PetrW

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 138 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by PetrW

• 
  81

  Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

  this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

  for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  A quick glance at the NT Greek dictionary (see Bauer) for the verb απεχω, confirms that this verb, has the meaning of: 1. "terminus technicus" of the business world, expressing the receipt of a sum of money (see Matt 6:2: "they have their wages")... 2. expressing a geographical/physical or abstract (see Matt. 15:8) distance from something to something (Lk. 24:13: "a village 60 stadia from Jerusalem") and 3. to keep away or abstain from something (1 Tim. 4:3: "...abstain from the food that God has created...").

  The meaning of απεχω in Acts 15:29, as abstaining from eating blood, is well attested, both in the NT and in extrabiblical literature (cf. απεχω in Joseph Flavius).

  I will now deliberately avoid examining what abstinence from "blood" means, or what abstinence from blood meant in ancient Judaism. I commend to all the excellent commentary on the NT by Strack-Billerbeck (Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash) on the passage Acts 15:20.

  If I look at the context of chapter 15, from the beginning (Acts 15:1) it was about circumcision according to the Mosaic custom, without which - according to some - no one can be saved. In Acts 15:5, the argument of the Pharisees who became believers is repeated, who argued that it was necessary(!) for new Christians to be circumcised. The Pharisees demanded that the Law(!) be kept as well.Peter takes up the word and finds that God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for He has given His Holy Spirit, both "to them...and to us" (Acts 15:8). Circumcision, like the requirement to keep the Law(!), is evaluated by Peter as a burden (a yoke on the neck) that neither the forefathers of the Jews nor the Jews themselves who became Christians were able to keep (Acts 15:10). It is only by believing in the grace of Jesus that the Jews, as Gentiles, can be saved (Acts 15:11).James speaks last and judges that they are not to make trouble for those who, as Gentiles, have turned to God and formulates four areas from which Gentile Christians are to keep their distance (Acts 15:20). He adds the argument that the Law of Moses is read everywhere and every Sabbath - my understanding is that James was referring those possibly interested in the details of the Law of Moses to a local synangogue where they could learn what all Christ had delivered them from.
  Transferred to the JWs, who draw their position from Acts 15:20ff: to fulfill James' request, then the BG would have to repeatedly urge its members to go to a Catholic church from time to time, if they wish, and hear a Latin Mass, and thereby learn that this, is not for them... The covering letter of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Antioch and other cities, declares again - for the third time (Acts 15:28) - that the aim was to avoid additional, unnecessary burdens for Gentile Christians, outside those four necessary areas. The original controversy over circumcision and other requirements for keeping the Law is no longer explicitly mentioned in the letter. That is, the original requirement about circumcision and other rules of the Law, is reduced to four "tolerable" requirements, and anyone could see for themselves in any synagogue among Jews who wanted to continue to keep the whole thing...
  I understand the temporariness of the whole ordinance from the meaning of abstaining from a "strangled" animal. This is commonly explained using the OT, where the animal, whether it died by accident or predator, or was ritually killed, had to be bled. Strack-Billerbeck, in my opinion, correctly reason that the prohibition against eating a "strangled" animal must have applied to a dead or torn animal, since the rabbinic requirements for bleeding an animal were beyond the OT, and certainly those requirements, in themselves, were a burden.
  

  The NT describes (Mk 5:13) the case of the 2000 "strangled" pigs who threw themselves into the sea. These drowned pigs, according to the literal interpretation of Acts 15:20ff, would have been inedible. But if you look more closely at the Greek NT, you will find that the verb "to strangle"/"to choke" does not refer only to animals. In Mat 13:7, the term "choked" plant appears. If I were to update - in the JW sense - also the prohibition of eating "strangled" to plants and their fruits, then I would have to examine whether, for example, an apple, grew on a tree that was not girdled by some weed. A must, compote or even cider, made from apples I picked from old apple trees that were covered with creepers, would be as serious a sin as having a blood transfusion...

  For me, Christ is the end of the Law (Rom. 10:4) and the Law is as dead as dead can be (Rom. 7:2-4).
• 
  81

  Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

  this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

  for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @aqwsed12345

  Very nice! Mercy glorieth against judgment!

  Just a note: in discussions with Adventists regarding Sabbath-keeping, I have found a similar "explanatory formula". Both Adventists and JWs collectively claim that the Sabbath/blood command was given before the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law affirmed the Sabbath/blood command. And both Adventists and JWs find support in the NT for the continued uncompromising necessity to follow the commands given. More dangerous and life-threatening, of course, is the blood issue than the Sabbath issue (but even that is not entirely without problems).

