Jehovahs Witnesses

karenstricycle
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:53 pm

Jehovahs Witnesses

Post by karenstricycle » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:48 pm

.
Last edited by karenstricycle on Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by darinhouston » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:15 pm

That keeps them from public embarassment and allows them to extricate themselves from situations where a subject is actually informed in their faith, I think.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:01 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5015
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by Paidion » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:02 pm

When J.F. Rutherford was president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, there was a lot of radio broadcasting, mostly in the 1920s and the 1930s.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 82.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by darinhouston » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:17 pm

Paidion wrote:When J.F. Rutherford was president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, there was a lot of radio broadcasting, mostly in the 1920s and the 1930s.
Of course, that's "one-way" conversation, too.
karenprtlnd wrote:No, I think they may not be up for the arguments. Many just arn't.
I'm not so sure that's true -- they seem to love to argue as long as the "target" isn't aware of their tactics.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:23 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by darinhouston » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:39 am

karenprtlnd wrote:Hey- how come Tom the Catholic puts JW's and LDS together in the same sentence like its a term? As heretical demon cults.
I think he errs here -- I see them in completely different spheres. However, I assume you will not agree with my characterization of the JW as closer to my faith than the LDS, and with a closer theology -- although they have a dramatically different (and I think flawed) view of the second Person of the Trinity than I do, I also have doubts as to the third Person of the Trinity as historically understood and so while I understand how they can be wrong in this area, I hesitate to suggest they have a different God or different worldview about God.

Honestly, I still can't figure out whether you share the historic LDS worldview and understanding of the Father (and I do think that point is fundamental and non-negotiable to be considered historically Christian), so I hesitate to "lump" your personal view in with my understanding of the LDS faith, but I would not classify LDS (from my understanding of LDS teaching) as merely differing doctrinally but still principally Christian as I would the rank and file JWs.
karenprtlnd wrote:Maybe you've all been lied to or mis-coached or something.... A make over or do over on some of those old argument statements might be in order. To get down to some really good well founded argument statements, like some NEW ones.
I guess I'll need you to expound on this -- what have we been lied to or mis-coached about ?

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by selah » Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:14 pm

I hope somebody writes back on this "lonely" little thread. ;)

I've got a question about "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," (TKITGS) by the Watchtower Society. My question is about the column that has the literal translation.

Can this column be trusted to have the true, accurate literal translation of the New Testament correct? For example, John 1:1 reads from this book as, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." Notice the capitalizations in "Word" and "God," then the small "g" in "god." I looked at the Greek letters to compare between "God" and "god" and there is in fact, a difference in the characterization of the Greek letters between these two words. Can a student trust the Watchtower to have made a correct literal translation?

Is there another source for the literal translation of the Greek (or Hebrew) that anyone has found to be more reliable? What source or book would you turn to in order to read the literal translation of the Bible?

Here is another question: I was visiting with a Jehovah Witness recently and asked her, "Since you say that the Jehovah Witness theology was what Jesus and the apostles taught, who among the first century church fathers wrote in agreement with Jehovah Witness theology?" The lady didn't know.

On today's TNP show, Steve explained that it took the church fathers several centuries to settle on issues such as the deity of Jesus, Calvinism verses Armenianism and Eschatology, etc. While he was speaking, I was reminded of my question: Who among the first century church fathers would have written a theology similar to Jehovah Witnesses?

I understand that in around 290 AD, Arias stood steadfast for the theology that Jesus was a created being, separate from Jehovah (I prefer "Father" as stated in Matthew 6:9.) but was Arias and his followers the only "Jehovah Witnesses" (called by a different name perhaps?) from antiquity? Were there Arians before 290 AD? What other JW theological positions were espoused in the first or second century AD? Or perhaps easier to note, what JW theological positions were NOT adhered to in the first and second centuries AD?

I find the era ....just after the Bible was written...and just after the early church was formed...very fascinating. It strikes me as having a life-giving message which ends in a repetitive echo losing volume and clarity. Now, we have hundreds of doctrinal differences and probably even more denominations than that, as belief systems get more and more complicated by doctrinal combinations and divisions over multiple and single issues, etc.

