Posts by accuracy

40

Another NWT Mistranslation?

by Sargon in

ok, this post isn't out to prove anything, other than i've got too much time on my hands, which alot of you know that already.. over my morning coffee this morning i decided to read the section of the bible dealing with nimrod and the tower of babel.

i have two bibles at home the nwt and the new american standard.

heres what th nwt says at gen 10:9.

accuracy

The examples cited are not mistranslations by the NWT, since they deal with logical possibilities within the meaning of the Hebrew words cited. And any translation, whether literal or not, should take context into consideration. Further, a literal translation from one language to a completely different language family -- for example from the Semitic branch of languages (Hebrew) to the Germanic/Indo-European branch (English) -- will have to merge its literalness with explanatory terms to bridge the differences. Otherwise, you do not have a translation, but an interlinear.

Jewish commentators, who certainly understood the Hebrew language, have long explained Genesis 10:9 to mean that Nimrod was a "mighty hunter before [literally, "in the face of"] YHWH" in the sense of a rebel against God. According to the classical Jewish commentator Rashi, "lifnei YHWH, it was his intention to provoke Him to His face. He captured the minds of people with his words and misled them into rebelling against the Omnipresent."

"In opposition to" is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew preposition[lifnei, since the grammars demonstrate plainly that it can have a hostile sense (Exodus 20:3; 1 Chronicles 14:8; 2 Chronicles 14:9, etc.), implying defiance and opposition. (Brown, Driver, Briggs; Koehler & Baumgartner, etc.)

19

This Year's Memorial Talk Outline

by Kent in

jw
friends

do you want to read this year's memorial talk outline?

of course you can, and you can naturally find it on the watchtower observer :).

yachyd da.

accuracy

No, Jesus did not say 'keep doing this until I return.' Paul said something similar to that at 1 Corinthians 11:26, but he did not use the word 'parousia,' which Witnesses believe occurred in 1914. Paul used a form of the word 'erchomai' [elthe], which simply means "to come; to arrive." This could well mean when Christ arrives/comes in judgment at the end of the world.

17

TURN ON NIGHTLINE

by JT in

jw
friends

nightline

accuracy

So, you think all pedophiles go to church? Do you think that religious organizations are the only places where pedophiles lurk? It is a human problem, not a religious one. Most religions condemn preying on children, and this sort of activity is prevalent as an ignoring of religious principles, not a practice of them.

The same is true of Jehovah's Witnesses. Where is the proof that they are a "pedophile's paradise," as Silent Lambs said? Where is the proof that any religious dictum of Jehovah's Witnesses condones pedophilia? The last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses are stringently against all sorts of illicit sex, including incest and pedophilia.

That some individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses have been found guilty of pedophilia does not make the organization a pedophile's paradise, nor does the fact that a few have found a loophole in the Bible requirement of two witnesses to a crime, do so. There are many laws in general society that criminals find loopholes in; this does not make the laws wrong or "protective" of criminals. Would we wish to do away with Miranda Rights and other Constitutional protections, just because some enterprising crooks misuse them?

Pedophilia is a grave sin and an abhorrent crime. But where is the fairness in painting with too broad a brush, in condemning an entire group of people for the bad acts of a few who are in violation of the norms of the group?

Unlike Catholics, Witnesses have no official requirement of celibacy for ministers (which may contribute to unnatural desires), no official boarding houses or camps where child abuse may run rampant, no official policy to shield lawbreakers or unrepentant sinners. On the contrary, the "official" policy is to expel such ones.

That there have been individual breakdowns in the system, and individual shameful, aberrant acts by individual Witnesses, is just what it is, individual acts, and no more.

People with no ax to grind will see that.

8

NOT IMAGE OF CROSS IN 4/1/02 WATCHTOWER ON PAGE 7!

by Derrick in

jw
friends

in the watchtower magazine on page 7 it is claimed in postings on this site that there is the image of a cross in some artwork.. i'm holding a watchtower magazine (4/1/02) and on page 7, upper-right, is the tetragrammaton.

this is a good "control" image to compare in scans that might appear on the internet because it is too faint to reliably reproduce with a high-resolution scanner.

the background is faint yellow, and the tetragrammaton itself is white (the same white as the page itself).

accuracy

I don't see either a cross or a tetragram on the crown.

Curiously, it looks a bit like the "all-seeing eye" of Masonic fame. But only slightly so.

Is there a bigger copy of the pic somewhere else?

