JOHN BUTLER
-
Posts
1,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by JOHN BUTLER
-
-
2 hours ago, Outta Here said:
I am answering this out of courtesy, as the point has been raised here, also, the topic can soon be lost in the proliferation of posting. Also I note you have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere, so I will limit my responses in future to that thread to avoid disorder.
With respect, I have made my own decision on how to apply the words of Acts 15:20; 29, considering the context within which this instruction was given.
You are at liberty to make your decision on whatever basis you choose. I have no objection to sharing the contextual setting which provides the basis for my decision, and I consider with interest the basis that others choose, should they choose to share it. But I do not seek to impose my will on others, and neither do I tolerate any attempt by others to impose their will on mine.
In answer to your (and the "us" you refer to) question, the immediate context for the Christian prohibition on the misuse of blood is Acts Chapter 15. Make of it what you will. I have. ?
In context. Acts 15 was written at a time when people literally drank the blood of dead gladiators. That is context. It is what was happening in their world at their time. That is why such a warning or direction was given. S.M may have information about people actually drinking blood now. If so then that same direction would prove true now. But blood is blood, chopped into a million pieces it will still be blood. So, if blood is forbidden by GOD then the GB are giving false instruction about blood fractions.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion and for you to act on your own opinion is right. For what human has a right to judge you ? None.
My opinion is that blood transfusions are not in opposition to God's word. I use the scripture at Matthew 12 v 9 to 12 where Jesus says it was right to break the Sabbath rule for the right reasons. In my opinion Jesus was meaning much more than the Sabbath rule here. He was talking about saving lives.
-
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
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.
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.
-
So put it in plain English for a simple man like me please. Have the GB done a U turn on this subject of voting ?
Was it that JW's were not 'allowed' to vote or they would be disfellowshipped ? And now is it that JW's can chose for themselves in they vote of not ?
Did people actually die or get injured because the GB said they could not vote ?
In simple English please. Is this another U turn by the GB ?
-
The book is What does the Bible really Teach
Page 52.
-
I should dig deep in my pile of books really before writing this but :-
The GB of the JW Org make known that Jesus was put to death on a Stake. In the NWT (JW Bible) they use the expression 'torture stake'. Which is probably not a direct translation from the Greek.
In one of their publications they use a picture that shows Jesus hanging on a stake. His hands / wrists are crossed over and he has one nail through the both wrists.
In God's word we read about Thomas who doubted the resurrection of Jesus. Thomas said
But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.”
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” 26 Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”…Berean Study Bible ·
Obviously there are many different translation of this scripture but it would appear that the word hands means hands, not wrists. And in some translations it uses the word nails = plural. In the NWT it uses both, hands = plural, and nails = plural. This refers to the hands only, not the feet.
I wrote to the UK bethal and the reply i received was not good. Basically they told me not to bother them, but to ask the elders. If I can find the letter I would try to upload it but i may have binned it in disgust.
So I am asking for people's opinions on this matter. Was Jesus killed on a stake or a cross and how would you prove your point ?
-
10 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:
@JOHN BUTLER Other than that I accept in conjunction with what you said, as stated before. We can begin with omitted verses and or the Strong's that correlates to a word in the verse or not, you can go first.
But unfortunately you don't want to relate it to the Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems you wish to talk about the Bible from a general viewpoint. My point is that JW's 'learn' at their meetings. They use the NWT and are taught from that.
The leaders of the JW Org are the Governing Body. The 'ones taking the lead' are the Elders and others that do the ministry regularly. I'm sure you can understand that difference.
This whole forum is about Jehovah's Witnesses but you still want to bring in other issues.
As with the word nakedness which you didn't want to understand my viewpoint on. The GB either wrote the word or approved of the word nakedness, but why ? If the original meaning was lightly clad or wearing underclothes then why say naked ? To a JW reading that scripture from the NWT it mens naked. You don't agree, that's up to you.
