Posts by leaving

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.

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

My personal issue with the insertion of the word "other" is simply that it is not in the Greek, and that 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. To me, this is not a trinity issue. It's a translation issue. For an organization who has claimed for years that it has the MOST ACCURATE translation, there is simply no excuse for this. An accurate translation is one that translates the words into another language without losing thought, but also without adding things that aren't there.

The addition of the word "other" in Col 1:16 is unnecessary, too, as the previous verse calls Christ "the firstborn of all creation" which is a correct translation from the Greek. As a firstborn, Christ would have had to have been created himself. Thus, the word "other" is an unnecessary addition in verse 16 and really does serve to show a bias.

For the record, I am not a trinitarian. I DO believe that Christ was created, and I DO believe that Christ was used to create everything else. I DO NOT believe that Christ and God are one and the same. I DO believe that God has elevated his son to a position equal to his own and has given his son ALL authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) similar to how Pharaoh gave Joseph authority over all things in Egypt (Gen 41:39-44) and I DO believe that Christ is of a divine nature, worthy of the same honor and service I would bestow to God himself. (John 5:22,23; Psalm 2:12; Dan 7:13,14)

9

WatchtowerBrooklynRealestate com Created Date: 2015-11-17 by WT

by Watchtower-Free in

https://watchtowerbrooklynrealestate.com/.

its their site.

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=watchtowerbrooklynrealestate.com.

leaving_quietly

I was under the impression they sold off their NYC properties. Guess I was mistaken.

60

Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

leaving_quietly

I've actually been told by a JW that Jehovah is allowing these things to occur the same way he allowed Saul to continue despite him no longer being anointed. Jehovah is "allowing" JW's loyalty to be tested.

This has nothing, NOTHING to do with loyalty to Jehovah. Any JW that says that is attempting to hide their head in the sand. This has EVERYTHING to do with JUSTICE and MERCY for the victims.

And since Saul was brought up here, this is a stupid red herring. David's loyalty to God was not in question, and neither is a JW's loyalty to God in question with this issue. Was IS in question is whether this organization will continue on their pharisaical, rigid path, or bend a little for the benefit of the victims.

60

Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

leaving_quietly

The November 9, 2015 response is the one I'm reading, and yes, there is quite a bit of arrogance, telling the Commission what is and what is not within their "Terms of Reference" and even calling one "junior lawyer," "inexperienced". Here's what caught my attention:

5.18 Jehovah’s Witnesses consider that the requirement for two witnesses is not a matter for debate as it is based on Scriptural requirements found in the Mosaic Law and reiterated by Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.37 Even when the requisite Scriptural evidence is lacking, elders nevertheless take precautionary measures.

While the Mosaic Law DOES permit a single witness in an extenuating circumstance, as was proven more than once in the hearings, the organization blatantly REFUSES to bend on this. Deut 22:25-27.

By saying that Christ reiterated this is Pharisaical. Christ also said this: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness."

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

leaving_quietly

leaving _quietly. are you trying to take our fun away with this idea we like?

It kinda all gets thrown to heck if you think about the 12 seeing Jesus conversing with Moses and Elijah ....

Except it was only three, not the twelve.

"28 In fact, about eight days after saying these words, he took Peter, John, and James along and climbed up the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed and his clothing became glitteringly white. 30 And look! two men were conversing with him; they were Moses and E·liʹjah.

Luke 9:28-30

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

leaving_quietly

As usual, the organization takes, "may be", "perhaps", "evidently" and the like literally. I can recall hearing one GB member saying that Guy Pierce was already helping to direct in his new position in heaven.

They base this particular doctrine (that they've already been raised) on 1 Cor 15:22,23:

For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

This is because of their insistence that parousia means "presence", not "coming" or "arrival", and their mistranslation of the Greek work "en" as "during" instead of "at". Verse 23 should read, "But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ at his arrival."

27

Message from an elder

by paradisebeauty in

elder: plese watch the november programm on jw broadcasting.. me: what i hope for is the change of the doctrine that states that jesus is not the mediator between jehovah and all jw's but only between jehovah and the 144000. i believe jesus is my mediator even if i am not one of the 144000. .

elder: may jehovah open your mind and heart.

me: may he open everyone's mind and heart.

leaving_quietly

@paradisebeauty, I agree with you.

From the 2 who knew the doctrine, one said that in 1 timothy 2:5 it's written: Jesus is mediator between God and us, - by us, meaning the anointed ones, since the letter to Timothy was written by Paul.

This is ultimately the only way JWs can defend their belief in anointed / non-anointed... by saying parts of the Bible were written only for the anointed. Nearly every doctrine unique to JWs is affected by this and this is their scapegoat. I like to say, "if that's the case, then ONLY the anointed should preach, and ONLY the anointed should go to meetings. After all, Jesus commissioned his 11 apostles to preach, not all of his disciples and Hebrews was written specifically to the Jewish (Hebrew) Christians, who, according to the organization, were all anointed in the first century." No one likes hearing that, but it does uncover their deceitful logic on the subject.

7

is there a new anouncment the person has been removed instead of no longer a witness

by poopie in

jw
friends

someone reported to me they changed announcent but he is hard of hearing and i was not present anyone hear this?

leaving_quietly

According to recently revised Organized to do Jehovah's Will book, the announcement is the same:

p. 141:

When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant
wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement
is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s
Witnesses.”

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly