Posts by JuanMiguel

37

When You Look Back, Can You Believe That You Actually . . .

by PublishingCult in

.

believed you were going to live forever in paradise on earth?.

JuanMiguel

1. Didn't realize I could lie about how many hours I spent in service and how many books, magazines, and etc. I had placed.

"Why can't you be more like Brother Miguel? He reports over 27.2 billion hours every month on average, placing over a trillion pieces of literature as well, all while holding down a full-time job as a main grocery bagger-boy at the Piggy Wiggly!"

2. Failed to record over the sing-along piano tapes for the meetings before I left. (I mean, they were there in my keep till that very last day.)

"Let's see...For song 113, I'll put the karaoke version of I've Never Been to Me, and for 152, the background track to Fat Bottomed Girls. Oh look! The kakaroke track for MacArthur Park, the Richard Harris version!...Song number 1!"

3. Wasted my last public talk (which was on the day before I disassociated myself) by not incorporating PowerPoint presentations with pictures of Domos representing how Jehovah's Witnesses should act.

"And in slide number 652 you'll notice that the reason for chasing this kitten across this grassy field is not merely to bring down Jehovah's judgment upon it--for unspeakable acts of unchastity, and you know which ones I'm talking about...right, Brother Charlie Lewis?-- but also because the kitten pretended to not be home last Saturday when we rang it's doorbell twice and knew we heard it rummaging around inside after turning down the television!...And here in slide number 653---"

4. Fought the constantly nagging desire to break out into glossolalia during those last few meetings with the elders and circuit overseer and blame it on Tourette syndrome.

"The 7th Street bookstudy group is doing fine. In fact we're DROPKICKMEJESUSTHROUGHTHEGOALPOSTSOFLIFE, HAILMARYFULLOFGRACE, RUNFORRESTRUN, KYRIOSELEISON, IFFIHOLLERSLEDDEMGO, AMEN enjoying almost 100% participation during question and answer time."

5. Failed to bring four-course meals to the conventions (fine wines and palate-cleansing sorbets included) to eat while everyone else dined on sandwiches.

"What am I eating? I'm not sure. (Looking down at the food on the fine china.) It's some kind of round tiny beef wrapped in bacon with--I dunno, (lifting up item on fork to examine it closer) some kind of rare truffle on the side. I'm not sure. (Laughs to self while blotting lips with cloth napkin.) I woke up late and was half asleep when I got my staff at home to throw it together for me at the last minute...That and I only had the sous chef to work with, and I don't have to tell you what that's like, right?"

6. Didn't feign a message from heaven, then dressed up like Moses (or better yet, Charlton Heston as Moses), and went around telling everyone how wrong they were before breaking out into a softshoe while singing Hello! Ma Baby ala Michigan J. Frog.

"Yea, sinners, I warn thee for the false oracles ye have preached: hear the word of the Lord--

Hello! ma baby / Hello! ma honey / Hello! ma ragtime gal / Send me a kiss by wire / Baby, ma heart's on fire! / If you refuse me / Honey, you'll lose me / Then you'll be left alone / Oh, baby, telephone / And tell me I'm your own!"

For these and other failures in life I am truly sorry.

21

Newbie: Galatians overview - original or textbook?

by the pharmer in

i hope this doesn't seem irrelevant, but i have a jw friend who seems to shut down whenever information opposes her belief, regardless of who has initiated the information or the source of the information.

when it comes to this person's expressions of their religious beliefs, i'm not accustomed to getting thorough answers that aren't textbook responses.

i can't tell if the most recent correspondence is their own words or not.

JuanMiguel

While I cannot say exactly where this individual got this information, I can give an educated guess on where it likely did not come from.

Both Protestant and Catholic scholarship ignore the chapter divisions when giving an overview of the book. Because modern scholarship centers on how the ancients wrote and developed ideas as a key to understanding any writing, the first thing you will notice from mainstream theology is total rejection of any modern interpolation into the text, which generally means the overview will be by discernable subject matter and not by chapter.

Scholars see Galatians in either three major divisions or six smaller ones (which is generally the three major ones cut in half). This can change the overview of the book dramatically from a chapter by chapter review because modern academia sees the modern chapter divisions as breaking up the thought and possibly giving the reader the incorrect understanding of Paul's intentions.

The major divisions of a modern overview from mainstream theology, shared by both Protestant and Catholic are more or less as follows:

I. Address (1:1-5)

II. Paul's Loyalty and Authority to Preach the Gospel (1:6-2:21)

III. Exhortation to Living in Christian Freedom (3:1-6:18)

Again, while the divisions may be a little different, or even simplified to group together chapters 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, a characteristic that a person is following the various academic acceptable exegesis is that the chapters are always treated as arbirtrary, even when a chapter by chapter discussion is taking place.

