Posts by Apognophos

49

My highlights from the AGM

by Apognophos in

some of this will not be new to those of you who read other people's notes, but i bet there are a few new bits for you here, so i've provided a user-friendly table of contents, as an homage to the contents that appear before each book of the bible in the new nwt.

i might remember more highlights later, as i'm rather tired right now, but this is what i can recall off the top of my head.. contents (use of quote marks in this section is facetious; these are not actual quotes).

"say, did you notice that 2014 is the 100th anniversary, people?".

Apognophos

because in the NWT I have it has always read 'I have been'. The one I have is the 1984 study version

Oops! You're correct, it did already say "I have been" in 1984. The phrase "I was" sounded right to me, so I didn't double-check the old Bible before posting that. Perhaps slimboyfat was thinking of an earlier revision?

That isn't even consistent with their own teaching!! The reason why the 'old' NWT said "in accord with" instead of "after" is because their version of the '70 years' isn't actually supposed to end until the Jews were home (in the 'magical' month of Tishri [October], for the same reason that Armageddon was supposed to begin in October of 1914). But now they've changed the verse so that whilst it's still wrongly using "at" (in reference to 'exile') instead of "for" (in reference to Babylon's dominance), it more correctly indicates that the 70 years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem.

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know about the "in accord with" point. But it seems like both versions are saying that the 70 years end before God turns his attention to his people, so I'm not sure I fully grasp your point about the 70 years ending before the return of the Jews. Didn't it always end before they returned?

61

Accepting my own mortality, and the naturalness of death - the final step in my JW recovery.

by fresh prince of ohio in

jw
friends

for people who have a paralyzing fear of dying, to where it seems like it's this horrible, stalking monster, jwism is a powerful sedative.. but really, the idea of living forever, in human form, is nonsense.

living forever isn't about living forever, it's about not dying.. death is natural.

it can be painful, sudden, or both.

Apognophos

Apognophos, what though if things don't turn out well in the long run? I'm not sure I want to live to see how it all plays out. It's the unknown, the uncertainty, that drive me crazy and make me desire a quick and painless way out.

Well, what if they don't? Even if we have another Great Depression, or a World War, it won't necessarily affect you or me all that much. People always find ways to get on. How much did the population decline in the 1920s or 1940s? Only a small percentage starved or died in war. For most, the going just got a bit tougher for a while, then things recovered.

But to take a broader perspective: I mentioned before that I see myself as part of a continuum of life; notice I didn't say human life. I believe it was stated in Star Trek that any race that discovers nuclear power either eradicates itself within 50 years or overcomes its primitive destructive desires enough to thrive and explore the stars. If humans do something stupid and the entire race gets wiped out, guess what? If other life survives on Earth, some other intelligent species will arise. Out of the current advanced species, it could be dolphins, but it's more likely to be bears, octopi, elephants or even corvids. Perhaps as they evolve and develop technology, they won't have the more savage instincts that we do, and will make it further than we did.

So in a way, I think the universe is just -- on the large scale. On the small scale, yes, people suffer needlessly, as do animals. On the large scale, either humans are a good idea and will overcome their animal roots, or a bad idea and will mercifully self-destruct and leave the planet to recover and try something else. Either way would be a just outcome. That being said, I think there's plenty of evidence that people are getting wiser, and technology is increasing our global awareness and sense of unity. I'm cautiously optimistic that people will overcome their tribalism and self-destructive urges and start colonizing other planets. That way, even if something happens on Earth, we'll have a "backup" somewhere else.

If you're only seeing negative indicators for the future, that's an obvious sign of depression or possibly an anxiety disorder. As I said before, a therapist can help, and at least for the short term, some medication might be in order too. I think you'll probably look back on this period a few years from now and be glad you didn't make any rash decisions. There's a lot of wonderful things we can do and see in our lifetime, and the future is not something to be feared.

29

FDS... GB Member Geoffrey Jackson's wife looks young

by sherrie11 in

.

how old is this man?

any one have more information on him?.

Apognophos

Wasn't this photo claimed to be not of his wife last time it was posted?

Yes, I'm repeating for emphasis. This could be some poor random sister whose picture is being propagated all over the Internet inaccurately. I just want some confirmation of this.

37

My interest in this revised NWT

by Doug Mason in

the biases of the earlier iteration of the nwt have been known and discussed from the appearance of the first appearance in 1950, and i assume the revised edition will be affected by the same prejudicial biases.

one can cynically subscribe to the view that this is a financial bonanza and possibly a distraction from the imminent centenary of that distant significant date.. my interest will be to see how the impact of this revision evolves, particularly in the area of the wts's support material and on the impact its release will have on witnesses.

some preliminary thoughts are:.

