Data-Dog: Good observations!
WireRider: Excuse, but I fail to see the relevance of your comments with the material I submitted.
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
25
"Obey" or "Be persuaded" at Hebrews 13.17
by Wonderment invarious posters have apparently concluded that the wt society is wrong by quoting hebrews 13.17 as a reason for christians to submit to, and be "obedient" to those taking the lead among them.
they have pointed out that the greek word for obedience is "hypakouo" or some other, not "pei'tho" which is the one that appears in the beginning of verse 17 at hebrews ch.
their motive for their objections may be one of rancor brought about by the extreme authoritative measures the society have imposed on the brotherhood.
-
-
Wonderment
-
25
"Obey" or "Be persuaded" at Hebrews 13.17
by Wonderment invarious posters have apparently concluded that the wt society is wrong by quoting hebrews 13.17 as a reason for christians to submit to, and be "obedient" to those taking the lead among them.
they have pointed out that the greek word for obedience is "hypakouo" or some other, not "pei'tho" which is the one that appears in the beginning of verse 17 at hebrews ch.
their motive for their objections may be one of rancor brought about by the extreme authoritative measures the society have imposed on the brotherhood.
-
-
Wonderment
Various posters have apparently concluded that the WT Society is wrong by quoting Hebrews 13.17 as a reason for Christians to submit to, and be "obedient" to those taking the lead among them. They have pointed out that the Greek word for obedience is "hypakouo" or some other, not "pei'tho" which is the one that appears in the beginning of verse 17 at Hebrews ch. 13.
Their motive for their objections may be one of rancor brought about by the extreme authoritative measures the Society have imposed on the brotherhood. I agree that current members, and more so with ex-JWs, have all suffered the evil consequences of such detrimental policies.
But coming back to Heb 13.17: Is the Bible version (NWT), or the people behind it, guilty for projecting the thought of "obedience" instead of "persuasion" in their translation within the verse? Is there a conspiracy within the WT Society to impose a meaning that is not there to a word for the sole purpose of extracting loyalty to their organization?
First, let's take a look at the Greek word used for "persuade" or "obey" in Heb. 13.17: "Pei'thesthe" is a form of peithō.
peithō has two basic meanings in classical Greek: Actively it means "to persuade, convince." The passive use is the second basic understanding: "to be persuaded." A typical usage is illustrated by Luke: the people were ‘convinced’ (Or: persuaded) that John the Baptist was a prophet (Luke 20.6).
The "obeying" to those leaders (Pei'thesthe tois hēgoumenois hymōn) is described in the dative case = The case of personal interest; typically names "to/for" whom an action is done.
"Pei'thesthe" is the imperative, present, passive, second person plural form of the verb peithō.
Robert H. Gundry translates Heb. 13.17: "Be obeying your leaders and submitting [to them]." (Brackets his.)
Gundry says: "The verb for obedience has to do with letting yourself be persuaded--in other words, with taking advice--and the verb for submission has to do with yielding to the leaders' attempts at persuasion." (Commentary on the New Testament)
Stephen D. Renn explains: "peithō is a verb found in approximately sixty contexts with the primary meanings ‘persuade,’ ‘trust,’ as well as related senses. However, peithō is translated ‘obey’ in three places [KJV]. Gal. [5]:7 refers to the importance of ‘obeying’ the truth, which the Galatians had ceased to do. Heb. 13:[17] instructs people to obey their spiritual leaders, whom God has ordained to act as overseers of his people in local congregations. Jas. 3:3 mentions the bits place in the mouths of horses as a means of rendering them obedient to their riders." (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, pp 683-684. Underlines added.)
Dr. Spiros Zodhiates defines peithō as:
"Generally [in Active Voice], to persuade another to receive a belief, meaning to convince, and in this sense used mostly with the acc[usative] of person..."
In Middle/passive voice: "meaning to let oneself be persuaded, to be persuaded... To assent to, obey, follow, followed by the dat[ive] of person or thing (Acts 5:36,37, 40; 23:21; 27:11; Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:7; Heb. 13:17; James 3:3)." (The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "‘To obey’ [is the meaning] in Heb. 13:17; Jms. 3:3; Rom.. 2:8; Gal. 5:7."