Because of the lack of evidence of an editor (which would generally keep a writer from using the same words over and over again and avoid using incomplete senteces mixed with complete ones in an overview--in such a circumstance incomplete sentences are allowed, but only if every sentence is written this way), I would guess that it was written in the person's own words. And because the use of the terms "congregation" instead of "church" or "Church," reference to Abraham's "seed" instead of "offspring" or "descendants," and "spirit" and "Kingdom" instead of "Spirit" and "kingdom" or "God's reign," it is clear that the source authority is likely Watchtower in origin. The substitute terms I have given are common mainstream terms in both Catholic and Protestant publications for the rarely used or commonly avoided terms that the writer of the example employs, terminology still in use by and often exclusive to the language of Jehovah's Witnesses.

60

Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOT Under Mind Control

by PublishingCult in

how would you respond to the assertion that 7.2 million members of the jehovah's witness religion are not under any sort of mind control?.

the argument being that every one is responsible for their own actions and cannot blame the indoctrinator for what he says and does.

how could they possibly be under mind control?.

JuanMiguel

Giving those adamant that brain washing has to be the only answer, I am looking further into the subject. I admit that I am not a specialist in the area, and that my understanding of what evidence is required that proves brainwashing (and how this can be demonstrated, established, and verified) is outside of my realm of experience.

But I am also sure most who have a strong opinion on the matter in favor of brainwashing may be in the same situation as well, as we have to humbly admit that the issue of brainwashing in connection with religious movements like the Jehovah’s Witnesses has not been established as a scientific certainty.

I can update my previous comments, however, by adding that there is evidence that it may not be so much the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses alone that causes the problem but the likelihood that a form of borderline personality disorder—more specifically the type that centers around the need for compartmentalizing the facets of life into “truth” and “falsehood,” “good” and “evil,” or to be more exact, that which manifests itself in idealization and devaluation—may possibly be a far more common denominator among adherents of that religion than previously realized.

As some on here have pointed out, a person who is being manipulated via brainwashing techniques is unlikely to make claim to that fact. The same can be said about borderline personality disorder. Most suffering from a disordered view that allows them to accept the act of idealizing some things while demonizing others as a healthy state of mind is also not likely to realize that such a facet of their personality is actually a symptom of a mental health problem that requires treatment.

While I cannot say that all persons who enter the religion of the JWs have this problem, a large number seem to find no problem with seeing things in a black and white state. This means of compartmentalizing is supported by the religion of the Watchtower which teaches that the world can only be made up of two essential parts, namely that which is in union with God and that which is in union with Satan.

Since no two decades of the Witness religion has ever offered the same earmarks of doctrinal beliefs, it cannot be stated that people are attracted to the religion on the sole basis of its creed (which has never been out of the state of flux). In fact, even dramatic changes and reversals of doctrine do not faze the majority of believers, and this repeatedly seen altering of credo does not fit into the average brainwashing scenarios. The approach to teaching and leading adherents changes as dramatically, and no two “eras” of doctrinal upheaval (usually seen with the changing of members on the Governing Body) ever use the same profile of techniques previously employed.

Something beyond doctrine and technique must also be involved. While the Watchtower is not, I repeat, not above suspect of employing brainwashing techniques, with the constant change of variables that religion faces and endures, something more must also be at the core of the religion’s appeal.

Again, there does seem to be the same trait in adherents that suggests approval of disordered compartmentalizing as a nominal state of human affairs. Upon leaving or being expelled from the organization, some members seem to keep this trait. They will continue to trust that their newly adopted position is now the correct or true one and that anything in opposition to their view or opinion is false or impossible. Some take up a different religion, a contrasting philosophy, and even atheism with the exact same vigor and need to convince others of the rightfulness or enlightened position of their ways, again oblivious to the fact that they have never moved beyond compartmentalizing beyond idealizing that which they embrace and demonizing all that does not adhere to their “new” view.

Normally an individual who makes the mistake of joining a group or following an individual that did not turn out to fulfill all that the adherent made public claim to would be quite cautious to avoid doing the same thing again. In fact, under normal circumstances most never return to making such claims again in any form similar to their mistake.

For the person who is suffering with a disordered sense of compartmentalization, they never stop being “in the right” or “more enlightened” than others. They may even continue to “evangelize” their cause or new belief system, even if it is atheism or an agnostic one. Again this is possible because the disorder is not concerned on the identification of enabling factors or support system. As long as the system or creed they now embrace continues to serve the purpose of hiding the disorder from exposure to the one suffering from it, the person can easily advertise adoption of one group or set of beliefs and the next day do the same with a group or creed of conflicting standards.

I repeat that I don’t hold to the belief that this is universal and that all Watchtower adherents suffer from this type of borderline personality disorder any more than I believe that the only answer for any of us possibly “falling for the lies” of the JWs has to include brainwashing. But a symptom of the condition does include excusing oneself of the responsibility for siding with a certain enabling agent, demonizing them, and idealizing their current position while excusing or even allowing themselves to be blinded by the latest enabler. In other words, I am only advising caution in this matter and not being too quick to throw all one’s eggs in the basket marked “brainwashing.”

