Posts by TerryWalstrom

11

NWT reasons, excuses, and assertions for inserting the Tetragrammaton (JEHOVAH)

by TerryWalstrom in

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html.

a summary statement of the writers' error.

we believe the writers of the august 1, 2008 watchtower magazine article, should the name jehovah appear in the new testament?

TerryWalstrom

I should maybe have said, "A fun and mental error."

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

In the above lesson, the Professor is contrasting the Westcott and Hort text against the Textus Receptus.

He establishes how many modern Bibles use Westcott and Hort INSTEAD of the Textus Receptus.

He points out the reason given and what it is bogus.

Those using Westcott and Hort say the manuscript evidence is earlier than the Textus Receptus and THEREFORE, more reliable.

But wait---

The Professor demonstrates by using quotations of Early Church Fathers who lived in EARLIER centuries (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) how flawed this premise is.

Texts omitted in Westcott and Hort can easily BE FOUND hundreds of years earlier.

Are these 'found' texts in the Textus Receptus? YES.

The difference in readings leads to all sorts of problems in modern translations such as the New World Translation.

The order of the words (Subject instead of predicate nominative) in John 1:1 makes all the difference in the world for Jehovah's Witnesses' bogus rendering of "a god."

So, the problem disappears when you get rid of Westcott and Hort and stick to Textus Receptus.

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

Call me crazy, but I love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.

In the following video, the teacher really nails Jehovah's Witnesses on John 1:1 with utter simplicity.

Begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.

I've never seen or heard of this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5QKJ7tmbg

23

Newly released New World Translation still full of numerous errors and abuses

by yadda yadda 2 in

thought i'd start a thread discussing all the scriptures where the watchtower translation committee has taken liberties and abused verses they've translated in the nwt.. worst of all are the numerous places in the christian greek scriptures where 'jehovah' has been inserted where the tetragrammaton or any equivalent of it does not occur in any extant mss and where the context could just as easily mean, or even more likely mean, the identity being spoken of is jesus christ rather than the father.

although in many places out of the 237 in the nt where they have done this the identity is clearly or most probably the father (jehovah) as distinct from the son (jesus), there are dozens of occurrences where this is not the case.. here are a whole lot more scriptures abused by the translators of the nwt, copied from the freeminds website (article written j bowman, scholar):.

adding words.

TerryWalstrom

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html

Translation #1—An example of freedom from translation bias
Quotation: Isaiah 45:21, 23, 24	The evidence substantiating freedom from translation bias:
"Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?...that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, 'Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength." (NWT)	The Hebrew text for these verses in the Biblia Hebraica uses the Tetragrammaton. The original readers understood that the text was using the divine name. By using the name "Jehovah" in this verse, the translators have preserved the original meaning of the Hebrew text. When reading this translation, the modern English reader understands that the passage is referring to God when it uses his personal name.
Translation #2—An example of translation bias
Quotation: Isaiah 45:21, 23, 24	The evidence substantiating translation bias:
"Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. . .Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.'" (NIV)	The Hebrew text for these verses uses the Tetragrammaton. The original readers understood that the text was using the divine name. By using the capitalized word "LORD" in this verse, the translators have hidden the original meaning of the Hebrew text. The modern English reader may confuse this passage to be talking about Jesus of the New Testament. We do not know the intent of the translators, but the end result biases the passage in allowing confusion between Jesus and Jehovah in Isaiah's statement.
Translation #3—An example of translation bias
Quotation: Romans 14:11	The evidence substantiating translation bias:
" 'As I live,' says Jehovah, 'to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.' " (NWT)	The translation of this verse does not follow the Greek text in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. The Greek text uses the Greek word Κύριος. The original Christian readers understood that Κύριος was used in theSeptuagint as a Greek translation for the divine name and was later then also used for both the divine name and as a title for Jesus meaning "Lord" in their own Christian Scriptures. Κύριος is thus ambiguous. Nonetheless, it is a bias for the translator to presume to make a selection between the two meanings for the English reader when the original author left the first century reader to make their own selection.[15]
Translation #4—An example of freedom from translation bias
Quotation: Romans 14:11	The evidence substantiating freedom from translation bias:
"It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" (NIV)	The Greek text for this verse uses the Greek word Κύριος. Irrespective of the fact that this word was ambiguous to the first century reader, the translators used the English word "Lord" which contains equivalent ambiguity for today's reader.
Translation #5—An example of translation bias
Quotation: Philippians 2:9-11	The evidence substantiating translation bias:
"For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (NWT)	The Greek text for this verse in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation does not have any word or grammatical structure that allows the bracketed word "[other]." The bracketed [other] apparently results from a translation bias required to maintain a theological position unique to the group producing the translation.[16]
Translation #6—An example of freedom from translation bias
Quotation: Philippians 2:9-11	The evidence substantiating freedom from translation bias:
"For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (NWT)	The Greek text for this verse in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation uses the word Κύριος. The translators have correctly translated the phrase, "Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."[17]