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "In other places it means to obey or follow (Gal. 5:7; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3)." (Abridged Edition, Page 447)
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: "To listen to, obey, yield to, comply with: ["tiní"] one ... Heb. xiii. 17."
Abbott-Smith: "To listen to, obey: c. dat. pers. [with dative of person].., ...He. 13.17" (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 351)
"The ‘obedience’ suggested [in Heb. 13.17] is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion." (Vine's)
How various translators render peithō at Heb. 13.17:
NIV: "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority"
The Message Bible: "Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel."
CEB: "Rely on your leaders and defer to them"
ABP: "Comply with the ones leading you"
BBE: "Give ear to those who are rulers over you"
Concordant LT: "Be persuaded by your leaders"
Darby: "Obey your leaders, and be submissive"
KJV: "Obey them that have the rule over you"
Goodspeed: " Obey your leaders and give way to them"
Young's LT: "Be obedient to those leading you"
Moffatt: "Obey your leaders, submit to them"
ESV: "Obey your leaders and submit to them"
CEV: "Obey your leaders and do what they say"
From this information, I don't see any justification in starting a conspiracy here or elsewhere that the WT Society has indeed conspired to use Heb. 13.17 to demand blind obedience from their members.
Only a few translators have opted to translate peithō as "be persuaded." Most translators have chosen to convey the idea of "obedience" by Christians to pastoral leaders at congregation levels at Heb. 13.17.
I think NWT detractors are better off suggesting that the WT leaders do abuse the term peithō to take advantage of their members for selfish gain, instead of trying to crucify them for translating the Greek term as they do. The error is not found in translation per se, if any.
Any group of people who gather for a common purpose will see the benefit of some organization, otherwise, chaos will be the daily norm. These people will logically look up to their leaders for guidance and advice. (1 Cor. 14.33)
However, the WT has been guilty of manipulating members into slavehood for decades.
-
5
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment inthe words below are taken from a post i submitted elsewhere.
i decided to present it here as well.. it is a challenge for us all to stay objective in religious matters.
there is so much faulty information circling us everywhere that the truth often is not so plain.. many christian followers would love to believe that simple answers can be found from one single religious group as a source.
-
-
Wonderment
The words below are taken from a post I submitted elsewhere. I decided to present it here as well.
It is a challenge for us all to stay objective in religious matters. There is so much faulty information circling us everywhere that the truth often is not so plain.
Many Christian followers would love to believe that simple answers can be found from one single religious group as a source. This is why JWs as a religious group are so popular with those looking for straight answers.
The truth is that not everyone is right or wrong in everything. Various religious groups display adherence to God's Word in varying degrees. Are the JWs wrong in every doctrine or statement? No! Are Protestants right in most things related to the Bible? No! Are all Jews lost? No! Can we learn things from Catholics? Perhaps. And so on.
It is a common belief that the higher education one gets from prestigious sources increases the surety or accuracy of available information. Generally true, but not always. Universities have limits. So do professors. The whole system is subject to corruption and tradition, including government and religion. The WT Society is not exempt from either corruption or tradition. Those who always defend the JWs like to stick their head in the sand, ignoring glaring deficiencies in the system. The same can be said of Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, or other.
Hence, it is wise to be open to new ideas, and not be so gullible so as to worship the feet of religious authority. We can learn from anyone, whether they represent a majority view or a minority one. I have learned a lot of things from various posters here. Some posters in this forum display depth of knowledge which exceed my own by lots. However, that does not mean I cannot present a valid argument for someone else willing to hear it.
One thing that has helped me in my biblical studies, is to have various publications from different religious sources. That includes bibles and commentaries from various religious faiths. Some ex-JWs proudly say that when they leave the org they throw away every WT publication. Why? I don't think that is necessary. I personally keep some, like the Bibles, Insight, All Scripture, Reasoning book, etc. I like to see how JWs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jewish sources, among others, explain things. Then I decide which makes more sense to me. This is not always the right procedure to follow, and wrong conclusions will be the result of that. Hey, I'm only human, as everyone else here.