  Any discussion on the subject of Christ being the end of the Law, and thus of the Sabbath and blood, is met with stiff resistance from these groups. It is part of their creed, and to deny these articles of faith is to break with that church.
• 
  6

  How to stirr up the poor into digital online business

  by Gorb in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/hulda-reached-her-goal/.

  what about this watchtower article?

  in my jw time i felt not comfortable about this kind of "devine education".. poor sister works above her self to get a device.. jw.org hypocrisy for going full digital.. g..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @enoughisenough

  As you write: there is pressure.

  But there could also be her own motivation: the sister wanted to see all the Tony Morris videos... and now they've deleted it ✌️😁 No, end of sarcasm.

  However, a more likely scenario would be that a person with such energy and desire to change something (like her) will sooner or later "break" the JW-stone to gravel too...

  If, as an ex-JW, she stays with Christianity, and endures the taunts of her surroundings and the hatred of JWs, then she will be a true heroine.

  In terms of salvation, I think Christ will save her, and one day tell her: everything you thought when you read the Bible was true. What you just accepted, you know it wasn't about me and from me....
• 
  81

  Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

  this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

  for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @menrov

  I think you are capturing the essence of the recommendation of Acts 15:29.There are a great many works on the internet, from dissertations to commentaries, that discuss Acts 15:29.

  If I were to express my opinion, Jesus affirms the statement that one is to love God and love his neighbor. That these are the greatest commandments of the Law. Everything else, of subordination, is just an elaboration of the Law and these two commandments.

  My understanding of the Law is that it is a masterpiece of law, built on principles. Where it was(!) necessary to stick to the literal meaning, there it is clear. Where reasoning is needed, for example, a kind of analogy is used. I, for example, do not take the command of Ex 23:19 "not to cook young goat in its mother's milk" as a dietary command (see Ibn Ezra's very interesting Jewish commentary on the Torah), nor some culinary recommendation on how to cook the meat of a goat or not to spoil the milk by cooking it...

  My understanding of the verse Ex 23:19a is this: God wanted the best(!) of the first fruits to belong to him. They were to bring it to God's house.

  If an Israelite of that time heard this, he must have said to himself. OK, I'll bring the best of the first fruits of my field. And then what? Will it stay with me? Or he said to himself: I'm going to put it all in a fancy wagon and bring it to the house of God and let it be trumpeted before me for all to hear and see...

  And then, when I have given it all away, I will milk the goat, and on the milk, I will cook young of the goat....

  And this is exactly what God had written against, that man should not be greedy. Even though he is obligated to surrender the best of the firstfruits to God's house, he is not to be tempted to be greedy and "cough up" what none of mankind can see and evaluate.

  I honestly don't know - quite specifically - even today what the apostles' recommendation in Acts 15:29 means. I would have to look into it in more detail and that means reading a great deal of literature (see above). But if I were to consider what Acts 15:29 might mean, I would still venture to say that the apostles summarized the content of the Law so that Jewish and Gentile Christians could coexist at different stages of their faith (see Paul and his refusal to eat meat if it was a hindrance to a brother weak in the faith).
  

  The apostles did not create a second law. They, through the Holy Spirit and prior teaching from the risen Jesus Christ, understood the nuances of the Law perfectly. And they transformed literal interpretation into permanent, eternal meaning.
  

  A final note: in Lev 21:1-4 there is a command for the priests (see Rev 5:10) that they must not defile/ritually pollute themselves with any soul of the people. Most modern translations, including the NWT, understand this to mean a corpse. I don't think so, specifically Lev 21:1-4 is not about corpses. The Hebrew text, or also the LXX, says only the soul (of the people), but then lists close relatives who - even if they themselves are unclean, the priest does not become unclean.

  My reading of this is that no prescription of purity that would make the relatives in the family somehow unclean can prevent the priest from making excuses that might prevent him from contact (see Jesus and the sacred gift and refusal to help parents...).

  I'm referring to situations where JWs-parents have prevented from giving blood to their children(!) in hospitals as part of saving or prolonging life.

  No statement of Christ can lead to letting others be ritually "executed" if they are delivered into your power...
• 
  6

  How to stirr up the poor into digital online business

  by Gorb in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/hulda-reached-her-goal/.

  what about this watchtower article?

  in my jw time i felt not comfortable about this kind of "devine education".. poor sister works above her self to get a device.. jw.org hypocrisy for going full digital.. g..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  Mrs. Hulda, all honor. Not everyone can smash so many rocks with a hammer that several trucks have to haul it away! If he ever picks up a hammer afterwards, he must see rocks everywhere. ✌️😁

  On the other hand, I'd say she violated God's warning not to let anyone make an "image" of God in the form of silicon, plastic, copper, tin and steel when she says "it helps her in her service (to God)"... I suspect the tablet has become "God" to her that she has sacrificed so much to it. She must have hit herself once or twice with a hammer on the finger; as a woman, she may have carried heavy loads, which she might not have done elsewhere in a proper job; a piece of stone may have gone into her eye...

