aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 608 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  20

  Awakening thoughts

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a "waking up", but still a member, jehovah's witness acquaintance of mine from eastern europe wrote the following lines:.

  "i count among the main sins of the watchtower society:.

  1. concealment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  "It's true that based on the Bible, one cannot prove that the "Faithful and wise servant" was entrusted by Jesus with the administration of earthly Christians after 1914. Indeed, this cannot be proven from the Bible. Am I right? If I'm not, then show me where the Bible says that nearly 2000 years after Jesus' death, a man (Russell) appears, followed by his successors, who received authorization for this from God (or Jesus)."

  "You write:

  "Jehovah's Witnesses were able to explain the Bible most accurately."

  I'm not sure that's true. Have you read the book "Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand!"? Have you read all those emotional filler sentences in it, like "oh, how happy we can be", "oh, how glorious", "oh, how great" - why ruin a book with such nonsense? And then for over a year, this book is being studied again, even though it says nothing to ordinary believers - because it's all about the author's interpretation, which is either true or not. The whole thing has a flavor of brainwashing, because the point isn't what's explained in the book, but that the believer learns to think that way and only ask questions that are raised in the book.

  Here's an example. In the book of Revelation, there's a sentence about Jesus saying "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him". In this book (among many other examples), people are taught not to believe what they see written in the Bible. Because according to the explanation, this refers to Jesus' invisible advent in 1914. The expression "every eye will see him" means that only a handful of people learn about his advent. So the word "every" turns into the opposite, into "handful", and the "eye" turns into perceptual ability. Therefore, its meaning is precisely the opposite of what is written there. And then those who pierced him can't even see him (not even symbolically), because they don't even acknowledge his advent. So this explanation is a bunch of nonsense, which is served up with a scientific garnish and a sense of urgency (I coined this term based on the concept of a sense of urgency - because it's also an absurdity)

  You say that the statement "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" is essentially the opposite of what is written there? Let's analyze it:

  So "every eye" doesn't mean everything or eye, but only the spiritual ability of a few people who were able to understand Jesus' advent in 1914.

  And the word "see" doesn't refer to real sight, but to spiritual understanding.

  Furthermore: According to Jesus' words, even those who "pierced" him should see Him. Let's take the latter as symbolic. So, in 1914, those who symbolically pierced him, that is, those who were against Jesus, should have seen Jesus. But don't you get it?? Well, they couldn't "see" him, because "seeing" here is meant spiritually, so "seeing" is identical with understanding, with the perception of knowledge. So, according to this, in 1914, those who opposed Jesus should have been aware of Jesus' advent. However, those who opposed Jesus didn't even acknowledge that he came in 1914, so they couldn't "see" him even symbolically! This is a big contradiction. And I don't know the answer to it.

  Let's assume that this convoluted interpretation is correct. So, this is some kind of secret code or a way of speaking that prisoners use to communicate with each other so that no one else understands them? Therefore, you think it's right that the true meaning of this biblical statement is in stark contrast to the meaning that every sane person would glean from it? And for 2000 years, people have been deceived this way?

  But do you know what follows from this? It is that one cannot read the Bible independently. In fact, it can even be harmful because we may completely misinterpret it. If this is true, then we can't read the Bible, because I can assume about any statement that in reality the opposite is true. So, I constantly need all kinds of explanations, because God's word cannot be understood without a group that is called to explain it to me. So if I read in the Bible that "the sky is blue", I cannot be sure about this until an interpreting group reassures me that it doesn't mean something else, but what is written there. Otherwise, I might think that the statement "the sky is blue" means "the grass is green".

  "There is no bottom-up initiative in this Organization, if someone wants to improve, seeing the inappropriateness, the error, they are crushed."

  This is true. But you can't even ask a question because there's no one to ask. It seems that the elders are not interested in the questions, because they are so burdened, and they would rather whistle to the whole thing - but they can't, because like in MLM, a lot of their "money" is invested in it.

  Just a simple question. Until 1995, it was written at the bottom of the first page of the Awake magazine: This magazine reinforces faith in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and new world will come before the generation of 1914 passes away. I understand that you have realized that this is not exactly the case. That the concept of "generation" has to be understood differently. But why did you have to say that it was the Creator's promise?? This is a clear lie. How do you think this can be explained?

  It's OK that Christmas is a pagan holiday. But if it has been able to survive for so long, then people need such a holiday. Because if you arbitrarily invent another holiday, it won't last as long. So the "false Christians" just adapted to the psychological need in the people of the northern hemisphere, to the fact that every normal person is really happy when after the continuous decrease of light a change occurs and the days start to get longer. So what holiday should we celebrate according to you? Just the annual memorial?? - Well, I know how such a "celebration" goes. This is a big zero. There's no solemnity in it. In the evening, after a whole day's work, the witnesses dress up and go to the same kind of meeting they go to three times a week. So this so-called only holiday is no different from the other gatherings. Only in the sense that they give a different speech, and that they carry around the emblems, which no one consumes. Because if they did, it would cause a minor scandal. And the families who go to this "celebration" do not celebrate at all. Everyone does their activities coldly, mechanically, and just as when it's over, everyone rushes home. Even in a state enterprise there is more solemnity, where after the official celebration they organize a common dinner or a show, so that it really differs from the grey everyday, and they really remember this occasion. But are these "memorial events" memorable in your opinion? Do they capture children with their atmosphere? What will they remember in their old age? Do you know what they will remember? Nothing. And if they remember something, it will be their parents constantly urging them to join the preaching service, because there is little time left. Once an old man accidentally bitterly admitted that he could not play football in his childhood, because at home they told him that he could play football in the new world. If there is something like this in the subconscious of the elderly, it can be understood that they cannot make anything festive. They organize it with a routine, mechanical nature, just as they organize congresses and everything. The goal is for it to take place, for everyone to sit through what they have to, and go home. In addition, they will be scolded for not achieving enough, not attending "outings", and for not coming to the gathering due to a slight headache. That's how it looks. Prove to me that this is not true.

  It's fine that we don't know the end time. If someone honestly admits this, it's OK. But that's exactly the problem, it's not admitted. Because when they published the book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" in 1920, did they do it by divine inspiration? -- They couldn't have, because it has been proven by now that it was not true. Or, for example, when young witnesses were encouraged in 1973-1974 (officially, from above) to use this "remaining short time" not to start families, but to serve instead? And this generation has already become grandparents. Don't you think this is fraud?? And where is the responsibility of the person who said this at the time? Is it the same as in politics - that there is never anyone responsible??

  In my opinion, this is a fraud with the meaning of words. Because when someone (especially a new person) is told that "the end is near", it is not explained to them that "Steve, don't take this too seriously, because this 'near' is only close from God's perspective, from our perspective it can be 50-100 years". This is not explained to him, but they let Steve believe that "near" is really near, because if he believes this, he will at least achieve more. This is fraud because if I tell one of my employees that "from tomorrow come at twelve, and if you do this for a month, I will give you double money for it". Of course, he believes this, starts coming at twelve, and at the end of the month I give him nothing. Then when he asks why he didn't get anything, I explain to him that by the word "month" I meant a completely different unit of time, and by "double money" I meant 2 dollars, because I show him a lexicon where it is written that once the 1 dollar was called "a money"."

  "What do you say? That they understood that the date cannot be known in advance? Did they understand this so late? Well, these "false Christians" were centuries ahead, because they have been saying this for a long time. Why did it take so long to understand this? It's clearly written in the Bible!! And what does it mean that they "understood"? That the leaders of the Watchtower understood it? And until they understood it, why was it mandatory for every witness to represent the (not understood) view that the leaders said? I know, they also "understood" that one should not be excluded who wears trousers being a woman. Today, nobody gets ostracized for things like this. But indeed, in the 1960s it still happened easily. People were even disfellowshipped because sister XY brought a coat to her daughter who was at a dance party, so she wouldn't get cold. Of course, you say this was a long time ago. But has anyone apologized to these people? Did they acknowledge, "Brother, we have disfellowshipped you, forgive us, we were not fully informed"? As far as I know, nobody received such an apology. Those who unnecessarily went to prison, even though they could have done civilian service - but because the leadership had not yet recognized this truth, the "lambs" went to prison. And when they came out and became conscientious objectors, and when the new Watchtower came out saying "military service can now be replaced with civilian service", nobody apologized to them.

