Posts by Wonderment

62

Ladies: Circumcision or not?

by Wonderment in

the topic of circumcision has been brought up a few times recently.

then i wondered... .

how do women really view circumcision?

Wonderment

The topic of circumcision has been brought up a few times recently. Then I wondered...

How do women really view circumcision? Do the ladies here have any preferences?

7

Some observations...

by Wonderment in

theburstbubble: just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is?

or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs?

just curious... i don't know why but i find it quite sad if the nwt is so misleading to support their own beliefs.

Wonderment

Landy: Is there a particular reason you've started a new thread on this instead of using the existing one?

It was not my intention to do that, but I slipped. I noticed that - after the blooper. I even asked myself: How did I do that?

Good observation!

7

Some observations...

by Wonderment in

theburstbubble: just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is?

or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs?

just curious... i don't know why but i find it quite sad if the nwt is so misleading to support their own beliefs.

Wonderment

Mephis: I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority.

You are right Mephis! It is valid to question the value of authority of those who defend certain Scriptural positions of the NWT. But how many posters here are willing to question those religious people who constantly attack the NWT as a monstruous creation, frequently not in the best language?

A few weeks ago, I read Dr. Trevor R. Allin's critique of the NWT on John 8.58. I immediately saw some problems in his argumentation where he, an authority in Linguistics (He has a Ph.D), was clearly misrepresenting the facts he was presenting to the religious world. Your statement came to mind: I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority.

So I jotted down various issues I perceived were errors in his presentation. I presented them to this forum here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5360109848887296/how-credible-nwts-critiques-allin-john-8-58-2

Given that most participants in this place have been victims of the WT Society's shoddy practices (I include myself in this group), I didn't expect a "great" reception to my article. Sure enough, instead of getting anyone to question Allin's amazing dubious claims, I, of the two involved, was singled out as the one in error, by implication, of course. I don't think anyone directly said so, but various posters expressed that I had to be "retarded" or the like, for disagreeing with such authority. Yet, I wrote the article with the best intention and sincerity. I was hoping at least one person would see what I was seeing in this article by Allin. But that didn't happen.

Nonetheless, I greatly value the opinions of others, such as yours, and those of others who disagreed with me on the John 8.58 article. However, I have the conviction that if someone makes declarations that are clearly wrong or disputable, whether the source is the WT Society, or some other, we have the Christian freedom to express our views on the matter, as your principle stated. Most participants here have done so very well.

Best wishes!

7

Some observations...

by Wonderment in

theburstbubble: just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is?

or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs?

just curious... i don't know why but i find it quite sad if the nwt is so misleading to support their own beliefs.

Wonderment

Hadriel: I can say unequivocally that the NWT, grossly misrepresents the scriptures when the original text curiously doesn't fit the desired doctrine. Take 2 Corinthians 5:20. In this text the phrase "substituting for Christ" is added with regards to ambassadors. There is zero basis for this however it is postured in such a way as if to further bolster authority. Or at least that's how I see it. To me that's simply incorrigible.

2 Corinthians 5.20 is an interesting scripture to bring forth. It poses some difficulty to translate it correctly. I find that most translators have to add or take away some words within the text to have smooth English. But one issue where translators depart in the text is in the translation of the Greek preposition "hyper" which appears twice. As is often the case, prepositions can have many meanings, so interpretation plays a major role in the translation process.

"Hyper" generally means "over" (opposite of hypo, "under") but has been translated variously: for; about; in; above; beyond; for the sake of; more than; on behalf; concerning; for sake; on behalf of; over, than; to, etc.

In compounds with verbs, nouns, or adverbs it adds the ideas of:

(1) over or beyond, spatially; (2) for someone or something; or (3) beyond (normal) limits.

Some believe that in 2 Cor. 5.20, the idea of "substitution" is brought out by the fact that the preposition used here, is also used 6 other times in the chapter. See 2 Cor. 5.15 & 21, for example.

