The reason they said they did this was to expedite translation. Since verses in different languages may not appear on the same page as the English version, it was easier to remove the headings from each page and put them at the beginning of each book.
leaving_quietly
JoinedPosts by leaving_quietly
-
4
What happened to the page summaries in NWT?
by jws ini was recently discussing the real 10 commandments in ex 34. as i recall the old nwt had topic summaries at the top of each page.
theoretically to summarize the page and help you find things.
i've seen other bibles do this too.
-
-
-
17
What's worse, brutal murder or fornication?
by Tornintwo injust to give you a bit of background, i've been researching my doubts for over a month, i'm convinced that although they may have some things right, they have a lot of other things horribly wrong.
i'm still clinging to a faith in god, because i see a creator's hand in nature, and i believe in jesus and his teachings, love, mercy, compassion.....that if everyone truly applied these (including jws) then all would benefit.. but i read this article in march and it's been on my mind ever since.
where isis stone a young couple to death for sex before marriage (a bit graphic).. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017800/sickening-images-blindfolded-bound-couple-brutally-stoned-death-fornication-isis-militants-iraq.html.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Thanks, BluesBrothers... interesting that in neither instance was premarital sex forbidden or "an abomination". And since we're not under the Law today, the bride-price thing seems unnecessary, right?
-
17
What's worse, brutal murder or fornication?
by Tornintwo injust to give you a bit of background, i've been researching my doubts for over a month, i'm convinced that although they may have some things right, they have a lot of other things horribly wrong.
i'm still clinging to a faith in god, because i see a creator's hand in nature, and i believe in jesus and his teachings, love, mercy, compassion.....that if everyone truly applied these (including jws) then all would benefit.. but i read this article in march and it's been on my mind ever since.
where isis stone a young couple to death for sex before marriage (a bit graphic).. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017800/sickening-images-blindfolded-bound-couple-brutally-stoned-death-fornication-isis-militants-iraq.html.
-
-
leaving_quietly
When I read the OT about who not to have sex with, the one thing that was conspicuously missing was any command not to have sex before marriage. If it's in the OT, please show me where. I saw stuff around what we would consider incest, but nothing around normal man/woman relations. Please, if anyone can show me where the OT has that command, please show me.
This topic is of interest to me because, when I watch those nature shows, we see various animals, including primates that have plenty of non-monogamous sex. If these were created this way, then why would humans have a limitation on what seems to be the most pleasurable thing? This makes no sense to me, and is very inconsistent.
As for which is worse, I don't know that we can figure that out, but I would say that for those who go on and on about how bad homosexuality is, which is worse, fornication or homosexuality? Can a degree of "badness" be put on it? The Bible puts liars and fornicator and murderers in the same category, all as those who would not inherit the kingdom. So, which is worse?
-
20
WT September 2015 (Public edition) - We never petition for Money
by Designer Stubble inpage 6 of the september 2015 public wt, under the heading "how is our ministry financed"our work is supported entirely by voluntary donations.
(2 corinthians 9:7) in 1879, the second issue of this magazine stated: zions watch tower [as this magazine was then called] has, we believe jehovah for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support.
we have not wavered from that policy.
-
-
leaving_quietly
When they did away with the "Announcements" part, the organization still wanted the Accounts report to be read monthly. -
75
Our hall is asking for money...
by thedepressedsoul ini guess the branch isn't happy with the amount being sent each month since we are way lower than our loan amount.
we now have to another financial survey to see the max amount that can be given.
it is "encouraged" for all to be in attendance and give much forethought and consideration to the amount you can donate each month.
-
-
leaving_quietly
The approach seems to be a local thing. However, per the original letter, the BOE is supposed to re-evaluate this every year (May) and make adjustments as necessary. So, expect this to me an annual thing.