  But I have one more crucial question. Until 1995, it was written in the Awake! magazine that Armageddon will come before the generation of 1914 passes away. It was precisely formulated that this is the "Creator's promise". Please, why did they have to write this as the "Creator's promise"? Why couldn't they write humbly: "Based on our ever-advancing knowledge, we believe this to be in harmony with the Bible." Wouldn't this have been more honest?

  According to the current teaching of the Watchtower at that time, accepting vaccination was equivalent to blood transfusion. Those who accepted the vaccine were harshly disfellowshipped. The next leaders of the Watchtower religion then abolished this nonsense, but among those who experienced it at the time, there were many who died due to this false teaching, the false interpretation of Bible verses.

  If this was the case, 1./ who was held accountable for this, and 2./ who apologized?

  You write this:

  "The organization had much less knowledge a hundred years ago, but now look how much they have corrected."

  That's fine, but by what right do they force their views on the membership? What right do they have to disfellowshippe those who think differently? Because this is outrageous! This is exactly the same case I was talking about. The leaders of the Society reach a certain level (this level was in 1930 that vaccination should not be accepted, until 1995 it was that the generation of 1914 will not pass away) and then claim that this level is God's law. Because those who got vaccinated were disfellowshipped. But also until 1995, it was written in the Awake! that the Creator had such a promise that the generation of 1914 will not pass away. If they are Bible researchers, then let them research, but do not say that a certain level is the absolute ceiling. Especially not when this can lead to people's deaths. Because this is a blood guilt.

  So, no one is responsible for this? Because it is certain that neither rank-and-file sister, nor the traveling overseer responsible.

  I get the impression that in our modern world everything can be talked about (not only in religions, but also in politics), except for the specific naming of the responsible parties. Everyone hides behind organizations, committees, groups, corporations, etc. It was certainly more honorable in the Middle Ages when someone could challenge their opponent to a duel for their views, opinions, or love. Then at least the word had credibility.

  I also believe that there are many symbols in the Bible. But this is about something else:

  "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." - I accept that this is also symbolic.

  But do I dare to interpret this verse in the exact opposite way? By the opposite, I mean 180 degrees contrary. So does the statement "every eye will see him" mean that only a few people will perceive Him spiritually? Does "seeing with the eye" mean understanding with the mind? And then, despite the coming of Jesus being described so vividly as "like lightning" visible to all, is this also true in reverse? Is this also only 'spiritually' true? It seems everyone was blind, only the Bible scholars saw. If this was the case, then the sudden coming could have been true, since the other people were like the blind. The Bible scholars, therefore, saw. If they saw, why did even Rutherford write that Jesus' invisible coming was in 1874? Didn't they see it in 1914?

  Until 1995, all the Awakes wrote that the Creator had a promise that the generation of 1914 would not pass away until God's new world came. It was written exactly like this: "Most importantly: this journal reaffirms confidence in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and secure new world will be established before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." I think this undoubtedly proves that until 1995 they put a statement in God's mouth that God did not say. In other words: they spread a lie. They spread the lie not with what they said about the generation of 1914, but by spreading in millions of copies that this was the Creator's promise. I don't think there can be clearer evidence than this.

  "And all the lies they graciously present to you as spiritual food, thinking you're feeble-minded, so you'll swallow it anyway."

  It's not about feeble-mindedness, but fatigue. Looking at the congregation, practically no one is surprised by anything anymore. If from tomorrow the GB would start saying that the Trinity is not that satanic, everyone would swallow it without a word. People (not just JWs, but generally) are so mentally blunted. Some are dulled by the monotonous congregation "programs", others by TV and reality shows. Essentially, no one investigates the writings anymore, because they realized it's pointless. It's better to be stupid than smart, because then you won't have conflicts with anyone. I'm just such a compromising JW. Because I am, formally of course. But now after the explanation of the "this generation", I burst into laughter. This is really funny. But I still won't openly say it's nonsense. Why? To be kicked out? Because all my acquaintances are in there. That's the one thing holding me back - because if it wasn't for that, I swear, at a convention, publicly in front of tens of thousands of people, I'd slap the charlatan who comes from Brooklyn to distribute wisdom. That would be a spectacle! They would let me on the stage, thinking I had some role, and then bam bam. People would stare like in the movies. I think they wouldn't even understand it suddenly, because their minds are so messed up, I could easily escape. But it's okay. Daydreaming ruins life. If others can keep a good face, then I'm no less an actor."
• 
  20

  Awakening thoughts

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a "waking up", but still a member, jehovah's witness acquaintance of mine from eastern europe wrote the following lines:.

  "i count among the main sins of the watchtower society:.

  1. concealment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  "Do 'the Witnesses' fully align with God's word? Indeed, this is not true. There were times when, for example, vaccination against diseases was forbidden. And this was not so long ago. Then, according to the old Witnesses' stories, it was also forbidden for someone to be a member of agricultural cooperatives or trade unions, as this was considered a political stance. At that time, this was also called TRUTH. Did Jehovah want this? Did Jehovah want that for decades it was written at the beginning of Awake that the Creator made a promise that is now retrospectively not true?

  What is my problem? I see this syrupy, sweet "faithful servant" worship. We are taught to put obedience first. However, the Bereans showed a different spirituality. They didn't believe anyone until they themselves were convinced of something. Now I see a trend as if someone (some power) wanted to "breed" a group of people who hold complete loyalty as the highest value. Not direct adherence to the Bible, but adherence to the group that interprets the Bible, so essentially adherence to an authority (the word of power). True, God is also power, so loyalty to God is also loyalty to power. But what if this whole thing is just a very good disguise? What if this is Satan's masterpiece, with which he wants to deceive "even the saints"? - Jesus gave a criterion: love. I do not see love in congregational life. Do you know what I see? The demonstration of love. Yes, the demonstration of love works, love does not. However, the outsider does not notice this. He only notices it when he gets into the middle of it. He realizes that there is no love. However, this is masterfully hidden. In fact, this concealment is not masterful, but brilliant. For example, we are taught to show love, and to make an effort to show love. But where there is love, where there really is, it is expressed naturally, without effort, and no effort needs to be made for this purpose. Effort is only needed when you want to show a love that does not exist. In this case, a great effort is needed and for someone to constantly remind us. Effort always needs to be made for what is not natural. If someone is hungry, they have to make an effort to hold back from showing their hunger, not to show their hunger.

  What is my problem? I see this syrupy, sweet "faithful servant" worship. And at the same time, I see the honesty of simple Witnesses. How much they can be misled. If an article came down tomorrow with "new truth" that the Holy Spirit is, after all, a person, then the elders would read it with the same impassive voice as the other changes, and publicly not a single dissenting voice would be heard. About 10 years ago, when I first saw one of the "faithful and discreet" at a convention, I honestly had unpleasant feelings. He made an impression on me like a robot. I thought to myself that if I got up now, went up to him, and suddenly beheaded him publicly with a sword, wires would appear. Sick thought, it's true. Maybe Satan suggested it."

