Posts by Wonderment

45

Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

by dontfitin in

hi, i'm a long-time lurker who is still in due to family.

i'm hoping someone here can help me.. is there anywhere online that i can find a critique of the new bible revision?

one of the things that really got me was when i researched about the new world translation and found how there was no basis for adding jehovah's name in the new testament, and then other areas where they translated to accommodate their interpretation.

Wonderment

FayeDunaway: "I don't believe 1 cor 15:27 does exclude Christ from being equal to God. It says that God was not placed under christs feet. This is because they sit side by side."

So we have to believe that ‘subjection to God’ does not mean what it says. Wow!

I suppose Trinitarians would eagerly distort this text just as they have with John 14.28, "The father is greater than I am," where "greater" does not mean what the English word normally stands for. Talk about scripture twisting!

God can never be subjected to anyone! Otherwise God is not God almighty. We find Scripture repeatedly showing God Almighty giving a command to someone under him: "Sit at my right hand." No one can tell God where to sit. Period! Does God tell the spirit where to sit? If not, why not?

41

You contemptible worms aren't giving us enough! GIVE US MORE! Service meeting part December 21, 2015

by sir82 in

jw
friends

from the october 19 letter to the body of elders:.

to all bodies of eldersre: service meeting part for week of december 21, 2015dear brothers:the service meeting for the week of december 21, 2015, includes a ten-minute part entitledshow appreciation for jehovahs generosity.

this is to be a talk based on the november15, 2015, watchtower, pages 14-15. sometime during this part, the video a gift in hand to jehovahshould be played for the congregation.

Wonderment

What? More money so the WT can keep cutting closing branches and other expansions?

Where is all the money going?

45

Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

by dontfitin in

hi, i'm a long-time lurker who is still in due to family.

i'm hoping someone here can help me.. is there anywhere online that i can find a critique of the new bible revision?

one of the things that really got me was when i researched about the new world translation and found how there was no basis for adding jehovah's name in the new testament, and then other areas where they translated to accommodate their interpretation.

Wonderment

Faye:

The point I was trying to get across is not that Trinitarians are wrong by adding the word "else" in Col 1.17, but that most critics (ex-JWs included) making a big fuss against adding "other" to "all" as it appears in the NWT at Col 1.16 are oblivious to the fact that those who add "else" to "all" are actually supporting the NWT practice of including the concept of "other" or "else" to the Greek term pan'ta (all) applied in certain biblical texts.

Paul unequivocablly explains that the word "all" (pan'ta) in 1 Cor 15.27 excludes Christ from being equal to God. Heck, even modern English users do not always mean "everything" when they say "all."

15

Revised NWT...cross references...Has anyone noticed....?

by 4thgen in

just let me say, i hate the gray bible.

when i read the revision of mal 3:10 and they included tithing, i almost vomited.

recently though, my invalid mother asked me to read to her and the only thing available was the gray bible.

Wonderment

Perry said: "But we all have a soul that is eternal, which was made in the image of our eternal creator."

Excuse me Perry, where does it say in the Bible that the soul is "eternal"?

45

Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

by dontfitin in

hi, i'm a long-time lurker who is still in due to family.

i'm hoping someone here can help me.. is there anywhere online that i can find a critique of the new bible revision?

one of the things that really got me was when i researched about the new world translation and found how there was no basis for adding jehovah's name in the new testament, and then other areas where they translated to accommodate their interpretation.

Wonderment

FayeDunaway:

Not all translators add "else" to Col 1:17. But some do.

NAB, (1970) “He is before all else that is. In him everything continues in being.”

CEV: “God's Son was before all else, and by him everything is held together.”

NLT: “He existed before everything else began, and he holds all creation together.”

Notice these translators add "else" to the Greek idea of "all" or "everything," the same way that the NWT add "other" to "all" in 1:16, but with a different agenda.

So, to use your argument that the NWT is adding to Scripture, Trinitarians are guilty of the very same thing.

The fact is that translators have to adapt their English idioms to translations from both Hebrew and the Greek. There is no way a translator can avoid altogether adding or removing some words from the original when doing translation work. It is fair to say, that both Trinitarian and non-trinitarians are "sincere" in their translation work. But they both err in the interpretation of the text. Bible readers end up choosing whatever fits their religious agenda best.

45

Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

by dontfitin in

hi, i'm a long-time lurker who is still in due to family.

i'm hoping someone here can help me.. is there anywhere online that i can find a critique of the new bible revision?

one of the things that really got me was when i researched about the new world translation and found how there was no basis for adding jehovah's name in the new testament, and then other areas where they translated to accommodate their interpretation.

Wonderment

FayeDunaway said: "How about the blatant addition of the word 'other' in Colossians 1. Original text says All things were created through him and for him. NWT said All (other) things were created through him and for him."

