Posts by Hoffnung

15

Regarding Acts 15 and a "Governing Body"

by Ding in

i couldn't find a window on which to post in xtreemlyconfused17's acts 15 thread, so i'm responding here.

some elder claimed that acts 15 shows the existence of a first century governing body.. quite the opposite!.

let's back up to acts 13. there, the holy spirit called saul (paul) and barnabas to missionary work.

Hoffnung

Some supporting details from Acts 15. If we would suppose Paul went to see the Governing Body of the that time, let us see who was part of that comite, and the ideas they fostered. Acts 15:5 reads: "Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.”

So the socalled Governing Body had Pharisees amongst them that clearly propagated sectarian ideas...

Now maybe some smart cookie says: they were part of the congregation but not of the Governing Body, as the meeting started only in verse 6. Well, let us read what happened in that meeting, verse 6 reads: "And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair. 7 Now when much disputing had taken place..."

Clearly quite a big part of the apostles and older men had the same ideas as the Pharisees, otherwise there would not be such a dispute.

Do you like the idea to be part of an organization that is led by Pharisees from the very beginnings? If you don`t like the idea, maybe Acts 15 is not a great support for the Governing Body concept.

Just my 0,02$

Hoffnung

2

Our videos on WT 15.04.12 - page 12

by Motema Bolingo in

on our website "aggelia", see our new video.. versions available on 27th januari : french - english - dutch.

we hope to add german - italian - spanish.

http://www.aggelia.be/videos/tg0412_intro.html.

Hoffnung

Good job Jacques. There is a wealth of information on your site

Hoffnung

19

Recent Belgium TV expose' about JWs on YouTube. Need a French translator to tell us basically what was said

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

voici (enfin...) sur you tube le reportage le monde parfait de jehovah (diffuse par la television belge rtbf (la une) devoir d'enquete le 23/09/2009).

pour se conformer au format exige par yt, c'est decoupe en 7 parties d'une duree de +/- 10 min.

le monde parfait de jehovah (partie 1#7) 9:42. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc41ieqjveo.

Hoffnung

bump

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

"As a matter of fact Acts 20:28 arguably makes the most sense if one supposes that the divine name stood in the original, so that it read: "Be shepherds of the church of Jehovah, which he bought with the blood of his own""

??????

I think you just proved that it is incorrect to insert Jehovah here, as you need another addition so that the text makes sense.

So that everybody can check: Literal text from the Emphatic Diaglott - printed by the WTBTS (spaces indicate a separate greek word is used):

"to feed the congregation of the Lord which he purchased through the blood of the own"

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

So I believe you have no problem that in case of doubt, it is better to leave the original word in its place, and let the reader decide.

With regards to Acts 20:28, I have to protest though, the inclusion of "Son" is an unnecessary alteration of the text. There is no need to add "Son" to make sense of the text. An acceptable and even better translation is also: "to feed the congregation (Gr: Ecclesia) of the lord, which he purchased with his own blood."

Sorry that I have to disagree with you on this point

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

No problems with the examples you gave. Some extra clarifications are not a luxury to understand these verses.

However that does not take away it is an interpretation, and even more important, it does not justify ALL the instances where "Jehovah" is inserted in the NWT (Greek scriptures).

When you write: "Again that difficulty is removed if we suppose the distinction was clear in the original text because the divine name stood where "Lord" refers to God rather than Jesus.", it must also be stated that on many places where Lord is used, it clearly points out to Jesus. So it is incorrect too to uniformly change every verse where Lord is used directly into Jehovah. It would definitely be more correct, in case of doubt, to leave the original word in its place, and let the reader decide. It is still possible to put the other options in a footnote.

I would like to refer to my post in the middle of the previous page where I demonstrated with quite a few verses where it is not OK to replace Lord with Jehovah.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

"when attempting to make sense of the text."

Kyrios as Greek word makes sense to me. Not many attempts are needed to translate it correctly as "lord".

Hope you still have an example that can shed some light.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

Can you give an example?

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

To come to a correct translation concerning this issue, actually it does not matter what your personal opinion on the issue is. If you want to make a TRANSLATION of the NT, you can only translate what was written in the Greek text. As there is not a single Greek NT text with the name Jehovah or the Tetragrammaton, you cannot use it in a translation either.

If you want to use the name Jehovah, your bible should be called an interpretation and not a translation. That is the case until the 1st Greek text with the name Jehovah is found, which did not happen in the last 1500 years.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

and for Davidl7,

I would like to point out to the verses I quoted from the Greek Scriptures where "Jehovah" was inserted in places where it definitely does not belong. (mostly as a reply to Slimboyfat). None of the explanations given by you about this subjects adresses that issue. There are no quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures near to this verses at all. And these are just a sample, there are many more verses like these.

Hoffnung