  "The outrage towards the "faithful and wise" coldness, reclusiveness, insensitivity is just too much. As if they are not even humans, but some distant cold software that just keeps spewing well-phrased instructions; but it doesn't know the concept of "bottom-up initiative". It dictates what questions the study leader can ask and defines what is appropriate to answer. However, it does not even give its name. No one knows who writes those articles. Yet, this would be a fundamental thing. After all, these articles are far less inspired than the Bible. Therefore, the authors' names should be published, so the mistakes can have an owner too. After all, the Bible was written by people whose names we know: Moses, Paul, Luke, etc. They did not shy away from writing it down. If they could give their names, why doesn't the "faithful and wise" dare to take responsibility? You can pray, beg, ask God, in other words, communicate because He indeed answers. But the "faithful and wise" is so distant, intangible, it's unbelievable. Because you could go to Jesus, you could slap a protestant pastor - these are all human-like. But the "faithful and discreet" is different. As if watching the world from a distance. That's why I have this feeling that they are not humans, but some perfectly developed robots that look like humans attending congresses. Or take the 144,000. They are basically the ones we are just helpers to. Jesus only made a contract with them, we just carry their bags symbolically. Are they publicly named? Do you know how many there are in the country, or at least where they live? The secrecy starts here. What the Witnesses may know, they only know it at the level of gossip. If a "new truth" comes to light, and the "old truth" is no longer true, they don't even say "sorry". As if it wasn't them who said it was the Creator's promise, which turned out not to be true. This impudence is shocking. Would Jesus have behaved this way? - I don't think so."

  "This waste of leisure time is very true. This whole "training" is very similar to how soldiers are trained. They have to be overloaded so that they have no time to think. There was a Watchtower article in September 2008 about how the preaching work is not about results, but about constant activity. As if they wanted to kill even that natural instinct that distinguishes an intelligent person from a soulless robot - because a bricklayer is also happy that the house is being built, not that he can wheelbarrow the rubble. It's basically about filling time. The entire so-called service meeting and theocratic ministry school serve the same purpose. Because the efficiency of both is almost zero. They discuss artificial topics so circumstantially that they contribute not to efficiency, to spiritual freshness, but to absolute dullness. The whole methodology basically aims to maintain an illusion: the illusion of unity, and the illusion that the learner gains serious biblical knowledge. But he doesn't. The selection of biblical quotes also serves this purpose: to stun with a pile of irrelevant information, to intensify the self-torturing feeling of how stupid I am, and to give a flat explanation of deeper logical connections. In the end, the person even believes about himself that he has a great knowledge. But it seems that it is not the knowledge that is important, but the belief that we have knowledge. Not the known, but the demonstration of knowledge. Not love, but the demonstration of love, not activity, but the demonstration of activity, not reality, but the demonstration of reality."

  "Until 1995, every Awake magazine began with the statement that "... this magazine reinforces trust in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and secure new world will be established before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." Then, in February 2008, it turned out that Matthew 24:34 is not about the generation of 1914, but about the 144,000 who are still alive today, i.e., they have not "passed away". Moreover, according to some year-end reports, their number can sometimes even increase compared to the previous year. Also, according to a 2008 Watchtower, the selection of the 144,000 did not end in 1935, but it is still possible today that God will call someone (not just to replace a "fallen" anointed one - as they said before -, but anew). Of course, this wouldn't be such a big problem, after all, "the path of the righteous is like the first light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day." (Proverbs 4:18) The problem is not if knowledge is still incomplete and part-by-part, but when lies are put into the Creator's mouth. Because indeed, it is a great lie that the Creator would have said something like "a peaceful and secure new world will be established before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." Such a claim cannot be found in the Bible, so the Creator could not have said this. This lie was distributed for decades in millions of copies. Those who dared to put this lie on Awake, do you think they committed a pleasing act to God? Because they themselves knew that it was not God who said this, but they interpreted God's word in this way. So once again: it was not God who said it, but they interpreted God's word this way and were so presumptuous that they elevated their own interpretation to the rank as if it really was God who had said it. What is arrogance, if not this??

  Then there's a new problem. So far, they have taught that Jesus already came invisibly in 1914. Of course, this is also not in the Bible, this is also an interpretation, namely, the interpretation of what is contained in Daniel 4:7-14, the so-called second fulfillment of the 7 times in verse 13. By the way, the Bible does not say a single word about that this 7 times would have a fulfillment that ends in 1914. Because according to the Bible, the 7 times "was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar" (Daniel 4:30) And if it's fulfilled, it does not follow that there is a greater fulfillment. Of course, this cannot be ruled out, but the rest is just speculation, which is either true or not. So Jesus came in 1914, of course invisibly, but still "every eye saw him", and those who crucified him. Of course, the words here also mean something different, as if the Bible was written in thieves' language. And now behold: Jesus not only came invisibly in 1914, but will also come during the great tribulation (whether he will be invisible again, or visible, the Watchtower does not write about this), because on page 20 of the issue dated July 15, 2008, under point 17, this is written: "The final judgment will be when Jesus comes during the time of the great tribulation."

  So how is this?

  I call the claim a lie: "... this magazine strengthens confidence in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and safe new world will come into being before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." - Do you understand? The part underlined is the lie, because the Creator did not make such a promise to anyone. Whoever denies this obvious fact is simply lying, and consciously lying - just so that his words may carry greater weight in front of the masses of Witnesses. So he lies in a political manner. If it were true that Armageddon will come within the lifetime of the 1914 generation, this would not change the fact that the Creator did not make such a promise. Because such a promise does not exist in the Bible and according to the teaching, God does not make miraculous revelations today. At most, what can happen is that the "faithful and wise" correctly interpret God's word. Do you understand? It's about interpretation, not about the Creator making a statement. This is a difference even if the interpretation is correct by chance. Once again for those who have difficulty understanding: the faithful and wise servant elevates his own interpretation of the Bible to a status (not just in this particular case) as if it were the word of God, and then sells it to the simple Witnesses as "This is the creator's promise". Like some American advertising trick. On the other hand, many interpretations have already been proven incorrect, so one may rightly ask why this one would be correct? That's why it's a lie to claim that God made this statement."

  "And if I am fulfilled, it does not follow that there is a greater fulfillment. Of course, this cannot be ruled out, but the rest is just speculation, which is either true or not. So Jesus came in 1914, of course invisibly, but still "every eye saw him", and those who crucified him. Of course, the words here also mean something different, as if the Bible was written in thieves' language. And now behold: Jesus not only came invisibly in 1914, but will also come during the great tribulation (whether he will be invisible again, or visible, the Watchtower does not write about this), because on page 20 of the issue dated July 15, 2008, under point 17, this is written: "The final judgment will be when Jesus comes during the time of the great tribulation."

  So how is this?

  I call the claim a lie: "... this magazine strengthens confidence in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and safe new world will come into being before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." - Do you understand? The part underlined is the lie, because the Creator did not make such a promise to anyone. Whoever denies this obvious fact is simply lying, and consciously lying - just so that his words may carry greater weight in front of the masses of Witnesses. So he lies in a political manner. If it were true that Armageddon will come within the lifetime of the 1914 generation, this would not change the fact that the Creator did not make such a promise. Because such a promise does not exist in the Bible and according to the teaching, God does not make miraculous revelations today. At most, what can happen is that the "faithful and wise" correctly interpret God's word. Do you understand? It's about interpretation, not about the Creator making a statement. This is a difference even if the interpretation is correct by chance. Once again for those who have difficulty understanding: the faithful and wise servant elevates his own interpretation of the Bible to a status (not just in this particular case) as if it were the word of God, and then sells it to the simple Witnesses as "This is the creator's promise". Like some American advertising trick. On the other hand, many interpretations have already been proven incorrect, so one may rightly ask why this one would be correct? That's why it's a lie to claim that God made this statement.

  Or "let's not deal with the past"? Maybe the history of the Witnesses is not interesting? Not even important? Didn't we study the past of Jehovah's Witnesses for years through various publications (e.g., through the publication titled "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand!")? How can you say the past is not important? If the past was not important, how could you prove that the Witnesses are chosen by God? How could you prove that many biblical prophecies were fulfilled precisely on the Bible students around 1918? Without the past, the Watchtower could not be a tower, because every tower needs foundations.