  To me, she is a symbol of religious heroism, which is, of course, completely unnecessary...
• 
  24

  A divorced single sistet

  by TxNVSue2023 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  it was an opinion of someone that to be a divorced, single sister i. the organization was the lowest social standing you can have.

  why are they dispised?

  ( what if was a scriptural divorce where husband cheated?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @TonusOH

  You mentioned one more important thing: whether the local congregation and its leadership have the right to interfere in marriage and solve its problems. Of course, we know the NT case where Paul writes about someone living with his father's wife and Paul's solution is very harsh...

  But I want to make another point: should a Christian congregation be put in the position of having to resolve marital disputes? I don't think a Christian congregation should (ideally) have to deal with this, and other things, at all. But many will say that this is impossible. Yes, I affirm that. Sociology clearly demonstrates the patterns that arise in a formal group (starting with the "iron law of oligarchy" to the next...).

  But if I stay on the plane of the Bible, I, for one, take my cue from this: Paul says the church is to care for widows over 60. What if - because of the war - many widows will be as young as 55? Are they to be told that they have to wait 5 more years? Or will there be no widows in that congregation - are they to "manufacture" a widow to fulfill the Bible's command at any cost? Probably not either. I understand the commands in the sense that Christians are to do so if such a situation arises - but if it doesn't, then they don't have to address it or even create such a situation.

  The main way out of this, I see, is what the Lord said: if two or three come together in my name, I will be among them.

  Two or three does not solve the lists of widows, it does not solve the question of whether a woman teaches or does not teach, whether she is veiled or shorn. They don't address the funding of the congregation - if they meet once a month, everyone can handle the fact that the two or three, go to the bathroom and flush. It's not 20 or 50 or 100 people and twice a week.

  My "ecclesiology" is not against large churches. They have their place and their importance. But my point is that until the Lord, and he alone, begins to form a true church (note: many will come in my name...), then a "congregation" of two or three, will more easily avoid interfering with the marriage, of those two or three, in some quasi-judicial process. And again: not idealizing "two or three", just as destructive processes can occur there, as between 50...but between 50, it's only a matter of time before it starts.
• 
  24

  A divorced single sistet

  by TxNVSue2023 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  it was an opinion of someone that to be a divorced, single sister i. the organization was the lowest social standing you can have.

  why are they dispised?

  ( what if was a scriptural divorce where husband cheated?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @LeeMarsh

  Very accurate. I have defined the formation of marriage for JWs as: Lord and sex. JWs are forced by a misunderstood command" "only in the Lord "* to seek their mate, only within the ranks of JWs. And especially at a younger age where erotic desires are very strong, this leads to marriages being formed between people who 1. should never have formed a marriage or 2. "in the world" would have divorced relatively painlessly and no third party i.e. JWs would have entered into it. The guarantee of a quality partner is not created just by nominal affiliation with a church.

  The other thing, which you also capture well, is that there is always more fault to be found with women, especially when they are the initiators of divorce proceedings. In a curious sort of way, I know of a case of a marriage that originated within the ex-JWs-group**, but because the husband stopped providing emotional as well as material support (inadequately) to his wife and their two children together, the wife, after repeated complaints over several years, found another partner. I know from the narrative that she continued to accuse herself for a long time whether she had violated Christ's requirement about marriage and adultery...
  

  My answer was that a marriage is only unlawful i.e. against Christ's requirements if it exists. And mere formal existence, does not prove actual existence. We know a lot about birthright from the Bible, and whether the firstborn is by birth or by fact is determined by circumstances that can change...

  Back to the ex-JWs group: it too, with the "righteous anger" of a few members, got angry at the woman, and basically ended any contact...it was only after a few years, when it became really apparent that the ex-husband, was indeed neglecting his wife and children, and then continued to do so (not paying child support, although he could have), that some members of the ex-JWs turned around, and accepted the ex-ex-JWs back into their midst...

  * The phrase "in the Lord" is associated with "thinking like the Lord", which does not necessarily lead to the life partner having to be a Christian. The NT uses the same phrase in the case of children, that they are to obey their parents "in the Lord". If the parents are not "in the Lord", do they not have to obey them?