Paul, is, within this context, defending his apostleship, his authority as God's representative. Which is why, he uses "hyper" as the first word for emphasis in the text, for what Paul has to say in his defense. Paul was conveying that he was a messenger of God, an ambassador. In the absence of Christ, he was serving in his place (as a "substitute") to appeal to them as if God himself was making appeal to them through him: "As God's ambassadors, we beg: Become reconciled to Christ." Hence, Paul had the "authority" to be the apostle of God and Christ, which church infiltrators questioned.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says under "Hyper": "It is our conviction that ["hyper"] is naturally suited to the meaning of substitution and is in fact used in several passages dealing with the nature of Christ's atonement." (p. 383)

Kenneth S. Wuest, in his literal translation, makes an effort to bring out the Greek meaning of what Paul was saying:

"Therefore, on behalf of Christ and in His place we are acting as ambassadors, as though God were saying, I beg of you, please, through us as His intermediate agents. We beg you in Christ's stead, Be reconciled at once to God " (The New Testament - An Expanded Translation)

The idea of "substitution" in the text within Paul's context, is not so absurd after all. The problem is that some religious groups, like the JWs and the Catholics, use Scripture to enforce their authority on their followers beyond what the Bible demands of Christians.

Because of this, I prefer this reading from the Simple English Bible:

"We are representing Christ. It is as though God is encouraging you through us. We beg you, for Christ's sake, come back to God!"

7

Some observations...

by Wonderment in

theburstbubble: just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is?

or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs?

just curious... i don't know why but i find it quite sad if the nwt is so misleading to support their own beliefs.

Wonderment

Theburstbubble: Just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is? Or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs? Just curious... I don't know why but I find it quite sad if the NWT is so misleading to support their own beliefs. Well I do know why it makes me feel sad because it means everything was a lie. I know there is a lot wrong with this religion but I had hoped the NWT was a good version.

The NWT overall is accurate enough. Yes, "they played with some verses to suit their beliefs." The same can be said of Catholic and Evangelical versions. They all tweak some verses to reflect their own theology. Notwithstanding, I would not reject any of them for doing so. The process of Bible translation is compromised by many issues. Whether someone wants to consider ardent theological issues as "lies" depends a lot from the angle the viewer is looking at such. How far will a person let its emotional feelings affect their judgment?

Therefore, I think it is best to avoid extremes. The JW religion is an extreme. The other religions too are frequently extreme in their actions. Look at the main political parties for comparison. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of "Christians." However, are they any kinder to poor people and immigrants in need? Do they seek "unity" among the states, or are they stressing the states to fend for themselves?

The democrats are also extreme on some issues: They sometimes give the impression that the rich and well-off must help the lesser privileged ones to the point of supporting them. Welfare, and food stamps have often been promoted by Democrats to aid the poor, with the unwanted result of frequent abuses of the system. Some claim this leads to promoting laziness among the people.

The truth of the matter is that there are good and bad people and extremists in both parties. In fact, the non-Christian world often blame the "Christians" for promoting international wars. Thus, we are wiser in analyzing each claim for what it's worth, and holding on to whatever goodness we find in the present world.

Another observation to make has to do with a certain pattern manifested in the religious community at large, and seen frequently in this forum as well: The belittling of anyone who defends the NWT in the slightest: "If Benjamin Kedar says something positive of the NWT, it is because he is not a top scholar." If David BeDuhnn defends the NWT, it is because he doesn't have a Ph.D in linguistics." "If George Howard theorized that the divine name appeared in the original Greek copies, then there are dozens of other scholars who believe otherwise, so he, and the NWT, must be wrong." And so on!

People who issue those statements are no less biased than those being criticized. Frequently, they don't any mention any specific issues as being wrong, because often, they either can't do so, or or are not willing to objectively look at the material presented by the authors.

The challenge for us all, then, is to remain balanced, and hopefully be able to see whatever tidbits of truth are found from the various sources.

