Posts by robhic

5

How do I find this?

by robhic in

i had saved a link: .

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70075/1.ashx.

but i can't figure out how to use it in a search capacity to find that post or thread.

Thanks for the reply. Yep, I didn't think about just clicking the link from my post! But I first tried using the "search" area for this site with no success. Anyplace I pasted the address I got no hits. Now I found it and my search is over. Robert

5

How do I find this?

by robhic in

i had saved a link: .

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70075/1.ashx.

but i can't figure out how to use it in a search capacity to find that post or thread.

robhic

I had saved a link:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70075/1.ashx

But I can't figure out how to use it in a search capacity to find that post or thread. Any ideas?

Thanks,

Robert

8

What are Y O U talking about?

by robhic in

excuse me if this has been discussed before but i've been meaning to ask.

why is the word you or your always capitalized in the nwt?

) of the quotes i've seen always capitalize the words but i've never seen another bible do this.

robhic

Thanks for all the answers. Not only did I learn why the WTS did what they did,I learned from Justin (above) some other interesting information.

And, being from the South, I was going to make the humorus comment about using the term "y'all" to denote the plural but someone beat me to it!

Robert

8

What are Y O U talking about?

by robhic in

excuse me if this has been discussed before but i've been meaning to ask.

why is the word you or your always capitalized in the nwt?

) of the quotes i've seen always capitalize the words but i've never seen another bible do this.

robhic

Excuse me if this has been discussed before but I've been meaning to ask. Why is the word YOU or YOUR always capitalized in the NWT? Most (all?) of the quotes I've seen always capitalize the words but I've never seen another bible do this. Is there some reason?

Rom 6:11

Likewise also YOU: reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:12

Therefore do not let sin continue to rule as king in YOUR mortal bodies that YOU should obey their desires.

Rom 6:13

Neither go on presenting YOUR members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, also YOUR members to God as weapons of righteousness.

Robert

5

Help finding some scriptural references please

by gaiagirl in

today a co-worker asked whether i believed we were living in the "end times" or not, and i explained that i did not, and that christians had believed that they were living in the "last days" since the first century.

the topic drifted, as sometimes happens, and we got to discussing mary.

i explained that i thought i remembered a passage indicating that mary would be exalted to a special position in the "heavenly kingdom".

robhic

Not so much a scriptural reference as a secular reference. I read Ron Rhodes' book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" and he touches (4 chapters!) on the issue of Mary and her veneration and position. Rhodes cites the facts that while Mary is afforded some special status in the bible, it is NOwhere near what Catholics give. It is more on a level with saints.

As to her perpetual virginity, didn't Jesus supposedly have at least 1 or more brothers? That kinda shoots that myth down.

Rhodes also has a very good and comprehensive book called "Reasoning From the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" too. He is a fundamentalist so his writing is from that perspective but if you can look past it he makes some very good points.

61

How does God communicate with us?

by JH in

in the past, god spoke to humans through angels, prophets, and jesus.

today, there are no prophets, angels don't show up anymore, and jesus isn't there to speak to us.. we can talk to god through prayer, but how does god talk to us?.

so, other than the bible which is pretty outdated, how can god communicate with humans?

robhic

If we are hoping in God and looking out for his attempts to communicate with us, whether through the Bible, or our friends and family or perculiar co-incidences, or even dreams, we would see that he does indeed communicate.

Yes, but couldn't that also be a case of "wishful thinking"? If you are looking for something you pretty much can find it wherever or however you want.

Like the WTS is always looking for the negative to highlight their doomsday prediction(s) they invariably find it. If not, they make something to appear as they would like it to. Jesus came back in 1914 (or whenever). Nobody saw him so he was invisible! Yeah, that's the ticket. We said he came back but no one believed us so that was because he was invisible. Who could argue with that air-tight logic?

People tend to see what they want to see if they want it bad enough. If all you read is positive information, watch positive media and think good thoughts (well, not so much wrong with that one...) you'd have the opinion that all was wonderful and right with the world. Everything is just hunky-dorey when all of a sudden ...... you'd catch a glimpse of the footage regarding that tsunami that hit Indonesia and the ballon is burst.