  ** The debacle of the false prophecy of "1975" was the motive for the formation of this group that still exists today. I am not a member, but I know sporadically of their activities and views...
• 
  11

  One True Religion

  by mrquik in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is there one true religion?

  applying jesus' identifying requirements, not one religion qualifies.

  coming close doesn't count.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  There is a beautiful picture in John's Gospel of Peter going fishing with others...

  It's night, they're working all the time, throwing the net right, left, paddling back and forth, and nothing. It is only at the dawn of the day, when Jesus comes and is near, that he calls to them, "Cast your net there, there are fish. There were so many that they began to count them.

  To me, the implication is that at the end of the age, there will be a similar catch, but I notice that the fish lived long before that, hidden, wary, not giving much indication of where they were, because predators, there was nothing around. Both the fishermen and the fish didn't know about each other, or more accurately: the fish preferred to hide because of bad experiences...

  So, in practice, I assume that there are simply many real fish out there, that sea of people around us, but that they are simply hidden. That they grow up, they have small fish, but they also die and wait for the voice of the Lord...

  To conclude the fish theme: fish farms also breed fish, but...✌️😎
• 
  51

  Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

  by kepler in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

  concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

  to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  In my search for how the Bible understands the terms expressing "time", I also, of course, came across the problem in Luke 23:43: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" I found here, an older discussion

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/110063/commatology-101

  and this discussion, which I freely continue:

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/235015/truly-say-you-amen-say-you-inferences-from-gospel-manner-speech

  These discussions were and still are very thought-provoking. But to me, there is a missing answer, to the question, why did Jesus even say, "today you will be with him in Paradise"?

  The NWT and other translations that put a comma after "today" do resolve the supposed(!) conflict, but in doing so they also devalue - in my opinion - the statement of Jesus. The comma after "today", makes Jesus' statement a trite statement... that Jesus was communicating "today", everyone knew that. The comma after "today" brings no additional information = a redundant message. (The variant reading according to NA 28, I do not take into account, however, it is interesting that this statement was understood eschatologically in some manuscripts, i.e. the "day" of the second coming).

  For if Jesus wanted to express that the robber would be with him in Paradise, he could have said to him, " Verily I say unto thee, you will be with me in Paradise," and he did not need to use the adverb "σημερον" = "today." And if Jesus had wanted to emphasize a time, then it would have been offered to say: "Verily I say unto thee, in these hours/In this hour shalt thou be with me in Paradise". But he didn't use that term either. If he wanted to emphasize an eschatological age, then he could have said, "Verily I say unto thee, in the last days//at the end of the ages thou shalt be with me in Paradise." But even that statement is not there.

  On the other hand, even the translations that commonly put a comma before "today" don't bring much clarity to Jesus' statement. Not only do they have a problem with what the JWs claim (but in my opinion, it's an artificially induced conflict), but the above criticisms that Jesus could have used some more precise time than "today" persist. He could have emphasized the speed or postponed the event to the end of the ages.

  And for the record, the papyrological monuments relating to business life used even then, more than 2000 years ago, the same thing everyone knows in email communication: it is not enough for business partners to write "today" we are sending you this or that. Because, there can easily be a misunderstanding. That is why it is already preserved on papyri that they attached to the term σημερον what day it was in their calendar (e.g. one papyrus has: "today, which is the 19th" or another: "today, which is the 8th"). Jesus did not say this either: " Verily I say unto thee, today, which is the 14th, you will be with me in Paradise."

  Classical lexica for NT Greek, e.g. Kittel's Theological Dictionary or Bauer etc., while they provide ample information on the concept of σημερον itself, I would divide this concept into 2 groups: 1. the literal meaning, in the sense of "today", as a civil time period (Kittel's TLNT: "the Jewish understanding of time works with the fact that the day begins with the evening" and 2. the abstract, time length "today", which expresses rather the relationship of God to the chosen people.

  The line between those meanings is not sharp: The Septuagint often uses the term "until today"/"until now" when it expresses some condition that had occurred earlier and was still ongoing at the time of the writing of the text, see, e.g., Gen. 19:37, "he became the forefather of the Moabites until now." Again, the papyri: a letter is preserved which records the statement that "the olive groves bear abundant fruit to this day". This 'disclosure', where 'today' almost takes on the value of 'now', is thus well attested.

  Since Kittel's TLNT already refers to "now" (νυν), it is possible to consider another special statement of Jesus Christ. In Mark 13:19 he says that there will be days of tribulation which have not been since the beginning of creation...until now and will not be. At the time Jesus utters this, no tribulation was taking place, in fact, He directly speaks of those days yet to come. So why does he use "now"? Not to mention that we know that the tribulation didn't occur until about 40 years later. One possible explanation would be that Jesus' "now" refers to a period of time that is, as it were, in the background.