I'm looking for original writings of scripture and first/second century writings by church leaders that is on-track as close as possible to the Bible. Can you help me find any?

I don't think I "fit" theologically with ANY organized church. However, I believe I belong to the Church Jesus Christ founded because I am His disciple. Jehovah's Witnesses tell me that we have to belong to the JW organization because YHWH organized the children of Israel complete with temple, rules, etc. as taught by the scribes and pharasees. While I can see where they are coming from, I still don't see a Biblical mandate for an authoritarian "closed-loop" teaching source such as The Watchtower Society. This type of teaching source causes me to think that they are protecting themselves because they know that if their members read the Bible for themselves, the members would not believe in all of the JW doctrines.

I will close with another quote from TKITGS, as Jesus prayed (John 17:21), "In order that all (ones) one (thing) they may be, according as you, Father, in me and I in you, in order that also they in us they may be, in order that the world may believe that you me sent forth." What do you think? Do you think the TKITGS is translating these original Greek words correctly?

Thanks and God bless! :)
Selah*
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by kaufmannphillips » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:58 am

Hi, selah –

Just a few remarks.
Can this column be trusted to have the true, accurate literal translation of the New Testament correct? For example, John 1:1 reads from this book as, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." Notice the capitalizations in "Word" and "God," then the small "g" in "god." I looked at the Greek letters to compare between "God" and "god" and there is in fact, a difference in the characterization of the Greek letters between these two words. Can a student trust the Watchtower to have made a correct literal translation?
No English translation can be trusted completely. It has been said that every translator is a liar - and this is because some statements do not carry over well (if at all) from one language into another. There are times when a phrase is somewhat ambiguous in meaning, and it can be very hard and/or impractical to try and express the complete range of possible meanings in another language. And there are times when parallel concepts or grammatical structures simply do not exist in the other language. So there are times when a translator makes their best stab at rendering a statement, knowing that their product is not completely true, but settling for better than nothing.

The difference in Greek spelling that you have referred to in John 1:1 is only a matter of inflection. It is like the difference between “I” and “me,” or between “he” and “him” – the basic meaning is identical; only the grammatical role is different.

The thorny bits in John 1:1 have to do with more complex matters of grammar and syntax. All mentions of "Word" and the first mention of "God" have the definite article, while the last mention of "God/god" does not. The significance of this has been construed in different ways.
Is there another source for the literal translation of the Greek (or Hebrew) that anyone has found to be more reliable? What source or book would you turn to in order to read the literal translation of the Bible?
There are other attempts at literal(ish) translations. But the vastly preferable option is to dig in and learn the languages of the biblical texts themselves. Doing so will not eliminate all confusion. But it will open new avenues of understanding.

I will use the following illustration. Imagine that you are working overseas on a more-or-less permanent assignment. A natural disaster occurs in your region, and you take in and adopt a seven-year-old orphan. After having lived with her for some time, you are delighted that she is kind and trustworthy. But neither of you have knowledge of a common language. You have learned scattered words, so you can express yourselves to each other in primitive terms. But you cannot discuss deep and complex things. In this context, would you rather settle for this easy, primitive way of communicating, or would you rather work at learning more, so you could understand your daughter better and know her more intimately?
I'm looking for original writings of scripture and first/second century writings by church leaders that is on-track as close as possible to the Bible. Can you help me find any?
Peter Kirby has a rather nice resource for early Christian literature:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

I recommend in particular the Didache, First Clement, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.