Things tend to be, in my opinion and experience, what we make them. It's a perspective and a balance, not only all good or all bad. You need a mix.

9

Where oh where ...

by ESTEE in

1. where does the bible say a woman should win her unbelieving husband without a word?.

2. where in the bible is the story about david?s sin with bathsheba, and the curse that all the bad things that happened .

to his family after that -- was because of david?s sin?.

robhic

Or ....... You could go to www.esword.net and download a really neat(and free!)bible program. It comes with a King James module but there are probably about 12 different versions and a bunch more in almost any language you'd like. There are maps, commentaries and other associated items all free for the download. Its search capabilities and other features make this a priceless addition to your computer.

34

Do you really believe his name is Jehovah?

by Why Georgia in

.

i read an article somewhere when i first started studying with the jw's that said that the name jehovah was actually just a hypothesis from a monk in the year 700 or some other thing.. i don't remember if this is correct in the year or where i read it - i read so many things when i first learned what the witnesses were really about.

everything i could get my hands on.. but for some reason i don't know why but calling god jehovah just really bugs me and always makes me think of the witnesses.. does it bother anybody else and do you think if he exists his name really is jehovah?

robhic

Which is more insulting, to call my dad "dad" or "Joe", or even worse, mispronounce his name "Yo"?

Jgnat: I guess it would depend on whether his name was Joe or not. If his name was Frank he probably wouldn't answer and might be insulted! (I just couldn't resist...)

Upside/down:

Why the hell couldn't something something as IMPORTANT (as claimed by the Dubs) as the divine name be clarified- ONE SENTENCE stating clearly in a traceable tongue, for people of all ages to look at and say,"Yup "God" said my name is _____ says so right there, and it says that is the most important thing in the world."

Interesting and excellent point! With all the space wasted on excruciating details, a good, understandable pronunciation guide to god's name would make a lot of sense. To me, a lot less ambiguous than that "I AM" foolishness. I know that was supposed to be meaningful to the superstitious nomadic goat-herders and they (probably) got it, but what about for future generations? Wasn't some so-called omniscience involved here? Seems like an all-knowing entity would have taken that into consideration..

As soon as one starts using some open-minded thinking, all this starts to take on an air of superstitious tall-tale-telling.

10

Funerals

by dothemath in

last year, a faithful sister passed away in a neighboring cong.

she did have some disfellowshipped relatives............i guess everyone assumed they wouldn't show up.

but they did (which they certainly have every right to do).........and it seemed it caused quite a stir.. one elder, who stayed to visit the family, ended up having to apologize to the entire congregation.

robhic

"However, it is good to bear in mind that had the adultery been handled by and proved before human judges under the Law, all three (David, Bath-sheba, and the son in her womb) would have lost their lives ."

Not to be overly ugly here, but, in all seriousness, would that have been such a bad thing? Except for the death of the innocent child, that spoiled, egotistical, mysoginistic, adultering fool David would have been no great loss in my view. He got too many chances.

There was a lot of special treatment in David's case. I also wonder if some (all?) of these stories are cases of tweaking after the fact. Changing the facts to look good for David the "teacher's pet"?

All of this stuff makes me ill when viewed with some distance, skepticism and logic.

34

Best Bible Translation?

by mywifeisaJW in

my wife has been a jw for about 10 years (we have been married 15 years).

over the years i have tried various strategies to deal with this, which i won't go into here...except that i have agreed to "read the bible" with my wife...and i get to pick the translation.. what translation would be best recommended to help highlight the errors of the nwt and jw thinking in general?

i have seen here that today's english version has been recommended...anything else?

robhic

On top of the actual hardcopy book, what about electronic media? The "eSword" software is indispensable as a great resource. You can go to www.esword.net and download free copies of as many and varied Bible translations as you want. Or you can send him a donation and get a CD with every bit of information contained on the site.

There are probably 10 - 15 different Bibles available along with dictionaries, commentaries, etc. Pretty comprehensive and you can't beat the price!

Also, add this little gem to your research:

The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society

In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS

On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar (An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here <caris.htm> ) July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar. (1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris. (2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering. (3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." (4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them. (5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10) The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule." On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences. Regretfully yours, Julius R. Mantey