Concerned JW - In my last post I explained what I was asking in my original post. Can you please answer my question?
InterestedOne
JoinedPosts by InterestedOne
-
225
A concerned JW wrote "mistakes will happen."
by InterestedOne inin the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/213523/1/feeling-a-bit-alienated, concerned jw wrote:.
mistakes will happen.
concerned jw, if mistakes will happen, i was wondering what mistakes you feel the jw organization is currently making?
-
-
-
225
A concerned JW wrote "mistakes will happen."
by InterestedOne inin the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/213523/1/feeling-a-bit-alienated, concerned jw wrote:.
mistakes will happen.
concerned jw, if mistakes will happen, i was wondering what mistakes you feel the jw organization is currently making?
-
-
InterestedOne
Concerned JW wrote:
Are you saying this topic is about listing JW mistakes? rather than my saying "mistakes will happen" that you quoted in the header? If that is the case I can add nothing further since that is my point!
The topic is the question I asked in the original post which was:
Concerned JW, if mistakes will happen, I was wondering what mistakes you feel the JW organization is currently making? Can you name even one?
Yes, I am asking you to be more specific than saying "mistakes will happen," and please tell me what mistakes you feel the JW organization is currently making. By "currently," I mean at this very moment. I would like to know if you can name even one mistake you believe the JW organization is making at this moment. Or make a list if you can think of more than one.
-
225
A concerned JW wrote "mistakes will happen."
by InterestedOne inin the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/213523/1/feeling-a-bit-alienated, concerned jw wrote:.
mistakes will happen.
concerned jw, if mistakes will happen, i was wondering what mistakes you feel the jw organization is currently making?
-
-
InterestedOne
Concerned JW wrote:
InterestedOne this topic is whether mistakes are a valid point concerning Jehovah's people. Actually you all agree with me that you don't expect Jehovah's people to be perfect at this time. You are right your question was more of a red herring rather than loaded one trying to deflect me down the route of examining mistakes.
My question cannot be a red herring because I created a new thread to ask it. It is not a diversion. It is a new topic. It would be a red herring if midway through a conversation I brought it up to distract you, but I did no such thing. I started a new thread and only referenced your comment from the other thread to document the fact that you said "mistakes will happen."
If you would like to discuss the significance of the JW organization's mistakes, I think it would be a worthy topic to start a new thread on. Feel free to create a thread about it. My original post on this thread was simply asking you the question as stated. It was not a diversion tactic. Will you please answer my question? It was:Concerned JW, if mistakes will happen, I was wondering what mistakes you feel the JW organization is currently making? Can you name even one?
-
225
A concerned JW wrote "mistakes will happen."
by InterestedOne inin the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/213523/1/feeling-a-bit-alienated, concerned jw wrote:.
mistakes will happen.
concerned jw, if mistakes will happen, i was wondering what mistakes you feel the jw organization is currently making?
-
-
InterestedOne
Concerned JW, I just looked up the meaning of the term "loaded question," and my question does not fit that description. A loaded question contains an assumption by the questioner that the respondent has not agreed to. The classic example is the question, "have you stopped beating your wife?" The question assumes the respondent beats his wife, but this assumption may not be warranted. The only time the question would be acceptable would be if the respondent had already admitted that he beats his wife.
In my question, the assumption is that people make mistakes. You have also agreed to this assumption. Given that people make mistakes, it is not unreasonable for me to ask if the JW organization is currently making mistakes and if you can identify any of those mistakes. It is not a loaded question because we both agree with the assumption that people make mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_questionHaving established that my question is not loaded, will you please provide an answer to my previous post?
-
225
A concerned JW wrote "mistakes will happen."
by InterestedOne inin the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/213523/1/feeling-a-bit-alienated, concerned jw wrote:.
mistakes will happen.
concerned jw, if mistakes will happen, i was wondering what mistakes you feel the jw organization is currently making?
-
-
InterestedOne
Concerned JW wrote:
Interestedone Your question is clearly a loaded one.
I don't see why my question is loaded. I will repeat it here:
Concerned JW, if mistakes will happen, I was wondering what mistakes you feel the JW organization is currently making? Can you name even one?
Concerned JW wrote:
Asking me to identify mistakes is trying to make me accept the point I am contesting.
I don't follow your logic. Asking you to identify at least one mistake they are currently making does not make you accept any point. I asked a simple question that follows from your acknowledgement that mistakes will happen. It was simply, given that mistakes will happen, what mistakes is the JW organization currently making? There is nothing else to read into the question.
If you refuse to identify any mistakes the JW organization is currently making, I will be inclined to think that you believe the JW organization is not making any mistakes at this moment at all. Do you believe the organization is not currently making any mistakes? If so, that would mean you believe they are perfect. Since you have already said you do not believe they are perfect, please tell me what mistakes they are making. Can you identify even one?
