Wonderment

Joined

• started 95 topics
• posted 769 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Wonderment

• 
  16

  Accepting blood transfusions. By which instrument it ceased to be a disfellowshipping offense to become cause for disassociation?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.

  i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.

  a letter from the branch?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  SB,

  Good observation!
• 
  15

  Are JWs forgetting Jesus altogether?

  by KerryKing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a relative sent me yesterday's wt study article 46, how jehovah guarantees his promise of paradise.. it's been a long time since i read one of those articles but what really struck me about this one is that, considering it's discussing a fundamental jw belief, it only mentions jesus twice as an aside, and not at all as the central figure like the bible does.

  it actually mentions satan far more in the same article!.

  i don't remember this discrepancy from my time in the org 15 years ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  TTWSYF: I always thought it quite odd that JWs promote themselves as [the only true] Christians but without Christ. Only a passing mention. Like HE'S not worthy of the attention and respect. Maybe I've got it wrong.

  Your observation is proper. Although I don't believe in the Trinity doctrine per se, it is quite obvious that the WTS does not give Jesus the rightful place he deserves, as "Mediator" between God and men. (1 Tim 2.5)
  

  Jesus, in effect, has taken a back seat within the WT organization, and replaced by the feeble, self-centric, and sinful Governing Body. This is one big reason I left the JW organization. Jesus deserves way more attention and respect than what he is getting there. (Heb 1.6) After all, it was the Father's will when he sent him to earth for all men to 'listen to him' in the main, not to have human followers supplant him by fanciful claims. (Mt 17.5; Lu 21.8)
  
• 
  176

  No more REPORTING field service!!!!!!!!!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is going to break the hearts of a lot of uber-jw's!

  reddit has now removed the video link of samuel herd telling jw's they will no longer have to report time or placements - just tick a box which says "active.".

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akdshyx79rm&t=13s.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  The short time of implementation (of just 3 weeks) from this announcement to go into effect is indicative of an "urgent" matter. (Legal pressures at bay?)
  

  Normally it takes the WBS months to implement monumental changes.
  

  The short timeframe of application is reminiscent of what happened early in 1990 with the donation arrangement... weeks instead of many months.

  In all, this is good news. No more judging people's spirituality based on hours reporting, a practice Jesus would surely condemn.
  
• 
  25

  What is Self-deception?

  by Kosonen in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i googles about self-deception and found many articles about it.

  it is a thing reseachers in psychology have studied.. here is a quote from an article that describes it.

  and it is interesting because of so many ideas about how to understand the bible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  AugustHest: But if we are talking about "self-deception," why are you folks quoting texts from the New World Translation of all places? [...] Why are you using that? Is this not an exJW site or did I miss something?

  Because most of us are familiar with it, and some of us actually like this version, even though we may have left the org years ago.
  

  AugustHest: "I went to Hebrew school since--not to mention learned Greek in college--and it's horrific."

  Can you mention any specific examples either in the OT or NT where the NWT is "horrific" from the linguistic standpoint?

  AugustHest: "But I am showing that at least I can provide answers and show I know what I am talking about." [...] "Anyone who shares their views and their Bible translation [NWT] are pathetic, filthy worms." [...] "I am not here to promote religion, but to tear down the Watchtower and its teachings."

  These statements clearly show us where you are coming from, and where you are going with this. Why not try something more edifying?
  

  AugustHest: "But the fact is that in many instances I can use the NWT to prove that the WT organization is wrong, with their own translation."

  This reminds me how the Witnesses in the past used a similar method with the KJV to prove Christendom's failures.
  
• 
  28

  Do we blame the Governing Body too much?

  by no-zombie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'd like to start this post with a part from the movie 'v for vendetta'.

  here in a dystopian state, the main character named v, explains why things have gone so bad ....

  those who do not want us to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  SBF: I wonder whose idea it was on the Governing Body to change the “faithful slave” doctrine to include only GB members rather than the anointed as a whole. It’s a pretty bold step considering they all served in the organisation and rose through the ranks on the basis that all anointed make up the “faithful slave” [...] Since they claim sole ownership of the title “faithful slave” now, it seems only right that they bear sole responsibility when they make mistakes.

  It seems like a self-appointed increase of power over the rank-and-file. On your last statement, I couldn't agree more.
  
• 
  28

  Do we blame the Governing Body too much?

  by no-zombie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'd like to start this post with a part from the movie 'v for vendetta'.

  here in a dystopian state, the main character named v, explains why things have gone so bad ....

  those who do not want us to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Ding: "Imperfect humans run every religious organization on earth, but they don't all claim to be God's sole channel of communication.