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

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

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

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

JuanMiguel

Great comment, TD.

And Pahpa,

I understand that some share your view, but that would not be the case if you're a Jew.

Holiness to the Jews is different from holiness from the perspective of a Jehovah's Witness. In the Jewish approach, one views themselves as unworthy to receive that which is holy, not significant enough to handle it, not great or even clean enough to be in the presence of that which is holy. To them such a view is not out of superstition, as if they are trusting in magic or have a misunderstanding of God, his name, or of holiness itself (which is what a superstition is).

If you recall the Scriptures describe Moses at the burning bush as covering his face, because he was afraid to look upon God. There is the constant covering of the Ark of the Covenant and its glory from the people deep within the Tabernacle. There is even the covering of Moses face from the people because it glowed from being exposed to God. Even in approaching Christ, whether or not they thought he was God, some people felt unworthy to come to him. The woman with the flow of blood felt it was just enough to touch the hem of his garment, and another felt unworthy to have Christ under his own roof.

These weren't faked attitudes, but genuine standards of the practice of these people towards that which is supposed to be holy. That which is holy is not of the mundane for these people. It isn't like anything that is commonly seen or heard. It is rare, treated as such, and loved in the same way.

The Biblical understanding regarding names is that one gains control over another when they learn a person's name. That is why some angels would not give their names in certain circumstances, like the struggle with Jacob, because it would have meant control over God and one's own destiny. (Genesis 32:27-31; note the "man" gets Jacob's name but Jacob doesn't get the "man's" name.) Even God's revelation of his name to Moses at the burning bush is ineffible, a circular definition that leads back to itself: "I AM WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE" or "I AM WHAT I AM." In American English it was common to refer to knowing someone well by saying one had a "handle" on a person. This came from this Jewish understanding that knowing a name implied some control in the other's life. When CB radios were in use during the 1970s people referred to themselves with madeup names known as "handles."

The name YHWH is a way of God giving his name and yet withholding it at the same time. One cannot get a "handle" on God.

This use of names and this understanding is very, very complex and far reaching. I only recently learned it myself. Funny that the JWs don't know something you can find in religious books about the Name of God and how this applies. But then when you use God's name as commonly as one would use for another human being's, you miss the point of treating God's name as far more special than any other's.

And when one thinks they have such a "handle" on God, no wonder there are people who don't believe in the concept of God. Who could really have such a handle if God really existed?

So yes, I agree, that the religious conviction of the translators has a lot to do with the way they handle the use of God's name. One way shows they understand what it means and how to sanctify it, the other way shows a lot of disrespect by making it as common as a name for person, a place, or even a pet.

It is due to fear of God punishing them for not using the name that the Witnesses feel the need to constantly utter it and even put it in more places in the Bible than where it occurs in the original manuscripts itself. They believe that by overuse of the name they are covered, but the mere utterance of letters and word is the work of the superstitious who believe that chants and names can save them. "In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them."--Matthew 6:7-8, NABRE, compare with the footnote.

God is not a name. God is greater than anything you or I can utter. If God isn't that, then why believe in God?

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

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

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

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

JuanMiguel

I see how that could have been interpreted that way, Curtains.

What I did fail to include there was that prior to the industrial age, Catholics weren't regular Bible readers due to the fact that Church officials cautioned against doing so. This had less to do with actually reading the text or hearing the Bible read aloud as it had to do with the fact that there was little attempt to provide religious education to the layperson to help them understand the Scriptures in the light of Catholic teaching. Instead of translating 2000 years of valuable information from Latin into the vernacular, the clergy had the attitude of "just listen to what we tell you," fearful that more might make the type of "mistakes" Luther and other Reformers had in the past.

A Comment on Procedure, Not the Result

Whatever else can be said about Pope Pius XII and what he did or failed to do during the Holocaust, he wasn't a Pope given to the previous beliefs that less education made faithful laypersons. While some Catholics who long for the previous days still dislike it, his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu outlined a more rational approach to Biblical education and translation. The critical disciplines were to be included as part of the process of making the Holy Scriptures accessible to people, as well the use of the best manuscripts available instead of relying on the official Latin text. (Today there is still an official Latin text, but it itself is a revised rendition, no longer Jerome's Vulgate or the Clementine; it is known as the Nova Vulgata or the Neo-Vulgate. It has been suggested by some that the latest scholarship which helped to shape the NABRE will mean a future revision to the official Latin as it took 50 years before enough information could be gathered from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries to make any advances to the text.)

Because the NABRE is actually the result of this call to the best available scholarship principles, my theologian friend made such comments about this. Of course he has not read the entire NABRE (although he has seen bits and pieces of the work that went into the new version of Tobit with the Hebrew sources), and so his comments are meant to reflect the approach taken and not as a review of the work. He is not a theist, and this also needs to be considered when understanding any of his comments as well.