There is another phrase in the NWT 'torture stake', which is used in place of cross. Now the word, i think would be stake. But the GB has used 'torture stake'. I can understand it is to show what type of stake, but, is it true to translation ?
You see the whole point of this is not about a general meaning, not about what every religion thinks of it. It is about how JW's view it through the NWT. Because as I've said many times this is a JW Forum.
-
2 hours ago, Anna said:
I think it's kind of simple. The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are on fractions one way or other, so they have left it up to the peeps.
Maybe the GB should do that on many things.
-
2 minutes ago, Anna said:
But they cannot know for sure, can they? No one is infalible.
So when you go into the ministry you tell people that you might have the truth but you might not do you ?
-
23 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:
@JOHN BUTLER With the realization that the Book of Revelation, otherwise known as John's Revelation or The Apocalypse is primary about marks, signs and symbols. Something of which everyone knows.
Therefore it isn't a cop out or a loophole.
How is it they do not believe it if they profess it? You use to be one yourself so how is that so?
The cop out / loop hole is in what they say on page 9. Quote : It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible".
That sound to me as if they are doubting their own explanations. They are saying their explanations could be wrong. If they doubt themselves, how are others supposed to believe them ?
-
S.M and I are in debate about some scripture in Hebrews.
without going back pages, i think it was Billy that used a scripture that used the word Leaders.
Whereas in the NWT the words were 'taking the lead'
In my personal opinion there is a difference. Politicians may call themselves 'leaders', but they seldom physically 'take the lead'.
In years gone by of course a Leader would in fact lead, from the front, leading.
But in modern day terminology a Leader can be one that gives orders from behind, not actually partaking in the activity.
S.M. has vast knowledge of course and i don't mind being corrected by him. It teaches me humility.
My point, not to SM here, is that most JW's do not do so much research into who wrote the translation, whether Strong's was used, and / or cross reference with other translation, or even going back to 'original manuscripts (as far back as possible).
JW's are supposed to trust the GB and take every word from the GB as being correct, including the NWT. Many JW's (such as myself) are not highly educated people, so tend to follow like sheep.
As meanings of words can change and often do, then the NWT has been updated, and I am asking myself now have i been foolish to trust it ? For me the plot thickens.
-
2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
They do believe half. They also believe the other half.
Is that why they said in The Revelation book that "It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible".
What I call a 'cop out', a 'loop hole' as they know they don't believe it themselves.
-
38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
The old pork chop speaks true here. At long last, he has a point.
It is the pearl of high price that we speak of, accurate Bible knowledge that allows one to make sense out of a crazy careening world, to know why a God of love would permit evil, to know what happens to the dead & even the reason that people die. Judging from what is on display online, when people leave, caught up in some contemporary controversy, they lose all interest in these matters. They become freedom fighters for some current cause, and never make mention again of answers to the deeper questions about life.
Whether the Kingdom Hall will build a howitzer rack for JTR to park his weapons is seriously questionable, in my view. But he does raise a point about where spiritual thirst can be meaningfully satisfied.
TTH I love your sense of humour, it's all so funny.
where spiritual thirst can be meaningfully satisfied. What a joke. The GB don't even believe half of what they allow to be published.
JTR seems to have used the JW Org as some sort of probation office / reform school : a place where young people who have committed crimes are sent to live and be taught to behave in ways that are socially acceptable.
accurate Bible knowledge, um, SM suggests that the translation in places is not accurate. Well not according to Strong's anyway.
So if the GB cannot be trusted and the NWT cannot be trusted, then where is this spiritual feast coming from ?
-
4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:
As to what human rules are you even speaking about?
You have the Church whereas its teachings are to be adhered to, as with what is commanded by God ans his Christ. Nothing in this sense screams human rule, if you can agree with an apostle who lead the church, it is understandable, but to agree with someone who is alienated from eh church or teach what is accursed, clearly you will run into some problems.
there is a line between what is of the church and what is considered accursed and not of the church.