-
30
Governing Body
by Daym123 inhello,.
i am currently in a discussion with a jw about the governing body.. i have read alot of articles regarding it, however whenever i bring up what i have read, i am refuted with scripture, such as acts 15, where they say there was a governing body, who sent out elders and men etc.. does anyone have a website that i may not know of, that has answers to what they refute with?
or any help here or good thought provoking questions to respond with would be much appreciated.. thank you kindly.
-
-
leaving_quietly
There are multiple lines of reasoning that there wasn't a centralized "governing body" in the first century.
First, there are two sides to every story. Acts 15 gives us one side. Read it carefully, especially how the letter they wrote starts out. It reads more like an apology than an edict. Galatians 2 gives Paul's first-hand account of that meeting. See what Paul himself has to say about it, specifically WHY he went to Jerusalem to begin with. After reading Paul's account, go back and read Acts 15 and see how it matches what Paul said. How, exactly, did Paul feel about going to Jerusalem? What new thing did those in Jerusalem tell him? What was the REAL reason he went up there? WHO told him to go up there? (Hint: look closely at Gal 2:2). And, finally, how long AFTER Paul was chosen by Christ did he go up there? You may want to read chapter 1 in its entirety for the back story.
Third, if there were a governing body back then, then why was the name "Christian" given by divine providence FIRST to those in Antioch (and not Jerusalem?) (Acts 11:26)
-
18
Passive aggressive circuit overseer talk
by hoser ini went and listened to the circuit overseer talk last night.
he started off by saying how many jws are in prisons in other countries and how we need to be prepared for when we are persecuted by the governments because it will happen "soon".
near the end of the talk he got into how our own minds often imagine the very worst case scenario and that this isn't good.
-
-
leaving_quietly
WT is very good at starting off with the worst situation. Think about talks and articles that tell you how "some" feel they are not worthy, perhaps because of a past sin, then tells you that "God is greater than our hearts". I don't know about you, but the only ones who have EVER hinted at me not being worthy is WT. They create worry, fear and anxiety, then offer the solution. Pay attention next time you hear a public talk. They generally follow the same formula: say how bad things are, offer the most extreme proofs, say how God will fix it, then tell people that only JWs are the ones who do God's will, so preach more, study more and attend all the meetings.
Common extreme examples used:
- Volcano blows up on some island in the early 1900s and local clergy tells people to say: 30,000 dead
- Tens of millions dead from spanish influenza or black plague in early 1900s
- 9/11
- Mount St. Helen - warning signs
- Hurricane Katrina
So, you start out talking about the worst of the worst things that can happen, so it gets your mind into a bad place. There's got to be some term for this: one who creates a bad situation, then offers to "fix" it. I don't know what it is, but WT is very good at it.
-
35
June JW Broadcast - Jehovah's & Jesus' names Are Interchangeable!
by The Searcher inmr. geoffrey jackson hosts this month's propaganda-fest, and uses a favourite catchphrase of the org - "by extension" - to get out of the dead-end which the scriptwriters had put him in.
he quotes matthew 10:22 - "and you will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my [jesus'] name; but he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.".
mr. jackson knows only too well that probably no j.w.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Absolutely, johnamos.
Understand that I am not disputing the use of the name "Jehovah" (though I'd prefer just YHWH or Yahweh or even Jahveh (the last two admittedly closer to the original pronunciation than "Jehovah", but I digress...), nor am I disputing all that Christ represents, that of being God's son, being anointed BY God, being exalted BY God, or anything like that. My point is simply to say: there is a balance that most of us are guilty of, that of favoring Jehovah VS Jesus instead of, more properly, favoring Jehovah AND Jesus equally. Remember, God may take out a people for HIS name, but those same people are declared righteous in Jesus' name with God's spirit.. (1 Cor 6:11).
BTW, your last passage reminded me of another:
"Exercise faith in God; exercise faith also in me" John 14:1
I like that you pointed out what the name of Jesus means "YHWH is salvation". But it does come full circle in the Bible. True, YHWH is salvation, but how?