The NW translators did that perhaps because Paul the writer taught that:

‘God is the head of Christ’ (1 Cor 11.3)

‘God is the Father of Jesus Christ’ (Col 1.3)

‘Christ is seated at the right hand of God’ (Col 3.1)

These texts do not in any way show that Christ and God are one and the same.

Paul exalted Christ in his writings as much as he could, but made clear the following:

“But when it says that ‘everything’ has been subjected [to Christ], obviously the word [pan'ta] does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah.” (1 Cor. 15:27, CJB) (Brackets mine.)

If you notice carefully, Paul used the same Greek word (pan'ta) in 1 Cor. 15.27 as he did in Col. 1.16. Paul said the word pan'ta has an exception in regards to Christ. Can you see that?

Furthermore, it is so strange that many critics are going nuts over the NWT practice of adding ‘other’ at Col. 1:16 when the context of Paul conveys such, but do not complaint one bit when Trinitarian translators ADD ‘else’ within the context of Colossians as they do in Col 1.17 to cement the idea that Christ is exempt from creation. (See the NAB; ISV and the NLT among others.)

The subjection of Christ to God and the fact that the Greek word pan'ta excludes Christ from being the Almighty.

32

Refused to go to meeting wife broke frying pan on my car....now SHE is inactive 4 years my advice!!!

by Witness 007 in

my wife is a stubborn stubborn woman.

when we got the internet in 1998 i slowly faded due to trying to prove apostates are lairs and scum...only to find they told nothing but "the truth.

" every qoute was checked and re-checked.

Wonderment

Witness 007:

I enjoyed your post. Glad things turned out for the better for you. I would like however, to say something about your following comment about apostates: "When we got the internet in 1998 i slowly faded due to trying to prove apostates are lairs and scum...only to find they told nothing but "the truth." Every qoute was checked and re-checked."

My experience from reading "apostate" literature is mixed. Ray Franz was generally accurate. Parts of Cameron's book that I have seen are good. But other apostates are not as "truthful" as many are led to believe. It all depends on the sources they quote and their level of personal integrity when trying to point out problems in WT Kingdom.

Some apostates base their WT criticisms on Evangelical Protestant writings which are full of errors, misquotes, and exaggerations.

15

Catholic madly in love with a JW (cont'd)

by Luge62 in

jw
friends

those of you who read my last post, about two weeks ago, know i'm in a dilemma.

i did not run like some posts suggested.

i truly believe i found my soulmate.

Wonderment

Luge62:

Some other options to consider (Not that they are any better than the ones brought up so far. In fact, these are challenging to carry out, and may not be recommended by experts.)

1. She can submit -leave- a note to her husband or elders stating that she has left the state with someone of the opposite sex without further disclosing details. She will perhaps be disfellowshipped at once, and her husband may proceed filing for divorce. Further consequences: She will be shunned by the family for indefinite time, maybe forever, she may lose any rights to her portion of the assets.

2. Your mate can claim before her husband or elders that she started having sex in a moment of weakness with someone outside the marriage bond. Afterwards, she realizes now she doesn't want or need her husband for emotional or sexual needs. She could claim that her marriage is irreconcilably broken, not only because there are far too many unsolved differences between them, but also because she feels she is repeatedly being verbally abused by her husband and not getting the respect that is due to a marriage partner. All this is affecting her health and sanity. She would have to firmly stand her ground and willing to never go back to her husband.

These options are assuming they are true. No one is encouraged to lie or deceive a mate for selfish gain.

Regardless of the action she is willing to take to be with you, you would still be left with a religious victim that may never recover from her losses. She may never be happy in her new arrangement when everything is said and done.

Is it really worth it? Only you can decide that. No one else can do it for you.

6

Why was Act 8:37 deleted from the New world traslation?

by anangelnoh in

i was hoping to get answers as to why act 8:37 was deleted from the new world translation bible.

Wonderment

The NET Bible explains:

A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in {Ì45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co}. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

The New World Translation Reference Bible has a similar note. Also, check the textual commentaries on the Greek text by Bruce M. Metzger and Philip W. Comfort.

I hope this helps.

120

what is the ontlogical trinity

by piledriver in

the trnity to me means the true nature of god essence,attributes each person of the trinity is equal the father the son and the holly spirit all share the devine nature ie three persons of the godhead are all equal in power ,glory and wisdom john 10:30.jesus and his father god are one meaning of the same nature mathew 28.19 jesus said all to be baptised in the name of the father and of the son and the holly ghost reprissenting 3 persons of the godhead to wellcome the devine trinity into your soul .

Wonderment

The Searcher: "If God could appear as a man called Jesus nearly 2000 years ago, what stopped Him from performing the same materialisation 1500 years earlier, and why did He lie to Moses saying that it wasn't possible? (Exodus 33:20)"

Good point!