  Nor do they all insist on being believed and obeyed without question."

  Agreed!
  
• 
  19

  Why are aqwsed12345 post`s so long ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there is no way i will even try to read such long posts and i`m sure many others here would agree with me.. smiddy3.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  aqwsed12345: Of course, I don't claim that I invented all this out of thin air, I am just a "dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants", as Bernard of Chartres said.

  It has been said that "actions speaks louder than words." The impression that some of us may get from your posts is that they scream: "I know this subject better than anyone else here," even if this is not true. You have said (or implied) that others are being blind or retarded Watchtower advocates if they dare defend any WT doctrinal point or viewpoint.

  I like that you go deep in your studies, and your messages may be well-intended, but at the end, it comes thru as condescending to others that can't keep up with your intensity -- not upbuilding at all.

  I don't criticize you for defending the Trinity at will. Rather, it is the tone. For instance, another regular poster here by the name of "Vanderhoven7" is an avid Trinity defender no less, yet, he normally submit his posts with respect toward others. I admit I enjoy some of his posts, and I have learned quite a few things from him. I tend to read his posts because they are often informative. We can learn from him, or others who communicate with a calm tone.

  If you allow me, can I suggest you tone down your messages a bit, provide briefer posts overall, and try to find some common ground with other posters that disagree with you. I will try myself to follow this advice. No one has complete knowledge. So as your quote indicated, we all learn from others before us. Keep up your solid studies!
  
• 
  2

  John 1:1 - Koine & Modern Greek Comparison

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  have you ever wondered why john 1.1 reads somewhat differently in koine and modern greek?

  i will briefly address this question for the curious ones.

  below you will find three greek readings, one from the nt greek text, followed by two modern greek versions: the nwt-2017 edition, and the other by spyros filos (wikipedia: a revision of the vamvas translation of the bible into the modern vernacular (demotic greek) by spyros (spiros) filos (σπύρος φίλος) was first published in 1994. this translation is used in the greek evangelical church and is also recognized by the orthodox church.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Blooty: In modern Greek ... is there any difference in placing Theos [without the article] before or after the verb? since modern has a form of an indefinite article.

  The differences in meaning are relatively subtle and context-driven. In this case, the essential meaning of the sentence remains the same.
  

  Although Modern Greek has an indefinite article within its grammatical toolbox, its main usage is to indicate numerical sense, not to indicate nonspecificity. Ex., "Θέλω ένα καφέ." (Thélo éna kafé.) - "I want one coffee." In Modern Greek, the use of the indefinite article with a numerical sense is more prominent and distinct. In turn, the English indefinite article main function is to indicate nonspecificity., but it can be used numerically to specify "one."

  When Greeks want to signal nonspecificity, they usually drop the article (the equivalent of "the") as is done with "theos" in the last part of this verse. Hence, Modern Greek versions do NOT add the article "the" before "theos" in John 1.1c in order to make it definite.
  
• 
  2

  John 1:1 - Koine & Modern Greek Comparison

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  have you ever wondered why john 1.1 reads somewhat differently in koine and modern greek?

  i will briefly address this question for the curious ones.

  below you will find three greek readings, one from the nt greek text, followed by two modern greek versions: the nwt-2017 edition, and the other by spyros filos (wikipedia: a revision of the vamvas translation of the bible into the modern vernacular (demotic greek) by spyros (spiros) filos (σπύρος φίλος) was first published in 1994. this translation is used in the greek evangelical church and is also recognized by the orthodox church.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Have you ever wondered why John 1.1 reads somewhat differently in Koine and Modern Greek?

  I will briefly address this question for the curious ones. Below you will find three Greek readings, one from the NT Greek Text, followed by two Modern Greek versions: the NWT-2017 edition, and the other by Spyros Filos (Wikipedia: A revision of the Vamvas translation of the Bible into the modern vernacular (Demotic Greek) by Spyros (Spiros) Filos (Σπύρος Φίλος) was first published in 1994. This translation is used in the Greek Evangelical Church and is also recognized by the Orthodox Church. - Copyright © The Holy Bible, Spyros Filos Translation, copyright 1994, latest edition 2013, by Pergamos Publications):
  
  1. Koine Greek (SBL GNT Greek Text):
  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
  In beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was toward the God, and god was the Logos.
  