Apognophos

It's mostly a matter of changing the language to be more streamlined. The only references I've seen to manuscript evidence are the removal of the sections in John and Mark and this change in Matthew 7:13:

1984: Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction...

2013: ...because broad is the gate and spacious is the road...

They explain in the appendix that "further study" (by who?) "of the manuscript evidence led to the conclusion that 'is the gate' was in the original text." They say that there are a number of similar adjustments, but these are not listed. I suppose we'll find out as soon as Monday when someone does a text comparison.

293

AGM 5 OCTOBER 2013 (UNOFFICIAL RUMORS)

by WatchTower87 in

- 23 day to go .. annual meeting unofficial rumors.

- new bible.

- new nwt (revision).

Apognophos

Thanks. I'm a little surprised they haven't changed it

Well, if they were even paying attention to this sort of thing during the revision process, they would have had to face the fact that "changing" means "drawing attention to", especially since (once we have the new PDF) we will be able to run the whole thing through the computer and get an instant comparison. But I think they weren't interested in rocking the boat too much, just tweaking wording.

what the heck is AGM

The truth is, I haven't heard the rank and file calling it the AGM at all, only the "annual meeting". "AGM" seems to be a shibboleth on the forum here. I've been careful to avoid saying "AGM" to Witnesses so I don't get funny looks and give away my JWN reading habits.

10

A Top Mormon Leader says mistakes were made....

by truthsetsonefree in

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-top-mormon-leader-acknowledges-the-church-made-mistakes.html?_r=0.

i wonder when the gb will do this.....

Apognophos

sherrie11 is correct, Splane did in fact admit that the Society made at least one mistake. In fact he was emphatic, saying, "We must be honest. We must be humble," before admitting that the Society had sometimes misused a certain scripture because the wording was ambiguous. Dang, I can't remember which verse it was now.

49

My highlights from the AGM

by Apognophos in

some of this will not be new to those of you who read other people's notes, but i bet there are a few new bits for you here, so i've provided a user-friendly table of contents, as an homage to the contents that appear before each book of the bible in the new nwt.

i might remember more highlights later, as i'm rather tired right now, but this is what i can recall off the top of my head.. contents (use of quote marks in this section is facetious; these are not actual quotes).

"say, did you notice that 2014 is the 100th anniversary, people?".

Apognophos

I agree with the sentiment. But I don't agree with the change, because they're hiding the rampant sexism actually present in the original text of the Bible.

Yes, you are correct of course.

They actually put 1914 into the appendix of the new version? Epic fail. There is no hope for these numbskulls.

Well, I wanted to give more detail on this last night, but I was too exhausted. However, I had immediately noticed some odd things when flipping through the appendices at the meeting. Here are both of the references to 1914 in the back of the new Bible:

- Appendix B1 lists exact dates for some things, like "1943 B.C.E." for Jehovah's covenant with Abraham, but gives the date "About 1914 C.E." for this event: "Jesus hurls the serpent, Satan, to the earth, confining him there for a short time.--Revelation 12:7-9, 12." No direct mention of his enthronement, and what's with the "About"?

- Appendix B9 recounts the WT interpretation of Daniel's beasts and the statue of different materials. Each beast/section of the statue has a nation's name assigned to it and the date they took power. I found this odd -- the feet of the statue, identified as "Anglo-America", have this date information below them: "1914-1918 C.E. During World War I, Anglo-America World Power comes into being." I might be ignorant of this, but I don't recall the rise of Anglo-America being dated to 1914 before...? Correct me if I'm wrong.

- As a side note, B9 also shows on a timeline the words "Babylon destroys Jerusalem 607 B.C.E.". So yes, they are committed to this fallacious date.

As I said on another thread. updating language and improving style are great, but unless it's actually done by someone who is familiar with the original text and biblical languages, there is huge scope for making embarrassing mistakes.

I believe one speaker said that the New World Bible Translation Committee (yes, this is a new committee of the same name as the original) did go back to the original language. Of course I can't vouch for their qualifications or methods, but they did talk about having had to research the answers to thousands of questions coming from their translators abroad, which was what (they imply) led to the creation of the new Bible in the first place.

What was the story with the 'confidential envelopes'? Or was that just a rumour?

By the way, I actually have no idea what that refers to Jeffro, only the Bibles were handed out.

Have they changed John 8:58. Apart from the disputed theology, "I was" has been criticised as simply poor English. Has it been altered to "I have been" or rephrased altogether?

