to know right now and I appologize if it is. Narkissos, if I'm incorrect, please correct me as I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

To illustrate the difference between the higher criticism and historical/gramatical approaches, one would say that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on a sandbar, the other would say that Jehovah God actually parted the waters. One approach might say that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, the other might say that they are from many sources and edited at a late date.

Submitted for discussion and not malice,

Tom

51

Bible scholars/researchers: What is your favorite version of the Bible?

by restrangled in

jw
friends

i only have the nwt.

i went to the bookstore and picked up the scofield study bible iii version of the niv.

i have 2 weeks to return or exchange it.

thomas15

r.

Here is a very good website which gives an overview of English Bible translations.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

The owner of this website (who is a conservative Lutheran BTW) has really done his homework.

If you go to the home page of this site, there is more information regarding other aspects of the Bible and translations. I highly recommend this web site as a place to begin learning about different versions of the Bible. http://www.bible-researcher.com/

Narkissos,

There is really no such thing as a "bias free" translation of the Bible in English. While I also respect your opinions very much, I think your criticism of the NIV and the Scofield is a little harsh. Among fundamentalist in the US, there are many who do not like the NIV and or the Scofield notes. Then there are some who like Scofield, but only the notes from the 1917 (orig. Scofield) edition. Same with the NIV translation. It (the NIV) is what is termed as a mediating translation, which means it tries to strike a balance between literal and dynamic rendering of the English text. To many fundamentalist, the NIV is not conservative enough and uses the N/A 27 (or 26) greek as it's main text which many fundamentalist do not like. Over all, and for the purposes of a person who is looking for a reliable, accurate translation of the English Bible, the NIV is a good place to start. Your average typical fundamentalist in the US would probably not have the Scofield III in the NIV as their main take to church Bible although they may use the orig Scofield in KJV. While I own several Scofields and like them, it is not MY personal main study Bible of choice. I have no major issue with Scofields theology as I generally agree with the Dispensational stance. My personal issue with Scofield is that the there are not enough notes. The MacArther study Bible, which is my personal favorite (in the New American Standard Bible) has many more notes and he, while also being Dispensationalist is more likely to give opposing viewpoints. But remember, a study Bible is not a full blown Bible commentary.

To further the discussion and again, I'm not trying to hijack this thread or scold you Narkossos, the addition of the Apocrypha at this point will do little to help r. and will only make her quest to understand the essential message of the Bible and make sense of where the WT is in error more difficult. As I mentioned in a previous message above, The New Revised Standard Bible which you like, is a good translation. It is the translation that a Yale or Princeton Divinity School student would use. Nothing wrong with that but if a person who is just looking for a Study Bible to teach themselves The Bible, it will be a problem unless you are what is called here in the US a theological liberal. Reason, the two popular study Bibles (protestant notes, not Roman Catholic) are the Harper Collins (not to be confused with the Harper Study Bible) and the Oxford. The notes in these Bible are liberal to the core, which is fine if you intend to study the Bible as literature and have no intention or expectation of using the Bible to make a positive impact on your spiritual life.

Another thing, and again, I'm not trying to beat you up Narkissos, in the US, the correct definition of a fundamentalist is a person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith. They (the fundamentals) are: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the triune Godhead, bodily resurrection of and literal return of Jesus and the need to confess sin and place your faith and trust in Jesus as your only acceptable path to eternal life. It (a fundamentalist) is not a person who is trusting in a particular church, particular translation of the Bible, the ability to handle snakes or drink poison, speak in toungues, protest abortion providers, sell religion on the streets, wear special clothes, say special prayers and so on. A fundamentalist as depicted in the US media is not accurate. I consider myself fundamental in that I trust literally the Bible and I'm placing my faith and trust in Jesus for the forgivness of my sins, all by the grace of God, and not by any work that I may accomplish Eph 2:8-9.

Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, if r. while I think the NIV Scofield III that r. has is fine, the ESV study Bible might be better if she wants only 1 Bible at this time. The ESV (English Standard Version) is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, same as the New Revised Standard Version. So they are both share the same heritage. The ESV study notes are in the main Covenent theology (as opposed to Dispensational) but it gives the CT, Disp., liberal, preterset, pre-mil, post mil, and A-mil prespective. If it has a fault, it is the opposite of the Scofield in that it has too many notes.

Sorry for rambling soo much. r., if you would like, I'm willing to give you for free a copy of The New Qxford Study Bible in The (i think) Revised Standard Version or a copy of the New Qxford Study Bible in the NRSV. You could then compare the notes with the Scofield and compare the text of the NIV with the NRSV and make up your own mind. Send me a PM if you are interested.

OK, the above is comprised of mainly my opinions and I respect everyone elses right to their opinions. If I come across as anything other than helpful, please accept my appology.

By the way, I gave my non-Bible believing younger brother an NIV readers edition as a Christmas present last year. After contemplating which translation and edition to give him, I finally decided to go with a NIV, non-study Bible. I also gave him a Bible Handbook to go along with the Bible.

Yours truly,

Tom