[15] This is one of the simplest ways in which a Bible translation may be biased. Translation between any two languages encounters the reality that a single word in one language may be translated by multiple words in another language. Which word should be used may often depend on the meaning or context of the word in the original language. For example, the Christian Scripture reader in the first century would understand the word Κύριος (Kyrios) to have the range of modern English meanings of Jehovah, God, the LordJesus, a slave master or employer, an owner, and a title of respect meaning Sir. The New World Translation appropriately uses thisrange of meanings in a number of instances. However, the Bible translator may bias his translation by choosing a particular meaning he wishes the translation to convey and eliminating other optional meanings which the original reader in Greek or Hebrew would have also considered.

11

NWT reasons, excuses, and assertions for inserting the Tetragrammaton (JEHOVAH)

by TerryWalstrom in

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html.

a summary statement of the writers' error.

we believe the writers of the august 1, 2008 watchtower magazine article, should the name jehovah appear in the new testament?

TerryWalstrom

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html

A Summary Statement of the Writers' Error

We believe the writers of the August 1, 2008 Watchtower magazine article, Should the Name JEHOVAH Appear in the New Testament? made a fundamental error which will be terribly costly to them. An acceptable justification for the presence of "Jehovah" in the NWT translation of the Christian Scriptures must be based on verifiable textual evidence.

However, the writers of this article did not affirm the original New World Translation Committees' principles of translation with textual evidence supporting the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek text of the earliest Greek manuscripts. Instead, they developed two entirely new principles of translation based wholly on subjective values:

"The translators believed that since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah's name from the text seemed inconsistent. (article page 22)
"When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Ky'ri-os (Lord), it became evident to the translators that in Jesus' day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek—and of course those in Hebrew—did contain the divine name." (article page 22)

By adopting these two subjective reasons for placing the name "Jehovah" in the New World Translation Christian Scriptures 237 times, the writers of this article have redefined the NWT Christian Scriptures as being biased. It is biased because the justification for the English word "Jehovah" is based on subjective rather than textual translation support. According to this new statement of purpose, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society must now content themselves with having produced a sectarian translation crafted to support their own doctrine.

There is, however, no textual evidence of יהוה in any ancient Greek manuscripts. The only textual evidence the New World Translation Committee provided is the Greek text of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text which they published as the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. In fact, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation does just the opposite. Rather than providing any textual evidence for including the divine name in the Greek Scriptures, it actually validates that the Greek word Κύριος was used 714 times in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

21

Giving comments at meetings that cause cognitive dissonance while keeping yourself below elder radar for apostasy

by Brokeback Watchtower in

well i'm sure we can come up with clever comments that make people feel uncomfortable by serving to decompartmentalize things that have been compartmentalized in the thinking of the average jw.

or comments that make the cognitive dissonance stand out plainly, these have to be said in innocent manner and with an apparent obliviousness to the contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/compartmentalization_%28psychology%29.

TerryWalstrom

The young JW I spoke with several months back now regularly remains in contact with me and visits with me on Sundays. He's a good source for inside information; especially from a 20-year-old's perspective in 'the Truth.'

He told me that the fellow who originally lured me into the Organization (who is in his Kingdom Hall) made a comment about 1975 really having been a prediction and not an apostate rumor!

My source followed up by explaining, "Immediately after the meeting everybody watched as he was taken into the library and the door shut, with 3 elders right behind him"

Now, this old friend of mine is well-known as a devout JW with all the gravitas you can accumulate from 50 years of unflagging service. If he can't get away with a simple, personal expression of reality--how is anybody else going to evade the wrath of retribution?

I'm not saying, "Don't try" because living a lie will make you sick and it will destroy your integrity. But--being prudent is self-defense.

