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.
Listener:
That is a great list. Thanks.
Bobcat
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.
I agree that the older NWT was usually more literal than the rNWT, sometimes to a fault (controversial verses aside).
On the other hand, the rNWT has broken away from devotion to the W&H master text and has made use of newer texts such as the UBS & Nestle tetxts (See e.g. here & here).
Here and here and here are also some comments on various renderings of the rNWT. I view the NWT (both old and new) as neither the best nor the worst. IMO it has a useful place in a good Bible library.
Here was an interesting comment on "other" in Col 1:15.
https://anointedjw.org/fight_fine_fight.html.
first, message received, i get it.
these guys are way out there and full of themselves.
Meta:
That was a very interesting writeup they presented on the AnointedJW site. They seem to indicate some sort of 'directive' from the top. If so, I'm surprised that no one here is privy to it.
Bobcat
how strange today's study was!.
warning examples of apostacy, and saying to all witnesses "watch for bad associations in the cong".
talk about paranoia and distrust amongst themselves!.
leaving:
Thanks for that very interesting point. Here are other translations that, by and large, follow what you said.
The AMG Greek dictionary lists these verses with the same construction (aphistemi + apo + genitive noun): Acts 5:38; 12:10; 15:38; 19:9; 22:29; 2Co 12:8; 1 Ti 6:5. A note in another reference points out that the aorist form of aphistemi (in 2 Ti 2:19) calls for a definite break. This might be why the NWT uses "renounce," as it has a definitive character to it.
Bobcat
how strange today's study was!.
warning examples of apostacy, and saying to all witnesses "watch for bad associations in the cong".
talk about paranoia and distrust amongst themselves!.
CoCo:
I made a comment on paragraph 4 (something I don't do very often any more) based on what I mentioned here. Someone immediately buried it with 'what the paragraph says.'
I'm pretty much in agreement with what another poster said about it being a waste of time commenting. Anything outside of exactly what the paragraph says is 'disrespectful of the slave.'
Bobcat
comments you will not hear at the 09-14-2014 wt study (july 15, 2014, pages 12-16 (renounce unrighteousness).
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/?contentlanguagefilter=en&pubfilter=w&yearfilter=2014.
review comments will be headed outside the boxes.
From Par.4:
"Yet, there appears to be no text in the Hebrew Scriptures that matches Paul’s quote."
The Commentary on the OT Use of the NT (G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 2007) has a very lengthy writeup on 2 Tim 2:19 (covering pages 903-906). On page 905 it says (in regard to the origins of the phrase, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.”):
[End quote]
I wonder if the paragraph was being a bit tricky with its wording by saying "no text in the Hebrew Scriptures . . .," given the fact that the reference I quote above cites the (Greek) LXX as a considered point of view of "most interpreters"?
Other than that, the discussion in the WT (pars. 3-7) does follow the suggested origins of 2 Tim 2:19 as discussed in the commentary I cited above. Of course, no acknowledgment of where they got this bit of understanding.
Par. 17
The account says that “they immediately moved away.” (Num. 16:24, 27) . . . They “moved away . . . from every side.”
Check these translations of Numbers 16:27. There is no "immediately" in the Hebrew text (see also here for Hebrew of verse).
The 'moving away from every side' is due to the fact that there would have been tents all around these families because of the way the Israelites camped. The paragraph seems to be trying to apply "from every side" as if to mean 'personally in every way.'
Bobcat
was listening to the audio on the way to town as i have amny times buit noted a phrase that popped out.
"south toward the negab".
most people would place this in the sinai pen.
Are you referencing Exodus 26:18?
Here is the older NWT:
And here is the revised version:
And here is a comparison of other translations.
The Hebrew is literally "on the southside southward." The problem is the Hebrew word negeb ( נֶ֫גֶב; Strong's 5045) can mean "south" or it can be a proper noun, "Negev." It would appear that the revised NWT was corrected to read as most translations do.
Bobcat
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-rise-and-fall-of-modern-empires-2014-9.
tick tock...... forget about that daniel image/prophecy stuff.
the process is being accelerated by trying to sanction russia, as they draw closer to china and thereby build an alternative economic system( including a swift banking arrangement of their own).
i personally believe that sooner or later collapse will come for usa
I agree. And I don't buy the WT's idea that the US is the last world power. That idea is not Daniel's. It's the WT's.
While USA has tons of problems and so does EU, never underestimate ability of Westerners to wage a war. In past 2500 years no single civilization ever was able to conquer them. Never.
IMO, the fall from top-dog status for the US will be self-inflicted. In fact, much of the damage to their present world status is already self-inflicted. And I agree with Metatron that all this seems near.
Having said that, the US and the West (but especially the US) has proven remarkably resilient. All the economic doomsayers (Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, Gerald Celente, et al) have time and again been off on their predictions. Yet, the economic fundamentals that underly their predictions are sound. And the economic actions the US and West have taken to stave off collapse only seem to be painting them further into a corner.
Either way, the future looks interesting.