Romans 10:13

Taking into consideration the approach Catholics take to the divine name, it should be no surprise to find that their rendition of Romans 10:13 does not contain the Divine Name. But, because the oldest textual witnesses as well as the writings of the Church Fathers show that KYRIOS has also been the reading in this place, the translators would be violating the principles of translation by placing the Name there since the testimony of the Church from the beginning is that it never was there in the first place. While it is understood to be a quote from Joel, it is a quote from the Alexandrian LXX version which by the time Paul used it did not incorporate the Divine Name in Hebrew characters.

The writings of the Church Fathers are often consulted by Catholic scholars to see if earlier but currently lost manuscripts had varient readings, something the NWT apparently never does and obviously cares little about. This is one reason why the latest Protestant versions also have Catholic scholars on their translationboards since many of these texts take a Latin speaker to read them let alone someone who has access to and knows their way around the Vatican library--which by means of the Internet many laypersons also do now, but you still need to be able to read ecclestical Latin. Very few people outside the Roman Catholic Church speak it, and I doubt the Watchtower is going to run out and get a faithful Catholic to help them make a revision to their NWT.

Therefore it should not surprise anyone to find the way the NABRE reads at Romans 10:13:

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

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

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

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

JuanMiguel

Hi Curtains,

Thanks for the comments, especially info on what it being studied in the Watchtower at the Kingdom Halls. It has been so long since I've attended a Watchtower Study.

I don't have much to share in the way of previews as not much has been provided for the general public. I did however find a few snippets and some links to some examples.

Some Old Testament portions of the NABRE are currently available on the USCCB website here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/seven-psalms-songs.shtml

Mind you, the New Testament portion of the NABRE was completed in 1986 and since been the text available to the public. It can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/canonical.shtml

I can't say I am the best to answer such question about the Catholic Bible. I was using the recent revision of their official text to contrast with the NWT. The NABRE has been produced by many and quote openly, but the NWT is a closeted proceedure. The NABRE has also been verified by its process of checking with both scholars and laypersons before deciding on the final text that is being published, whereas no one on the NWT translation commitee (if there is still one) is making themselves and their work accountable to critics.

I am not meaning to advocate its use or becoming a Catholic or even saying people should accept the Scriptures as the Word of God. I am only pointing out that if the Governing Body really had the world's most accurate rendition of the Bible, and that people's lives depended on it, their work on it would be far more extensive and far more open than it is. At least they would provide some reason as to why those who translated it are truly qualified since in today's modern age it is easy to see by comparison that it is no longer as accurate as once claimed and no longer reflects common English (unlike the NABRE which translators of listened to people to see how they speak and how they quoted and understood Biblical passages in order to make sure the text would be understood by its audience).

Not Praised by "Many Scholars" but Produced by Many Scholars (and sometimes given the "Thumbs Down")

Actually if I wrote it correctly, I didn't mean to give the impression that it was modern scholars who were highly praising the NABRE. And while I don't think I actually said that in any form (feel free to correct me so I can correct myself) what I did express was that the NABRE is an important revision since it will affect the lives of those who speak American English.

The USCCB itself states that this revision of the New American Bible "is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors." I do know that not all of them were totally in agreement with one another, and that not everyone was satisfied with the end result from what I read over the past few days from news articles on the subject. But that is to be expected with such a large number of professionals who are attempting to create a single work with such a scope as the NABRE.

While the previous NAB of 1970 and the recent release of the NAB Revised New Testament in 1986 received generally favorable reviews by scholars (according to the news reports), the 1991 Psalter revision did not. It was criticized not just for the excessive use of inclusive-language (which was at the hight of its novelty in Bible translation at that point), but for the fact that it was used to the point of obscurring certain Christo-centric and Jewish thought in the process.

To illustrate, the 1991 Psalter rendered Psalm 1:1-2 as:

Happy those who do not follow

the counsel of the wicked,

Nor go the way of sinners,

nor sit in company with scoffers.

Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy;

God's law they study day and night.

Inclusively speaking these verses can and should be applied as rendered, but Psalm one is seen by Jewish exegesis to refer to the difference between the path taken by Adam and faithful servants of God like Abraham, Levi, and David, to name a few. And since antiquity Christianity has seen it as foreshadowing the faithfulness of Christ himself. That an individual, and specifically a male, is being referred to by word play is obsurred with the use of inclusive terms, even though in Hebrew the terms are nomitatively inclusive of both sexes. The problem is that the pronouns used are also generic masculine at the same time, and this is something that cannot be accurately reproduced in American English if one relies on a totally inclusive-language approach.

A Return to Commonly Understood Speech

In the new revised Psalter, the NABRE will return to its previously non-inclusive form as well as update the text to read:

Blessed is the man who does not walk

in the counsel of the wicked,

Nor stand in the way of sinners,

nor sit in company with scoffers.

Rather, the law of the LORD is his joy;

and on his law he meditates day and night.

