this new new world translation just puts god's holy word in a whole new new light for me!
just check out this comparison, and add some of your own if you wish!.
numbers 31: 17, 18 old new world translation.
blondie: True, but I think we'll have a list of our own, soon enough. It's going to be pretty long, though, so it will take a while to sort out the significant changes from the dropped imperfect tenses and present participles. The above change is the first meaningful one I've seen besides possibly Matt. 24:46.
EoM: That link doesn't work for me.
juust saying .
.
..
I've always been pretty detached, so I laughed out loud when I read this thread title. I don't play favorites and I don't like to follow or to lead. But I've found that some people do value this trait, and sometimes they seek you out for it. In middle school I had a teacher privately ask me what really happened between two classmates, since they told different stories about a fight they were in. After telling them what I saw, the teacher told me that she knew I was objective (I forget what word she actually used) and that she would find out the truth by asking me. She said this knowing that I was friends with both of the classmates.
So I may not make a very good friend, but in another (non-Witness) lifetime, I probably would have been a damn fine judge.
this new new world translation just puts god's holy word in a whole new new light for me!
just check out this comparison, and add some of your own if you wish!.
numbers 31: 17, 18 old new world translation.
Wow indeed....
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:.
The most significant change might be one that was in relation to the recent WT study: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/264994/1/Matthew-24-46
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?".
Nope, the NWT used that to refer to his execution method, which is why the crowd formerly shouted to Pilate "Impale him!".
i received an email from a member who is not comfortable posting yet, says for now he just lurks - but he/she made a very interesting comment about the gb giving instructions to the elders about making adjustments.
here is an exact quote: "for all you brothers that have responsibilites giving talks, public talks on the platform, assemblies and convections coming up, you have some work to do.
you are going to have to relook at those scriptures you are using, and make some adjustments in whatever it says from the bible.
Yes indeed, I just remembered that change being announced from the platform when it was mentioned in another thread. So that is in fact one change made for a doctrinal reason....
reopened mind and i came across this reading today and i would like to share it with all of you.
for me it was really eye opening and i hope this will help many here to understand why we take this stand against the wt.. cherish your doubts.
cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.. doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.. a belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.. doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.. let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.. the truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing.. for truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.. those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.. but those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.. they shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.. therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help.. it is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.. robert t. weston.
Seeing in other JWs a refusal to look at contrary information about the religion was part of what started me on the road to doing my own research. I guess I figured that, say, a highly intelligent elder would have been willing to test his faith (excuse me, test the faith), so when I realized that he intentionally avoided doing so and apparently considered this to be a wise course of action, it set off a little alarm bell in my own head. "Why should truth have anything to fear? What kind of belief system is this really?"
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?".
Thanks for your comments (except that last one, Phizzy j/k). I'm surprised that more people haven't commented on #13 (the removal of "impale"; what are we supposed to say now instead of "crucify"?!) or #9 (new Bible is trying to warn us about the GB; why did they place the bookmarks there?).
can anyone save me the stress of listening to the self-appointed faithful & discreet slave for 3 hours, and give a clue as to roughly at what point in the proceedings was the derogatory term 'bum witnesses used, and by whom?
i'd really love to extract that comment and send it to a weakening witness, to highlight the judgmental arrogance and name-calling being displayed.. many thanks in advance folks!.
Guys, can't you see that Stand is trolling? You shouldn't let him derail threads.
And yes, thank you, Fading Begins, this is what I've been trying to say on various threads when this "quote" comes up. Either someone wasn't paying attention very well when the joke was made (which got more laughter at my assembly hall than any other joke, even though it wasn't that funny -- possibly due to the friends' surprise at hearing a GB member say "bum"), or else the speaker was giving a general warning about bad association and the note-taker used that phrase in their own notes.
Pretty much a non-event, in other words.
i received an email from a member who is not comfortable posting yet, says for now he just lurks - but he/she made a very interesting comment about the gb giving instructions to the elders about making adjustments.
here is an exact quote: "for all you brothers that have responsibilites giving talks, public talks on the platform, assemblies and convections coming up, you have some work to do.
you are going to have to relook at those scriptures you are using, and make some adjustments in whatever it says from the bible.
I do remember that statement being made towards the end (by Morris?), but I don't see how it leads to anything bigger or nefarious. He's simply saying that if you built a point in your talk around a verse that uses word X, and now the verse uses word Y, you need to find that problem before you give your talk. It would be remiss of him not to give that reminder. I'm not discounting the possibility that changes in the new Bible might have been made to support doctrines or doctrinal changes, but until we have evidence of such, this is taking a bit too far of a leap in thinking.
Splash: The GB speakers multiple times actually referred to "the Governing Body" in the third person, not just the F&DS (and yes, we know they're the same entity now). But as stated above, since they're a part of the whole, this isn't totally unwarranted or strange. A CEO will often refer to his company as something that does or that, rather than saying "we". It's an ordinary mode of speech. I do think that, in the GB's case, it's a feigned humility, though.
