i have posted this experience of mine before- it's time to resurrect it again.. in 1999 i was in bed asleep and i had a dream- my father and i were shoping at a clothing store called fazios, that i hadn't been inside since i was a boy (closed for many years).
we were looking at some denim overhalls and in walks my mother and brother ( she died in 1991 and my brother had died five months previously).
they told my dad, it's time to go.
There is an interconnectedness to things, and there is more than we know in the worlds
There may be more truth to this than we know. In quantum physics there is an idea called quantum entanglement. The idea has received some initial testing that seems to bear it up.
I've sometimes wondered if connections we establish with one another may involve this at a deeper level. It might explain what some of the things that happen between relatives, mates and friends.
i could not believe my ears when my father told me recently that his circuit overseer (2 weeks ago) said that there are 5 scriptures that the society is going to revise.
has anyone else heard of this?
if any of them have to with jesus i am going to tell my parents to run not walk out the kingdom hall, yikes!
Someone mentioned a possible change in 1 Thessalonians. 4:13 has been changed:
Pre-2006 printing: "those who are sleeping [in death];"
2006 printing: "those who are falling asleep in death;"
(The removal of the brackets has been mentioned elsewhere. So my comments won't touch on that.)
On the technical side, "are sleeping" or "are falling asleep" is the present middle form of koimao [Strong's #2837]. The change is unremarkable. It falls under the 'six of one, half dozen of the other' catagory. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek NT comments: "To sleep, to fall asleep. [The] Pres[ent] is probably timeless and denotes a class, "The sleepers." " (twv koimomevwv = "the ones" or "those" "sleeping")
On second thought (as I type this), there is somewhat of a difference between "are sleeping" and "are falling asleep." Technically, (with regard to death) "are sleeping" would refer to those already dead. "Are falling asleep" might favor those who were in the process of dying. It is probably splitting hairs, but I think the context (especially verse 14) would favor "are sleeping" in verse 13. (That is, the pre-2006 version.)
I could imagine someone in the Writing Dept. looking too long and hard at it. If someone else reviewed it later, they might just as well change it back. If there are any proficient in Greek here, it would be interesting to hear an opinion.
Take Care
i could not believe my ears when my father told me recently that his circuit overseer (2 weeks ago) said that there are 5 scriptures that the society is going to revise.
has anyone else heard of this?
if any of them have to with jesus i am going to tell my parents to run not walk out the kingdom hall, yikes!
Sheep2Slaughter:
I have the feeling they like to keep these things for the CO's so they can 'wow' people with their keen insights. I kind of see it as 'crumbs' being tossed our way from the table of the 'rich man.' (aka the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16)
Aware:
Thanks for the link to the previous (two years ago) thread. That was 'before my time,' if you know what I mean.
in the nwt 1 of samuel 28:12-20, the proper name samuel appears 5 times enclosed by quotation marks.
i don't think "samuel" (instead of samuel without any quotation marks)appears again in any other part of the new world translation, or anywhere in any other bible.
about 18 years ago i noticed this problem of translation in the nwt, and decided to bring it up to a special study conducted by the visiting circuit overseer with me as the student.
mP:
Part of the show, is to make stuff up and say the somebody is talking to them. I cant but help the same scam is shown here in the scripture being presented.
One of the interesting aspects of the account: The woman seems truly surprised/horrified when she actually sees "Samuel." More than one commentary makes mention of this. For example, Unger's Commentary on the OT: "The medium's terrified conduct at the appearance of a real spirit of a deceased person constitutes a complete scriptural disclosure of the fraudulency of all spiritistic mediumship."
i could not believe my ears when my father told me recently that his circuit overseer (2 weeks ago) said that there are 5 scriptures that the society is going to revise.
has anyone else heard of this?
if any of them have to with jesus i am going to tell my parents to run not walk out the kingdom hall, yikes!
One change made in the 2006 printing was in Job 14:14. "Compulsory service" (Hebrew saba) was changed to "compulsory labor." According to the CO who brought it up, it was a matter of consistancy with Job 7:1 which has "compulsory labor" (same Hebrew word). He indicated that there were a few other 'tweaks' in the 2006 printing.
in the nwt 1 of samuel 28:12-20, the proper name samuel appears 5 times enclosed by quotation marks.
i don't think "samuel" (instead of samuel without any quotation marks)appears again in any other part of the new world translation, or anywhere in any other bible.
about 18 years ago i noticed this problem of translation in the nwt, and decided to bring it up to a special study conducted by the visiting circuit overseer with me as the student.
IMO, this ("Samuel") epitimizes the Societies unwillingness to allow anyone else to think. The quotation marks are meant to make you recognize that the real Samuel wasn't the one speaking. A point of comparison is "other" inserted into Colossians 1:15. "All" (Greek pas) can mean "all other," "all sorts of" (1 Tim 2:4), "all kinds," or just "all" as in "every." IMO, inserting such extras, whether technically correct or not, has the long term effect of suppressing the readers ability to reason on the context.