  2. Modern Greek:
  Στην αρχή ήταν ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήταν μαζί με τον Θεό,
  In beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was together with the God,
  
  and the Logos was god.
  και ο Λόγος ήταν θεός. (NWT-Modern Greek)
  
  3. H Αγία Γραφή στη Δημοτική (The Holy Bible in Demotic [Popular Idiom] - by Spiros Filos):
  ΣTHN αρχή ήταν ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήταν προς τον Θεό,
  In beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was towards the God,
  
  και Θεός ήταν ο Λόγος.
  and god was the Logos.
  
  In comparing the three versions of the verse above, we are able to see some differences. First, notice that the two modern versions drop the original diacritical marks. Glossing the first clause of the verse we have, “in beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ)” in Koine changing to “Στην αρχή” in Modern Greek - with same meaning. “Στην” is a contraction of the modern Greek preposition "σε + την" (in the).
  
  The verb “ἦν” from the NT (third person singular) shows up as "ήταν" in the modern texts. The change from "ην" (ēn) in Koine Greek to "ήταν" (ítan) in Modern Greek reflects an evolution in the Greek language over the centuries. Both "ην" and "ήταν" are forms of the Greek verb "[eimí, NT] είμαι" (eimai), which means "to be" or "to exist."
  
  In the second clause, the Greek NWT has “μαζί με τον Θεό.” “Mαζί με” is a common Greek phrase meaning “together with,” or “along with.” It is used to indicate the presence or association of someone or something with another person or object. Thus, it can be translated simply by “with.”
  
  Next, we notice that the original “θεόν” in “τὸν θεόν” (NT) now appears as "τον Θεό" in the modern Bibles. This is another of the subtle changes occurring in the Greek language through its evolution. In Biblical Greek, the accusative case of the word "Θεός" (Theós) was "Θεόν" (Theón) when it functioned as the direct object of a sentence. However, as the language evolved, many consonants at the end of words were weakened or dropped in the spoken language, leading to the loss of the final "n" in some instances. This process, known as synizesis and apocope, contributed to the simplification of certain word forms and eventually resulted in the modern accusative form "Θεό" (Theó) for "Θεός" (Theós).
  
  Any discernible difference in the third clause can be explained by the above, with the exception that the Greek NWT has “theós” after the verb “was,” unlike the other two readings which have “theós” preceding the verb. The Greek NWT rendering is obviously following the structure of the English translation, per se, which is both acceptable and contemporary in Modern Greek.
  
  Any comments?
  
  
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

  let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

  they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  aqwsed12345:

  Your long answer is indicative that those who push trinitarianism as true biblical doctrine are uncapable to answer basic questions like the two I posted:
  

  >> Could you please provide Scriptural proof for the following statement?: The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity.

  Could you please provide Scriptural proof for the following statement?: As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.

  Please provide one or two scriptures which simply say what you claim! <<
  

  You first answered:
  

  While indeed this is the main reason, Trinitarians do not have to explain Jesus' kind of "subordination" exclusively from His humanity: it can exist even if we consider that He is the Son, and the Father is the Father. This does not imply a difference in divinity, but only voluntary (love-related) subordination resulting from the order of origin. Another explanation could be what ancient ecclesiastical authors called "economy of salvation," which they understood as mutual adaptation for the sake of salvation in action and operation.

  This does not answer the above questions simply. Then you proceeded to select some Scriptures which by scholar's own admissions are debatable within the biblical community. And furthermore, they do not serve any proof of the above.

  Lastly you wrote: And Col 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes), not just some kind of demigod, lesser god ("a god") "quality". (Emphasis added.)

  Really? Col 1.19 states: "...God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him." It was by an act of God almighty that this fullness of Christ came about. If Jesus was God all along, why would it be necessary for him to receive "all fullness" that he was lacking somehow. Col 2.10 says the Christian Colossians "have acquired a fullness by means of him, the one who is the head of all government and authority." What kind of fullness is this reference about?
  

  Someone may say, that as a man Christ was not all of God, but once in heaven he regained his glory, attributes and wisdom pertaining to God alone. If so, Jesus was not God and man fully as claimed on earth as we are repeatedly told to believe, a contradiction that can only be explained by Greek philosophical arguments that require many paragraphs of intent. Hard as I tried, I could not find the great difference that supposedly exists between the Greek term theotes and theiotes, other than the wishful declarations of Trinitarians on the subject.
  

  And that's my point! Poster "smiddy" was right challenging anyone to simply explain the Trinity without sounding as a philosopher of ancient Greece. "smiddy" is still waiting for someone to take up his challenge, and you are welcome to fulfill it, and publish it for us to read.