the new jw library app includes the kingdom interlinear.
just by looking up the scriptures at the meeting when i went, revealed the following "departures" from the other translations:.
rev 5:10 "over the earth" vs "upon the earth".
In regard to Rev 5:9, the preposition epi can have a spatial meaning (e.g. "on") or a relational meaning (e.g. "over"). The verse can be saying 'where' they are ruling, or it can be referring to their position as rulers, 'over.' In the latter case, they can rule "over" others regardless of where they are ruling from (either heaven or earth).
I would suspect that one's theology would be the determining factor.
Bobcat
in my most recent talk, i got counseled for using some terms that were not prefered.
for example i said "new testament" rather than "the christian greek scriptures".
i also used the term "gospel", but even worse, i made reference to the "synoptic gospels" and the "gnostic gospel".. i guess i never thought of it before, but when i looked at the societies information on the matter they always say things like, "the so-called new testament..." or "the so-called synoptic gospels..." why with all the "so-called?".
as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.
(genesis 2:17).
jws interpret this tree as the symbol knowledge of good and bad, right of god to set standards for us; hence eating of it means snatching gods right to rule over usthus self-rule means ruination and death, and conversely gods rule means blessings and eternal life.. this interpretation has some intrinsic problems!.
Kalos:
The word for "knowledge" at Genesis 2:17 ( had·da·‘aṯ; Strong's 1847) can refer to knowledge as in "information," or it can also refer to "knowing by experience, relationship, or encounter" (AMG's Word Study Dictionary of the OT). Adam & Eve could understand what was "good and evil" without 'knowing' good and evil in the sense of setting up their own standard of it.
Bobcat
when my son became baptized as a witness at age nine, it worried me that he could now get a no blood card.
i wanted to make sure if blood transfusions were really as disgusting to "jehovah" as i was taught.
i already found out some things about my beliefs that were not true, so it wasn't hard for me to be questionable about this.. i first looked in the reasoning book under blood as to why we don't accept transfusions.
Chris Tann, you made some very good comments and deductions.
Just to add to the reasoning, Jesus' statement at John 15:13 IMO also impacts the medical use of blood:
How could it be 'the greatest love' to 'surrender your life' (symbolized by blood) to save someone else, but evil to give a small part of your life to save them?
A better comparison to get the flavor of what Hebrews 13:17 is saying is to compare it with:
and . . .
(2 Corinthians 11:3-5) . . .But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, YOUR minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ. 4 For, as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or YOU receive a spirit other than what YOU received, or good news other than what YOU accepted, YOU easily put up [with him]. 5 For I consider that I have not in a single thing proved inferior to YOUR superfine apostles.
In 3 John 9, 10, Diotrephes is described as someone who had the power to throw others out of the congregation, indicating someone 'taking the lead among them.' In the surrounding context, John does not condemn those who tried to do what was right, despite Diotrephes.
In the 2 Corinthians passage, Paul indicates that these "superfine apostles" were teaching things contrary to how Paul understood Christianity. Paul chastises the Corinthians for so easily going along with them.
In contrast to these passages, the Hebrews passage would seem to be dealing with a more general attitude of not wanting to be under any authority at all (at least in the congregation).
With regard to Ps 146:3 ("Do not put your trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man . . .), this is a merism that generally carries the idea of any and all humans, or from the top of society ("nobles") to the bottom ("earthling man" or the common man). Interestingly, the writer (of this Psalm (David) would be speaking of people with whom Israelites would be coming into contact with. For most, that would be fellow Israelites.
Bobcat
what are your thoughts about this topic , pros and cons.. smiddy.
.
.
IMO China could help dethrone the USA but is not in a position to replace it (by just itself). Given that the US has maritime access to the two major oceans, I doubt that any other single nation could ever become as powerful economically as the US has been, at least not anytime soon.
I also agree from above that China does not seem to want the sort of global hegenemy that the US has had.
i finally removed my md card from my wallet yesterday.. although we were encouraged to create a new card annually, i had an internal hesitation, and a lack of enthusiam for it, as well as the meaningless cards for my kids.. the card that was pulled from my wallet was dated 1994. i obviously had some unconscious, if not conscious, problems with the borg, maybe with the 1995 generations bs.. did others stop updating their cards long before exiting?.
.
.
i was speaking with a jw yesterday.
i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.
during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.
Jehovah gives the command; The women proclaiming the good news are a large army.
Here is how other translations render it. The MT uses a feminine plural participle (ham-ḇaś-śə-rō-wṯ,; "those who published"). This is why numerous renderings include "women." (Compare Ps 68:25; Exod 15:20-21; Jdg 5; 11:34; 1Sa 18:6, 7)
just did i quick search it doesn't seem like this has been discussed.. why it's such a big deal, especially with branches where they are usually "dedicated" by a member of the governing body?.
is there a spiritual, biblical, theocratic significance.. does it "change" the building?.
should it be "un-dedicated" if it is sold.. i await your insight and responses.. .
The thing that gets me about 'dedicating' a Kingdom Hall to God is - How can you then turn around and sell it? It belongs to God, doesn't it? I can see fixing it or remodeling it. But selling it? - It has been dedicated to God. How can you sell it or even give it to someone else?
For example, when a person 'dedicated' something to the temple, they felt it could not then even be used to help their needy parents, let alone sell it to others (Mt 15:5, 6) "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." (Mt 15:8)
Bobcat
i attended the school late last year, and it was an emotional and mental rollercoaster for me.
i was already divided in my heart to say the least.
one of the instructors stayed in my home for the week, and my family genuinely enjoyed his company.