To be aware, beware.

18

Elders Starting To Poke Around... Advice?

by Garrett in

jw
friends

as many of you know, i've been out of the organization for about a month now.

the elders haven't shown an interest in my absence until now.

today, i have received phone calls from two elders as well as a friend.

TerryWalstrom

"I have some serious health concerns of a personal nature--nothing sexual, mind you--I just need to handle this privately, if you'll allow me the space. . . "

"I'm sure you'll understand the need for privacy in certain situations. You'll respect that, surely."

Either of these, if repeated like a broken record, alternately, will suffice.

When you get 'counsel' simply add, "I really hear what you're saying and I'm humbled you care enough to share, thank you."

See? Nothing commital, nothing disagreed with, either.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

TerryWalstrom

One more point.

Religion carries the basic meaning of 'binding'.

Religion BINDS behavior with ritual performance.

Cult religion binds minds.

Christianity is not just ONE thing; it is fractured opinion spread out over 41,000 shards of variety and temperament. Each is binding in its parochial way.

Jehovah's Witnesses' leaders use a pretext of SCRIPTURE.

The GB seeks to bind 8 million believers on a pretext of the Truth 'based on' scripture.

We have suffered the brunt of the pretext applied in an insidious way.

But--at one time--we AGREED to it.

In my own case, I fully accept responsibility that I was, to a certain degree, CRAZY.

Religion is not to blame so much as it is a pretext for things.

It is a pretext for charity, love, fellowship as well as being a pretext for righteous wars, ritual execution, and sundry implanted fears and threats on behalf of invisible personages.

What that interview did for me was give me a sudden perspective I did not have until I listened. All this time, I've exclusively blamed God, Religion and especially Jehovah's Witnesses for something which is way too scattershot.

Fundamentalist mindset is crazy.

Fundamentalism is a subset of religion--not religion itself. It is the 1 and not the 99.

By accusing the ENTIRE 100 for the harm of the 99, we become a fundamentalist ourselves. As I've always said, "what you hate, you become."

Nobody believes EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of their religion--not even fundamentalists. We all pick and choose. Where we err most is in becoming convinced we are right and all others are wrong. Even I, myself, now see I've been doing the same thing.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

TerryWalstrom

As a more general argument, in a crowd of 100, one man with a bomb asserts far more

influence than the 99 peaceful victims.

So what?

So, the % of peaceful to violent is irrelevant.

Let's add another layer . . .

In a crowd of 100 religious worshippers, it still only takes one fundamentalist who regards the 99 as wishy-washy to wreak havoc. Indeed, hard-liners are most often enemies of their own religion.

Another point to consider . . .

It isn't unusual for hard-line fundamentalists to 'flock together' into an uber-community of fringe devout. Logically, they'll incite each other's worst instincts.

Now watch what happens.

Let's make our 100 groups instead of individuals.

In a country of 100 religious communities, it only takes that one violent group to create widespread mayhem while the 99 other groups look on in horror. Mind you--these are all the same nominal religion.

What does all this prove?

Whatever other countries and religious groups might conclude about this religion, the real harm is actually only being wrought by the 1% and not the 99%.

What are we to infer from the above?

Just as in the case of mentally disturbed individuals with weapons, (who may belong to fringe groups like David Koresh in Waco), the active ingredient is full-blown CRAZY.

_____________

I grew up with some crazy people in my family.

My grandfather put a pistol in my mother's face and threatened to kill her if she didn't agree with him about whether or not a certain family portrait was a bad photo or not.

Can we say photography was the reason for the threatened violence?

I have a cousin who invited me to live with her and her husband. When her husband decided to go to a family reunion (which my cousin couldn't attend) she planned to kill all the household pets, shoot her husband when he returned, and spend the rest of her life in prison.

I assure you, 'family reunion' was NOT the cause of this craziness.

When I warned my cousin's husband and took steps to get her doctor involved; I was called every vile name in the book and told to get out within 24 hours "or else."

I did!

What is my point?

CRAZY people don't need real reasons for being or doing crazy. They use any pretext as justification.

Remember the shooter at the premiere of the Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises?

It wasn't Batman's fault.

Remember the guy with the book Catcher in the Rye who shot Ronald Reagan?

It wasn't J.D. Salinger's fault.

CRAZY is at fault.

JULY 23, 2012 FILE PHOTO; POOL PHOTO