You also might like the Odes of Solomon (clearly not the Solomon):

http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/odes.htm
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Jehovah Witnesses

Post by selah » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:15 pm

kaufmanphillips wrote:
There are times when a phrase is somewhat ambiguous in meaning, and it can be very hard and/or impractical to try and express the complete range of possible meanings in another language. And there are times when parallel concepts or grammatical structures simply do not exist in the other language. So there are times when a translator makes their best stab at rendering a statement, knowing that their product is not completely true, but settling for better than nothing
I had never seen "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" (TKITGS) until a lady recently loaned it to me. Here is another example from TKITGS found in Matt 6:9-13, "Thus therefore be praying YOU Father of us the (one) in the heavens; let be sanctified the name of you, let come the kingdom of you, let take place the will of you, as in heaven also upon earth; the bread of us the for (the day) being give to us today; and let go off to us the debts of us, as also we have let go off to the debtors of us; and not you should bring us into temptation, but rescue us from the wicked (one)"

Note: A couple of facts may help the reader understand the TKITGS. Note that the use of all capital letters, as in the case of "YOU" are to indicate the speaker is talking to more than one person, such as a group or the whole human race. The use of parentheses within the TKITGS text indicates that "the English word or words enclosed are implied in the meaning of the Greek word...according to gender, number, antecedents or relation to content." pg. 6

The lady who loaned me the book said it was a word for word translation, not a translation of phrases or sentence structures. I guess that is why the words in the sentences are backwards and forwards with no correct grammatical structure. If this is correct, then questions like, does God lead us into "temptations" or "trials? can be answered. People have said that the original word was "trial" and the KJV translated it to "temptation" but the same people say that God does not tempt us. Based on other scripture, they say that only satan does that. So, for a long time I have wanted to see the original translation of the Greek word "trial" or "temptation" for myself.

Another question the word for word translation can shed light on is, does Jesus instruct us to pray to Him, Father or Jehovah? If the TKITGS is correct, then apparently we are instructed to pray to our Father, not Jehovah, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

What may the most surprising to find (at least for me!) is that the following portion of scripture is missing from NKJV. "...For Yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever. Amen." I am surprised to see that THAT quote is not found in any word-order within TKITGS. What if the close of The Lord's Prayer is not found in the orginal documents?! Is it? I just looked up the verse in my NKJV and the notation in the margin says the quote above was not in the NU. I looked in the NKJV Forward and see that the NU-Text is discussed regarding variations between the Alexandrian or Egyptian type. (This is getting more complicated.) I tried following Paidon in the spring of 2009 on another thread where this was discussed and found myself struggling to keep up with such scholars. (I believe Paidon worked as a university professor for years.) I need a simple explanation to start with. Maybe I could understand a 10th grade level, or maybe even a "NU-Text Documents 101" class level. Got simple discussion? RE: compare and contrast Alexandrian or Egyptian type? ;)

I believe the Watchtower Society has restructured the NWT to agree with their theology, but hopefully TKITGS is accurate. I don't know.

kaufmanphillips wrote:
The difference in Greek spelling that you have referred to in John 1:1 is only a matter of inflection. It is like the difference between “I” and “me,” or between “he” and “him” – the basic meaning is identical; only the grammatical role is different.
I wish I could insert Greek characters in this post because I would like to show you the difference between "God" and "god" in Greek. Thanks for explaining the difference. Of course, this information can shed light on whether the Word, in the beginning, was or was not "God." (as opposed to "god" or worse yet, :cry: "a god.")

kaufmanphillips wrote:
The thorny bits in John 1:1 have to do with more complex matters of grammar and syntax. All mentions of "Word" and the first mention of "God" have the definite article, while the last mention of "God/god" does not. The significance of this has been construed in different ways.
I think I know what you mean. I read an online article about how translators, both Jehovah Witnesses and Evangelicals, insert definite articles in some cases and not so in other cases. The practice of doing this has been claimed to discredit the translators. However, as you pointed out in your example of two people communicating with only bits of word phrases, understanding and accuracy of the complete message are limited. I guess gaining a deeper meaning is perhaps impossible without learning the language, as you suggested.

kaufmanphillips wrote:
There are other attempts at literal(ish) translations.
Oh good! What is the name of a non-Watchtower book in which the translators attempt a literal word for word translation? Thanks for sharing and thanks for sending the links too. I checked them out and will do so again because of course, there was a lot of reading to be found. :D
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

Post Reply

Return to “Jehovah Witnesses”