Posts by Wonderment

75

Is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses REALLY the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt. 24:45-47?

by Roger Kirkpatrick in

thesis: when someone who is given a responsibility mistakes that responsibility for authority, bullying is very likely to occur.. jesus spoke an illustration recorded at matthew 24: 45-51 which well illustrates this thesis.. jesus asked, “who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over all his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?

happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.

truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.

Wonderment

BoogerMan: "The NWT copied the wording of the KJV which says "kings" at Revelation 5:10, whereas other translations such as the NIV say "kingdom." But of course, it's common knowledge that the NWT perverted their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation twice in that one verse - kings instead of kingdom, and over the earth instead of upon it. (see Psalm 45:16)"

I checked the 1969 and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear editions, and they both show "kingdom" in Rev. 5.10 instead of "kings."

As for the alleged "perversion" of this text, it should be noted that the KI has "upon the earth" as translation for the preposition "epí," whereas the NWT on the right margin shows "over the earth."

Now, a preposition can have many meanings, and translators use a wide range of renderings for these, including "epí" in the genitive case as we have in Rev 5.10. Grammarian J. Harold Greenlee* explains that one basic meaning of "epí" is "upon" followed by 'over' (of authority), which he follows with two genitive examples: Acts 8.27 & Luke 12.42. Check them out! (*A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, pp. 64-65)

As for the interpretation of Rev 5.10, I will say that just as you have the independent right to have your own, as you have shown us, the NWT translators have the same prerrogative. There is no 'perversion' here in regards to the the readings found in both the KIT and NWT editions.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Disillusioned JW:

First, I will present a brief variety of versions of the Isaiah 9:6 expression of "Wonderful Counselor" (NWT 1984, "And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Bold letters are mine):

Byington: "and he is named Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace,"

LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”

Syriac Peshitta, “Wonder and Counselor.”

The Chaldee, "The God of wonderful counsel"

JPS, 1917: And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom".

Tanakh (v5, 1988): "He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal

Father, a peaceable ruler'--"

On Isaiah 9.6, scholars are not in agreement on the number of names/titles assigned to the born child in question, in particular, where the first title is involved: the Wonderful-Counselor one - it showing the greatest divergency.

Some believe that 4 names or titles should comprise the description of "the child," not five (Wonderful Counserlor as one title, not two). Here is a sample:

The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition, Barker & Kohlenberger III): "The KJV has a comma after 'Wonderful,' but it seems likely that the prophet intends us to understand that the child has four names, not five."

The Believer's Study Bible: "'Wonderful, Counselor' is actually one name instead of two."

A sample of those who think we should have 5 names in Is 9.6:

Pulpit Commentary: "Wonderful, Counselor. It has been proposed to unite these two expressions and translate, "Wondrous Counselor" (compare "wonderful in counsel," Isaiah 28:29). But Dr. Kay is probably right in saying that, if this had been the meaning, it would have been expressed differently. Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, and Vance Smith agree with Dr. Kay in taking the words separately."

TCBL: "The names given indicate his essential characteristics. 'Wonderful' and 'Counselor' are not joined by ancient Hebrew scholars."

Why the divergency?

The next two reference works explain it very well:

Cambridge Bible: "Wonderful, Counseller] Since each of the other names is compounded of two words, these expressions are also to be taken together as forming a single designation—Wonder-Counseller. The construction is either construct followed by genitive—“a wonder of a Counseller” (cf. Genesis 16:12), or acc. governed by participle—“one who counsels wonderful things.” Cf. “wonderful in counsel” (of Jehovah) in ch. Isaiah 28:29. On counsel as the function of a king, see Micah 4:9."

NET Bible: Or “Extraordinary Strategist,” “a wonder of a counselor,” or “one who plans a miraculous thing” (HALOT 928 s.v. פֶּלֶא). Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (palaʾ) and יָעַץ (yaʿats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yoʿets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ʾel gibbor)."

On Judges 14:2,3, you compared the reading of Isaac Leeser's Translation of these two verses with those of the NWT.

Leeser: [v.2] And he went up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnathah of the daughters of the Philistines; and now take her to me for wife.

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap[v.3] Then said unto him his father and his mother, Is there not among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, a woman, that thou art going to take a wife from the Philistines, the uncircumcised? And Samson said unto his father, This one take for me; for she pleaseth me well.

