The language has not yet developed to the point where there is a proper way of doing it. So I think the safest way is to be aware of who's looking over your shoulder. If you are going to publish, find out what the publisher's standard is and use it.
Justin
JoinedPosts by Justin
-
26
How do you refer to the generic singular third-person?
by seattleniceguy inenglish really has no satisfying mechanism to do this.
i'm talking about sentences in which you're speaking of a hypothetical person and you must identify him with a pronoun.
there are several options available, all equally unsatisfying:.
-
-
-
17
Questions for those who know...
by newholland inwent to jw "memorial talk" for a friend.
i'm not gonna give too many details, because i don't want to lose connection i have with our friends.
i have done a little research on jws, and now i am confused.
-
-
Justin
Was it the annual memorial of Christ's death, or was it a memorial talk for a friend who died? The impression I get is that you attended the former to make a friend happy, not that the friend had died. If this is the case, the reason the 144,000 were emphasized is because only those who believe they belong to this class may partake of the bread and wine. They do not want even the majority of JWs to partake, let alone someone attending for the first time. This is what may have given you the impression that the elder was making others feel uncomfortable, but you must realize that most (if not all) JWs in the hall are "others" compared to this special class.
-
42
Jehovah or Yahweh?
by undercover inas i was growing up i remember that we, as jehovah's witnesses, took great pride in showing people god's name in their own bible.
we were the only religion(or so i was told anyway) that used god's name.
our bible, the new world translation, put god's name back where it belonged.
-
-
Justin
Over the years it has occurred to me that, on the one hand, the Society would seem today to be much more authentic if it named its people "Yahweh's Witnesses," but, on the other, there seems to be no point in their history where such a change could have been easily made. The name "Yahweh" has been popularized only recently, and if the JW religion seemed too foreign (by being completely different from conventional Christianity) it could not gain converts. The form "Jehovah" was actually more popular until its adoption into the name of the Watch Tower religion.
True, "Jehovah" occurs only four times in the King James Version, and is three times used in combination names (such as Jehovah-jireh). It is used consistently in the American Standard Version of 1901. I recall coming across in a library a copy of the Psalms which had been translated and used by the Puritans, and it frequently used the name Jehovah (but not with consistency - sometimes the substitutionary "Lord" would occur). And then, surprisingly, the Society was familiar with the translation by Joseph B. Rotherham during Russell's lifetime - and that translation had "Yahweh." So it's not as though they didn't know about "Yahweh." But would this form have been at all familiar to people in 1931 when the new name was adopted? And then, as they gained a reputation as "Jehovah's Witnesses," they couldn't change. It would have amounted to starting all over again. It's as though they have been caught between a rock and a hard place.
-
32
Growing Old and Dying on the Paradise Earth
by Leolaia inthe standard watchtower teaching about the coming "paradise earth" has, as its most prominent feature, the promise of everlasting life and eternal youth.
this expectation is especially based on such texts as revelation 21:1-4 which declares: "i saw a new heaven and a new earth; the first heaven and the first earth had disappeared now, and there was no longer any sea.
i saw the holy city, and the new jerusalem, coming down from god out of heaven.... here god lives among men.
-
-
Justin
It is true enough that Isaiah 65 refers to a restoration to the pre-flood lifespans as depicted in Genesis rather than to everlasting life. But at the same time, Jehovah's Witnesses are viewing this passage from the standpoint of the Christian Apocalypse in which, as has been admitted, "there shall be no more death." (Rev. 21:4) So we find here a case, not of JWs forcing the NT to conform to the Old, but the reverse. And such is standard Christian practice. In an attempt to harmonize the two, JWs have placed the Isaiah passage within the Millennium, in which death is possible.
I think we must distinguish between a critical exegesis and a Christian one. I recall, Leo, that in a previous discussion Narkissos made a point that if we really want to understand the teachings of Jesus we must go back to the original Aramaic, and you replied that JWs were allowed to use the Greek text because that was basic to their approach, or words to that effect. Similarly, I say now that they should be allowed to play in their own ballpark.
The principle of using the New Testament to interpret the Old is well established in Christianity. The description of the New Jerusalem, for example, in the Revelation (chs. 21-22) is based on texts in Isaiah (chs. 60, 62) as well as Ezekiel (48:31-35). But though the same images may be used, they do not necessarily have the same meanings in their respective contexts. Yet, I cannot object to a Christian, as such, using Revelation to interpret the earlier scriptures. But to be even more fundamental, the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34 about the new covenant is a restoration prophecy, stating specifically that Yahweh would conclude a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel with regard to the same Law or Torah that had been given through Moses. If this had been taken literally in the first century, the mission of Paul would never have gotten off the ground. Yet, classical Christianity interprets this to refer to a new law given through Christ. As has been pointed out by a previous poster, this could even be used as a Jewish polemic against Christianity. Yet Christianity exists now in its own right and has been appropriating the old scriptures for the past 2,000 years.