  I didn't say that you should deliberately look for small mistakes in the text. However, you should not ignore the glaring, almost eye-poking mistake. And that the Creator promised something cannot be a trivial detail, which is irrelevant from a perspective of 13 years. Basically, you can read all of Lenin's works with the attitude "what benefit do I get from it", because you can extract many true and instructive things from it.

  You write:

  "I didn't even teach my disciples anything that was not in line with the claims in our publications."

  This is what shocks and horrifies me. You're even bragging about it! How dare you train disciples this way? And if a disciple inquires about something that you think differently, will you babble? And if you're asked to give a lecture, will you present what you're convinced is not true? And your conscience? Indeed, the cat is out of the bag now. When I studied with them back in the day and asked difficult questions, the leader of the study also babbled. And I noticed this and quite disliked him, because I expected honesty, not manipulation. If he had said, "I don't know", or that the book's explanation may not be true, he would have been much more likeable. But seeing his pathetic struggle, I despised him.

  By the way, what is this gag order? If you come to a conclusion, something contradictory to what is in the Teaching, should you keep silent? - But why should we be silent? - Okay, I believe you can't discuss this with brothers who would be confused by this, who would never think of such things on their own. I also agree that 99% of the brotherhood can't be told about this (it's also sad that the ratio is so high). But why can't you write a letter to the "faithful and wise"? Why isn't it natural for someone to ask a question? Didn't they ask Jesus? Did the Bereans blindly accept everything Paul said? Doesn't the Bible encourage us to examine everything? Is the Watchtower an exception?

  You say that if someone stumbles upon something disturbing, they should wait for Jehovah. OK - but then this attitude should be followed in every area of life! So if I get a flat tire, I'll stand in front of the car and pray, why should I initiate the tire repair on my own? Or if I become unemployed, I sit at home and pray, then someone will come and offer me a job! - The Bible does not encourage such passivity. On the contrary, it encourages knocking. Asking questions. Of course, not to force the answer with a gun, but with adequate means: the power of word and language."

  "I also went to the preaching service and I know that all it takes is minimal knowledge and a thick skin. If one gets used to being kicked out from 100 places, being able to push a publication on 10 places and having a primary school level conversation at about 1 place, they could easily complete even 90 hours. And you can get used to this. Then I also know what 90 hours this is. A pair starts, they approach someone, who of course refuses, and from here the time starts ticking. Then half an hour later they approach someone again, then they loiter a bit at a gate where the door is not opened when they ring and the two hours pass nicely. And like someone who did their job well, they can go home. The result doesn't matter, after all, a recent Watchtower also wrote that the result is not important, but the intention. It's easy to play smart, the Bible expert in front of people who can't tell their left hand from their right (the prayer book from the Bible) during the door-to-door service. And for those who are so self-absorbed, I recommend coming to a forum like this. Argue here, test your argumentation skills here, measure your preparedness here and not just on artificially planned demo presentations."

  "You write, true, the Watchtower is written by people, but these people are led by the Holy Spirit. I know that the writers of the Bible were led by the Holy Spirit. So is the Bible of the same value as the Watchtower? There were errors in the Watchtower. The teaching changed quite often, sometimes by 180 degrees, for instance, the relationship of Christians to higher powers changed several times. I have old publications where, for example, it is written that in the last days evil angels will once again take on bodies on earth, just as they did before the flood. So the writers of the Watchtower were not inspired, because if they were, they could not make mistakes. They could be considered scholars or researchers, but not inspired.

  You gave an interesting answer, because you wrote: "when Jehovah deems it important for a certain matter to be understood, then he inspires them and they write it down precisely."

  So Jehovah does not inspire every Watchtower statement, but only those he wants to be revealed at a certain time. From this it follows that every Watchtower statement should be classified into two categories: the category of "interpretations inspired by Jehovah" and the category of "uninspired interpretation attempts by the Faithful and Discreet." Perhaps these sentences should be printed in different colors so that a Watchtower article would have to be set in two different colors. Let's say the red sentences would be the inspired sentences, and the black sentences would be the uninspired ones. However, this is also godlessness, because every article is set in the same color, so the reader thinks that every interpretation, every sentence is inspired. This is the sin of arrogance. Remember how severe a punishment Moses received when he attributed God's power to his own merit. I think it is even more serious when someone attributes their own opinion, speculation - about which they themselves know best that it did not come from God - to Jehovah, and sells this symbolic "product" as Jehovah's word. This causes serious damage, because it makes Jehovah look ridiculous and like someone who constantly changes his opinion.

  This above opinion is my opinion. But it's just my opinion, because I might be wrong - which I admit the moment someone refutes it. But how conceited it would be of me to claim that this above train of thought is divine inspiration !?"

  "You didn't understand that I objected to the "faithful and discreet" speaking about certain things when they were not inspired by God to do so. According to this, Jehovah does not inspire every Watchtower statement, but only those he wants to be fully revealed at a certain time. From this it follows that every Watchtower statement should be classified into two categories: the category of "interpretations inspired by Jehovah" and the category of "uninspired interpretation attempts by the Faithful and Discreet."

  "It's not a problem if the "faithful and discreet" speak when they are not inspired by God - because after all, if we saw them as scholarly Bible researchers, then they would have the right to make mistakes - but the problem is that they mix their own uninspired statements with their inspired statements, i.e. those that God truly inspired. Because it is impossible that God would inspire them incorrectly.

  Let's take an example, I think the most serious one, about 1914. The problem is not that they wrote for decades that "the 1914 generation will not pass until Armageddon comes", but the problem is that they advertised this as the Creator's promise. So about something they figured out through logical deduction and calculation - i.e. their own human interpretation - they claimed for decades, publicly, in millions of copies, that this was the Creator's promise. But they knew best that this was not a statement inspired by God, but something they figured out.

  "Well, you shock me more and more, you wrote this:

  "If the elders write something down in the Watchtower, it must be so. We cannot doubt that."

  Then you are not a worshipper of God, but of the "faithful and discreet". By the way, even Paul didn't say such things about himself. On the contrary, Paul expected his words to be examined and only accepted if they are in harmony with the Bible. Is the "faithful and discreet" more than Paul? Read about how much Paul praised the Bereans, who did not immediately accept his words, but examined them to see if they were true. If the Watchtower writes something, why can't we examine it? We would still be obligated to examine it even if they had never made a mistake. But changing so many times, that's a bit much. I know families whose children were born later because in 1975 they held demonstrations emphasizing how inappropriate it was to get married or have children, as there is so little time left. How can such a fraud be swallowed? And how is it possible that no one is responsible for this? - Of course no one is responsible because they don't sign their name to the article, even though Russel and even Rutherford did. There are 60-70 year old Witnesses today who could not play football in their childhood because their parents told them they could play football in the New World soon. And they have grown old, many have died.

  If you don't know the answers to these, ask those with whom you are studying. You can still ask them questions, they are still obligated to answer you. But not everyone is obligated. Those who have been baptized are no longer obligated, and those who have been excommunicated are not even spoken to. So as a student, you are in a key position where they are obliged to answer you and find the answer even from the depths."

  "About the Jehovah's Witnesses, you write:

  "Do they do this with joy, perhaps?"

  They sure don't do it joyfully. The truth is, they are already bored with everything, they just don't dare to say it. But I think the smarter ones no longer take the "faithful and discreet" seriously, so whether they are spiritualists, fraudsters, or God's true people, it doesn't matter - there has been so much talk and PR that people just pretend to believe them. So the situation is not as tragic as you paint it. Jehovah's Witnesses don't even seriously believe that Abaddon is the same as Jesus. They read it, recite it like a tape, but they don't care. So they don't identify with it, only the leadership believes it, because by the time the reports reach them, they have been "beautified" by all the zealous gossip, just like in any political party or hierarchy. Then if someone has a personal relationship with God and feels His help, then he "doesn't give a damn" about what the elders or any religion tell him. Because faith is not just talk, especially not a lot of talk, because a lot of talk and rules kill faith. Faith is an experience, the experience of God's help, regardless of all the nonsense. So if someone feels this help as a Jehovah's Witness, then let them be a Jehovah's Witness, but they don't have to fall flat in front of all the talk."
• 
  20

  Awakening thoughts

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a "waking up", but still a member, jehovah's witness acquaintance of mine from eastern europe wrote the following lines:.