Good guess, slimboyfat. This verse now indeed ends "I have been"!

In fact, they are "the thinkingest people"! (a Bro. Morris quote.)

I understand he's said that in the past, but dissonance_resolved was accurate in reporting that he said "most thinking" this time. Perhaps he's had time to rethink that questionable grammar since last time.

In addition to Jeffro's question on another thread, can you (or anyone else) answer these:

Jer. 29:10 - is it still "at Babylon"? -- Yes; it now reads, "For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'"
Dan. 9:2 - is "devastations" still in the plural, or have they even used another word? -- The word is in fact "desolation" now.
Matt. 24:39 - is the expression "took no note" still used? -- Yes, this verse is unchanged.
Eph. 6:11 - does it still have "machinations"? -- Of course not :) It's now "crafty acts".
Have they retained the phrase "undeserved kindness"? -- Yes.
Are the plurals 'YOU' and 'YOUR' no longer capitalized? -- That is correct; the appendix mentions this but does not justify it and simply says "readers may consult earlier editions of this translation for this information". Um, thanks? It then goes on to say directly after this that "All adjustments in the Bible text were made prayerfully, carefully, and with deep respect for the fine work of the original New World Bible Translation Committee".
In the Appendix regarding 1914, do they allude to any 'proof' for the date 607 BCE or is the date just inserted as if it's fact? -- No, there is no space devoted to discussing archaeological evidence or Babylonian kings lists, etc. One mention of 607 is in the "Maps" section on the page about Daniel's vision of the statue, as I described above. The other is in an Israelite kings list (A6), which simply says "Zedekiah: 11 years | Jerusalem and its temple are destroyed by the invading Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah, the last earthly king in the Davidic line, is dethroned". Appendix B11 gives the second temple foundation as being laid in 536 B.C.E.

8

Leviticus 5:1 New ..NWT 2013

by sherrie11 in

david splain "using delightful words and accurate words of truth.

" presented his talk at the agm.

they have revised the interpretation of leviticus 5:1. leviticus 5:1 old nwt "now in the case that a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing...blah blah..".

Apognophos

2013 NWT:

"If someone* sins because he has heard a public call to testify # and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error.

*Or: "a soul".

# Lit., "a voice of a curse (oath)." Probably an announcement regarding a wrongdoing that included a curse pronounced against the wrongdoer or against the witness in case he failed to testify."

4

A.G.M = W.T world in a nutshell ?

by Phizzy in

the 2013 a.g.m i think most on here would agree, was the epitome of a damp squib.. but i think it sums up what w.t world has now come down to, lots of hyperbole and hype, all the talk of it being "historic", the tickets only policy etc etc and then what does it amount to ?

as we say here in the u.k, "two things, not much, and sod-all.".

the poor r&f jw's have been getting very excited for weeks, they will convince themselves by the "wasn't that simply wonderful, proof of jehovah's speeding things up" type comment that their expectations have been fulfilled.. but in a few weeks, deep, deep down they will realise it was a load of fuss about nothing, and then the depression will hit them.. and that is what w.t world has become, lots of talk about "significant" things to look forward to, and they turn out to be about as significant, and noteworthy, as one of my farts during a particularly loud thunderstorm.. i do not know if the rnwt has changed the wording of prov 13v12, but the old rendering still holds true :.

Apognophos

I'll be honest, I think most JWs will fondly remember the Annual Meeting 2013 as "that time we got our new Bibles". However, if anyone had extra-high expectations, like receiving special instructions or warnings about the end, then yes, they will be feeling disappointment. And it's "makes" instead of "is making" in Proverbs now. So much for all those much-vaunted present participles we used to hear about.

1

REVISED NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

by The Searcher in

the poor brothers who have spent so much time, effort, and their 'valuable things', creating a website which proves the nwt is second - to - none, (http://onlytruegod.org/defense/pageindex.htm) will now have to deconstruct the website and build a brand new one which admits that the nwt was second - to the revised nwt!!!.

to have the glorious ones debunk your extraordinary efforts to prove their translation was the 'cat's whiskers' of bible translations - for revenue purposes - is nothing short of damned inconsiderateness!!!

oh well, the truth never changes - it's just our understanding of it, as well as the light getting brighter!

Apognophos

I didn't mention this in my AGM highlight thread, but Prov. 4:18 was mentioned several times in the meeting, as well as singing the Kingdom Melody based on that scripture. Anyone who was proud of the creaky extended phraseology of the Old New World Translation is being left in the dust behind Jehovah's chariot. Better run to catch up!