S.M please tell us, what is 'of the church' ? What church ? You quite often use this word 'Church' but it would be nice if you would define it.
Some people think of the building they use as the church. Others think of the Apostles as being the church. So please make it clear exactly what you mean. Thank you
-
6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:
Channels as in what? Be clear - you are grown so therefore please be clear and concise if you want to make a reference to me.
That being said, you are cycling about as to what you profess months ago, only this time, you show yourself to be more true to your the very person of whom I mention in this regard.
He is using a translation that does not shy away from the manuscript sources of old that does not mix inspired text with uninspired text. And a couple of seconds at glance one can see there is no mix up or violation of Strong's in the Greek Language.
the lack of Biblical intuition rather telling, therefore your own word about spiritual wisdom begets you.
When the Strong's is in application, the verse, Hebrews 13:7 does indeed say leaders. the "Those" in question are the ones who are leading, to add more water to your decreasing fire, the cross-references even add further proof to claim. This verse connects with the other verse of which you mention which is identical to the previous whereas this also applies to verse 17.
Another factor against you is
If I were you, I'd be scared of Greek Strong's because the last time you tried some of your silliness, you tripped upon yourself and was quick to make mention of the English Bible, when in reality, even the English Bible informs you of what the word and or passage actually means.
Next time if you are going to try and say a word is there or not, perhaps look it up on Biblehub - after all, you did say it was interesting. It may be interesting now a perhaps like sour grapes to the tongue if you check out the Hebrews verses on it now.
Here you go, I am giving you the honor of clicking and seeing for yourself:
- https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-7.htm
- https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-17.htm
- Here is the Strong's: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2233.htm
That being said, spiritual leaders... Hebrews is clear, as is with the cross-references, as is with the quotations, as is with nothing that compromised the text which can result in a Greek and or Hebraic violation - that of which is unfounded, that of which whatever you have made claim to to be incorrect.
Also I find this interesting....
This comes from a man, the same man who makes claim he does not not such persons, yet can say this. A bit hypocritical much, perhaps on judging and know who is who in terms of God's Approval, let alone Spiritual Wisdom when he himself cannot see the verse or passage for what it really is?
Surely, well this I can attest, truly a former Jehovah's Witnesses such as yourself would be doing far better than that, the good thing is your not like the guy who believes he can, who is in the same position as you, believes he can heal with his hands, it didn't fair well for him in the long-run, do not apply that example.
Well if they are trying to be like the apostolic church in them being one of the few who recognizes the apostolic church, how can you be so sure when you cannot prove it to be wrong?
This is why anyone who is doing such you have to examine them -carefully.
That being said remember who the head of the church is, or he may not recognize you when the time comes.
I love the way you try to be the big boss man. So funny SM. You tell me, do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. As if you have some authority over me. And I love the way you criticise me, it helps me to examine myself. Keep it up.
Channels as in what? Be clear. Channels of communication from God to us. I would think that you do not believe that the GB of the JW Org are the correct channel of communication that we need to use. In fact I think that you might feel we do not need an extra channel of communication, that we should have direct communication with God through Jesus Christ, by means of Holy Spirit.
I am open to suggestions on that point.............. Next :-
I quoted the Hebrew verses from the New World Translation. Now you are saying they have written it wrongly. The NWT as you know is the JW Org Bible, translated by the GB. That is the Bible i have come to use regularly as I find the wording is easy to understand. However it would seem that you are suggesting that this is not a good translation ? I'm sure the GB would say they were 'guided' by God's Holy Spirit when they did this translation, so once again I am confused.
I am just an ordinary man, and if God's word is for such as me, then there are indeed great problems. I honestly do not think that God expects us to use Strong's, or to compare ten different translations of His written word, every time we sit down and study it.
-
@Anna Quote. I posted the following article several times before because it epitomizes the abdication of responsibility by Christendom to keep their Churches morally and spiritually clean. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses have not abdicated that responsibility and through the fda, as "guardians of the doctrine", are persevering in keeping the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses as close to the first Christian congregation as possible.
I presume this is meant as a joke. JW Org being morally and spiritually clean. I think in some ways you contradict yourself Anna. You have given me info that proves the JW Org is not morally clean. And even other people have shown that the GB have written lies and misused scripture, so how can it even be spiritually clean ? Comparing JW Org to other religions means nothing. It just brings us full circle about the 'offering children in the fire to Molech'. It's no good saying our sin is not as bad as their sin. Deliberate sin is worse that accidental sin. The GB will have to carry full weight of it all. The Elders will have to feel shame that they acted a puppets. And the ordinary congregants will hang their heads in shame. Knowing what dishonour they have all brought on Jehovah's name. Earthwide Anna, the dishonour is Earthwide. You know it's true. You have even agreed with me at times, you have felt my pain at times.
-
4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
John:
Knowing my failings, and I am an original Boy Scout, the cowboy in the white hat ... I don't think it is right to expect much of others.
I literally owe my life to the things I have learned that I could not have learned ANYWHERE else.
Remember the movie "Forest Gump"?
He was retarded and did EVERYTHING wrong .... but it turned out well for him.
I appreciate the 15% that the Organization does well ... and the core Theology which IS true.
I try to have realistic expectations concerning what they screw up to a fare-thee-well.
I work with a LOT of people I don't entirely approve of, or agree with, or even like.
I am just a different kinda sheep-like person than what you are used to.
Sorry J T it does not compute. Unless you have been raised on the idea, as I've mentioned before about, Collateral damage. You mentioned yourself about the harm caused to others in the ORG.
I myself learnt a lot about 'being nice and kind and forgiving' and that was good of course. But at what cost to others ?
Each to their own conscience.
-
4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
I only claim to be a Barbarian interested in Justice and Mercy ..... but the best way to get it is serving Jehovah God.
It's like when R2-D2, Luke, and Obi-Wan Kanobe, stopped their speeder on a cliff overlooking Mos Isley Spaceport, and Obi-Wan said (paraphrased) "Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum, and villany"
Jehovah's Witnesses, warts and all, in reality ... are the ONLY game in town.
Drivel and incompetence and greed, no matter how you dress it up, is still drivel, and incompetence, and greed ... HOWEVER ... the Truth, no matter how you dishonor it by being a standard big ugly bag of mostly water, as we all are ... including EVERYBODY in the Governing Body, as well as you and me .. is still the TRUTH.
I was baptized before 1985, before the oath of allegiance was changed to include the Corporation structure.
Whether or not I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a matter of debate.
I think I am.
I hope God agrees.
It depends on who you ask.
J T you have a strange but funny sense of humour. But you don't make any sense to me.
You more or less say that everything about the organisation is wrong, but you are sticking with it anyway.
Now, if i had a car that i really liked and it had been reliable for years, then suddenly the engine blew up. I would replace the engine. But if the car was a wreck and kept going wrong and was dangerous, then the engine blew up, I'd scrap it and get a better car.
In your version there are no other cars available, so the one and only car would need to be put right and used.
But with the JW Org, the GB don't want the Org put right. You have said it, the GB want to be the only bosses and run it their way. So how can you approve an organisation that brings Jehovah's name into disrepute ? They DO NOT bring praise to Jehovah, they bring shame. They do not even protect their own congregants. They do not show Love or Mercy. So, in what way are they even serving God ? Making God's name known just to shame it .
The TRUTH is not the JW Org, it is Jesus Christ and God's written word. John 14 v 6
Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
There is the TRUTH. Unfortunately you seem to be stuck in that rut where the JW Org talk about being 'in the truth'. Being in the truth is surely serving God through Jesus Christ, NOT being a JW'
-
3 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:
Galatians, 6:7
Does it matter, what we sow shall we reap. Does this mean we have died in God's heart?
Where there is life there is hope, and ALL things are possible with God.
I would say being on here having discussion, if our intentions are good, keeps our minds away from wicked things. Therefore I feel there is still hope for all of us.
-
15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:
Fair enough. Who is drawing the inference since 1969? What was the Watchtower really conveying and expectation for the year 1975? The submissions don't draw that distinction. Where is our responsibility to understand, and when we don't, what does the society asks us to do? Is it so different from that crazy witness in Canada a month ago?
When does the truth start being a hoax?
Maybe the JW Org / GB / Watchtower have always been a hoax, and never been the truth.
-
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
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.
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.
-
47 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:
Your always correct, silly me, can you ever forgive yourself for not following the evidence given by JWinsider with feminist authors.
In honesty I must have missed that bit. If I'm in the wrong i apologise. Getting 30 notification at a time about this forum can be confusing at times for an old 'un like me.
-
32 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:
The reasoning of a perfect and sensible person. Follow this person.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Ah yes but they had PROOF of who their leaders should be, whereas the GB do not give any proof that anyone should follow them or obey them. They are in fact false leaders. Verse 7 here says CONTEMPLATE HOW THEIR CONDUCT TURNS OUT. Done that already. And I can see very bad conduct, which shows false leaders..
. 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.
As for verse 17. I don't know what Bible you are using, thought you were a JW so here is the JW Org version.. Please notice in BOTH verses it DOES NOT say LEADERS it says THOSE TAKING THE LEAD.
17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
So the GB have no proof that they have any authority and they deliberately do wrong. Yet you still want to follow them. OK so be it.
-
16 minutes ago, Anna said:
Non of the quotes you posted say anything about the faithful and discreet slave being the ONLY chanel. They merely say they are a chanel which Jesus is using to feed his sheep. Br. Jackson admits that it would be presumptuous to say the fds are the ONLY chanel because really the scripture in Matt 24:45 does not specifically say that the fds would be the only chanel.
“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?”) THE being singular I would think.
“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’) THE = singular and Channel = singular.
And yes right. Proof is there that the GB are wrong in saying they are the only means of communication, which they do say, along with saying the JW org is the only way to get saved.
Come on Anna you've seen it all here in print with quotes and references given many times. The GB exalt themselves above everyone, even the rest of the anointed. JW's are supposed to believe every word from the GB without question. Any talking against the GB is seen as apostate.
I'd love to ask Bro Jackson what / which other channels are being used .
I think S.M. might think other channels are being used.
As for me I'll admit once again I'm completely lost in it all. Totally confused.
-
51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
There are. Some people think that Barbara Anderson was the only female in the Writing Department. She was not. There are some even now. They aren't the ones who write the study articles or the scripture-based articles in the Watchtower, but many of the Awake! articles are written by them from start to finish. When the "Insight" book was being prepared, over a hundred Bethelites were given assignments to take on various articles to update the "Aid" book. More than a dozen sisters were given these assignments too. Even while Barbara Anderson was in Writing there was another sister getting similar research assignments, after doing a good job on some "Insight" work. and research assignments often come with the assignment to write up a draft article about it that might get used with very few changes. This other sister got "fired" before Barbara Anderson left, and no sisters sat in the Writing Department, per se, for quite a while. (I don't know for sure how long, but it was a matter of years.) But this didn't last forever, and sisters have been back in the Writing Dept (officially as "Researchers") for years now.
Do you know why the 'other sister' got fired ?
I think S.M. might think other channels are being used.
At what moment "The Truth" has ceased to be "The Truth"?
in Topics
Posted
I cannot see the NWT on that chart .
I have a 1985, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, which I found useful at times.
A couple of questions, which i never ever got answered in my former JW congregation :-
1. Was this translation of the Greek ever updated ?
2. Was a similar translation of the Hebrew scriptures ever produced ?
I like the 'new' NWT and find it very readable. However i would love to have Hebrew and Greek direct word for word translations from a good source.
Knowing which is a good source is the problem.