  "i count among the main sins of the watchtower society:.

  1. concealment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  "The Watchtower has only one accepted method of Bible study. In fact, it may be a stretch to even call it a Bible study method. It would be more accurate to call it "book study", "training", or even "brainwashing". Whether it's the Watchtower study on Sunday, the book study on Tuesday evening, or the "Bible Study" with an interested individual in their home - the method is the same. Here's how they do it: The written texts in the paragraph are found and read aloud to confirm the answer. This procedure is followed paragraph by paragraph until the entire Watchtower article or a chapter of the book is completed. Some individual additions are encouraged, but deviation from the basic "study" method is not permitted. This method is repeated article after article, day after day, week after week, year after year.

  The views of the Society are constantly reprocessed through the authoritative study material of the Watchtower. As a result, every Jehovah's Witness, regardless of their educational background, is able to parrot the Society's views on practically every subject.

  Independent analytical thinking eventually completely ceases, and the Witness's "disciple training" becomes complete. They no longer "rely on their own mind". I often wondered why we use these methods in our studies. "If this is the Truth", I thought "why do we brainwash ourselves in this way? Why can't there be open discussion and debate with each other in our studies? Why do the same lectures, the same studies from the same topics repeat over and over again?" I argued that since most Jehovah's Witnesses are not very educated, this is the only way they can learn. Besides, what is more important, the Truth or the method by which the Truth is presented? God simply gives us "the food at the proper time" in this way, so that every member of his people can easily digest it.

  Especially in the beginning, I had a lot of questions and regularly asked them at the meetings. However, I chose my words very carefully for the questions, being careful not to appear as someone who criticizes the organization. Sincere questions from a new perspective, like mine, were somewhat tolerated as long as they did not disturb the course of the meeting. But as I noticed early enough, questions from devoted, baptized Witnesses were not tolerated at all even regarding the minor points of the doctrines and very easily formed the basis for disfellowshipping!

  Individual Bible study groups, which were not "sanctified" by the Watchtower headquarters, are strictly forbidden among Jehovah's Witnesses. I found this out firsthand. We had a group of young people in Manitou Springs who gathered to study the Watchtower and encourage each other every Monday evening. After our group had been meeting for several weeks, the elders from our congregation, after discussing the situation with the circuit overseer, disbanded it. They said that our gathering was outside the regulations of the Watchtower Society. And this was the case, even if we were only studying the Watchtower! Independent study and discussion of the Bible without the direct supervision of the "mother" organization is strictly forbidden among Jehovah's Witnesses."

  "Bible study with the help of the Watchtower" is actually Watchtower study!!

  "The first station of indoctrination is home study. I write it deliberately because it's not about studying the Bible, but teaching an interpretation to the candidate for entry, in other words, they put glasses on their eyes so that they try to interpret everything they read through it. The actual study of the publication itself is quite peculiar. They read a paragraph, ask a printed question, then the student answers, which is quite simple since the answer is in the few lines they just read. The study conductor praises the student in numerous ways..."

  "Monotony is a long-term and insidious tool. If the victim hears the same thing with sufficient regularity and is forced to repeat it, any individual thought, individual initiative can be put into the service of the religious organization.When I read this, the weekly Watchtower study immediately came to mind. Essentially the same information, the same language. They read, we repeat. They read, we repeat. Endlessly, week after week, there is never a break.

  A critic wrote to me:

  "Your brothers perform a distorted and tragicomic play weekly, which you prosaically call Watchtower study. I have seen it, and it scared me. (For those who were fortunate enough to have never seen it: the study leader reads a paragraph from the Watchtower, then reads the related question at the bottom of the page, which is basically the same, just with a different word order. Then a trembling victim volunteers and reads the paragraph that was just read twice, like a zombie. This goes on for an hour. It made me depressed for a week. Adults like frightened galley slaves in a Stalinist horror.)"

  "The purpose of this question-and-answer is not to ask real questions, but to:

  1. Create the illusion of real questions in outsiders,
  2. The insider, however, only asks questions that the "faithful and discreet" formulated, wrote down, so that they don't even have to think independently.

  This is about controlling thought. So that later the subject can't even ask questions independently. The whole Organization is set up for this. Anyone who has been immersed can't ask questions without being threatened with the label of "rebellious thinking". Therefore, the elders just mechanically carry out the activity, which is designed so that only minimal intelligence is required to execute it. For example, an outsider who wanders into one of the JW's lectures is surprised by how good the lecture is. However, the insider knows that this lecture is a completely planned thing, it doesn't reflect the speaker's opinion - pardon: it actually does, because the speaker only has the opinion that appeared in the earlier Watchtowers. A bit of reality comes into it when the speaker pronounces a "truth" that is outdated. But the loyal Witness still puts on a good face, pretending as if the old "truth" were still current. I see that the purpose of this whole "learning" process is not for the Witness to gain greater Biblical knowledge, but nothing else than to be loyal to his superiors. Some kind of absolute respect for authority, respect for the hierarchy. Of course, this is communicated as needing to be loyal to God, but in practice, it always looks like being loyal to specific people, leaders, the current "truth", the current interpretation, i.e., in essence, to those who invented this interpretation. You simply need such people who learn not to ask questions and not to think - or rather, to think, but only according to some predetermined template."

  "The power of the Organization over its members is to be found in their "Bible study" method. At their meetings, they do not directly study the Scriptures, but "tools" that help understand the otherwise incomprehensible Scripture. In their publications, they process the same topics week after week, year after year, deepening them in the minds of the Witnesses, establishing their commitment. Since they always hear the same thing, it starts to become natural to them. The task is simple: repeat a lie long enough until everyone starts to believe it - this is somewhat similar to how advertisements work."

  "In the literature published by the Society, the authors of the articles have not been listed since the 1950s, so criticizing them would automatically mean criticizing the "faithful and discreet slave class" appointed by God, which is forbidden for the members."

  "Their congregation is characterized by total lack of love. It's not for nothing that they use the phrase "demonstrating love" instead of the simple word "love". Yes, it's always about displaying things, the surface, the smiling, the raving about the "truth", so that someone sits through the whole thing elegantly, in a tie, responds to the questions asked, and gives such well-groomed answers that reflect the words of the Watchtower as accurately as possible. Therefore, many do not even bother, they simply read out the answers that were previously (at home) underlined. And this home underlining is called "preparation" and "study". Even the questions are designed in such a way as to prevent thoughts from accidentally being diverted in an inappropriate direction. And this guided thinking is called "meditation". Here is Orwell's 1984 realized, words mean different things than they should, the "newspeak" language is right before our eyes. The Watchtower study leader has to ask these prescribed questions, and the audience has to rephrase and repeat the answers they underlined at home. Like some sort of drama group. Perhaps the most important thing is to prevent any manifestation of spontaneity."
• 
  20

  Awakening thoughts

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a "waking up", but still a member, jehovah's witness acquaintance of mine from eastern europe wrote the following lines:.

  "i count among the main sins of the watchtower society:.