I do not say that the JW way of harmonizing scriptures is the best. To harmonize Revelation 21 with Isaiah 65, they have had to say that the "new heaven and new earth" of Revelation begins with the Millennium (instead of in eternity) and then claim that the "death" which will be no more is the "Adamic death" (because in Isaiah 65 people do die). But in principle they haven't done anything worse with their harmonizing than the larger Christian tradition from which they come. Perhaps a better approach when reading the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) would be to take them on their own merits, and then when reading the New ask why the authors chose to use the Old in the way they did.
-
19
Adam will turn 30 soon!
by PopeOfEruke inso, according to the great minds at watchtower, and you all know we can trust them, adam was created in october 1, 4026 bce (morning or afternoon?
) and he had a 6,000 anniversary in 1975. correct?
and eve's creation would have marked the end of the 6th creative day, correct?
-
-
Justin
OK, it's time to set a new date. After all, isn't 30 the age of maturity - the age when Jesus was baptized and when a priest could begin serving in the temple? Spread the word.
-
9
The Hebrew OT
by onacruse in.
i was watching a history channel show tonight, and one of the assertions made by a rabbi was that 25% of the words in the ot are of disputed meaning.. in my own meager understanding of hebrew, and critical text analysis, this seemed a bit overboard, but possibly within linguistic parameters.. if so, then what the heck was god doing when it provided these sacred texts...sayings and directions and dictums that are supposed to be for our ultimate benefit, and to give us the ability to make life-and-death decisions?.
please speak my language, plain and simple.. god can do that, right?.
-
-
Justin
In other words, the Bible is practically the only source we have for ancient Hebrew and if words do not appear often enough for the meaning to be determined by context, it is difficult to determine their meaning using Hebrew sources alone. (Unlike Greek, in which other ancient sources [such as the classics] have survived.) But a translator is not free to assign any meaning at all to a disputed word. There are ancient translations - I'm thinking of the Septuagint and the Aramaic targums. There are also the later rabbinical writings which gave Aramaic definitions of biblical words. So, it is a matter of enlarging the paramaters which are used - if something can't be defined in terms which are closer to the source, a more remote or secondary authority must be used. Leo, does this sound like a fair summation of the situation?
-
8
Level of maturity
by Justin inis it possible that the jw religion appeals to someone with an adolescent level of maturity, and that people leave it because they simply grow up?
those who are satisfied may be adults in other areas of their lives, but perhaps spiritually they are still adolescents or even children?
-
-
Justin
Is it possible that the JW religion appeals to someone with an adolescent level of maturity, and that people leave it because they simply grow up? Those who are satisfied may be adults in other areas of their lives, but perhaps spiritually they are still adolescents or even children?
-
37
What is the next flash of New Light?
by Pole ini personally feel they will have to "adjust" the fds doctrine.
the tricky thing is that the fds (whoever they are) won't approve this change while they're still alive.
they don't care, they subconsciously feel it's their end anyway and they won't undermine their doctrinal position having lost all corporate power.. so who will send this beam of new light?
-
-
Justin
By their "disappearance," I think their death is actually meant. Theoretically, the FDS is the entire anointed remnant left on earth, but practically (in reality) it is the Governing Body. This is supposed to be the "channel" on this side of Armageddon (or the Great Tribulation), but once on the other side it gives way to another arrangement as all of the anointed ones must die in order to inherit the heavenly kingdom. After Armageddon, it is expected that the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah (such as Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) will be resurrected to the earth and, in effect, take the place of the anointed Governing Body.
As to how or why the last anointed ones will die is a very shadowy area. When I was a JW, I assumed that the benefits of Christ's ransom sacrifice, when applied in a physical way and allowing others to continue living on earth indefinitely, would not be offered to the anointed ones so that they would then die a natural death. What the friends are here concerned about is simply that, as time goes by, all members who qualify to belong to the Governing Body will die without there being any Armageddon and then the organization will have a crisis in leadership. This will need to be fixed in some way.
-
14
JW's were allowed to take blood at one time?
by ithinkisee inhttp://members.aol.com/beyondjw/da.htm
in this disassociation letter example it says the following:.
"at one time, all blood products were unacceptable.
-
-
Justin
I wasn't aware there were any early statements of their actually approving blood transfusions. However, their not making transfusion a disfellowshipable offense until years after their initial condemnation is a different matter. Smoking wasn't disfellowshipable for many years either, but that didn't mean they approved of it.
-
14
JW's were allowed to take blood at one time?
by ithinkisee inhttp://members.aol.com/beyondjw/da.htm
in this disassociation letter example it says the following:.
"at one time, all blood products were unacceptable.
-
-
Justin
I think it was more a matter of the Society not taking a stand on the blood issue immediately when blood transfusions first became available to the general public. According to M. James Penton, author of Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (p. 153), while the first large scale blood bank was founded in Chicago in 1937, the prohibition on transfusions was not published until the July 1, 1945 issue of The Watchtower. So there would have been a lapse of eight years, during which time transfusions became widespread. Once the policy was set, I do not think they would have approved of even "one transfusion."