An example of how the NABRE translators have listened to both layperson and scholar is the return to the usage of "blessed" for "happy" in the revision. While the term "happy" is actually far more accurate technically speaking, the expression is somewhat meaningless in Catholic speech. Since the Latin term for this type of happiness has been adopted in American English as "beatitude," and is in the common vernacular of the American Catholic to the extent that it carries the meaning of this type of happiness and excluding the meaning generally attributed to "happiness" in a more secular way. the translators adopted the term "blessed." The word is pronounced in two syllables as bles-SED and is an adjective, which is different from the state of having merely 'received a blessing.' which is, in American English, the word "blest" a verb in the past tense. The state of being "blessed" is also the type of happiness used in Matthew chapter 5 by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount where the NABRE uses the same expression such as "blessed are the meek," etc. An interesting side note to this is that from antiquity these words of Jesus have also been referred to as "The Beatitudes," taken from the same expression in the Latin.

In other words, Catholics don't use the American English word "happy" to express the kind of state these words express. Since they use the adjective "blessed," the translators decided to stick with Catholic speech in the NABRE instead of produce new but foreign and novel approaches. It has also been noted by most contributing Protestant voices that they too understand the use of "blessed" in this sense, and thus the newer "happy" was disposed of altogether.

The use of "amen, amen," for "most truly I say to you," a unique expression in Jesus Christ's speech, is also such an example. While "verily, verily" has been adopted by many Protestants, the more modern term of the "most truly" as also occurs in the NWT just never caught on after 40 years of trying to include it in various translations in American English. In this instance, the return to the publically preferred "amen, amen" is actually a transliteration of what occurs in the Greek text. Since there are no actual words in English to express the multiple meanings carried in the word "amen," leaving it this way as used by the everyday Christian turns out to be far more accurate than any other American expression.

Catholics and the Divine Name

The NABRE doesn't use the Divine Name (YHWH) in its main text, just as it doesn't appear in the NAB's main text either. It is only found in the footnotes, and only in the form that scholarship shows mostly closely resembles ancient Hebrew speech, namely "Yahweh." Nothing here has changed.

Jehovah's Witnesses tend to forget (or conveniently fail to mention) that Catholics (and by association the Orthodox) are spiritual descendants of the original Christians who called themselves Jews before they were expelled from the Jewish congregation. As such they have left much of their liturgy (worship proceedures) unchanged since the days of the synagogue, including the basic order of the Mass or Divine Liturgy (which is almost exactly like a Temple worship service, minus the Liturgy of the Eucharist/Holy Communion). As such certain practices, like leaving the Divine Name to be uttered only by the High Priest, have never been altered.

I do remember that this past year there were news reports that Catholics had just stopped using the Divine Name in their Masses. These weren't entirely correct from what I later learned. In some instances the name "Yahweh" was included in some vernacular songs and hymns, even though it isn't in the official Latin text of the Mass. Since Catholics believe like the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is now the High Priest, and that Jesus is thus Yahweh's (Jehovah's) representative, adding this to the fact that they believe Jesus is present spiritually during Mass and Yahweh's utmost and final word of revelation regarding himself, Christ's presence itself is the fulfillment of the utterance of the Divine Name. Therefore it is still only "uttered" by the High Priest, in this sense.

Catholics also have a different approach to treating things holy than do Jehovah's Witnesses. Catholics handle holy things with great reverence and only when necessary. Some holy things are rarely touched or approached since humans are sinful by comparison. God's name is one of these things. Only the holiest of lips, the High Priest, can utter it--at least in their theology. So you are not likely to hear it at a public worship service.

This doesn't mean they don't use it or say the name otherwise. They do. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bible has "Yahweh" in the main text some 6,000 times, almost as many time as the NWT (but since there are no manuscripts or evidence to prove it existed in the New Testament, it never occurs in this rendition in these books).

But since the text of any new Catholic Bible translation has to serve more than the Catholic community itself, the NABRE uses the same practice they Church has followed since its beginning. So don't expect to find anything more than "Lord" or "God" in all capital letters.

I know this won't sit well with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I know all the counter arguments. Again, I am only rewriting what I am reading from other sources. A lot of this can be found by anyone--and has even been covered on this board in the past by other people--as the reasons for Catholics not using the Divine Name frequently is well established.

I did find a verse in the Bible that Catholics use, but it may not sit well with the JWs since it is from the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals. True, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls there is now proof that these books were well-known and used by Jews and originally written in Hebrew (some of this Hebrew text of Tobit, for example, is translated into English for the first time in parts of the NABRE, a major first for any translation of the Bible into English), but this won't do much to impress if they aren't open to it. But nonetheless, here it is, from Sirach 23:9-10:

Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing,

or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name.

Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts,

So one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin.

Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics don't make it a habit to use God's name since it is more important and far more holier than other names or words. Because sin causes people to misuse terms, especially holy ones, they are careful as to how they use it and how frequently they make utterance of it.

