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

Connie:

You brought up a website (http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm) as a recommendation to dontfitin. I would trust that website as much as I trust the Watchtower telling me that the term "generation" overlaps another generation to accommodate WT agenda.

For instance, the writer of that page informs his readers the following:

"However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts [by 1971, when the NWT used ‘obeisance’ in its version] because of the word ‘worship’ (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word ‘obeisance’ to complete the deception of new converts."

This is pure nonsense! The WT was not losing so many converts so as to scare them back then in 1971 when they went from "worship" to "obeisance" in its revision. If that was true, the WT would have dropped the "a god" reading at John 1:1, which is the most scandalous rendering of the NWT to the Trinitarian masses a long time ago.

Also, the word "obeisance" or the thought that the term itself transmits is supported by numerous translators, even Trinitarians. It is dishonest for a website to claim "a deception" of that sort by supporting "obeisance", when a little research would prove him/her wrong.

37

A question about fading....

by Tornintwo in

jw
friends

i understand that many on this forum are undertaking a slow fade, over months, years even.. can i ask what is the benefit of that instead of a fast fade?.

as i understand it, the elders only have to deal judicially with people who are still active witnesses, known in the community as witnesses, having contact and influence with witnesses etc.

so surely the sooner you stop attending meetings the better.

Wonderment

FayeDunaway hit it right on the spot: "Yes, family is the primary reason. Also it prevents a disfellowshipping for apostasy...if you go slow, they are less likely to suspect something."

I have suffered so much from having lost my family ever since I pulled away from the WT have submitting a disassociation note over 20 years ago. If I would have "faded" instead, it would have been a lot easier to deal with than what I have gone through since then.

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

Connie: "I instead chose to first prove to myself if scripture taught the Deity of Christ, and looked into John 8:58 and Ex 3:14. I set out to learn what the Bible teaches instead of trying to prove the Watchtower wrong."

Your goal of ‘learning what the Bible teaches instead of trying to prove the Watchtower wrong’ is commendable. But then I got the impression that you go to Protestant Evangelical sources (NET Bible,etc) on the web to confirm your suspicions. Remember, Protestants too have their own religious agendas, no less than the WT, a fact dismissed by many posters here.

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.