32

Anti-Cultists are a cult

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i don't believe in re-inventing the wheel.

arguments about atheism, chronology, trinity, evolution can go on forever.. i like to bring up positions that are unpopular on this forum because most of the people here have given up their examination of certain issues assuming that they have "now" got the real truth.. the lack of critical thinking that is the cause of involvement in off-beat religions can lead to gullibility in other areas.

the stupid knee-jerk accusations i got when i attacked the molestation issue is typical.

accuracy

Interesting reading! It appears that the theology of the anticultists is just as loaded with hype and hypocrisy as is the theology of the cultists. No need for facts and logic; just paint every enemy with the same broad brush. A strategy convenient and simplistic. And filled with holes.

13

Were the Gospel Writers Really Eyewitnesses?

by JosephAlward in

in defense of the inerrancy of the bible, many believers make the assertion that the gospel writers wrote about what they witnessed firsthand.

let's consider the case of the gospel called "mark.

" the writer of those jesus stories does not tell us he walked and talked with jesus, or that he witnessed any of the events he described, so why should we not believe that he was only reporting what someone else said happened, or perhaps what he thought should have happened to fulfill scripture?.

accuracy

Joe, are you not engaging in the exercise of the fundamentalists, in claiming for a certainty what you cannot possibly know? I don't know if Mark was an eyewitness or not, but I am pretty sure that you were not. So you can only speculate about Mark and the other Gospel writers.

You choose to not accept Marks' "speculation." I choose to not accept yours. Fair enough?

7

The Name of Jehovah or/and the Name of Jesus

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

in an effort to bolster the name of jehovah, the watchtower book entitled "revelation its grand.

climax at hand!

if you want to know who the father is, look at jesus.

accuracy

Frenchy is correct, here. Note that Jesus' exaltation is given to him by the Father, who must be greater than Jesus is. Even when the NT says that "Jesus is Lord!" it is not for himself, but "to the glory of God the Father."

The name of Jehovah (YHWH) is unique in the Bible in that it belongs to the Almighty God alone. When you really consider it, the name Jesus is the same in Hebrew as the name of Moses' assistant, Joshua. In the Greek Septuagint Bible, the book of Joshua is called IESOUS: Jesus.

Jesus the Christ is indeed worthy of honor, praise, and glory. But that is because he fulfilled the will of Someone else who was greater than he was -- his Father. And he was humble enough to admit this.

49

The Baby and the Bath Water

by NeonMadman in

jw
friends

the other day, i was messaged by a young jw guy (using yahoo messenger, where i am breezyone2001; chat me up, gang!).

his opening line to me was, "why are you attacking the witnesses?

" i responded by asking him in what way i was attacking the witnesses, and he said that he saw my name in a yahoo club for ex-jw's.

accuracy

Reading the Gospel of John convinced you that Jesus was God? It had the opposite effect on me. Much of John has Jesus expressing his agency, of doing nothing except what his Father dictated. John has Jesus praying to someone else. Why would God have to pray to anyone? Then, near the end of the book, there is Jesus saying he has to ascend to his God. Imagine that! If Jesus has a God, how is it that he is God? As a Christian, I make the same Confession that John made, "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20:31, King James Version) Peter made a similar Confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16, King James Version) "Son of God." Not "God the Son." The difference is more than semantic.

Oh yes, there's John 1:1. John 1:1 has to be read in the context of the rest of the Gospel, otherwise John could have ended his book right there.

5

Awake! 1/22/02- How Ironic

by Mister Biggs in

jw
friends

on page 18, there is an article entitled, 'religious persecution in georgia-how much longer?

' for those of you current with the situation in georgia, you know that the witnesses there have been receiving many physical attacks.

you also know that the key player leading the attacks is vasili mkalavishvili, the defrocked orthodox priest.

accuracy

What faithful Witnesses have been reproved or expelled for criticizing the Society's UN membership???

19

Robert - Cutting To The Bottom Line....

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

hello yk,.

trying to precis your long post, i quote the following:.

alan wrote : they declare that anyone who publicly disagrees with their opinions is also disagreeing with god, and therefore is an apostate.. yk replied : thats because they blaspheme god by denouncing those whom god appointed over his household.

accuracy

If you would discount Vine, what about these? These works are later than the 1940s, and are generally praised by scholars of New Testament Greek:

"Parousia: 1. Presence. From pareimi, 'to be present.'" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 5, 1967, page 859).

"Parousia: The state of being present at a place, presence." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, F. W. Danker, 2000, page 780).

"Parousia: Presence, of persons." (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 1996 revision, page 1343).

In each case, the first definition listed for parousia is "presence." Though other shades of meaning (e.g., "arrival," "visit") are also given, parousia first of all means "presence."