NWT 1984: " [v.2] So he went up and told his father and his mother and said: “There is a woman that I have seen in Timʹnah of the daughters of the Phi·lisʹtines, and now get her for me as a wife.” [v.3] But his father and his mother said to him: “Is there not among the daughters of your brothers and among all my people a woman, so that you are going to take a wife from the uncircumcised Phi·lisʹtines?” Still Samson said to his father: “Get just her for me [1953 ed., Her get for me], because she is the one just right in my eyes.”

NWT 2013 (final part of v.3): But Samson said to his father: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”

I don't think 'infringement of a copyright' applies here, since it is common practice for translators to duplicate or rehash phrasing from previous translations. There is, however, sufficient grounds at times for a translator to come up with an alternate reading to fit prose, context or grammar requirements.

For instance, in verse two, in the Hebrew, a conjunctive waw/adverb (and now) and a verb (get) precede the direct object marker (her), whereas in verse 3, the direct object "her" is before the verb. Doing so in the later (v.3) is surely more emphatic than the previous wording in v. 2. Also, the Hebrew word for "she" needs more decided stress in the reading. Of course, this is not readily observable in traditional versions when they read: "Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well." (KJV)

Now, let's place the NWT 1953 version in contrast with the KJV: "Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes." "Her" is placed first in the declaration, thus being made prominent. Samson didn't want another woman from among 'their people' as his parents had requested. In Samson's eyes, it had to be "her." She must have been a very beautiful or delightful woman! And the "she" in the second phrase is given its rightful stress...she is the one.

The translator was obviously aware of this construction. This may explain why Robert Alter in his translation did the same thing in the first part of the declaration, but failed to do so on the later. As to why Leeser translated, "This one take for me," I'm not sure, but he may have noted the presence in v. 3 of the imperative verb "get" in the masculine singular in the Hebrew - in combination with the "her" in the feminine singular. (There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. Inanimate things and abstract ideas are either masculine or feminine.) Or Leeser perhaps felt that having "this one" in the narrative is more emphatic than just saying "her." I am inclined to think that this last account is the more plausible one.

I hope you may find this information helpful to you.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Disilllusioned JW:

I just noticed your message, since I usually don't check on this forum daily.

First of all, I should mention I have no Jewish background (per your suggestion), so I cannot offer you the Hebrew expertise or perspective you may be seeking from a Jewish national.

That said, I will briefly answer one of your questions.

"...when I read certain passages of the OT, especially when I compare Jewish translations of certain passages with Christian translations of the same passages I get the impression that the biblical Hebrew language is less precise and more ambiguous than Greek and English."

"I also get the idea biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means 'of' and the meaning has to be inferred by the context. Are these impressions of mine correct?"

Your assumption on the first statement sounds correct.

On the second one, you are right in concluding that biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means "of." Besides the usual consideration of context in any given narrative, it is also advantageous to consider the grammatical angle when there is a possessive relationship expressed between two or more nouns.

I have seen a number of lists of Hebrew prepositions from various sources, and the "of" is absent among them. In contrast, Modern Hebrew does have "shel" used as an equivalent for "of," but biblical Hebrew does not."

In the literal Hebrew statement (king the land), the construct chain is formed by linking two nouns, that is, the first noun "king" is called the "construct noun" and the second noun (the land) is called the "absolute noun." We thus read this as definite, by the presence of the article in the absolute: "(the) king of the land." Alternatively, these are often called the construct state and the absolute state. It should be stated that they can be indefinite if the context and a grammatical indicator dictates so.

This is how Hebrew expresses the “of” (possessive) relationship between two nouns. The example you provided illustrates this as well. This may remind us of the Greek genitive construction too.

Hopefully, I will address the other questions on Is 9.6 and Jg 14.3 soon.

72

20 Things I Don't Understand about Jehovah's Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

i don’t understand how jehovah’s witnesses can rightly claim:.

that less than 150,000 faithful christians existed prior to the 20th century....when allegedly millions were martyred during the first 3 centuries of the common era alone.

unique ability to interpret scripture...when interpretation of prophecy has been 100% wrong for over 130 years.. .

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7,

My friend, I will like to make a proposal to you. You obviously put in quite a bit of effort and time to bring up old quotes from WT publications, many which clearly show how some humans in the name of religion can end up making 'an ass of themselves' (an expression heard from the mouths of WT leaders).

