Posts by Curtains

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

from an atheistic standpoint the truly exciting thing about John1:1, and the verses that follow, suggest the significance of reason. Logos can mean reason and probably did to a much greater extent during the period ascribed to the birth of Jesus than in the past. So to me the light shining in a dark place suggests the importance of using reason to establish reality.

wonderment - the scribd site gave my computer a malware virus - so I'm not going to use that site.

ttwysf - an interlienear is available at blue letter bible, the site I went to check what the koine greek words mean. I stand by what I said about John1:1-2 that Jehovahs witnesses are not distorting those verses.

Also God in three entities is an excellent refutation of three persons in one. Thanks for that Juan - I'll have to try and remember this

56

Why you should not worry about Japan's nuclear reactor problems.

by beatthesystem in

a nuclear reactor is built in such a way, that when operating normally, you take out all the moderator rods.

so if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all.

when the uranium splits, it generates a neutron (see above).

Curtains

thanks beatthesystem - scientists over here are saying basically the same thing. Although I note on the evening news that the US are expressing doubt that the Japanese are telling us the whole truth. Time will tell

176

For non-believers: What evidence would it take for you to believe in 'god'?

by jay88 in

jw
friends

it all comes down to evidence (but funny how we tend not to accept the evidence that indicates that what be actually believe to be true might be wrong).. this is a statement made by nick in previous thread of his.. >>>>>>>>>>.

if the ot 'god' reappeared today, would that be evidence of 'god'?.

jay, .

Curtains

May I ask you a question?

You say you experienced the things I listed (besides the voice) when you were a believer. Do you still experience such things as an atheist? (or agnostic; I can't recall, sorry) Truly curious.

Tammy

most certainly. Call it animal instincts, intuition or whatever except that now I disagree with ideas and thoughts and intuitions that come to me - I'm not a slave to them as I was in the past. I think I prefer to see it as a poetic dimension that we can all access. I have studied a little poetry in my travels and was very amazed to discover that many poets see themselves as inspired by the muses and they sound like they are saying they are prophets. So this former religious stronghold can for an atheist be transformed into an experimental literary/philosophical area that even a layperson like mysef can dip into except that now reason also enters the equation.

176

For non-believers: What evidence would it take for you to believe in 'god'?

by jay88 in

jw
friends

it all comes down to evidence (but funny how we tend not to accept the evidence that indicates that what be actually believe to be true might be wrong).. this is a statement made by nick in previous thread of his.. >>>>>>>>>>.

if the ot 'god' reappeared today, would that be evidence of 'god'?.

jay, .

Curtains

I mostly agree with you thetrueone but I wouldn't say it was ignorance because the ancients were talking about something real when they named what they were experiencing. The names are obsolete imo not what they were engaging with.

In fact in watching scenes of the tsunami I can well understand why ancients may have thought up gods like poseidon to explain such destructive forces as can pick up houses and cars and throw them around in fury.

176

For non-believers: What evidence would it take for you to believe in 'god'?

by jay88 in

jw
friends

it all comes down to evidence (but funny how we tend not to accept the evidence that indicates that what be actually believe to be true might be wrong).. this is a statement made by nick in previous thread of his.. >>>>>>>>>>.

if the ot 'god' reappeared today, would that be evidence of 'god'?.

jay, .

Curtains

thanks tec. I understand what you mean and what you describe is also the same as my own experiences.

But to be clear. You yourself have not experienced Jesus' actual voice (or whisper)?

edit: and if you have not experienced Jesus' actual voice would you consider that you need to?

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Curtains

TTWSYF, I've checked with a friend and taken a detailed look at the verses you mention and disagree that the NWT expresses distortion - of this I am convinced. I'd argue that the text itself is ambiguous and then that translators translate according to their own particular mythology. At John 1:2 mind you I think the NWT is closer than translations that render logos en theos as the word was God (captial G), the word was divine/godlike is most accurate and the word was a god is the next best thing whilst the word was God is much further away. Other parts of the NT can agree and disagree with all three interpretations

Same goes for Gen 1:2. The nwt isn't distorting the text here either. If the NWT seems to disagree with your particular beliefs then I can understand why you would question how these verses are rendered just as Jehovahs witness, in expressing their own traditions, would take exception to the verses being translated to express particularly catholic traditions.

edit: I'm trying to be as objective as I can. But I agree with anyone who says that the NWT actively distorts when it tries to insert the name Jehovah where the test is obviously referring to Jesus. Rom10:13 for instance

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Curtains

wonderment the NWT is a good translation and I would argue that it did have scholars on board even if they were existing texts. The fact that it was translated in the shadows is fine with me too (indeed the GB prolly couldn't care less either as they are vey suspicious of academia anyway).

However the point for me is that the catholic church allows different translations to exist - the NABRE is very different from the Jerusalem Bible - is particularly significant. Jehovahs witnesses would never allow this and to me this is a great loss as being allowed to do one's own research and make comparisons within one's own faith is enriching

176

For non-believers: What evidence would it take for you to believe in 'god'?

by jay88 in

jw
friends

it all comes down to evidence (but funny how we tend not to accept the evidence that indicates that what be actually believe to be true might be wrong).. this is a statement made by nick in previous thread of his.. >>>>>>>>>>.

if the ot 'god' reappeared today, would that be evidence of 'god'?.

jay, .

Curtains

tec

I'd like to understand what you mean when you talk about hearing the voice of Christ. I ask because even when I was a believer I never heard anything. I got feelings of well being and felt that my prayers had been heard though. When inspiring thoughts came to my mind I saw this as the holy spirit causing me to remember encouraging thoughts and ideas. Is this what you mean by hearing the voice of Christ? When I discovered and fully engaged with him what I felt was a pervading sense of peace and strength but once again did not hear anything specific.

Nowadays peace, wellbeing and strength come to me out of nowhere and I enjoy these feelings very much. These feelings don't remain all the time of course because as an adult I value experiencing challenging feelings too

4

The good stuff

by beksbks in

miracles in japan: four-month old baby, 70-year old woman found aliveby william lee adams william lee adams tue mar 15, 7:20 pm et end .byline amid the silent corpses a baby cried out - and japan met its tiniest miracle.. on march 14 soldiers from the japanese defense force were going door-to-door, pulling bodies from homes flattened by the earthquake and tsunami in ishinomaki city, a coastal town northeast of senda.

more accustomed to the crunching of rubble and the sloshing of mud than to the sound of life, they dismissed the baby's cry as a mistake.

until they heard it again.

Curtains

marvellous