Posts by Saename

17

Revelation 5:9,10 and the 144,000

by Darkknight757 in

i hesitate to ask this question.

during some recent research on youtube i came across a few videos explaining how watchtower manipulated revelation 5:10. revelation 5:10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our god,and they will reign on the earth.”" -niv.

the nwt13 renders this verse: 10 and you made them to be a kingdom+ and priests to our god,+ and they are to rule as kings+ over the earth.”.

Saename

It makes as much sense as a book like "lord of the rings" does....

I would have to disagree. Lord of the Rings makes sense. It's just that it's a fictional―not a factual―collection of books. When it comes to the Bible―and I'm talking about the Christian Bible, the New Testament―not only is it not factual while it claims to be so, it also doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I mean, the gospels don't even agree on the matter of when Jesus was born! Luke's story indicates that his Jesus was born 10 years after Matthew's Jesus. (You know, the census vs Herod the Great thing and all...)

8

Hideout for predator

by ab.ortega in

i read this comment posted on a news site: .

if the police show up at the kingdom hall looking for a sexual predator, the elders will escort them out an emergency exist and tell them to "hide out until the coast is clear.".

is this true, is there printed instructions to support it?

Saename

The comment is unclear... Does the person mean that the elders would hide the alleged sexual predator or the police officers, saying that there is an emergency? I find the latter unlikely and strange, but at the same time, the author uses the plural pronoun "them" which would indicate that s/he is referring to the police officers... But if the comment is actually talking about hiding the police officers, then it's probably sarcasm...

Having said that, I think it may be probable that some elders would attempt to hide the alleged perpetrator. After watching the ARC, I came to the conclusion that those JW elders are extremely stupid. It's physically impossible for their brains to process information on their own. One elder testified to the Commission that he would first contact the branch―instead of the police―even in a case where a member of the congregation were to murder another person. Surprisingly, that answer did not change even when the elder was asked about this member killing a second human being.

Some people are just too far gone...

2

Becoming fools - TheraminTrees.

by Witness My Fury in

interesting easter egg video from theramintrees:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewehb4qm1hg.

Saename

That was an interesting video. I heard about that analogy of the class before, but I never thought about it critically. What TheraminTrees proposed was fascinating.

17

Revelation 5:9,10 and the 144,000

by Darkknight757 in

i hesitate to ask this question.

during some recent research on youtube i came across a few videos explaining how watchtower manipulated revelation 5:10. revelation 5:10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our god,and they will reign on the earth.”" -niv.

the nwt13 renders this verse: 10 and you made them to be a kingdom+ and priests to our god,+ and they are to rule as kings+ over the earth.”.

Saename

"Instead of "on the earth", Watchtower renders the verse "over the earth" and makes the connection of these ones to the 144,000."

The Greek word this verse uses is ἐπί ("epi"). The problem with this word is that it has multiple meanings. It can mean different propositions in English:

upon
unto
against
in
at
on
about
over
before
by

Here are some examples of verses in different translations:

Matthew 7.25 uses "epi" to mean "upon" in KJV and INT.
Matthew 10.18 uses "epi" to mean "before" in NAS, KJV, and INT.
Matthew 10.21 uses "epi" to mean "against" in NAS, KJV, and INT.
Matthew 18.13 uses "epi" to mean "over" in NAS and INT, whereas KJV renders "epi" as "of."

In short, the rendering of "epi" as "over" in Rev. 5.10 is neither wrong nor right. It's just another example of the fact that the original New Testament cannot be reconstructed. There is not a single possibility to know what the authors meant when they penned their words. Each manuscript we have is different from each other, and some of the Greek words can mean different things, each of which interpretations can be considered agreeable depending on how you read the verses. This problem is especially evident when you attempt to interpret the prophecies.

33

Jesus Knows the Day & Hour Now?

by KillerJones in

i was skimming the july 2016 wt study article and came across a paragraph indicating that, despite scriptural evidence, the governing body indeed feels that god's son now knows the exact day and hour of armageddon.

is this 'new light'?

from the second study article, page 14, pgh 4:.