  1. concealment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  A "waking up", but still a member, Jehovah's Witness acquaintance of mine from Eastern Europe wrote the following lines:

  "I count among the main sins of the Watchtower Society:

  1. Concealment

  They hide numerous embarrassing and uncomfortable issues from the members, which if brought to light, could reveal that the "faithful and wise servant" is occasionally a fascist and ruthless dictator. They take away my right to decide for myself whether the accusations brought against them are valid or not. They do not give me the chance to filter out satanic attacks independently, relying on my own educated conscience, and to learn from the given issue, strengthening my faith and growing in knowledge, faith, and love. Instead, they cut me off from all channels of information, arguing that I should not even deal with the satanic slanders of the apostates because my faith would not survive it. What an arrogant insult! To judge the apostates lumped together under a generalized collective term, I must first listen to them and share my experiences with everyone, to give them a chance to decide as well. Every single free person has this right! Even if the charges brought against the Society are indeed false! But let me decide this! But are the charges really false? If the Society wasn't afraid of this, they would freely let information flow, because this is Jehovah's work, a mortal man cannot ruin it. So what are they afraid of? That someone would start thinking independently? Therefore, they only leave one channel of information open - the heavily censored Watchtower flood, with which they massage people's minds on a daily basis, so I have no chance to think about anything else. This is the most disgusting Orwellian manipulation of the mind, conscience, and heart. They want to keep under their control those gifts with which Jehovah has blessed me, and graciously allowed me to live freely with them! When they first approached me with the good news, they encouraged me to open my mind to other directions, thoughts, readings. Is this no longer valid today?! Can't I research freely today? Their entire church history is based on this! On constant research, correction, convergence! That's why I joined too. Do the former Bible researchers turn into dogmatic dictators just when they get so close to the truth? What happened? Research involves the right to make mistakes, so why do they want to be infallible idols? Yes, this is idolatry!!! They deceived me, you, them! I beg, why is it a problem that it could turn out that daddy is not the well-groomed, courteous, omniscient, and infallible uncle who feeds you. This can only be a problem if we worship daddy as a god. That's why we ourselves do not want to allow anything to be revealed about him. Because the realization would have a devastating effect on us. Thus we ourselves become accomplices in sin.

  And I can only feel this way because they hid the dirtier laundry from me. What a fatal mistake!

  2. Lack of love

  If Christ's claim is true, that "they will know you are my disciples if there is love among you," then the Witnesses are not Christ's disciples. What they call love is an empty, soulless, paper-smelling pretense. They love each other on command, but only if you are also in the right direction, and you say what you have to, what is in the numbered paragraph. A witness's whole life is a big, edited, numbered paragraph pile, here and there spiced up with a framed part or two. There is no alternative. If you question anything, you instantly become a public enemy. I grew up in such a dictatorial police state, and yet they managed to deceive me again. I am deeply upset. Despite this, they ceaselessly declare outwardly what boundless fraternal love, tolerance, and Christian peace prevail among them. What do you think, if these lines fell into their hands, which fruit of the spirit would they practice on me? They would kick me out so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground. A secretive, summary judicial committee, without a public hearing where I could defend myself, would immediately excommunicate me, and forbid everyone from getting near me, and practicing the commandment of Christian love.

  3. The unquestionability
  

  What happened to them? They owe it to the questions that they made countless biblical truths obvious to millions of people. Have the questions run out today? Why is it forbidden nowadays to question certain dogmas? Because they are the mature and anointed teachers, and I am the ignorant riffraff who would get lost without adequate help? This is fascism. Where are those Bible study groups that came together with the aim of questioning each other's statements, constantly asking questions to get closer and closer to the truth? Has the teaching become completely clear today? Who will guarantee this to me? A clerical body? They can adjust the teachings, and I cannot? They can receive the new light, and I cannot? One moment a teaching is an unshakable dogma - which if you resist, you are damned – the next moment the light comes and the teaching takes a different direction, possibly a direction that you suggested long ago, and because you shared your thoughts with your fellow believers, you ended up as a heretic. Does history not cease to repeat itself? When will we throw away the Watchtowers, and start studying the Bible? Without any help – haven't we grown up spiritually enough yet? This is an incredible paradox! The organization, whose existence is based on questions, prohibits questioning. The organization, known worldwide as a champion of freedom of conscience, most severely prohibits the practice of independent conscience. The organization, which consistently speaks out against idolatry, makes itself the biggest idol, and lovingly commands its followers to worship it as a god. Such a disappointment!

  Finally, I would like to say that I will be forever grateful to the Society for the amount of knowledge I received from them, which helped me to get closer to Jehovah, understand the biblical teachings, the sacrifice of Christ, and countless valuable and life-saving information they taught me. It is precisely for this reason that I am puzzled by the fact that it was this organization that unfairly deceived and misled me, hiding its actions from me, and trying to treat me like a forever debtor, a helpless lamb, an empty cabbage head, who is unable to cope without the watchful eye of Big Brother. I am convinced that sooner or later these thoughts will fall into the right pastoral hands, and thus the grotesque list of apostates will increase again, as I have no intention of retracting these lines."
• 
  72

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The fact that it was definitely not "Jehovah" is already known from the fact that there is no /dʒ/ sound in Hebrew. Whether it could have been "Yehovah" is also not represented by any serious researcher or Hebraist, this is as marginal and exotic an opinion as the Flat Earth Society exists. As far as it is at all possible to establish certainty in such a case, it is the Yahweh version.

  The fact that it was definitely not "Jehovah" is already known from the fact that there is no /dʒ/ sound in Hebrew. Whether it could have been "Yehovah" is also not represented by any serious researcher or Hebraist, this is as marginal and exotic an opinion as the Flat Earth Society exists. As far as it is at all possible to establish certainty in such a case, it is the Yahweh version.

  There was no appreciable argument in any edition of the NWT that even remotely reached the concept of "clear and compelling evidence". I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you specifically call ALL New Testament text copyists Bible forgers, and in this regard you bear the burden of proof. To prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt" (to use a courtroom term), do you think this wishful speculation that it is "reasonable to assume" "couldn't be otherwise" would pass in a courtroom?!

  The existence of autographs is not "helpful", but the only acceptable evidence itself, on the basis of which we establish the text. Because if the thousands of copies of the text were falsified in the sense that "Jehovah" was taken out, with this logic, how do you know how many other aspects were falsified? With this, you kick the chair out from under complete Christianity.

  The fact that it was included thousands of times in the Old Testament does not at all follow from the fact that it had to be included in the New Testament as well. That's about as much reasoning as saying, "Since my bathroom has a sink, it follows that my living room also must have a sink." It is not as if the burden of proof is on me in this regard, and I should explain why if it was included in the OT, why not in the NT, but I will help:

  Maybe because the theological environment has changed? Maybe because it was no longer needed? Because Yahweh himself was just a reminder to the Israelites, who were still leaning towards polytheism, to remember that there is only God "Who I am" (thus who truly exists)?

  Otherwise, the Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and the Song of Songs. Couldn't it have been there as well, only the "apostate" copyists removed it, and should it be "restored" in the NWT? After all, with your logic, it's impossible that if it's in one book, it can't not be in the other.

  I note that if God had an objection to this, why didn't He send a Jeremiah-like prophet in the intertestamental age to rebuke the Israelites for not saying the name YHWH? Why didn't Jesus concretely criticized this practice by a single word? And the apostles? Or maybe this has no significance for salvation?
  

  "The fact of a quotation has the NAME then it would be expected that the NT author or copyist would faithfully reproduce that name in the NT quotation"

  So "it would be expected"? By whom? I translate: "Since I cannot imagine that the writers of the New Testament did not approach this question as it should be based on the logic of my denomination, so it had to be this way". "We know that they were "apostates" from the fact that they omitted the name, since if they had not been apostates, they would not have been taken out." This is also known as circular reasoning.

  "and there is sufficient evidence in the absence of the autographs that this was the practice.

  And what would it be? Do you have such a manuscript? Is there an author who specifically reports seeing a New Testament manuscript containing the Tetragrammaton?