6

Is the revised new world translation been printed in portugese

by joe134cd in

i was reading a thread on here a couple days back that implied that the only hard back copies of the rnwt was only available in english.

i have an uber dub friend who lives in a portugese speaking country and decided to question him about this.

according to him there is a hardback copy of the rnwt in portugese and it is also available i another european language (outside of english).

Wonderment

It appears that the NWT Revised "printed" edition is available, according to the Yearbook 2016 (p. 30), besides English, in South Korean and Portuguese.

Other revised editions (20+) are listed for downloads: https://www.jw.org/download/?output=html&pub=nwt

Whether there are recent additions to this, needs to be confirmed by someone.

20

Again: Where is Jesus?

by Wonderment in

the watchtower of december 2015 reports the following reaction of a family with four teenagers in the country of rwanda with the publication of the nwt, and how grateful they were for it.

the wt magazine said: .

things changed when the new world translation in their language became available.

Wonderment

The Watchtower of December 2015 reports the following reaction of a family with four teenagers in the country of Rwanda with the publication of the NWT, and how grateful they were for it. The WT magazine said:

Things changed when the New World Translation in their language became available. A Rwandan family with four teenagers said: “We really thank Jehovah and the faithful and discreet slave for giving us this Bible.

Where is "Jesus" here? Apparently Jesus has not been with these Christians in the time of the end. (Mat. 18.20; 28.20) But "the faithful and discreet slave" was -- and sadly, has seemingly taken over Jesus prerogative of being with his followers wherever they meet within WT Kingdom. True, the WT did not directly express the words attributed to the Rwanda family, but we all remember when we were JWs how often we heard Witnesses praying -- thanking Jehovah and the faithful and discreet slave. Obviously, they got this idea from the WT organization itself, who likes to promote unyielding blind loyalty to it.

The WT Society has, in practice, trampled on the honor of Jesus Christ, who is supposed ‘to be honored just as the Father’ is, not a composite ‘slave’ subservient to the Master, Christ. (John 5.23)

56

GB bites off more than they can chew!

by biblexaminer in

the gb bit off more than they can chew.

they promised that the nwt revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.. english stands alone.

as a result, they are in damage control mode.

Wonderment

dubstepped: "Just out of curiosity, how does one know what languages they have the RNWT in now? Do they even make it known since it apparently is just English? Do they put up estimated times for new releases or anything?"

I think it's only available in English and Portuguese for now. They don't put up estimated times for new releases, so it gets published when each team gets done. But my guess is that it takes over three to seven years for each translation to be done.

Perhaps next year, we will see a couple of additional releases, and a few more the year after. With the financial curtailing going on, who knows if they are cutting manpower there too.

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

Wonderment

TTWSYF: Wonderment - ultimately, the charges of Jesus' claims of divinity were brought before the Jewish leaders. That's why he was crucified. Scripture says explicitly that it was because Jesus made himself equal to God.

Yes, the charges of Jesus' claims by the Jews were brought before the Sanhedrin to be condemned. But Jesus was charged, not for claiming that the "I am" meant he was God, as you seem to suggest, but from his own admission for being "the Son of Man," ‘the Messiah,’ ‘the Son of God’ when interrogated, which is totally different. The Jews were fully silent on those previous accusations of John 5.18, John 8.58 and 10.31,33. (See Mark 14;61-64)

You quoted Clambake: Read the entire the book and chapter . If you can't figure out the author intent you are absolutely retarded.

Could you or Clambake make clear what this reference is about? I grabbed Allin's single article from the net, no mention of a "book" or "chapter" in it.

One more thing: JWs are often criticized, and rightly so, for being intolerant to other people's religious faiths and interpretations. Thus, your effort, and Clambake's (or anyone else's), to make this "personal" by ‘name calling’ others (such as "McFly," "retarded," etc.) for having a different understanding does not really help your cause or those of others who sincerely come to this website looking for the comprehension and tolerance they could not get at the Kingdom Hall. Is is not better for us all to leave the bitterness we once had as JWs, and enjoy this new found religious freedom from it all?

With best wishes!