Concerned JW wrote:
Please address my point rather than throw loaded questions at me.
My understanding of your point is simply that men are not perfect. I get it. Now can you please answer my question? I'm asking if you can identify at least one mistake the JW organization is currently making. Can you identify at least one please?
Concerned JW wrote:
And again Punkofnice you like interestedone are trying to get me to defend mistakes you perceive are wrong.
I am not asking you to defend anything. I am asking you to identify at least one mistake the JW organization is currently making, since they are not perfect. Can you do that?
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
InterestedOne
Watchtower publications teach that "true christians" don't accept blood transfusions. I worry about what would happen if my step mother or one of my little sisters were to be put in a situation where a blood transfusion was necessary to save their life. . . . Tuber
I've never seen such a statement in any of our publications. . . . DJEggNog (in response)
Here is an excerpt from the WT booklet in current use called "What Does The Bible Really Teach" that says true Christians don't accept blood transfusions:
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.
Today, faithful servants of God firmly resolve to follow his direction regarding blood. They will not eat it in any form. Nor will they accept blood for medical reasons.* They are sure that the Creator of blood knows what is best for them. Do you believe that he does?* For information on alternatives to blood transfusion, see pages 13-17 of the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
- from What Does The Bible Really Teach chapter 13, paragraphs 13-16.
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
InterestedOne
Regarding George Howard, consider the way the WT uses his work in the NWT "study Bible" in appendix 1D. Note especially their comment at the end:
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, (tetragram) (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Ky'ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”
We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a “theory,” rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.To get some perspective on his work, consider this excerpt from wikipedia:
Howard's theory has not been publicly supported or advocated by any other scholar. Howard has qualified it: "My theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example, Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament
Furthermore, look at the following letters attributed to him. I don't know how credible these are, but if you really wanted to dig, you could probably look him up and see what he thinks of the way the WT uses his work.
The University of Georgia
College of Arts & Sciences
June 5, 1989
Bob Hathaway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
Dear Mr. Hathaway:
My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are:
1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord." Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark.
Sincerely,
George Howard
Professor
The University of Georgia
January 9, 1990
Steven Butt
P.O. _____
Portland, ME 04104
Dear Mr. Butt:
Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for some time about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications. My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.
Sincerely,
George Howard
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Howard -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
InterestedOne
Here are some excerpts from the WT book "Reasoning From The Scriptures" about "Jehovah."
Jehovah
Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. “Jehovah” is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, (tetragram), which means “He Causes to Become.” These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.
(My note: It might be worth checking "He Causes to Become." Perhaps it is correct, but I'm not sure. I seem to recall hearing other meanings.)
(. . . skip first section . . .)
Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?
The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)
Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.
(My note on the section below about the “Christian Greek Scriptures”: JW’s believe the original New Testament writings, although we don’t have them to check, had “Jehovah” where the NWT uses it, although the earliest extant copies do not have it. They believe that the NWT translators have restored the use of the name in places where it was lost by the tampering of apostate Christendom's scribes. This makes me ask what else apostate Christendom's scribes tampered with and why a person should trust the other things in the copies of the New Testament we currently have. Note the statement on the WT website at http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/article_06.htm which reads, “Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God's name? The facts prove that something did.”)
Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write (tetragram) within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?
No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.
Many scholars favor the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.
After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.
Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.
Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye•shu'a?, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I•e•sous'. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?
Why is it important to know and use God’s personal name?
Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.
True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6.
Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”
Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”
Ezek. 38:17, 23: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”
Mal. 3:16: “Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.”
John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”
Acts 15:14: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
InterestedOne
Hi Tuber - The error in the PM's is a quirk of this site. When you get that error, if you hit back page and re-load the message, it usually works. Let me know if you can read it. In the meantime, I'll work on posting it in this thread in plain text in hopes that it doesn't cause an error. Also, I found something else about it in the NWT "study Bible" that will give you some idea of what you are dealing with.
-
50
DO NOT have children in this system!!
by What Now? ingrowing up, this is something that my other always told me.
i've had several conversations with older sisters who have said that if they could do things over, they wouldn't have had children.
other couples my own age are horrified at the thought of raising children in "this system".
-
-
InterestedOne
The sentiment of "I wouldn't want to bring a child into this world," certainly exists outside the JW's, but I don't know of any study that demonstrates it to be the majority opinion. If someone knows of a study on that subject, I would find it interesting. Regarding the JW's, I think they exploit the sentiment when they encounter someone who feels that way. My JW friend is an example. Before she became a JW, she did not want to bring a child into the world because she felt the world was inhospitable to nurturing a healthy family. As she became indoctrinated with the JW ideas, she could then say she will wait until the new system where everything will be perfect to have children. She said, "I want my children to know I loved them enough to wait."