  As if he were a "vehicle" for the "now". This is attested, for example, in Paul in 2 Cor. 6:2, where Paul speaks of the present time and the present day "νυν καιρος... νυν ημερα".

  Returning then to σημερον, the typical representative in the abstract, very long time span (see also the meaning of the Hebrew "yom" = "day") is the longer passage in Heb 3:1-4:11. Here σημερον figures as "today", as an epoch-spanning, God-resting day. Which coincides with the "infinitely varying" meaning of the Hebrew "yom" and especially the length of the creation day.

  ***
  

  From this very brief description, two meanings suggest themselves to me: either Jesus meant the actual day (see e.g. Mk 14:30 : Verily I say unto thee, that thou, this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice") or some eschatological, timeless stretch.

  While it's tempting to see some eschatological significance in Jesus' statement, and I'm not entirely giving it up, the closer context of Luke 23:43 and the parallel accounts suggest to me that Jesus was thinking of a literal day. I will explain.

  First, a brief background. Jesus is nailed to the cross around 9am. He dies sometime around 3 pm. Gradually, through taunts, the robber learns about Jesus, that he healed, that he raised the dead, that he wanted to destroy the Temple, that he claimed to be the Son of God, that he claimed to be the Messiah, that he proclaimed a new age for the Jews, that he was proclaimed to be the King who had, somewhere, his kingdom... Before he dies, he already knows this, very much, and he begins to repent, he expresses that he fears God and blames it on the other thief... And then he turns to Jesus with a very specific request: Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.

  The robber sees Jesus as the real King, his kingdom as real, not to mention that they both die on the cross. And so Jesus answers him: Verily I say unto thee, (as) today with me, (then) shalt thou be in Paradise.

  Conclusion: so I understand "σημερον" = "today" in Luke 23:43 as expressing a shared experience, between Jesus and the thief, during those six hours or so. The phrase "μετ εμου" + the verb ειμι is found e.g. in Lk 15:31 but cf. also LXX 2 Sam 15:33! But as can be seen, the futurum ειμι in Lk 23:43 ("thou shalt"), when applied to σημερον, problematizes "today".

  In my opinion, Jesus didn't want to make a promise that on that very day, the thief would be with him in Paradise, when he couldn't fulfill it (no matter how long he might still be dying), but he also didn't make the useless statement that he was telling him something "today" as the JWs understand the phrase. Nor, in my opinion, was he speaking of an eschatological "today", because according to John 9:4-5, Jesus' death ushers in an eschatological "twilight", late afternoon, corresponding also to the time when he physically dies. The light will still shine for a while in the form of Christians in the apostolic age, but before long, by the death of the last living apostle, John is already writing about the "last hour." Then comes the darkness, the age of Satan. The appointed times of darkness...

  Jesus, in my opinion, was only emphasizing what they had experienced together for that day, and confirming to him that just as they were together that day, so together, they would also be in Paradise.
• 
  14

  "Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

  but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

  i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  PetrW

  @Vidqun

  I agree with you, Vidqun. But I was concerned about two things: JWs claim to be the one true religion, and the textual passages chosen are constitutive of their theology.

  The translations you cite that resemble the NWT do not explicitly seek to do so.

  JWs do not think in alternatives. They don't give a chance to the fact that e.g. Ma 27:53 can have a fairly simple interpretation that fits the text: that there was a resurrection of some of the dead. And why don't they allow for alternatives? Because they are the only and true...

  This system then manifests itself in all areas of their theology. They do not falsify the meaning of the Greek words (see the original question in the discussion), but project their theological interpretations onto the Greek text. No alternative.

  But this phenomenon is common in other denominations as well. Adventists with their Sabbath, Catholics with their celibacy, or Pentecostals with their faith healing... they all "overload" the text in their favor...

  ***

  Not to be critical of others. How about me? 🙈😁 Am I not doing the same? I may have an opinion on the identity of Babylon the Great (no, it's not the UN or any country or institution past or future in my opinion), but from time to time I have my doubts, sometimes literally dread lest I end up like Russell 😁 Okay, okay,

  my views don't have nearly the reach that Russell's had. My verbal 😁 "Watchtower" that I occasionally put out, well that's just for my wife for now. And from her, it is always very quickly censored, abridged and rewritten... Because of warm dinners and laundered clothes, the potential for conflict on my part is almost nil. Discussion here, is one of the allowed activities 🙈😁😁😁