  As I see, you failed to answer my suggestion that the basis of the hypothesis is that the Tetragrammaton was included in SOME (probably archaizing) editions of the Septuagint, but how? Writing YHWH in the Greek text with Greek letters and vowels? No, but Hebrew letters, without vowels, right in the middle of the Greek text. Well, what the NWT does is not to put "יהוה‎" in the English text, but to write it in Latin letters, according to English phonetics, as "Jehovah". However, no one had ever done this in a Bible translation before the modern era. Both Howard and Stafford argue that these Old Testament quotations were not written in the New Testament in Greek letters, with Greek phonetics (e.g. Γιαχβέ), but at most in Hebrew letters as "יהוה‎". Come on, by not acting like that, you even went beyond your own - I emphasize again: unproven - hypotheses.

  Before modern times, Jews did not translate the Tanakh into vernacular languages, but used the Hebrew text in their worship. Of course they knew YHWH, they just didn't say it. In the Christian era, this question did not arise, neither positive nor negative, they simply readily adopted the custom of the Jews, which, as I emphasized: no one objected to in the New Testament. The name in which we are baptized is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The name Yahweh has no significance for salvation in the New Testament. Regardless, it was never "obscured".

  And if you call yourself a "scholar", then show an attitude a little closer to the so-called scientific methodology, instead of sweeping away the arguments of the debate partner with the terms "lengthy, boring" and "Franz's nonsense".
  
• 
  4

  One criticism of the NWT

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's no secret that forum members on this site are well aware that i tend to defend the nwt as a product in more than a few places.

  i, unlike some others here, do not view the version as unprofessional.

  i feel the translation is quite good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Journeyman
  

  "that certain additions had been made for clarification (such as "other" at Colossians 1:16, etc)"

  "Clarification"... muhaha, rotflmao, whatever... you mean writing their own interpretation into the text itself, or to say a better term, Bible distortion. What about "in their relative positions" in Romans 13:1? And all these? https://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

  "I'm not debating here whether any addition/clarification should be there or not."

  According to the Reasoning From the Scriptures:

  What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful.

  So, according to them, this should not be done, and according to the promise, they did not do it, as we can see: they lied.
  
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  That "Philo didn't read Hebrew" is definitely not true. It is certain that Greek was his first language, but that "didn't read Hebrew" is certainly not true. Even if it were true, it only weakens your position, since it just shows that the translation of 'qanah' as 'ktáomai' was a well-known and established Jewish reading back then, since all Jewish translators and interpreters after the LXX rendered it this way. And Jerome did not invent it himself, but while learning Hebrew from the Jews in Bethlehem took this reading from them, which was unknown before among the Greek and Latin speaking Christians, who had to defend the "begotten, not made" principle of the Son based on translation using the verb "ktizo" from the LXX. Check this: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html

  "As it is, “acquired” is arguably closer in meaning to “created” than Jerome’s “possessed”"

  Wrong, these these ancient Jewish translators and interpreters did not translate קנני (qānānî) with the English word "acquired", but with the Greek word ἐκτήσατο, which is third-person singular aorist middle indicative of κτάομαι (ktáomai), which has the following meanings:

  κτᾰ́ομαι • (ktáomai)

  1. (transitive) to get, obtain, acquire, gain, win

  1. (transitive, of consequences) to bring on oneself, incur

  1. (transitive, perfect and pluperfect) to have acquired, have, own, possess

  " in the crucial sense that an acquisition is a point in time, whereas possession is a state of affairs."

  Here we are not talking about any kind of "temporal" happening in specific "a point in time", but rather a poetic speech, from which it is hardly possible to derive a doctrinal principle.

  "The accompanying “first of his works” and “founded me” also point toward God creating wisdom before anything else."

  There is no such thing as "first of his works" or "founded me" in the text. Instead, "at/as the beginning of his ways" and in thext verse "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." is in the text. The meaning of נָסַך (nasak) is not "founded me," but "anointed" (compare Psalm 2:6), "to pour forth" (as of molten metal), then "to put down," "to appoint or establish." In the Septuagint, "he established (ἐθεμελίωσε) me;" Vulgate, ordinate sum; Aquila, κατεστάθην; Symmachus, προεχείρισμαι; Venetian, κέχυμαι. There is no "timeliness" involved. So what is said here is that Wisdom was from everlasting exalted as ruler and disposer of all things. To express eternal relationship, three synonymous terms are used. From eternal; πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος, Septuagint, as Delitzsch notes, points back to infinite distance. Especially since the next phrase marks this "nasak" as "from the beginning". Compare 'rosh' in Exodus 12:2, Numbers 10:10, 28:11, Judges 7:19.

  "JWs agree that the creation of Jesus was different than the rest of creation because Jehovah created Jesus directly whereas he created everything else through his Son."

  However, that is not a significant difference, especially since, as it cannot be emphasized enough, the New Testament emphatically describes the Son's orign from the Father exclusively with the verb "begotten" (gennao) or "born" (tikto), which the New Testament never uses for the created world. So why can't the one used by the New Testament be accepted?

  "The point of the quote from Origen was to show that he held a similar view about God first creating his Son"

  Wrong: even if he used the term "ktizo", you cannot use it in the Arian/JW sense (which is practically: poio), because it turns out that Oirgen did not interpret it that way, so his citation is out of context, also disregarding nuances lost in translation, so it is unfair to the author. Dionysius of Rome pointed out that "there is more than one meaning of the word created" (ktizo), and "this created is not to be understood in the same manner as made". You would have the burden of proving that Origen did not mean it that way. Check: De Principiis IV.27, I.6, II.2.2, II.4.3, etc., also:

  • https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/origens_christology.htm
  • https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2021/05/roman-monteros-collection-of-quotations.html
• 
  72

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The addition of "Jehovah" into the New Testament has a manuscript basis just as much as this insertion in Romans 13:1: "in their relative positions". Nothing. Here are some other good examples: https://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

  As a JW apologist article say: "This is eisegesis, rather than exegesis - reading one's own ideas into the text, instead of letting the Bible speak, allowing it to be precise where it is precise and vague, where it is vague."

  But in fact the interest of the WTS decides in the translation, they just attach something from their own skull, which is not found in the text.

  I have already argued with quite a few of your comrades along these lines, they presented funnier than funnier conspiracy theories, that the alleged New Testament manuscripts containing Jehovah are "kept in their secret cellars in the Vatican, so that the Truth does not come out" and the like. Of course they can exist, just as UFOs, perpetual motion machines or secret masonic world governments can exist. In principle, at least in the skulls of their inventors. It's just that the characteristic of reality is that it comes to light sooner or later. Woe to the one who is forced to live his life relying on such conspiracy theories, snarling at the facts of experience every day as if they ate his breakfast. I understand that you have good reason to assume this, because they chew on their paranoia like a shipwreck on the sole of a six-times-boiled, three-week-old boot, and draw a significant part of their Antheusian vitality from it.

  You call this recent stumbling "evidence?" So what can "probability" mean then? Indeed, I'm more and more rooting for the WTS to prepare that Greek "miracle text", which cannot be based on any manuscript, yet it will be forged in 237 places on the tetragrammaton - if you are is so sure about it. And then you will be able to see for yourself. The existing manuscripts are the only sure basis that entitles you to make any kind of dogmatic statement! You are furiously cutting the rope on which their religious system depends.

  Stafford, for instance, wants to justify the insertion of "Jehovah" into the New Testament Watchtower by suggesting that it was probably not the apostles who began to abbreviate holy names, but the generation that followed them, while the apostles followed the practice of the Old Testament copyists who inserted Hebrew into the Greek text. In this demonstration, he relies on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original Matthew derived from Papias and Jerome as a fact. However, research has already refuted this insofar as it has shown that the Matthew we have is not a translation, but was originally written in Greek. The hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew might have originated from those early Syriac translations which, as later works, corrected the tangled Hebraisms in Matthew. The author is also mistaken in suggesting that Matthew consistently quoted from the Hebrew text, because there are many places where he follows the Septuagint (e.g., 1:23, 3:3, 4:4, or 15:8-9).

  Then he argues for the insertion of Jehovah in 1 Cor 2:16 ("For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ"), asserting that there are data for the reading of "Lord" instead of Christ, and in this case the name Jehovah would naturally have stood first. The problem with this argument is that an undeniably later textual tradition attests to the "Lord" standing second (Vaticanus etc.) rather than "Christ" (p46, Alef etc.). The latter are much more numerous, so it is more likely that some copyists standardized the usage, rather than that it was originally there and the copyists replaced it with Christ (fearing the strange coincidence) when the Lord allegedly replaced Jehovah in the first place. Because this coincidence was by no means strange if one bears in mind that the authors often applied to Jesus Old Testament verses that spoke of Yahweh. (Such as Hebrews 1:10.)

  Stafford's work doesn't really answer the main question, namely, why doesn't the New World Translation translate verbatim, even though it puffs itself up in the preface with all sorts of self-praise, promising to do just that, and even promises concordance where possible. (Some of its defenders boastfully mention this in relation to the gnosis-epignosis.)
  

  Your translation is not verbatim, but contains a lot of interpretative insertions and changes in wording. Many of these are also significant theologically. Your defensive writings focus all their energy on these, but are unable to remove the main accusation: namely, that your comrades are trying to force their various interpretations into the genre of translation rather than commentary. Such tactics will be taken very strictly by readers of a translation that does not wish to be verbatim but prides itself in the preface. That is, those who look into the matter; those who take the promises of the preface at face value will draw false conclusions from this usage.

  Therefore, the NWT preface should not have suggested that they will translate every Greek word with the same English word if possible. It seems that in many places they didn't even strive for this. The New World Translation is a theologically influenced, affected translation, which combines some principles of dynamic equivalence with the method of interpretive insertions built on the principle of "it can also be translated this way, you can't refute it". Neither is characteristic of verbatim translations.

  For example, let's look at Romans 4:3. You often seem to take pride in the idea that you have corrected the "error" of "apostate copyists" who allegedly removed the tetragrammaton from the Greek texts. Well, in the Hebrew text, the name Yahweh indeed appears, but Paul does not quote the verse according to this, but according to the Septuagint. This change and reversion now backfires on you strongly, because it turns out that the apostle gave his seal of approval to the translation of the tetragrammaton with the word "God". I assume he did this because he realized that the appearance of the name YHWH in this context, although common in the Hebrew text, is strictly speaking an anachronism (i.e., a mode of expression reflecting the subsequent knowledge and vocabulary of Moses, who wrote down the events), since we know that God had not yet revealed the name YHWH to the patriarchs.

  Therefore, Paul's inspired word, following the Septuagint (and sanctifying it even against the Hebrew text at this point), returned to the contextual reading of the verse, taking into account the above statement, while you rip the word out of his mouth and drop the name Jehovah in its place, which is simply an anachronism in the Hebrew text at the said place. Who do you think you are?

  Daniel already associates the name of God with the word "heaven" and substitutes it twice. Following this, Matthew says "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of God". Since the Jews started vocalizing their manuscripts, they have been supplying the tetragrammaton with the vowels of the word "Lord" (Adonai), indicating what should be read there. The Septuagint did not leave it in (in some manuscripts) for it to be pronounced: one camp pronounced it, another did not. But even those who pronounced it could not be sure that they were saying it correctly.

  That the apostles, when quoting the Septuagint, did not write Jehovah is clear from the large mass of manuscripts. The p46 (one of the Ryland papyri from around 200 AD; one of the earliest papyri containing longer text) writes Kyrios in Rom 9:29, just like the great codices. ("Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us offspring" etc.) Interestingly, Paul did not want to translate the "sabaoth", which is translated as "hosts", into Greek, from which we can deduce that he had before him or in his memory a Greek Old Testament text in which, out of respect for the name of Yahweh, the tetragrammaton was replaced with Kyrios, but the Sabaoth was just transcribed in Greek letters.

  What can be said about such a work but to quote Revelation 22:18? How much can a denomination claim to really respect and stand on the Scriptures if it forces such shameless mistranslations?
• 
  72

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  scholar
  

  "Raymundus Martscholarini in 1270 into Latin"

  So, for the first time, anyone wrote down this reading exactly 1,200 years after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the intertestamental era, the pronunciation of YHWH was completely pushed out of public use, it could only be pronounced by the Jewish high priest in the Temple during the Yom Kippur. If anyone else, anytime else, had uttered it, they would have been executed. In addition, by the time of Christ, even the high priest only uttered it softly. Consequently, Raymundus Martini's reading cannot be an authentic witness to the original pronunciation of YHWH much earlier. According to the scholarly consensus, these medieval authors did not know that the Masoretes marked the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, not to indicate that it should be pronounced that way, but so that the Jewish reader in the synagogue would know that when came here, then should pronounce Adonai or Elohim. That's why in the Masoretic tex we read "YeHoWah" and "YeHoWiH" also. For a Jew, it was clear, but Christians don't know about this Jewish ruling, so Raymundus Martini didn't know that, that's how IEHOVA was born: out of a misunderstaning. However, this is completely wrong. The Watchtower doesn't even try to defend this reading, just assering "we don't know for sure, but Jehovah is established and traditional." Well, we don't know for sure what was that, but we can surely know that it was never "Jehovah".

  "The NWT Committee from the 1950's has provided clear and compelling evidence that the Divine Name should be properly rendered in the NT even though at this stage there remains only circumstantial evidence for its insertion"

  "Clear and compelling" evidence would be an early authentic manuscript that contains this. Everything else is just speculation, hypothesis and most of all conspiracy theory. There is no circumstantial, let alone direct evidence for this. Such "reasonable to assume" and the like is not evidence, but wishful thinking.

  "but the very fact that the Tetragram is the most common word in the OT for a Deity"

  The fact that this was the "most common word for a Deity" in the Old Testament does not prove that it had to be the same in the New Testament. What did Jesus say? "My Father!" Not Jehovah. But because of the two-class salvation invented in 1935 as a "new light" by Rutherford, God cannot be the Father of the rank and file (not "anointed", outer party, Jonadabite) JWs, but only their "friend", so that's why they don't encourage this address, so "Jehovah" remains.
  

  "and if the NT writers quoted extensively from the OT by means of direct quotations provides a solid basis for inserting the Divine Name into the NT. "

  Unless, of course, if there is no evidence that when the New Testament writer quoted Old Testament in such a way that by actually writing the name YHWH! Furthermore, according to Howard's theory, even if it was written down, it was not spelled out in Greek (e.g. Γιαχβέ), but YHWH in Hebrew letters. Now, that's not what the NWT does.

  "NWT has elevated the once-shrouded Name from obscurity"

  Why do you lie that no one before the Watchtower Society knew that the Tetragrammaton existed at all? In the two-thousand-year history of Christianity, it was never "obsured", even in your publications there are many references to the fact that it is painted in churches, it was also included in some church hymns, and it is also included in the theological books published centuries before the creation of the Watchtower Society. Church Fathers wrote about this, etc. It was not "obsured".

  Of course, is was not "used" along the way like the JWs do since 1931, but where did Jesus ever say "Jehovah" ever according to the Gospels? Nowhere... How does the Lord's Prayer begin? "Our Father...", not "Jehovah". "Hallowed be your name" does not mean the "use" of the "name" "Jehovah" at all, the "name" here refers to God himself, not to the YHWH. Somehow Jesus - while he specifically indicated what principles and teachings he objected to - never scolded the Jews for not saying Jehovah, Jehovah. If it suited Jesus, why should we be offended by it?

  By the way, did you read what I wrote? And what Raymond Franz wrote on the subject?
  
• 
  72

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Somehow he just wrote: "My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ." and unproven theories "should not be used as a surety for belief", JWs still do this. So this was not a "restoration" of the "Divine Name", but an arbitrary solution with the lack of evidence. Have you read Raymond Franz argumenst about the "use" of the name?