My proposal is as follows:

Since you are good at doing this, what about doing for us a '2 Column List' of WT statements from the past compared to the "present truth," a sort of "Before" & "Now." Such a display can be helpful for future reference, and may help others see for themselves what they are facing from this high-control group. There is no need to do it right away, but at your own time and convenience.

What do you say?

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Disillusioned JW: Please read John 14:8-12 in the RV or the ASV. Notice in verse 10-11 it says "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" and notice that verse 10 Jesus says "the Father abiding in me". For the moment please read those words literally and ask yourself what they mean in a literal sense. Then please ask yourself if according to the gospel account did Jesus intend that literal meaning .... We know how the NWT uses the phrase "in union with" in these verses (and note that the NWT also uses the word "remains" in verses 10 and 17) and the explanation that the WT gives of these verses, but is that understanding what the account was meant to convey?

This is in answer to the first question:

Mainstream church believers normally take the words "in me" and "abiding in me" in this narrative literally. This is so because they hold the belief that the Father was inside Christ with all its might. Notwithstanding, the early Jesus in human form was limited in knowledge and power, as he revealed that the almighty Father was "in heaven," and he was on earth. (Mt 6.9, Mr 13.32, Mt 20.20-23) To others he acknowledged in various places that he ‘could not do 'one single thing on his own’ unless the Father told him to. (Jn 5.19, 12.49)

He also spoke of doing the works of the Father by command, by will, not by having God literally inside of him. Jesus always spoke of the Father in the third person indicative (as a he), and as his 'superior.'

What about the Greek language? Does the Greek terms in any way require that God be inside Jesus? Let's see! The Greek word for "in" is ἐν, a preposition that has ample meaning. It can have the basic sense of "in," but can additionally mean other things as well (some scholars, like Wallace, mention at least 10 uses).

One of these uses of ἐν is with the instrumental meaning of "by," "with," "through," or "by means of." A Translator's Handboook on the Gospel of John (Newman & Nida, UBS. Italics mine.) explains:

"The meaning may be expressed by translating 'I am one with the Father, and the Father is one with me.' [...] In some languages the relationship between the Father and Jesus may be expressed as 'my Father is united with me, and I am united with my Father' or 'my Father and I are just as though we were one.'"

On 'remaining ('abiding') with,' this same work says: "The Father, who remains in me, does his own work is a fairly literal rendering of the Greek text. These words indicate that Jesus' miracles were not accomplished by his own power or initiative (see 8.28); rather, they reveal his union with the Father."

This explains why various translations render these words like the NWT, such as the Twentieth Century New Testament which renders: "Do not you believe that I am in union with the Father, and the Father with me? In giving you my teaching I am not speaking on my own authority; but the Father himself, always in union with me, does his own work. 11 Believe me," he said to them all, "when I say that I am in union with the Father and the Father with me, or else believe me on account of the work itself." (Bold letters mine) Bible translator, Goodspeed, translated similarly.

As a confirmation to this interpretation, we have the request of Jesus' last night on earth to his Father concerning his followers: "so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me." (Jn 17. 20-23) No one in their right mind would suggest that Almighty God would literally dwell in all his greatness inside the bodies of mortal humans. The mountain where Moses stood in God's presence could not contain all his glory. And the temple of Solomon was neither able to have the full presence of God literally. However, in past times, men and women were very capable to be in union or united with God. And we could do the same today.

In sum, Bible translators who render in harmony with Jesus' words above are accurate.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7:

I saw the video you suggested and it confirms the difficulty there is in applying literal meanings within symbolic narratives.

The 144,00 number is likely symbolic as well.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Disillusioned JW: Wonderment, what you wrote about the word proskyne'o (worship) reminds me what is said in more than one of the translators' footnotes in the 1901 ASV Bible (and maybe in the 1881-1885 RV Bible also).

Good observation!

Traditionalists would probably crawl under the bed before welcoming this footnote which appeared in the American Standard Version of 1901 in John 9.38: First, a bit of explanation: The context deals with a man born blind being cured by Jesus, who then was moved to bow down before Christ in obeisance.

The text says: And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped* him. (John 9:38 ASV 1901)

The footnote of this version reads:

* “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator (see ch. 4:20).”

