hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
@ berrygerry
Jehovah is a recognized English version of YHWH.
Don't strawman.
It was EXTREMELY unused.
Rutherford grabbed it as a brand, pure and simple.I didn't say it was used a lot, I said it was a recognized English version of the name of God, (as God is not a name). It wasn't used a lot, and that is precisely the point! Hence the inclusion of it in the NWT. Making God's name known.
As for Rutherford grabbing it as a brand, that's rubbish.
hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
@berrygerry
"Re: the origin of the word Jehovah that was in the Aid book - why did WTS remove that important piece of history from the Insight book"?
You mean that it was coined by some Catholic monk? I have no idea, I would have left it there.
hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
You do know that that the app that goes with the NWT has the Byington, American Standard and King James parallel translations don't you? Many JWs use it and find it very useful when trying to get an accurate meaning for some difficult to understand scriptures. It has even been recommended to do this when doing personal study. JWs have never turned their noses up at other translations. And they had used the King James Version for a long time....
Also: "In addition to the New World Translation, the Society has printed on its own presses or has commissioned the printing of the following Bible translations: the American Standard Version, The Bible in Living English, The Emphatic Diaglott, Holman’s Linear Parallel Edition, the King James Version (including the Bible Students Edition), and The New Testament Newly Translated and Critically Emphasized, Second Edition" -- WT 2009 5/1 p.25
".....Theocratic Ministry School library at the Kingdom Hall provides means for research in publications that might not otherwise be available. Thus, it should be well equipped with a variety of Bible translations......" --KM 4/97 Question Box
The biggest reason for JWs using the NWT is that it has Gods name in it: All scriptures inspired and beneficial says on p. 327: "...... a number of modern Bible translations have been published that have done much to help lovers of God’s Word to get to the sense of the original writings quickly. However, many translations have eliminated the use of the divine name from the sacred record. On the other hand, the New World Translation dignifies and honors the worthy name of the Most High God by restoring it to its rightful place in the text."
so we have the english convention this week.
a bunch of families whom i know but have not seen in a few years are attending.
they are not assigned but got a group together to visit the city and attend a day or two of the convention.
i had finished watching all the videos on the royal commission's investigation of jehovah's witnesses (yes, i know more videos are being released).
i am still processing the information of everything that has emerged.
i do not plan to cover it all here, but i would like to point out that it is patently obvious that some of the wt representatives provided misleading information.
re: Corporal Punishment Although it is not done so often now, it is still recommended.
I have never seen it recommended. The way I have seen it put is that it depends on the child. Some children are timid and just a firm word suffices, some other children may need "stronger" reminders. If slapping my child works and he will not cross the road without me, then I would rather take that option than lose him to a car accident because I was too "sparing". This should not even have to be explained as it is common sense. No one here is insinuating beating a child! O.K, well perhaps this IS what Mr. Stewart had in mind, and Geoffrey Jackson understood and replied accordingly; No, JWs do not believe nor recommend beating children.
.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150801/deborah-mother-in-israel/#?insight[search_id]=f6665dec-47b4-4f78-a789-c86aaad208a6&insight[search_result_index]=3
i'm working on some statistical analysis of child abuse data made public by the royal commission.
while i'm working on this, can someone here do me a favor and look up the peak publisher figures reported by watchtower for the australian branch for each of the years from 2005 through 2014?
my thanks in advance.
"Think about that the next time you attend an assembly and see dozens of kids running around without parental supervision".
Not if they pay attention and do as they are advised at every assembly and convention: "Parents, keep your children with you at all times".
we haven't been to a meeting or jw event in several years.
we have been following the rc closely.
it is fascinating!
all jws on the stand have stuck to the same line that they have no problem with cooperating with mandatory reporting when state law requires it.. if the law does not require it then bible principles absolutely prevent them from taking away rights of the victim to report abuse to the police or not.. we have already heard from a jw rep a couple of days ago who proudly asserted that when the law conflicts with bible principle they will always obey the bible and quoted acts 5:29 "we must obey god rather than men".. please join the dots!.
@ Marvin Shilmer
The question is, is the law of mandatory reporting against scripture? I don't think so. Now if the elders took it upon themselves to report without the law there, then they would be infringing on the rights of the family.
To get around that the elders could warn the congregants that any disclosure of child
molestation will be reported to the police (as per what what the RC
wants) and thus give the families the right to disclose to the elders or not. It already works this way with councilors as I mentioned. Of course this could bring with it many problems. I wonder if the RC has fully thought that one out??