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

Wonderment

TTSWYF: These arguments are null and voided out by the facts that those around Jesus wanted to kill him for blasphemy. Jesus was in danger of being killed on more than one occasion for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God. That valid point seems to be lost on those who promote 'I have been' instead of 'I am'

I would like to respectfully point out two points:

First, a question: "If the arguments [presented in this post] are null and voided by the facts that those around Jesus wanted to kill him for blasphemy" as you say, then why didn't those Jews bring up this most serious violation of Jewish law before the Sanhedrin, the ideal place to do so to get Jesus quickly killed? It seems that if that is the main argument you can come up with to prove the "I have been" defenders are wrong, then the very same argument is nulled by the fact that those very same Jews held back from presenting this accusation at this most relevant moment in the High Court of law.

Secondly, did you read the context presented in the article?" See below:

Does it take Jesus claiming to be God to prompt the Jews to kill him? No. It was even forbidden for others to say that Jesus was the Messiah. (John 9:22) And why was Stephen the martyr stoned to death? Stephen was stoned, not because he claimed to be God, nor because he claimed Jesus was God, but because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the heavenly-exalted Son of Man, the Messiah. (Acts 7.55-58)

Traditionalists seem to be also remiss of the context at hand. The truth is that Jews had been trying to kill Jesus prior to the “I am” statements, and afterwards: Mt. 12.14; 16.21; Mr. 3.6; John 5.18; 7.1; 7.19; 7.25; 10.31-33; 11.53. Their motives included: Sabbath breaking, ‘calling God his own Father,’ (John 5.18) blasphemy for saying, “I and the Father are one” (10.30), ‘making himself to be God (or, a god, NEB) being a man’ (10-33), for claiming: “I am God's Son” (10.36), for saying he was ‘doing the works of the Father,’ and being “in union with the Father” (10.38-39), for ‘performing many signs’ (11.47,53). Take note that in those occasions, Jesus did not do anything wrong. It was the Jews' perception of Jesus' actions that were wrong.

At Luke 4:23-29, the Jews tried to kill Jesus, not because he claimed to be God, but only because he brought out their hypocrisy and made them angry. Yes, the record shows that before Jesus spoke the “ego eimi” words at John 8:58, the Jews already were seeking to kill Jesus for simply claiming that ‘the truth he taught came from God.’ (John 7:16,19; 8:37, 8:40) Furthermore, consider this: Prior to Jesus' statement of verse 58 (ch. 8), he had “exposed” Jews for the following actions: ‘ignorance’ (John 8:14); of being ‘judgmental’ (8:15); of not ‘knowing’ Jesus and his Father, God (8:19,55); of impending death for their sinfulness (8:21,24); of being ‘worldly’ (8:23); of ‘unbelief’ (8:24,45); of being ‘slaves to sin’ (8:32-34); of ‘murderous intentions’ (8:37,40); of ‘not following Abraham's example’ (8:39,40); of ‘indifference’ to Jesus' preaching (8:37,43); of ‘having deaf ears’ (8.47); of being ‘children to the Devil’ (8:44); of ‘not observing the word of the Father’ (8:38,55); of ‘dishonoring’ Jesus (8:49); of being ‘liars’ (8:55), all in one chapter.

That's a lot of incriminations brought up by Jesus against the Jews in just one brief encounter. Any of these alone would suffice to get the Jews upset. Add to that the build-up of previous encounters leading to this one, and it's easy to see why the Jews felt they could no longer tolerate this man in their land. But it was their intention to kill Jesus all along. The 8.58 incident where Christ asserts his “superiority” over Abraham (historically, the most distinguished of all Jewish ancestors) was ‘the straw that broke the camel's back.’

This must have been why scholar Ernst Haenchen explained the Jews' accusations as a ‘mistake’: “The Jews are therefore completely mistaken when they accuse him [Jesus] of blasphemy: he makes himself equal to God. He actually stands in the place of God as the one sent by him.” (John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 in Hermeneia, 1984, p. 30.)

At any rate, the Jews dared not to present their accusations (‘mistake’) where most relevant, at the Sanhedrin.