All This Got Me to Buy the Book (Especially Since the Conservatives at "Mel's Church" are Upset)

Again I know this won't sit well with many JWs, but Catholics do treat God's name with this type of "specialness." For them this is "hallowing" or making God's name "sacred" or treating it as "holy," to use it not as if it were any other common word or name.

While I don't have much more to offer (this was a lot to get in a short time and took some help from a Catholic university teacher I know, a lot of thanks to him), I don't expect the JWs to find anything to accept in the NABRE as they never gave the NAB a second glance either.

However, of interest, the NABRE is far more word-for-word than its previous version. Since the NT is out (see the links above), one might be interested in that a lot of the word order of NABRE NT is similar to the word order in the NWT NT--except for the fact that the NABRE reads far more smoothly. Except for the lack of the Divine Name and its choice to render most of the so-called "Trinity proof texts" the traditional way, the similarity might be interesting to a handful.

On a personal note, I have decided to purchase a copy and made an advance order on Amazon.com. What is of interest to me now is that a very critical approach to translation is said to have been done, and I would like to see that. I hear that the conservative Catholic camp (the ones who think everything should still be in Latin and even that the current Pope ain't the "real" one--even if you don't believe in Catholicism, what's up with these particular folks?) is up in arms because of the scholarly approach and the "audacity" of the translators to employ the ancient texts, even the Dead Sea Scrolls over the Latin Vulgate (even though the Pope told people to use the ancient languages over the Latin). But then again some of these think he's not the right Pope.

I dunno, maybe they belong to "St. Mel Gibson Catholic Church" or something, but I for one feel better about using a trustworthy academic approach open to all than otherwise. I am also interested in the fact that it's the first translation into any vernacular to use some of the ancient Hebrew versions of the Apocryphal books (that have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls and Masada) in their rendition.

P.S.:--There is no such thing as "Mel's Church" and not all conservative Catholics can fit into such a label. I am just joking around. But even if I don't believe in Catholicism or the Pope, where do these people get off saying "the Pope ain't the Pope"? Sheesh! Go join your local Kingdom Hall.

10

A bad memory of the Ark?

by Scarlouie in

i have a lingering memory of an wt article about the ark being found and measured, this read as fact and not a working theory or a possibility.

i was just a kid when i read it, but it stayed with me until i was a young adult and discovered that it was not true.

does anyone else remember this article, or is this just a confused memory from my cracked youth?.

JuanMiguel

I recall something in the tidbits in the back of an Awake! mag about it. I also saw several reports over the years about various other sightings and claims by people who say they have found the Biblical ark.

I can't say that I've dug into them much, but apparently none of the claims of finding Noah's Ark turn out to be real. There has even been a very recent so-called "finding," but it seems to have been plagued with the same questions that cause all such claims to be problematic.

For one thing, it is generally understood by modern Biblical scholarship that the Genesis account is an interpolation of the Girgamesh tale of Babylonia, likely a narrative device to correct misunderstandings regarding the personality of God. This makes the record of the size of the ark and the count of animals in it suspect to a similar device where the author is not describing a literal event but intentionally creating a parable-like backdrop in which to teach a moral lesson.

Even if the account is intended to be historical, the problem lies in the location where peopleclaim to "find" Noah's ark. The Bible account never says the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat but on "the mountains [plural] of Ararat," or more literally Urartu, the region north of the Mesopotamian plain, which includes part of modern Armenia.--Genesis 8:4.

The ancient realm of Uratu had far different boarders than the Armenia of today, stretching into Asia. According to some it is the far eastern mountains of ancient Uratu that are being referred to, those that would now be far east of Turkey, probably even deep into China, but nothing specific beyond an educated guess can be gathered from the vague location offered in the term "mountains of Ararat."

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

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

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

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

JuanMiguel

Thanks for the wonderful comments, friends.

Yes, I am quite aware that even this won't shake people to their senses if they don't want to see things as they are. Like Prodigal Son demonstrated so well, scholarship is often rejected by the JWs because the Watchtower teaches that such form of academia is tantamount to nothing less than Satanic blinding.

Those who are religious generally see such biblical scholarship as Spirit-directed, evidence of God at work. An atheist friend of mine who recently retired from teaching theology on the university level (sounds funny, I know, but there some out there) is among those who, while admitting no belief in a god or the religious teachings found within, find such a dramatic change in modern Bible translation as encouraging and "the only type of scholarship worthy enough to transmit such ancient thought for the audience of today."

But all the best evidence and even such transparency won't convice someone who doesn't want to be convinced. At least, for our part, current scholarship can help us understand that our position is not a futile one. Regardless if we view the Bible as the inspired Word of God or just some ancient work, at least there is the means to verify how to translate it correctly and how to determine if you have a car wreck in your hands.

60

Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOT Under Mind Control

by PublishingCult in

how would you respond to the assertion that 7.2 million members of the jehovah's witness religion are not under any sort of mind control?.

the argument being that every one is responsible for their own actions and cannot blame the indoctrinator for what he says and does.

how could they possibly be under mind control?.