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: Do you see the Great Crowd as being New Covenant, heaven bound Christians?

I'm not sure what to make of the destiny of the Great Crowd, or how to interpret references alluding to the Great Crowd. You are welcome to forward your thoughts on this subject!

A couple of corrections:

In a previous post I wrote: there are a lot of WT issues I cannot harmonize with the Bible, like: their application of "the faithful slave" of Mt 24.45, where it is used in a sneaky way to displace the role of both Christ and spirit.

Instead of "displace," I meant "diminish" so the sentence now goes like this: there are a lot of WT issues I cannot harmonize with the Bible, like: their application of "the faithful slave" of Mt 24.45, where it is used in a sneaky way to diminish the role of both Christ and spirit. This is so because nowhere has the WTS ever stated officially they seek to replace Christ and spirit. They do, however, by their frequent actions of drawing self-prominence, push Christ and spirit aside, so to speak, so their followers can fully focus their attention on the mighty and always relevant WT organization, thus diminishing the role of both Christ and spirit in the lives of millions.

I also stated that proskyne'o (worship) appeared 179x in the LXX. Actually, it is far more with 228 instances (A. Rahlfs Edition).

Hence, the statement now reads like this: Three quarters (3/4) of its many uses in the LXX (228x) were connected to the worship of the One True God of Israel, and/or of the false gods of the nations. That means there is approximately one quarter (1/4) left of cases where it was applied to others beside God/false gods, that is to humans, among these. That's a lot of instances (57x) in LXX. Therefore, any modern exegesis related to this word from the NT must begin from this historical perspective.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: "I still wonder where you stand regarding faith in God and Christ.
Of course you are free to answer or ignore my questions. But I'd like to know:
1. Do you believe the Bible is God's word?
2. Do you considered yourself a Christian?
3. If yes to question 2, what do you belive makes a person right (justified) with God?"
1. Do you believe the Bible is God's word?

Yes, however, I believe there is some gray area here. I believe the Bible is a unique book, and very powerful at that. Nonetheless, the Bible as we have it today is not error free. There are hundreds of incongruencies found within its pages, whether textual or other. The Bible message has no real competition. It is the closest thing to the Word of God as we are going to get.

2. Do you considered yourself a Christian?

Yes.

3. If yes to question 2, what do you belive makes a person right (justified) with God?"

We can only be justified with God by accepting and having faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior, God's lifesaving provision to mankind. (Jn 3.36) There is no single human action or work in itself from our part that can accomplish such, however noble they may be. True Christian faith, however, will be made manifest in noble actions, some which may not be always obvious to others.

Do you agree with the WTS scholars who render "proskyneo" in the NT as "do obeisance"
when applied to the Son but "worship" when applied to the Father?
So I gather you do not worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Greek word "proskyneo" has a broad meaning admitted by scholars abound. It can have the common meaning of 'full worship' rendered to God, or to another deity. But it can also have the basic meaning of "bowing down" in obeisance before a superior, whether human or divine.

Do I worship Jesus Christ? Absolutely, but I do so with the comprehension of Jesus being the greatest Being on the universe, that is, after God. (Jn 14.28, 1 Cor 15.28, Rev 1.1) Also, I would have no issue of addressing Christ in supplication as Stephen did right before he died. (Act 7.54-60) Stephen appealed to Christ after seeing him "standing at the right hand of God."

My guess is that the NWT went from "worship" at Heb 1.6 in early versions to "obeisance" later for clarity reasons, not theology.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: Thanks for sharing. BTW, spoken like a true WTS apologist."

Me a "WTS apologist"? I don't consider myself their apologist. When I think of a WTS apologist, names like Greg Stafford, Rolf Furuli, scholars who at one time defended the WTS fully, throughout, come to mind. Not me! I agree with the WTS on certain doctrines: the Trinity has pagan roots, the soul is not inmortal, there is no hellfire, and perhaps a few other things I can add to that.