The fact is, there are a number of possible interpretations presented by Bible commentators. So, the fact that the Society doesn't think it was actually Samuel is not unique. Actually, the Society thinks it was a demon (or demons) impersonating Samuel. (Personally, I think they are correct in saying it wasn't Samuel, but incorrect in saying it was demonic.)
But all that interpretation aside, the NAC commentary on the books of Samuel makes this statement: "First, the plain statement of the Hebrew text is that she did in fact see Samuel." (p.267) In other words, there is nothing in the Hebrew text (like quotation marks or any other device) that gives any indication that it wasn't Samuel himself. Thus, the quotation marks in the NWT for Samuel are a WT insertion. The context, which starts at verse 3, does make it plain that Samuel had died some time back and that Saul understood God's Law regarding mediums and spiritists.
therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.
if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.
then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.
Londo111:
Some read this to indicate that the land had to pay 70 years worth of Sabbaths. However, I feel the text is better interpreted that the land paid off its Sabbaths UNTIL the 70 years were up.
There is a fascinating footnote about the time the land had to pay off its Sabbaths in Gentile Times Reconsidered, p.223, footnote 37. (It could be you've seen it. So this is for anyone else researching.)
The book that led me to be convinced about 587 was "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." (Edwin Thiele) It was only after this that I was moved to get Johnsson's book (GTR). Theile's book is not about 607/587 per se, but rather, the dating of all the Jewish kings from the time of the split in the kingdom.
Thiele's book is a tough read, about 250 pages, which isn't bad, but the subject was a little difficult to bend my mind around. But it approaches the subject from a different angle than Johnsson. Yet they both arrive at the same conclusion about 587. Then, after reading GTR, the evidence was just overwhelmingly solid in favor of 587 from two different angles. Now, I couldn't ever see myself going back to 607. I'd have to just give up interest in the subject all together. Giving up interest wouldn't be dishonest. Going back to 607 would.
Before reading Thiele's book, I was trying to leave the subject to others as something too difficult. Boy am I glad now that I took the plunge on this subject.
Take care
i kid you not.
the latest watchtower study edition has the following question under consideration in the "questions from readers" article on page 20:.
do jesus words found at matthew 19:10-12 suggest that those who choose to remain single have received the gift of singleness in a mysterious way?.
Cedars:
This was always one of my pet peeves. The NWT, in its running head on the page with Matthew 19:10, 11 has "gift of singleness." The idea is WT nonsense.
Maybe its just me. But see if you see what I'm seeing. Here is Mt 19:10, 11 from the NWT:
10 The disciples said to him: "If such is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not advisable to marry." 11 He said to them: "Not all men make room for the saying, but only those who have the gift.
OK, now my commentary:
First off, "have the gift" is not exactly literal. The Literal greek has "has been given" or "has been granted" rather than "have the gift." The whole phrase is just one word, a verb, which is perfect, indicitive and passive. The NWT turns it into a present possessive verb ("have") with an articulate noun ("the gift"). The passive voice of the verb says that it is something given to the person by someone else, in this case God. The perfect tense puts it in their past. It was either granted to them, or it wasn't. Being born or blessed with good eyesight might be comparable. You either have it or you don't. And you personally had nothing to do with acquiring it.
But that aside, just taking the NWT as is, let me restate verses 10 and 11 with the unstated meanings added: [Jesus just finished stating God's requirements in connection with marriage and divorce.] Verse 10 has the disciples saying, "If such is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not advisable to marry." Jesus' response is, "Not all men [i.e. single men] make room for the saying [i.e. to not get married or to stay single], but only those [single men] who have the gift."
Now try reading that again but replace "the gift" with "singleness." It makes nonsense of the verse. In effect, it would be saying that the only single men who can make room for singleness are those who have singleness.
I'm tired. I think the WT does this just to confound people. And trying to explain this to brains fried by WT propaganda - you just get the dumbfounded look.
Take Care
6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.
in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.
" (rev.
And another thing ... :)
Awakend@Gilead makes a good point of the fact that the Society bases alot of their interpretation of Revelation on their questionable translation of Revelation 1:10. They ignore the possibility that the footnote may actually be the better translation, which would wreck their explanation.
Which brings to light something else about the NWT. Some of the footnotes are not there to expand one's understanding. Rather, they are there to cover their butts in case anyone questions what they have in the main text. They can say, "Oh yeah, we have that possibility in the footnote. See! There it is." All the while, they have no intention of considering that the footnote reading might be correct.
6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.
in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.
" (rev.
While we are on the subject.
Revelation 13:11-18 describes the "two-horned lamb." But the Society applies verses 16-18 to the 7 headed beast out of the sea. This is why the NWT adds a paragraph break between verse 15 and 16. See other translations for comparison. Rev Climax page 196 par.32 contains the flakey explanation of this: "He [John] returns to describing "the wild beast" itself." Nothing but an unsupported assertion.
At the time the NWT was made, Fred Franz was doing all of their Revelation interpretation. This paragraph break is as good as any evidence that Fred Franz was the major translator of the NWT.
