Posts by leaving

A talk like this, when I was fully in, would have had me further suppressing any questions I may have had. But now, if I were at the KH, I would have had to get up and go to the restroom just to calm down.

Those who question blood do NOT question the sanctity of blood. Never once have I seen that. They question whether the JW application of Acts 15:29 really applies to transfusions since that was never in the Mosaic Law. Only eating blood was at issue. It's because blood CAN BE life-saving that they question this in the spirit of Jesus' words: I want mercy, not sacrifice.

Who is blowing "winds of teaching?" The teaching of "generations" is one such wind. It changes every few years. "Apostates" aren't the ones blowing this wind. What about the authority of the FDS? I'm not sure anyone actually questions that teaching because the "authority" isn't the issue. The issue is the IDENTITY of the FDS, and just like "generations," that too, changes. What was once considered in opposition with respect to this, is now "the truth." (see w81 3/1 p. 24, 25.) Another "wind."

"Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings." (Heb 13:9) JW teachings are very strange in the eyes of other Christian religions. So, who is teaching these strange teachings?

39

Best Christmas Song?

by snugglebunny in

jw
friends

a catchy little number this one!

curiously, this little known christmas song by perry como was actually the theme tune to the odessa file movie back in the 70's.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1uddoh-yu.

so what have you got?.

leaving_quietly

My wife and I had an argument last year about the song, "Let It Snow." I argued that it was a winter song, not a Christmas song. She argued just the opposite. I downloaded the lyrics, and sure enough, not a single reference to anything Christmas-y in there.

And since we all know Wikipedia is accurate, fun fact:

"Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!", also known as "Let It Snow", is a song written by lyricist Sammy Cahn and composer Jule Styne in July 1945. It was written in Hollywood, California during a heat wave as Cahn and Styne imagined cooler conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Snow!_Let_It_Snow!_Let_It_Snow!#cite_note-pc3a-1

Also, http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=9832

14

Which one is the Anti-Christ wanna be?

by WireRider in

which one really thinks he is promised to be in charge of a "kingdom".for an "overlord"?

please tell me - i have questions.. i am crossing the entirely of unsanctioned/unauthorized/all kingdom hall entirely of my list.

it;s a narcissistic marketing plan.

leaving_quietly

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Some of the sentences don't make sense. But, one, in particular did, and it's a question I've wondered.

Who had a chat with God to say the WT will be in charge? Ever? Ever?

Russell claimed to be God's mouthpiece (w1906 7/15 p.229, as cited in Proclaimer's book, p. 143). Thinking on this, how can one be a mouthpiece for anyone without ever having heard what to say? At least with prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah or other ones, the scriptures record that God told them to say what they said. But even Russell in that 1906 article claimed he didn't get any special revelations, visions, dreams, audible voice, etc. So, how did he get it? In his own words (source, http://www.youblisher.com/p/98284-Watchtower-year-1906/)

People should have known then that he was not to be followed. Luke 21:8: "He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them."

40

Our fade-gossip-elders calling

by All for show in

jw
friends

looking back we had been fading without even realizing it.

life happened...and we weren't regular.

then we woke up and have actively been fading for 9 months.

leaving_quietly

I'm sorry you're going through this @All for show.

My issue is just the opposite. I kind of have a different perspective now. I used to think that it would be awful if the elders came calling. Well, I guess I still do. But I've had such a weird experience with my fade that having them at least CALL would be something. I haven't been in service since March. I've skipped mid-week meetings since July, and now I'm starting to back off of Sunday meetings, too. No calls.

When I was taken off the sound department list, the elder in charge asked me if the brothers had spoken with me. I told him, "no." He said, "Well, I have to make up a new list and maybe you can be on it in the future." That was it.

In early September, an elder in passing told me that the group overseer and he would like to make a call on me and when was a good time? (I say "in passing" because we were in the restroom and he was using the facilities when he said this... tacky.) I told him to schedule it whenever and let me know. That was September. No calls. And I've talked to them at the KH many times since then. They've had EVERY opportunity to make an appointment.

Last month was CO visit. Typically, during CO visit, the inactive are called on. I am now inactive. Any call? Nope. And our congregation has very few inactive ones.