Notwithstanding, there are a lot of WT issues I cannot harmonize with the Bible, like: their application of "the faithful slave" of Mt 24.45, where it is used in a sneaky way to displace the role of both Christ and spirit. The way they apply their modern history with minute details to Bible precedents are nonsensical, for the most part. The overboard repetition of dates such as 1914, 1919, 1925, 1975, etc., and "the end is around the corner" dribble, are tiresome and fruitless. The Bible command to "abstain from blood" made mandatory for each individual in the blood transfusion matter, regardless of their personal conscience, is uncalled for. Their eagerness to sacrifice any individual in the altar of keeping their reputation holy by defending the WTS 'at whatever cost,' even to the point of lying, are some of the things hard to swallow for any Christian. The extreme disfellowshipping practice created to keep the flock scared of the mother organization has created a lot of pain in untold thousands, even death by suicide in some cases. Many families are thus broken with no existing communication among family members, including mine. Jotting down the preaching hours in a monthly report is just there to assuage people to more regular action, and keep them in line for income security. One cannot leave the WTS honorably by simply submitting a disassociation note, which leads to the worst inhumane treatment by others in the community and even by the family.

The WTS misapplies Acts 20.20, to the point that they have demanded for decades that each individual in the borg preach "from house to house," or else such ones will be found lacking "spirituality." Preaching can be done in many ways - hello! The WTS has created a system that rivals the Pharisees with their religious extremes. Thus, the WT members are quick to judge and criticize anyone not up to their standards. The Society quickly grabs praise from people who think their leaders, and they alone, can speak truth, not realizing God, Christ & the Bible are foremost the source of truth. They rarely make public acknowledgement that they owe a lot to the scholarship efforts of hundreds of mainstream scholars. I could go on and on.

My friend, the way I see this, one cannot simply side with one religious entity, and conclude that only they have the truth. We humans by norm have limited knowledge, we learn from others all the time, and everybody makes mistakes. We cannot just brush off the WTS as a total failure either. They may be right in some areas and wrong in many places. The same can be said of mainstream religions. They may be right in some doctrines and wrong in many others. I think it is better to stay humble, and be willing to analyze religious statements regardless of their source. It was Jerome (who the Catholics claim as one of their own) who translated the Bible into Latin, which served the needs for millions of Christians for more than a thousand years, until the modern European languages took over in translation. The Protestants too deserve their place in honorary lists by being at the forefront of Bible translation making. We are in debt to untold thousands of individuals who labored night and day, risking their lives to translate the Bible into modern languages -- Tyndale, Wycliffe, Servetus and many others who defended Bible truths.

Although the WT people have been the laughing stock of the religious world for decades, they have some brownie points in their favor. They have championed religious freedom for decades worldwide by spending huge amounts of money before the courts, and all religious people should be grateful for that. Too bad the WTS now has a disdain for religious freedom among their members.

When the NWT NT was first published in 1950, the religious folks scolded the WT effort to no end. However, some scholars took notice. One, if my memory doesn't fail me, was Paul Kahle, who was intrigued by the photos which appeared in the NWT Foreword. This led some to question the WT theory that the Divine Name was in the original NT. Most laughed at them. Nonetheless, as time passed by, more scholars have reached the same conclusion, as others in this forum have pointed out. This is no laughing matter. It is not wise to ignore this issue altogether.

Also, John 1.1 was the number 2 issue that drove Evangelicals wild in particular, to accuse the WTS of inept Bible translation. They often said: No Greek scholar would ever translate this verse as the WT has done. Then, a strange thing happened. Due to the power of internet, many began to notice that dozens of other reputable translators have rendered John 1.1 in a similar manner. Haven't you noticed that the criticism surrounding the NWT and John 1.1 has abated somewhat. I remember the fiery accusations of ineptness leveled at the WT by hundreds of preachers and scholars alike after 1950. But hey, they found out they criticized too soon, exposing their state of being uninformed on the subject.

And then the WTS has done the unthinkable, translate their own NWT into dozens and dozens of other languages, even into the rarely known languages of the globe. They came up with the first translation anywhere of the complete Bible into Sign language. You have to give merit where it is due. Just like I have called out the WTS failure for not acknowledging enough the efforts of scholars worldwide (Catholics, Protestants, & Jewish alike), for providing us with such valuable Bible material for many decades. They pick and choose quotes from these works, even ignoring the names of the authors, or where specifically in the books they take their quotes from. Not fair!

Hence, the whole religious matter to me is not a simple black or white, day or night thing. There is a lot of gray area in between. We don't have all the answers, and may never will. We don't have to shut the doors to different opinions, even if they come from unexpected sources. The truth is important, even if it hurts.