january 2014 watchtower study article.
let your kingdom comebut when?.
this generation will not pass away.
CantLeave:
Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians.
What scriptural proof do they give for this statement?
Here is the "proof" they provide:
"We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians."
i think this website on the subject helps one see the tweaking nature of stories passed on about gods and men.. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2001/what-did-the-census-at-the-time-of-the-birth-of-christ-accomplish.
luke 2:1-6. in those days a decree went out from caesar augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
this was the first enrollment, when quirinius was governor of syria.
i have been posting for a few months now and have read the life stories of tech49, confusedandalone, winston smith and other brothers who have held prominent positions in the organization who were dismissed not for any gross sins, but mainly for not keeping their child toeing the line.
they have been "cast aside", nit picked to death, and made to feel unworthy for their years of dedicated service.
even in my case, having my best friends treat me like the plague to jockey for position of recogntion.. is this what the organization is resorting to now?
This was/is very interesting thread.
while doing work for a client in her office recently, we got into a light discussion about religion.
she knew i was one of jehovahs witnesses as our business relationship started while i was still a loyal and believing jw.
anyway, i said something that she knew didnt quite fit and she said ... i thought you were one of jehovahs witnesses ... i shared my story ... she felt comfortable to confide in me a story as to why, even though she has had dealings with jehovahs witnesses who she thinks are good people, she would never even consider listening to them about their religion.. i asked her if she would write it down for me so that i could share ... she agreed.. this is her experience.. .
WannaBeFree:
Regardless of the possibilities in the story (as some opine above), you are right. If the story were the other way around, the WT would jump on it as an example of faithfulness to God under pressure of being given a transfusion, which is, in reality, a WT requirement, not a divine one.
The fact that the child saw no divine requirement to resist a transfusion only makes the child, in the eyes of the WT (if they were to know his feelings), a worthless apostate, never to be mentioned. Considering how some JW parents provide overruling (i.e. overbearing) "headship" over their childrens thoughts and feelings, the child probably never had any chance of explaining how he really felt about his situation to them. The woman who heard the story from the child may very well have been the only one the child was able to confide in. Sad story! Sad for the woman too, having to bear this memory.
Take Care
since the wt this week has the prediction of a "peace and security" event, i thought i would include a comment from the new american commentary (nac, d. michael martin, pp.159-60) on 1 thessalonians 5:2, 3.. here is the wt's position, according to this week's wt study (sep 2012 study edition, pp.3 4):.
1 th 5:2, 3 is a "future development.".
it happens "just before that day of jehovah.".
SanLuis:
Very interesting rendering (i.e. Message Bible) and your thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
Take Care
i was thinking the other day, why did it take so long for god to have a special people, namely the nation of israel.. and when he did choose his people, it's as if god ignored every other culture and nation on earth only to focus on abraham, isaac and there descendants.. there was no way of learning about the one true god in those days unless you lived near the borders of the israelite nation.. if you read the minor prophet books of the bible, it seems as if god is addressing the whole world, when in reality, people living in other countries at the time would have no idea of these "universal proclamations".
why did god not give guidance to these other societies?.
Looking at it from another standpoint . . .
Imagine seeing your neighbor start to cut his grass. He starts around the front porch area. And as you watch him cut that area, you wonder why he is ignoring the back yard or the sides of the house.
it may seem like a stupid question but who was responsible for translating their version of the bible?
i heard it was ray franz, several governing body members.
does anybody have any legitimate info that can prove who exactly translated it?
Wonderment:
And I appreciate your comments too. You're fair-minded.
it may seem like a stupid question but who was responsible for translating their version of the bible?
i heard it was ray franz, several governing body members.
does anybody have any legitimate info that can prove who exactly translated it?
Wonderment:
BDAG agrees with ISBE, saying 'probably a man, a shortened form of Junianus, but from a lexical point of view it is possible to be a woman.' (Not exact quote, but the gist.)
I thinking too, probably male, but possible otherwise as it is listed as one of the gifts given in Eph. 4:7-13 which included others who tuned out to be women (prophets e.g.).
Probably one of those arguments that can never be settled at this time for lack of defining evidence.
Take Care
many said how they removed the bracketed words, etc.
here is an example, an older bible in exodus 18:16 would say this....."i must make known the decisions of the [true] god and his laws.".
the word "true" is not in the original manuscripts, it's inserted, hence the [ ].
Having the brackets can be misleading. The poster Narkissos pointed this out on some of his posts of years gone by.
His reasoning was that translation itself is not a word for word process. To give an example, in John 17:3 the old NWT renders ginoskosin as "taking in knowledge." The revised NWT renders it "coming to know." The Greek word has the basic meaning of "know" or "knowing." One could argue that if you were going to use brackets, it should read "[taking in] knowledge," or "[coming to] know." But someone else might just as correctly argue that the whole phrase, "coming to know," IS itself the translation into english of the greek word.
Narkissos' point was that using brackets, only sometimes, might give the impression that every other unbracketed English word has a single original language word associated with it, when, in fact, it often doesn't.
Having said that, I wish they had kept them in because some of the bracketed material was interpretational. For example, Matthew 2:2 (old NWT) says in part, ". . . For we saw his star [when we were] in the east,. . ." The revised NWT says, "For we saw his star when we were in the East." The positioning of "in the East" is ambiguous in the greek text of Matthew. It could be referring to the star. Or, it could be referring to the Magi. (But see my posts # 434 & 437 here for a completely different understanding.) The NWT takes it upon itself to decide that its readers will understand it to refer to the Magi by inserting "[when we were]." It is for occasions like this that I wish they had left them in. I would at least be cued in that there is some interpreting going on.
An opposite example can be found at 1 Thess 5:3, "Whenever it is that they are saying . . ." "It is" is not in the greek text. But it has never been bracketed. So they simply added a verb ("is") and an associated object ("it") to make it read how they wanted with no brackets to indicate the addition. (But see my post # 337 on this thread for additional.) So, even when they used the brackets it was a halfway or hit-and-miss device.
so, in their new nwt they render sheohl and haides "grave".
this is a change from what the teach book says as a pdf.
these words really mean?
I think "gravedom" might be the word they are looking for, although, I'm not sure "gravedom" is a real word. And "gravedom" wouldn't fly in FS. That's probably why they went with "grave."
Alot of their bluster from bygone years is catching up with them.
Take Care
