BillyTheKid46

At last we have joined the land of the civilized again! I sure hope that our "flight" may not occur in the winter time 😨
So drum roll.............
The etymology of stauros: The R. S. P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Brill, 2009, says on page 601: The word stauros comes from the verb ἵστημι (histēmi: "straighten up", "stand"), which in turn comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *steh2-u- "pole",[1] related to the root *steh2- "to stand, to set"
Lucian of Samosata, (circa 125-180 AD) a satirical writer in the 2nd century mentions the word stauros with its' various forms such as: Anestavrostho, stavromenos, and stavrosi etc. which  translators have translated as “let him be crucified” “crucified” and “crucifixion” respectively.
ἀνεσταυρώσθω   (Anestavrostho - let him be crucified)
σταυρωμένος (stavromenos – crucified)
σταύρωση (stavrosi- crucifixion)
In his writing about Prometheus he apparently gives us an idea of what he thought the stauros looked like:
Hermes: This, Hephaestus, is the Caucasus, to which it is our painful duty to nail our companion. We have now to select a suitable crag, free from snow, on which the chains will have a good hold, and the prisoner will hang in all publicity.
Hephaestus: True. It will not do to fix him too low down, or these men of his might come to their maker's assistance; nor at the top, where he would be invisible from the earth. What do you say to a middle course? Let him hang over this precipice, with his arms stretched across from crag to crag.
Hermes: The very thing. Steep rocks, slightly overhanging, inaccessible on every side; no foothold but a mere ledge, with scarcely room for the tips of one's toes; altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion. Now, Prometheus, come and be nailed up; there is no time to lose.
Prometheus: Nay, hear me; Hephaestus! Hermes! I suffer injustice: have compassion on my woes!
Hermes: In other words, disobey orders, and promptly be gibbeted in your stead! Do you suppose there is not room on the Caucasus to peg out a couple of us? Come, your right hand! clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too.--So!--The eagle will shortly be here, to trim your liver; so ingenious an artist is entitled to every attention.
This website shows the Greek version with the English translation. Unfortunately I wanted to go to the next page as well and then couldn’t go back because I had reached my limit for pages (which seems to be one (!). So don’t make the same mistake as me, unless you want to subscribe.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucian-prometheus/1915/pb_LCL054.241.xml
------------------------------------------------
The Greek playwright Aeschylus (circa 525 -456 BCE) wrote (supposedly) the original play Prometheus Bound* and does not mention a stauros but that doesn’t change the idea that stauros could have been a stake with a cross beam as per Lucian’s satirical interpretation of the Prometheus mythology/legend. In one of his other writings "the death of Peregrine" he mentions the stauros with relation to Jesus: "Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
 
So the questions are: Where did Lucian get his idea for the shape of the stauros?
Or was it translation bias? Or tampering with the original writing? Or were people already executed on a cross beam in the 2nd Century as opposed much later (4th century)?
You might think of other questions....
 
*Prometheus Bound - Aeschylus
"But forcibly to bind a brother God, In chains, in this deep chasm raked by all storms........In bonds of brass not easy to be loosed, Nailing thee to this crag where no wight dwells"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aesch/promet.htm
 
 

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? 
Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS:
One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.:
Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked:
Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the σταυρος [stauros], like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a σταυρος.[stauros]  
 

But you do seem to accept putting false information in the way of a picture in a book. A picture which goes totally against scripture 

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

..... so the story goes .....

I was referring to the "video" presentation that Kurt provided. Look at the point made at the 1 minute and 20 second mark in the video:  "Four main arguments used to prove Jesus died on a Cross" 1. Jehovah's Witnesses Believed in the Cross.

I am referring to when the cross not even being considered in the church of Christendom until the days of Constantine whereas he himself during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge had a vision, had seen a cross in the sky. It is said that the vision was instructing him to fight in the name of Christ, with his soldiers’ shields bearing the symbol of Christ. On the other side of the spectrum, the writer Eusebius, an apologist of Constantine, described the event in the Life of Constantine, which he wrote after Constantine’s death. Eusebius wrote that Constantine saw a vision of a cross rather than the letters of Christ. That he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, which says conquer by this. At the sight of this he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle, according to Eusebius.
 
There is more information out there, but I'd have to look some more for it.

According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. 
Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency:
(Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT) Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984) Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984) Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. 
As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony:
(Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953) (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953) (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953) Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.)
(Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984)
In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below:
 
 

 
 

Thank you for such a constructive comment. However we still have the point that the latest NWT uses the word naked in connection to Peter when he was fishing and saw Jesus on the seashore. Why did the GB / translator use naked and not lightly clad ?
Also I would be pleased if you would comment on my new topic concerning how Jesus was killed Stake or Cross. And the amount of nails in his hands and where those nails were placed. Thank you.
 

I think this point showed excellent insight. I wondered if this is what you meant from the start. The very context shows that the type of leadership in this case is more like the local elders rather than the far-away GB:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. However, I wouldn't get too hung up on variations in translations, or changes from one NWT to a newer version. As JWs, we are always happy to quote other translations that support our view of Scriptures. There are always several different ways to translate something and it doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. They could both be right. Often there are two ways to say the exact same thing. Often there are slight differences, and sometimes larger differences in meaning, and a translator is obligated to take an educated guess.
The "nakedness" vs "lacking clothing" discussion is an example of that. The word for nakedness in the original Greek is "gymnos." (Strong's Greek #1131)  It's the same word from which we get "gymnasium" because sports in the Greek/Roman world were often performed naked (and sometimes nearly so). This reminds me that I gave a funeral talk in Manhattan in 2013 on the day of the Annual Meeting, and the elder from Bethel (Patterson) who was supposed to give the talk had to leave early for his seat in Jersey City. I already had a copy of the NWT 2013 Revised on PDF, and was under strict orders not to share this fact with anyone, not even my wife. But I cheated a bit. The funeral was attended by a lot of her "worldly" neighbors in addition to brothers and sisters. She had been well-known as a Dorcas-like sister who actually had bought me a new warm coat when I first came to Bethel in 1976. I wanted to use the example in James 2:15, but I always hated the fact that it said "naked" there, and I especially didn't want to read it that way in front of non-Witnesses:
(James 2:15-16) 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? So I used the 2013 NWT Revised, against orders, but no one called me out on it. Because no one else should have known anyway. Besides, the new Bible was to be released in just a few hours:
(James 2:15, 16) 15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? The first is actually a little more accurate from a literal point of view. But the second is probably more accurate from a practical point of view, as it's hard to imagine someone coming into the KH completely naked.
The word "torture stake" vs "stake" is a good point. One is for understanding and the other more literal. A better example might be the word "impaled" which was completely wrong in its most common connotations. That was fixed in 2013.
Some other points are still questionable, and the translators might still wonder whether they may have had a better choice in the old version of the NWT. Here's an example, I wanted to share earlier when discussion the term "illiterate" with @Outta Here so I'll use this excuse to bring it up now:
(John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT) (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)
The older version could be saying something specific about literacy, where the second is referring to knowledge of Scripture itself.
 

You should get a standing ovation for this comment. However are you still a JW ? I honestly can't remember what you've told us. 

It's a NON-ANSWER.
Can you think for yourself, or just giggle for no reason?

Thank you JW Insider, for providing absolute proof. 
BillyTheKid46  would deny the existence of a car if it ran over his foot, because all his friends don't believe cars were ever invented.
I was there .... and as you know, there are literally whole CHAPTERS on this subject that have been posted in the past seven or so years, here on the Archive.
Any idea if it is possible to download the whole archive, since the beginning, to a large USB 4 TB hard drive?
It might come in handy to have some off-site copies, since the format and such has changed so many times...
I am having trouble keeping track of my cartoon and meme collection.
Thanks for the "heavy lifting".

I knew it was false every time it was proposed, from the mid 60's forward ... and made fun of it .... but after a decade of constant reinforcement, even the commending of Brothers who sold their homes to Pioneer in the KM, and who took out loans they never expected to have to pay back, put off having families and dental care, and operations, and constant bombardment of "Stay alive 'till '75" .... and everyone I had grown up with in the Truth convinced that the end was just months away ... I reasoned "How could I be right, and EVERYBODY I respected, knew, and loved .... how could everybody else .... be wrong? 
I was at the best job I ever had, doing Surveying in the Congo, then called Zaire, and due to peer pressure from everything published, and talked about, decided I had to be home in Virginia when the end came, to be with my parents.  This was late 1974.
I caved in. I fell for the snow job.
Since then, in the past few years, recollecting the history that I personally experienced, I have come to the conclusion that I have to trust MYSELF first. 
I cannot trust anyone else .... especially those who have a one hundred year unbroken record of being consistently always wrong about EVERYTHING except basic core theology.
If the Governing Body makes proclamations or instructions, and they are wrong, about the end-times,  blood, personal integrity, sex between married couples, or any other issue (and they pretend to be experts on every subject imaginable...)  .... they have historically destroyed MILLIONS of lives... and when they are wrong ... THEY PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER.
I weep for all those who have been chased away from the Truth ... because the GB is obsessed with absolute drivel, self-aggrandizement, and on the ground ... where the "rubber meets the road", have completely negated their personal accountability, and Justice and Mercy
If I am wrong, I may die, but I can only be killed ONE TIME ... and I do not drag ten or a hundred thousand with me.  
Or chase a million with conscience away.
I alone will pay the price of being wrong.
 

It is an unremarkable fact of Bethel life that a woman may exercise authority over a man in purely secular matters. Headship is a principle for consideration of spiritual matters and also family organization. It plays no role in work concerns. They are not activists there at Bethel. They don't get in anyone's face over such things. But it does happen all the time.

You are completely honest about your own position, and I respect this greatly as it is quite a rare quality amongst men in general.
I agree that unfulfilled expectations as a result of believing human speculation is indeed far from encouraging. Yet the Scriptures, (true prophecy), long counselled against this tendency and warned of it's results: "Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation" Ps.146:3; "Expectation postponed makes the heart sick" Pro.13:12.
I don't really know what it was like to have been sucked along in that '75 fad, having been warned off by brothers I respected at the time. I am sure I would have waved my arms with all the others if it hadn't been for them. I know even less what it must be like for someone who was an avid supporter of that trend and then, as that time came and went without the expected taking place, feels rather red-faced over the issue, "suckered" rather than "sucked" along.
At what point did you realise this was actually a false expectation? 

@BillyTheKid46 What did catch my eye, It is of no surprise that some want to introduce feminism to the Watchtower. How far from scripture have these Christians gone? ?
Aren't there women in the writing room of the W/T and Awake mags ? Or there were for sure. 

Brother Jackson said a lot of things, including basically admitting that the GB are not the only spokesman God is using. 
Governing Body Unwittingly Condemned
Mr. Stewart then asked pointedly if the Governing Body views itself as Jehovah’s spokespeople on earth.
Brother Jackson does not vacillate this time, but states, “That, I think, would seem to be quite presumptuous, to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.”
With those words, Brother Jackson is unwittingly labeling the Governing Body as presumptuous. Here is the official position of the Governing Body with regards to its role before God. [Italics added]
“Jehovah gives us sound counsel through his Word and through his organization, using the publications provided by “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matthew 24:45; 2 Timothy 3:16) How foolish to reject good advice and insist on our own way! We “must be swift about hearing” when Jehovah, “the One teaching men knowledge,” counsels us through his channel of communication.” (w03 3/15 p. 27 ‘The Lips of Truth Will Endure Forever’)
“That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true followers in this time of the end.” (w13 7/15 p. 20 par. 2 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?”)
Theocratic appointments come from Jehovah through his Son and God’s visible earthly channel, “the faithful and discreet slave” and its Governing Body.” (w01 1/15 p. 16 par. 19 Overseers and Ministerial Servants Theocratically Appointed)
However that 'faithful slave' and the GB are one and the same now, as the rest of the Anointed are pushed to one side.
So there you have it. As I've said before the scripture at Luke 14 v 11 
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

Outta Here:
You have me at a disadvantage when you quote one of my Heroes, Richard Feynman ... however, your statement: .......
....... which I think misses the point, entirely.
Think of how up-building and encouraging , and faith building it WOULD have been if the Society's prediction of Armageddon had ACTUALLY occurred in 1975, as by both commission, and omission, we were led to believe.
Think of how faith destroying in the credibility of the JW Earthly leadership it has been that it was all a scam to keep the exhausted troops marching.
In many cases, it actually destroyed faith in Jehovah God and his Christ.
I agree with what Paul said in 1 Cor 14:3.
I disagree with the "spin" you put on it.
To me, it's like saying about the scripture "... After I leave, wolves will enter in among the flock ...."  (paraphrased) to say that "All Dogs go to Heaven" .... because after all, isn't a wolf a kind of a dog?
IN THE CONTEXT of this discussion, and what Paul actually meant he did NOT say that encouraging word of consolation were prophesy.
Quite the OPPOSITE.  He was saying that prophesy (presumably from a true prophet)  were encouraging words of consolation !
THERE IS A VERY REAL DIFFERENCE!
You are stretching an idea past the breaking point, to try and support your AGENDA.
.... been there .... done that.
For which I am deeply ashamed, and would have been deeply ashamed to relate to Richard Feynman, who would have considered me a complete fool ... which I was.
 

Thanks for link. But i do not see what is on page 76 about G.J. quote. Please help.

@JW Insider comment above and my comment above prove the point I'm making. The 'rulers' of JW Org and the Elders could do a lot more. But they are still trying to make the JW Org 'look clean' even when it isn't. 
Yes of course only God through Jesus Christ can bring in the New World and bring back perfection, but that is no excuse for others to stop trying to make things better now.  And I'm still not sure if you believe that only one organisation is the true way to God, or if a person can be 'saved' on their own faith. 

Thanks for this question. Many years ago similar questions went through my mind, about what David's servants and people around him and Bathsheba feels and thinking when they had passively and actively participate in that scandal, affair. What power forces them to be involved in wrong deeds of prominent persons in their midst? Many levels in hierarchy, family members, counselors, personal servants, other servants, elders, military leaders, religiously important persons and many others. All of them knew something, heard something, witnessed to something, not done something, ....and many more to tell and to feel.
Live that  to your imagination, because it is not simple to me to express all thoughts and feels. Just to tell at the and -----draw some  parallels to modern time, and you will see how all is the same. Everything is repeated cyclically. :))

You should pay closer attention to exactly how SM answered this supposed claim that he was not (or is not) a Witness. Others have made this claim for him, but watch closely to see if he has ever made this claim about himself (up until now, at least). Positioning oneself here as a Restorationist Christian is not the same as claiming that one is not a JW. I think it might be a "ninja" thing. ?

Poor Space Merchant. I think you have a problem SM. It seems you need to group people together. I tell you this much, if any person says something that i agree with, i will say that i agree with it. That does not make me a follower of that person or does not link me to that person in any way. It only means that i agree with the one comment they have made. 
You are telling me that i don't believe in the promises God has made. You are very wrong.  However you are free to judge me if you wish. But I worry about you. I have a sad feeling that you feel inferior. You have mentioned many times that you are a 'man of colour', a 'black man. Why do you need to tell us this ? Is it because you feel inferior ?  The length of your comments seem to show that you are trying to prove how clever you are. We all know that you have great knowledge.  
So please remember that i am not part of a group, I am not linked to anyone except my own Wife. Of course you may criticise me as much as you want to, if you helps you to feel better about yourself. 

Hey Brother Billie..your way out on this....it is undeniable if you watched the ARC...we as a people were found to have faulty policies...that’s a fact..we were forced to ammend them.
Kids suffered because elders did not report or advise them to go to authorities...we tried to handle it in house....because Jehovah’s name was involved...some of these kids were shoved aside by their spiritual elders...come on brother..we have to accept responsibility where we were wrong....
otherwise the Catholic Church can lay it all down on the parents as well...
we as a people would not handle cases of abuse as we once did....but back then we did shove it under the carpet in a number of cases.
The child suffered...having said that many were handled well as could be...but we dont hear about them.
The GB made the Policies brother...and now have amended the policies..
Keep in minds for those who will jump on this as proof we are not his people......the Catholic Church and Anglican  Chirch has a percentage of well over 50% ..I forget the actual number but I’ve quoted on the low side....Jehovah witnesses had a ratio of 1%
so this needs to be kept in perspective...
It was a era of naivety on our parts ..as parents and probably elders as well...it was a different time ....we trusted to much....but then again the apostles didn’t recognize Judas when he was amongst them either...