"If we accept the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. Because this is the witness God gives, the witness that he has given about his Son. 10 The person putting his faith in the Son of God has the witness within himself. The person not having faith in God has made him a liar, because he has not put his faith in the witness given by God concerning his Son. 11 And this is the witness, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son. 12 The one who has the Son has this life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this life." 1 John 5:9-12
My point is, it should not be a Jehovah vs. Jesus thing as so many make it out to be. God's plan for salvation is by/through is Son. They are BOTH necessary. And the scriptures make it very clear that BOTH of their names are important.
Strangely, what we don't find in the NT / Greek scriptures is any argumentation about whose name is more important. What we do find is what I've been saying. Both are important.
-
35
June JW Broadcast - Jehovah's & Jesus' names Are Interchangeable!
by The Searcher inmr. geoffrey jackson hosts this month's propaganda-fest, and uses a favourite catchphrase of the org - "by extension" - to get out of the dead-end which the scriptwriters had put him in.
he quotes matthew 10:22 - "and you will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my [jesus'] name; but he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.".
mr. jackson knows only too well that probably no j.w.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Actually, both johnamos and Searcher have a point. Here's the issue the way I see it:
The WT organization gets mad at "Christendom" because, by and large, they DON'T exalt the name Jehovah (or Yahweh or YHWH)
"Christendom" gets mad at the WT organization because, by and large, they DON'T exalt the name Jesus (or Yashua or Yeshua or whatever other pronunciation there is)
And, they're both right. And they're both wrong.
The WT organization makes such a HUGE deal out of the name "Jehovah" that they forget this COMMANDMENT:
"Indeed, this is his commandment: that we have faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us a commandment." - 1 John 3:23
And it's something people would be judged on:
"Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." - John 3:18
"I write you these things so that you may know that you have life everlasting, you who put your faith in the name of the Son of God." - 1 John 5:13
I can't recall the last time the WT organization admonished anyone to have faith in Jesus NAME. Faith 'on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice', yes, but faith in his name? It is a rare thing to see in any publication.
At the same time, as johnamos pointed out, God's name is equally as important. There should be no reason to not exalt both names. But the WT organization says Christ is not to be exalted like that, and that IS the problem. What does the Bible really teach?
"Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - John 5:23
"For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name." - Phil 2:9
(SIDE NOTE: Phil 2:9 is somewhat misleading in the NWT. The phrase"superior position" is not in the Greek. Neither is is the word "other". The correct rendering would be more like "Therefore, also, God highly exalted [or, elevated] him and graciously [or freely, or kindly] granted him the name that is [or, which is] above every name [or, above all names, or, above every kind of name].")
You will notice many times in the NT how Paul gave glory to both, by saying, "God through Christ" or "God through Jesus Christ" or "God through our Lord" or other similar phrasing. The point is that we should not be going to one extreme or the other. Both God AND the Christ are exalted. Both should be recognized. Both names are equally important.
-
12
Crazy Comments
by humblepotato ini love the people who go to my congregation.
they are sweet, friendly, and lovable.
(which is one of the things that makes being awake so much easier.
-
-
leaving_quietly
I've kept track of a few of them.
Said by an elder in a comment on a WT study about elders as shepherds: "Jehovah is the first shepherd. Jesus is the second shepherd. But they can't do anything without the other shepherds." Oh, really?
Another elder: "Jesus commanded us to not forsake the gathering of ourselves together." Jesus said that???
By a brother: "We get to Jehovah through the elders." Hmm. No, we get to God through Christ.
By a visiting speaker during his public talk: "Demons are homosexual." Picked jaw up from floor on that one.
By an elder: "Christendom doesn't teach the ransom, or teaches the ransom is paid to Satan." Well, which is it? Do they teach it or not? Incidentally, I did research this. The ransom is a primary teaching of Christianity, known as the Ransom Theory of Atonement. One major view (but not the only one) is that the ransom is paid to Satan. Crazy comment, nonetheless.
By a brother in a talk: "Abiathar was high priest, kind of like the governing body today." Oh? I thought Christ was the high priest. Who knew?