During my fade, for six or seven months I turned in my FS report with 0 hours. Each month. This month, I didn't turn in a report at all. I just noticed my name is no longer on the Field Service Groups list posted on the information board. It's protocol now that inactive ones are not included. Did the secretary call me? Nope. Text? Nope. Email? Nope. Does he talk to me at the meeting. Sure. No problem. How about the group overseer? Calls? Texts? Email? Nope. Nothing. Any asking of why I haven't been going in service or meetings slacking off? Nope.

My point is: while I would dread an actual visit, I'm kinda disturbed that there has been NO attempt whatsoever. It's not like they're blind to it. And I have a good rapport with all of them. So, what gives? I have no idea. At this point, my opinion is, if they want to talk to me now, that ship has sailed. They had ample opportunities over the past year, and they decided not to do any shepherding.

I've heard no gossip (not that I care,) thankfully.

25

New "most frustratingly addictive game ever" to play - agar.io

by Simon in

one of my kids got me hooked on this.

it's incredibly simple but also kind of fun and addictive.. you start as a small cell and need to eat things to grow.

that's pretty much the game.. of course as you get bigger you can eat smaller cells too ... and bigger ones can eat you.. as you get bigger you get slower but you can "eject mass" to shrink and speed you up (w key).

leaving_quietly

Hehe, yeah, it's fun to play. Too much clicking, though... messes with my wrist.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

I keep hearing how the NWT is more biased than other versions. All versions of the Bible show personal bias to a certain degree. The amount of bias varies from version to version. I keep seeing lists presented by various posters (of versions that show translators generally agreeing with each other) with the apparent purpose of pointing out how the NWT by being different is wrong.

Why do we pick on the NWT? Because that's the translation we are all familiar with, and we hung our entire belief system on what it said and how it was worded. A one word change, a change in placement of a comma, or anything like that can drastically change the meaning of a sentence, which, in turn, could drastically change a doctrinal teaching. Case in point: Luke 23:43's placement of the comma. I'm not debating this one... just pointing out that there is a lot of controversy in the placement of the comma in that verse with some translations done just like the NWT and some not done that way. That one punctuation mark makes a HUGE difference in what the verse is saying. I won't argue either way, so please don't start debating this one. I just use it as an example.

With the NWT, it does show a bias very clearly in a number of places. Since your OP was about Col 1:16, that's the one we were discussing for the most part. Another one I could point to is John 14:14 where the NWT omits the word "me," even though it is in the Greek, showing a bias that JWs believe that praying to Christ is wrong. Even the Kingdom Interlinear includes the word "me" in there.

Again, we pick on the NWT because we're most familiar with it. If we were of a different religion, we'd probably pick on a different translation. Just look at how many pick on the NIV, especially the 2011 version.

With that said, the NWT's Reference Bible is, in my opinion, a very valuable resource because of all the footnotes. It is one of many translations I refer to when researching a subject. The 2013 revision is a pretty big diversion from it, with the acknowledged goal being that it's a "witnessing Bible." So, the 2013 revision doesn't make it into my study tools, other than for comparison. And the 2013 revision injects bias into the book highlights at the beginning of each chapter (for example. referring to the "governing body" in the highlights for Acts.)

There may be some here who would rather toss the NWT and never use it again. I do not share that view. It's a tool for me to use. I do not place it at the top of my list, though.

With this post, I'm done with this thread. It's been mostly enjoyable to contribute to.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Please be advised that "attack" is not my intention. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Thank you for saying that. I did get that impression. It is often modus operandi that JWs use where they start attacking the person in order to avoid the actual issue being discussed, especially when backed into a corner. I sort of felt like that was happening (not that I backed you into a corner... far from it... I'm not seeking to win any argument... just stating my position on this particular matter.)

You insist that adding "other" is totally wrong at Col 1.16. To be honest, as you pointed out, it is not required in the translation of the verse. The context already places Christ under God in the epistle. At the same time, it is not absurd to include it.

@menrov makes a valid point.It bible translators believe they need to add or remove a word, for whatever reason, they should explain it with a proper footnote so the reader understands what has been done and can decide if he agrees or not.