JuanMiguel

Granted, Mary, those under mind control would not admit they were being so controlled. It's like the insane are not oblivious to the fact that they are insane.

But it would also be compartmentalization to claim that everyone who enters that organization undergoes mind control, as if it were impossible for anything else to happen.

I don't dismiss the fact that mind control techniques are employed, but I also know that because of variables in each person's situation that the universality of mind control may not be likely.

I have mentioned before to others that I believe that the religion itself appeals to those with the trait of compartmentalization, especially when it becomes a disorder. For whatever reason, an individual might have to have things in strict black and white terms in their life, with no possibilities for anything being less than they believe as so. The Witness religion is not one of doctrine as much as it is one that enables this type of disorder in some who have it. It contributes by further defining things as either bad or good, with no possibilty of anything in between. The doctrine is thus free to be changed since it is the enabler's steady existence that verifies the choices of such a trait in the person (i.e.: "You've made the right choice by choosing the true religion because your view of things is always and can only be the right one"). To claim that mind control is the only possibility without making room for the fact that not all among the Witnesses are under such control is just another sign of refusal to accept anything but compartmenlizing reality.

But like the mind control scenario, compartmentalization is only another possible facet. While I may be wrong, I feel that the problem is more complex that just mind control, compartmentalization, and ego. Each individual's experience needs to be viewed on its own terms and not itself compartmentalized by saying it can only be mind control and nothing else.

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

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

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

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

JuanMiguel

NOTE: The following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic Bible translation and the New World Translation. For those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, I understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of God, and of the Catholic Church. I believe each individual’s convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

An Enlightening Example From a NABRE

This Wednesday will mark the preparation for the Roman Catholic Church’s holiest time of the year, the season of Lent. A 40-day preparation for the season of Easter, it is a time of personal reflection, penance, and spiritual growth for these people. Being that out of the approximate 1.5 billion people on the planet who claim to be Christian, one billion of these are Roman Catholic, the behavior of a large number of people on earth changes dramatically every year on this date.

This year on Ash Wednesday the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) will release the revised edition of the New American Bible. This is no little event. You may have already read or seen articles through various media outlets about it. Some people have mentioned that they don’t remember a time when a certain Bible translation’s revision or updating caught so much media attention in the United States and others are asking “why”?

If you have had or have any connection or opinion regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible, you might find an interesting contrast of events in the answer.

Translating Behind Drawn Shades

Regardless of what one may think of either the Catholic Church, its teachings, or the New American Bible translation, the fact that the work has been done with such transparency (and maybe a little more than the USCCB would have wanted due to a problematic royalties agreement with the actual translators and scholars of the actual work), it is a striking difference when compared with what happens with the New World Translation—the Bible version that Jehovah’s Witnesses claim is the most accurate translation of the Scriptures available.

A recent edition of the NWT (2006 paperback) has some scratching their heads since the once-proudly touted brackets—[ ]—around some translated expressions has disappeared. Is this a revision? If so, when did it happen and how? How was any of the work really done to begin with?

While most feel that enough evidence now exists to show that it was mostly the work of one-time Watchtower president Fredrick Franz, a man who could make no claim to knowing the original languages well of enough to guarantee his own scholastic standards, regardless of who did what and exactly how, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark regarding the origins of the New World Translation and how it came to be without any real Biblical scholars at the helm.

Hiding behind the claim that they were letting the work speak for itself (which with the current available plethora of Biblical language study sites now accessible to the public via the Internet shows was not a very flattering move), these non-scholars thought their identities and the process they adopted would be accepted by following the humility demonstrated by the translators of the American Standard Version. To their surprise (and often insulted by the response), beyond the group of active Jehovah’s Witnesses such acceptance never came.

(In reality, it is the names of those who created the Americanized version of the Revised Version that were kept from the public to avoid any claim that these scholars were seeking personal fame from their work. The actual text was the work of well-known British scholars, and it was at the invitation of this team that Philip Schaff, well-respected Protestant theologian and Christian historian, hand-picked the 30 scholars who produced the American-English version. As stated in a current Wikipedia article on the process of Americanizing the language: “Any suggestion the American team had would be accepted by the British team only if two-thirds of the British team agreed. This principle was backed up by an agreement that if their suggestions were put into the appendix of the RV, the American team would not publish their version for 14 years. The appendix had about 300 suggestions in it.”—Wikipedia: American Standard Version.)

Unlike the American Standard Version, and other scholarly translations of the text, the shades on the New World Translation were drawn so tightly by the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witness movement that over 50 years later it is still hard to piece together whose hand was in the NWT’s pie. And even when details can be verified as best as humanly possible, these are still sketchy. And what is worse, what has so far been uncovered as well as what is demonstrated in the writings of the so-called translators of the NWT itself, even if there was literal translation done, there is no mention of an editors’ board for verification of the work. The Watchtower Society has always been silent about any process of independent authentication and verification as part of the work they so proudly make claim to.

One would think that if the New World Translation were so accurate that the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves would use the current access to media and Biblical scholarship to demonstrate to the public why such an important work is needed. Truly, if it is the best translation of the Word of God out there, and, as they themselves point out, ‘people rely on a translation of God’s Word for their personal salvation,’ you would expect each new edition and anything regarding the only truly dependable Bible version to be big news.

But there is only darkness and shadows given as an explanation instead. For example, who is at the translators’ helm now? Who is checking to see whether or not the text meets the needs of current American English? Even its 1984 revision did little to change its English of the 1950s. In 2010 one needs only to compare the NWT on the Watchtower website with the latest in Bible translation to see that Witnesses can no longer claim “modern English” as one of its facets.

For Comparison: A Transparent Process

The Catholic Church in the United States uses one official text for Mass and other liturgical (public) worship and educational activities, and has done so since its first release, namely the New American Bible (or NAB for short). Of course a Catholic may use and read any Bible they wish as long as it is a Church-approved translation (such as the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, the New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem or New Jerusalem Bible, there’s even a Church- approved New International Version {NIV} Psalms). But when they come together or when it comes to official uses in the United States, it has pretty much been the NAB since the vernacular replaced Latin after Vatican II.

Not without its critics, and not without its own Vatican-disapproved revision attempts to the Psalter (the 1991 revision used inclusive-language to the point of confusing even those who approve of inclusive-language use), the road to revision has been a long, choppy, and difficult one.

But it has also been transparent. Whether the voices are pro, against, or somewhere in the middle, whether stated in person, by phone, letter, or on blogs for the public to read, the USCCB and the NAB translators have worked hard to take everyone’s concerns into consideration—and to do more than merely listen to them.

Being the Bible that a large part of the English-speaking world will use, the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE—which people are pronouncing as “neighbor” ) looks more than promising based on early reviews and feedback from readers, both in academia and the public. Surely it won’t be welcomed by some who prefer previously-used terms over modern ones, even if these are no longer understood and don’t represent the text as accurately, but the majority of today’s Catholics seem eager to welcome it so far.

But why on the news in America? Well, like the New World Translation can only make claim to, the NABRE is truly a version that people depend on for their salvation—millions of people, more than there are Witnesses and more that read and use its NWT Bible. Being the official translation of the Bible for Catholics in America (and, most interestingly, the only official American translation of any one denomination) it’s a pretty big deal.

And the 50 recent scholars and editors—as well as the other 50 who came before and whose work actually makes the number 100 by the count that some make—we know their names, their academic background, and their religious affiliation.

Religious affiliation?

You read that correctly. The Vatican doesn’t allow current translations of the Bible to be made without Protestants at least on the editorial board. There has been such inclusion, even that from a couple of Jewish scholars, for the NABRE. Why? While the footnotes may at times be specifically Catholic in tone, the actual text has to be something that any Christian, and hopefully anyone who believes in the Bible, can read and fully trust as not being biased. While the results might still be questionable to some and up for debate among others, at least the attempt is a far-cry from the hush darkness of those who stir over the New World Translation. Who checks and verifies the validity of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible? Who else besides them can hope to use it?

In Conclusion

Of course, there is no claim that the NABRE is perfect or won’t require revision in the future. We might not rush out ourselves to by a copy because of our current convictions or religious affiliation. But for those at the head of the Watchtower who might be listening, this is how responsible translation of the Bible should at least be attempted. If not perfectly reaching the ideal, at least it’s a start.

In a world where anyone can now look at and learn to read for themselves the most ancient extant manuscripts of the Bible available, in a world where the average person may have an opinion on how a verse should read—whether it’s because they believe it’s God’s Word or just on the sole basis as an important work that needs to be handled accurately, in a world where those in positions of responsibility are held accountable, the work of translating the Bible for us is no longer something that can be done behind closed doors.

We may not be Bible scholars and we may not be able to read the original text with the accuracy of someone who is, be we deserve nothing less than the best modern scholarship has to offer. If we choose not to find it in the pages of the NABRE, it’s not because this isn’t a scholarly and trustworthy work. On the contrary, it will be more of a personal choice among other versions just as accurate and dependable, like finding that brand of jeans that feels like a better fit for us individually.

This is not the case with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. People aren’t taking issue with it because those who do so are evil or complainers or because they have nothing but hate for the Bible or Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s the darkness that hovers over it and the questionable results.

While the Watchtower may have worked in the dark to produce this version, they can no longer afford to stay in the dark over why people of today reject its NWT Bible. We can see all the other jeans on the rack and try on any pair. But the Watchtower brand, while having the look of jeans, has no labels, doesn’t wear right, demands the body to fit it instead of attempting to fit the body, and by comparison just doesn’t match up.

And that’s the difference between doing something in the light and having produced something from the shadows of the dark.