In our search for truth, let us not forget Jesus' own words (probably my favorite biblical text): "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14.6)
From this text alone we learn that Jesus is the way to the truth and to the Father. Notice that as simple as these words are, most religious systems err in their traditional interpretations. For instance, JWs do not give Jesus the "honor" he so much deserves. (John 5.23) The WT gives more prominence to their hierarchy than they give to Jesus. The WT opponents on the other hand do NOT equally honor "the Father" as they claim when pretending to be honoring Jesus. The Father is virtually absent in their daily worship. Jesus taught that the Father was "greater" than him, and that the Father was God Almighty. (John 20.17) This is so true, that the NT was written for that purpose...that Jesus, the Son of God, is the way to God. (John 14.6; 20.31)
Yet, most traditional groups cannot get this right. Yes, John 14.6 contains a message so simple, but religious believers prefer something more meaty, more complex, which explains why the Trinity is so popular. Intermingling Greek philosophy with Scriptures may be the norm today, but Christianity is far simpler than religious people want us to believe. It is simpler than what the WT Society teaches overall. It is simpler than the stuff Christendom pushes to the masses.
The truth shall set us free! (John 8.32)
-
45
Critique of the lastest New World Translation?
by dontfitin inhi, 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
Thanks Connie for your words.
It is a challenge for us all to stay objective in religious matters. There is so much faulty information circling us everywhere that the truth often is not so obvious.
Many Christian followers would like to believe that simple answers can be found from one single religious source. This is why JWs as a religious group are so popular with those looking for straight answers.
The truth is that not everyone is right or wrong in everything. Various religious groups display adherence to God's Word in varying degrees. Are the JWs wrong in every doctrine or statement? No! Are Protestants right in most things related to the Bible? No! Are all Jews lost? No! Can we learn some things from Catholics? Perhaps. And so on.
It is a common belief that the higher education one gets from prestigious sources increases the surety or accuracy of available information. Generally true, but not always. Universities have limits. So do professors. The whole system is subject to corruption and tradition, including government and religion. The WT Society is not exempt from either corruption or tradition. Those who always defend the JWs like to stick their head in the sand, ignoring glaring deficiencies in the system. The same can be said of Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, or other.
Hence, it is wise to be open to new ideas, and not be so gullible so as to worship the feet of religious authority. We can learn from anyone, whether they represent a majority view or a minority one. I have learned a lot of things from various posters here. Some posters in this forum display depth of knowledge which exceed my own by lots. However, that does not mean I cannot present a valid argument for someone else willing to hear it.
One thing that has helped me in my biblical studies, is to have various publications from different religious sources. That includes bibles and commentaries from various religious faiths. Some ex-JWs proudly say that when they leave the org. the throw away every WT publication. Why? I don't think that is necessary. I personally keep some like the Bibles, Insight, All Scripture, Reasoning book, etc. I like to see how JWs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jewish sources, among others, explain things. Then I decide which makes more sense to me. This is not always the right procedure, and wrong conclusions will be a product of that. Hey, I'm only human, as everyone else here.
In our search for truth, let us not forget Jesus' own words (probably my favorite biblical text): "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14.6)
From this text alone we learn that Jesus is the way to the truth and to the Father. Notice that as simple as these words are, most religious systems err in their traditional interpretations. For instance, JWs do not give Jesus the "honor" he so much deserves. (John 5.23) The WT gives more prominence to their hierarchy than they give to Jesus. The WT opponents on the other hand do NOT honor "the Father" as they claim when pretending to be honoring Jesus. The Father is virtually absent in their daily worship. Jesus taught that the Father was "greater" than him, and that the Father was God Almighty. (John 20.17) This is so true, that the NT was written for that purpose...that Jesus, the Son of God, is the way to God. (John 20.31)
Yet, most traditional groups cannot get this right. Yes, words with a meaning so simple, but religious believers prefer something more meaty, more complex, which explains why the Trinity is so popular. Intermingling Greek philosophy with Scriptures may be the norm today, but Christianity is far simpler than religious people wants us to believe. It is simpler than what the WT Society teaches overall. It is simpler than the stuff Christendom pushes to the masses. The truth shall set us free!
-
45
Critique of the lastest New World Translation?
by dontfitin inhi, 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 ini 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 inhi, 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 inhi, 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 infrom 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 inhi, 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."