Saename

I thought the Governing Body doesn't deal in hypothetical questions and answers? I mean, when Geoffrey Jackson was asked in the ARC whether Jesus would point to Deut. 22:23–27 (I hope this was the right scripture) to show that there are exceptions to the two-witness rule, he denied to answer, saying that it was a hypothetical question, and that he can't know without talking to Jesus first. Now this paragraph clearly speaks about a hypothetical scenario. The problem is that the Witnesses will now say that this is the new light. Shame on you, Governing Body.

6

New identity

by thereishope in

i was able to sign out thanks.

not that knowledgeable about computers can you tell?

i have used a username that i'm nervous my husband might recognize if he were to find this site.

Saename

Don't forget to disactivate this mode after using the browser. That would be a problem for you and your husband―unless, of course, this is not your husband's field.

6

New identity

by thereishope in

i was able to sign out thanks.

not that knowledgeable about computers can you tell?

i have used a username that i'm nervous my husband might recognize if he were to find this site.

Saename

Yes, you can create a new account. Just sign out and go for it. The old stuff will remain on the site, but, as you say, it will fade away. Your husband will probably not find it, even if he were to find the site itself.

Also, I presume you are a Jehovah's Witness who has recently stopped believing in the organisation, but you fear of telling this to your husband who is still an active Jehovah's Witness? If so, I realize this is a hard situation for you. I hope things will get better so that you wouldn't have to be "paranoid" about it.

3

why can't I sign out?

by thereishope in

thanks for any help in signing out..

Saename

This forum is like another Jehovah's Witness organisation. We will not let you go. It's a no-no. So, next time you even think of leaving this site, you better clear cache and cookies and then log out.

26

Governing Body Anthony Morris gives talk at convention. Child refuses blood dies

by Watchtower-Free in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yxw_wxyviu .

Saename

This would never happen in the UK. Judges overrule parents wishes on blood without hesitation.

If I'm not mistaken, it was not the parents who refused but the child himself. I think it was solely him who refused the blood transfusion. It is true, however, that it would be the parents who indoctrinated the boy.

Did anyone notice that Tony Harris called the doctors' attempts to persuade the boy to take the transfusion "persecution"? This is ridiculous. How that can be considered even close to "persecution" I have no idea. Last time I checked, "persecution" means to "treat someone cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political beliefs," or to "constantly annoy or bother someone." This is the definitions that Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives. I don't see how medical advice can be called a cruel or unfair treatment of a person, or an attempt to annoy or bother a person.

26

Are gays really condemned in the Bible?

by jws in

so i was having this argument with a friend about the westboro baptist idiots.

my point is that while they are horrible people, they are pretty much right in that the bible is against gays because it has verses in both the old and the new testament.

which is one of many reasons to reject the bible as merely man-made rules from ancient middle-easterners.. and she argued that there are problems in translation, etc.

Saename

I believe you are right in your conclusion. I won't say that the Bible is against homosexuality as I don't believe that the Bible is inspired of God. As an atheist who studies the New Testament, I believe that the Bible is a collection of books that are different from each other and that were written by authors different from each other.

Therefore, what I will say is that apostle Paul, when writing the letter to Romans, was against homosexuality. As I study the New Testament, I have to say there is some debate about 1 Cor. 6.9–10. The Greek words used are μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται. People argue different things when it comes to the translations of those words. malakai (the first word), seems to mean "effeminate." The second word, arsenokoites, gets tricky... Boswell argues that it means "male prostitutes," Balley argues that it means "males who practise homosexuality," and Scroggs argues that it means "pederasty." Will the case be settled? Hmm... probably not.

Now, I won't discuss 1 Timothy as it was probably not written by Paul at all but by one of his followers. Instead, I will go on to comment on Romans 1.26–27.

When I personally read this passage, I see a clear case of Paul against homosexuality. It's true that Paul says that both women and men "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature" (ESV), and some individuals (such as Joe Dallas) argue that this verse condemns heterosexuals who practise homosexuality, and thus they act against nature. However, at the same time, you can argue that Paul is calling any homosexual practice as being "contrary to nature." Too bad we can't ask the guy, eh? To me, it seems that Paul condemns homosexuality in general, but it's my personal opinion, with which there are scholars who agree. And then there are also scholars who disagree.

I guess that's why scholars don't even talk anymore about reconstructing the original New Testament...