I would accept this in a translation. It's one of the reasons I like the NET Bible, even though it is not the best translation. They have tons of footnotes explaining various ways something can be translated. In the case of Col 1:16 in the revised NWT, there is no footnote at all and "other" is not in brackets, misleading the reader to think that it was in the original text. In Rbi8, there is a footnote, but it has nothing to do with why it's there. There are brackets around "other", which is at least something because they explain in the Introduction: "Single brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text. Double brackets [[ ]] suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text." No such thing exists in the revised NWT.

As far as Bible translation goes, there are different methods of translating that basically fall into one of two camps: exegetical or eisegetical.

"While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis)

The NWT was translated in an eisegetical method. The bias of the JW religion shows throughout. I am NOT saying it's entirely wrong, just as I'm not saying that all JW doctrines are wrong. Some are. Some aren't. I AM saying they have decided to impose their own doctrinal beliefs into the translation, which is why they strongly frown on the use of other translations in their meetings. They quote from other translations when it suits them. If I were to start using the ESV or the NIV or some other translation at the meetings, I'd get a stern talking to by the elders. Of that, you can be sure.

Col 1:16 really is an example of eisegesis in translation. I happened to personally agree with this particular teaching, but I do not agree that it belongs in the translated text. At least, as @menrov wisely suggested, not without a footnote explaining why they put it there.

If you get some time, you may want to view this video. It's lengthy, almost an hour. But I found it fascinating as he describes the various purposes of Bible translation. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion, but the video is somewhat informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYc2KjRKlKU

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Have you ever tried translating from one language to another? I ask, because I get the impression that the process of translation is foreign to you.

No. Have you? You made some assertions in your OP. I simply stated my viewpoint. No need to attack. My view is simple: If it isn't in the original languages, then insertion is inappropriate. This applies to any translation, NWT or otherwise. I have spent the better part of the last four years researching stuff like this. The NWT is not alone in erroneous translations, but since they claim to be the most accurate, they should expect to be criticized at the highest level. As a person raised as a JW and having spent more than 40 years in the religion, I have had to take a hard look at every aspect of the things I was taught, including the translation that I once held most dear.

Don't get me wrong. I do not throw away the entire NWT because some verses are incorrect. But, I have to acknowledge that the NWT DOES have a lot of bias in it, more so that many other translations, which you refer to as "trinitarian versions."

Four years ago, I would have argued as hard as you, and I would have thrown out the same strawman arguments you're using. But, today, I wouldn't be quite so anxious to defend this position, and I'm certainly not going to say I'm 100% right. I've been 100% right for my whole life. Until I found out I wasn't. So, take this with a grain of salt. My view is my view based on my own research and conclusions. If you want to go on with the idea that "other" is completely valid in 1 Col 1:16, I have no problem with that. I simply do not share the same view any longer.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Would you believe if I tell you that various modern Greek Bibles do insert the word "állos" (the Greek word for "other") in various contexts. Why would they do so if is totally unwarranted? Answer: “ἄλλος [állos in the Greek text] is sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” (Greek Grammar, Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Ibid, p. 160.)

I suspect a few do, and as I said, anyone (not just the NWT translation committee) who arbitrarily inserts words, whether to support their own bias (whether right or wrong,) or to clarify a thought, is wrong to do so. I'm not picking on NWT specifically, though out of all the parallel translations listed here (http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-16.htm), NONE have "other" in the text. Not saying there aren't some out there that do, but most do not. Definitely the most widely used translations do not. Translations that do are going beyond the original Greek. That's my position on this subject.

The excuse of "making the implicit explicit" doesn't fly with me. Since we weren't there when it was written, there is no way we could possibly know that it was implied verses intentionally left out. Just because some authors say it was left out does not mean a thing to me. What really counts is: what did the original Greek say? If the original Greek did not say it, there is no justification to add it. It is NOT the job of the translator to make the implied something explicit. It IS the job of the translator to translate words. If the word was not there to begin with, then the translator is taking liberties he ought not. In this case, állos does not exist in the originals as far as I can tell.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B51C001.htm#V16

Again, my only issue is with taking translational liberties. Nothing more. I happen to agree with the NWT, but I don't think the translation committee should have put it in there.

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly