TD

Joined

• started 129 topics
• posted 7,265 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by TD

• 
  35

  What are your thoughts about Mormons?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  any takers?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Grew up within walking distance of a temple.

  Played with them, went to school with them, dated them, worked for them.

  I've got a leather bound copy of the BOM with my name embossed on it; a gift from a kindly neighbor.

  The Latter Day Saints function better in society inasmuch as they value higher education and take civic responsibility very seriously.

  But they are every bit as "unique" as JW's in their own way and the BOM is shot through with linguistic and historical problems (IMHO)

  Simple example: There's an idiom peculiar to the writer of the Gospel of John that goes like this:

  Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν - Amen amen lego hymin - Truly truly I say to you

  A modern translator would render the redundancy as "Very truly" or "Most truly" but in the wooden, period English of the KJV, it's "Verily, verily I say unto you"

  It's a poor translation of a Greek idiom that should not be in the BOM. (The BOM was allegedly written in "Reformed Hebrew" free from the influence of the Greek conquest.)
  

  Only it is. Many times, in fact.

  Not only is that a linguistic problem, it's an anachronism as well and the only way it could have gotten there is to be lifted from the KJV.
  
• 
  28

  Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.

  i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?

  it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hey Slim,
  

  Because the part of the rendering that WokenfromJWCult and others object to is the “exercising” part, not the “faith/trust” part, which you have missed.

  I actually understand better than most why the word "exercising" is objectionable. WokenfromJWCult appears to be paraphrasing Robert Bowman so I understand where the argument comes from as well.
  

  The word I am objecting to is "mistranslation", which would be a violation of the rules grammar and definition

  The only time πιστεύω needs to be translated as believe/believes/believing is when it is followed by a dative noun.

  When it is followed by a preposition like εἰς or ἐπὶ it means more than simple belief and the translator is free to pick an equivalent English expression.
  

  The word "Faith" in English is a noun which requires a verb to function properly. "Exercising" is a weird choice when there are simpler verbs like "Have", "Put" and "Place" that can be used, but that is a theological, not a grammatical debate.

  Narkissos (As you point out) called this "overtranslation"
  
• 
  28

  Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.

  i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?

  it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Slim,
  

  I suspect WokenfromJWCult had verses such as John 3:16 in mind.

  It's the same verb in both instances and the same comments apply.
  

  "Believes in him" is probably a better choice than, "Exercises faith in him" but it's not a mistranslation if the rendering still falls within the boundaries of definitions and grammar.

  The Complete Jewish Bible, which does not have the same theological axe to grind renders the verse as "trusts in him" which is probably not what people are used to either, but is also not a mistranslation.
  
• 
  28

  Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.

  i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?

  it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  WokenfromJWcult:
  

  Another word they mistranslate is Believe as Exercise Faith.

  I would agree that "believe" "believes" "believing" are good choices for a translation that bills itself as literal, but to claim that "having faith" is a mistranslation is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

  Here is an example of the word in question (πιστεύω) as it's used in Romans 1:16:

  Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ·, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι

  Here's the rendering in the New World Translation and the New Catholic Bible respectively:

  For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, since it is the power of God that offers salvation to everyone who has faith—to Jews first, and then to Gentiles as well.

  Here's Strong's definition of the word:

  πιστεύω pisteúō, pist-yoo'-o; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):—believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

  "Believe" is clearly not the only correct choice here. The NWT is not the only Bible to use an alternative that still falls within the rules of definition and grammar. And it's not a mistranslation.
  
• 
  28

  Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.

  i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?

  it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  The answer to the question is fairly simple

  The JW's have gradually fixed the truly problematic renderings, (Like John 17:3 for example.)

  Most of the rest of the criticism is driven by doctrine and is therefore debatable.

  Yeah, the NWT is definitely biased, but that's not unusual as Bibles go.

  The NIV leans strongly towards American fundamentalist, trinitarianism and the NAB (In editions prior to 1970) leans heavily towards an orthodox Catholic male-centric viewpoint.

  Religious people have a habit of translating in a manner most favorable to their own teachings and that's just human nature.
  

  Yeah, the NWT has some quirky renderings, but they still fall within accepted boundaries of grammar and definition. They may not actually capture the "spirit" of what the writer was trying to say (Whatever that was) but that's a subjective argument that invariably carries a boatload of preconceived ideas about the Bible itself.

  Nothing screams "I can't actually read the source language myself" louder than saying the NWT is full of "made up crap" (No disrespect to the late oompa intended)

  It's on par with adolescent American males arguing over the meaning of Rammstein lyrics. (Wenn man auf Englisch darüber streiten, sollten sie überhaupt nicht streiten.)
  
• 
  21

  Was 536 the Worst year in history

  by pistolpete in

  1. social
  2. current

  jws believe that today, the time we live in is the worst time ever in history.

  i know cause i just had a jw tell me yesterday this was the case.

  he pointed to covid, the russian-ukraine war, the high gas prices and the food shortage happening.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  I'd recommend Tuchman to anyone who thinks this century even compares to previous ones:

  
  

  Of course, most JW's aren't exactly avid readers, which is why they swallow their church's outrageous claims in the first place
  
• 
  70

  Hi again

  by Lee Marsh in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it is nice to see some familiar faces here.

  for those who don't know who i am my last id was lady lee.

  thought i would drop by and say hello; see how people are doing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hi Lee! So nice to hear from you. Wishing you nothing but the best.
  
• 
  35

  No beards...even Jesus! Strange Watchower rule for brothers!

  by Witness 007 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  watchtower 1954 p.511 "why do watchtower publications now show jesus with short hair and no beard?

  because he is shown that way in older representations of him that are older then the traditional effeminate looking pictures.".

  watchtower 1968 p.286 "bible evidence and a recent review shows that jesus did have a beard..." charles russell style of beard was popular at bethel...till rutherford took over.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Notice they wrote the Jesus with a beard was effeminate???? WHAT woman has a Jesus beard.

  I don't think they were talking about the beard per se.
  

  Western culture went through a period where the traits we consider masculine today were considered brutish and oafish.

  There's plenty of paintings of Michael the archangel that honestly leave you puzzled about his gender:

  
  

  Paintings of Jesus, even with a beard, weren't much better.
  
• 
  19

  May 2022 Study Watchtower - FAKE prophecy again for JW's

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  may 2022 study watchtower page 6, par.

  5 “satan instigated an attack on the anointed brothers who were taking the lead in the kingdom-preaching work.

  prominent ones among them were the figurative “two witnesses” spoken of as being killed.”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hardly an expert, but didn't the JW's teach the UN was the "scarlet beast" of Rev 17 (the one the harlot rides) and not the "wild beast" of Rev 11?
• 
  33

  Blood Transfusions & Flood, Questions from Bible student only

  by Marbles in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was never a jdubb, only a bible student.

  there are two main questions i have.

  let me preface that by saying that i do not believe the bible is true, or the word of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  This is a little tangential to your questions, but it does relate somewhat:
  

  The JW's original objection to transfusion was based on a misconception about what blood did in the body. Prior to the early 20th century it was thought that blood was simply the digested food we had eaten.

  Note, for example how H.G. Wells, in his 1898 novel, War of the Worlds speculates about the physiology of a more advanced race:

  "Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."

  For reasons I don't really understand, JW leaders and policy makers still held this view in the 1940's and 50's when their objection to transfusion crystallized. You can clearly see it in explanations from that time period:

  
  

  By the 1960's this argument had become untenable, but instead of scrapping the teaching, they came up with other arguments to support it. None of them (the arguments, not the people) have been terribly honest.