Shiwiii

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is a sin to tell persons who would like to donate to their cause of choice how to do it?

nope. Is it a sin to exchange a mortgage(one paid to a bank for a loan) that expires in x number of years to one that is never ending (but paid to the wt), thus fleecing the flock? 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can give 50% of my income or nothing at all. Nobody knows.

This is how it should be. It all boils down to you and God, not your payment to men. God doesn't need our money. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Vent your indignation, @Shiwiii, on the 10% tithe churches, of which there are many, and after that, on the ones that track donations through pledge envelopes, of which there are many more, and after that, on the ones that use peer pressure public pass the plate collections, which constitutes just about everyone else.

I have NEVER, EVER seen this. I have been to plenty of Church's worldwide (Baptist, Protestant, non Denominational, Lutheran, Catholic, and the list goes on)  and have not come across this even once. If you have, then I suggest you reach out to them and ask them why. I think you may be just regurgitating the propaganda spread by the wt and not really ever experienced this either. 

22 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Probably John 14:9 has relevance to this one.

to an extent I agree, but the way John directly attributes this glory to Jesus is implying that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. I do get where you are coming from though. Kinda like in Revelation 4:11, speaking of glory/honor/power and again in Revelation 5:12. In chapter 4 it is God who is worthy to receive these and in chapter 5 it is the lamb who is. 

20 hours ago, Witness said:

Not everyone is chosen to be part of the Temple priesthood, or to be Christ’s Bride; only those anointed ones since Christ. John 13:20; Matt 10:40; 7:20; 1 Pet 2:9

I see nothing in those verses that state that not all are called to be part of the Priesthood or Christ's bride. This does not support a selection for only a group of men nor does it state when it took/takes place. 

20 hours ago, Witness said:

I don’t believe that all false prophets are anointed.  I believe the last of the prospective “priests/kings”/ anointed ones are within the Wt facing the final test that has come upon the “living stones”, played out by Gog and Magog - the two Beasts of Rev 13 - the GB and the organization. Rev 12:42 Thess 2:1-12  It is there that the remaining anointed ones are gathered.  Rev 20:7-9; 16:13,14

and again, where is the support for this belief that the remaining anointed are in the wt, if there is a limited number to begin with? If it is solely your belief, that's fine, but it isn't supported by scripture. 

20 hours ago, Witness said:

Jesus did say he would “send” those who represent him in truth, and those with perception, like an eagle, would find it. Matt 7:20; Mal 3:18; Rev 11:3,8

Maybe its just me, but I do not see these scriptures speaking of Jesus sending anyone. I see the part about the two witnesses of Jesus in Rev 11, but outside of that those other scriptures have almost nothing to do with what you are saying. 

On 9/15/2017 at 5:05 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.

If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.

So the same can be said the other way around. If they are jw's, then all is good but if not, then it is bad. Not a very convincing argument. 

On 9/15/2017 at 5:05 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

Actually that is not true, because the NT writers attributed many quotes from the OT to Jesus sometimes in paraphrase. 

Lets look at a few verses John 12:27-41. This group of scriptures is speaking of whom? Jesus. Jesus hid from the crowd of people in verse 36 and this was why? To fulfill the word of Isaiah saying that the people would not believe in Him (Jesus). He had performed signs before them, but they still didn't believe. But Isaiah was saying this about Jehovah, right? John attributed this to Jesus. 

Then we go a little further to verse 39, which says that they could not believe and again quotes Isaiah (6:10). Who could they not believe? Jesus. Why did John say that these things were said because  Isaiah saw His glory? John knew Isaiah chapter 6 very well and attributed it to Jesus. The glory he saw was from verse 1 of chapter 6. In the Septuagint it states clearly that Isaiah said "I saw His glory" 

Also, out of the 237 insertions, 161 of them are a not direct quote and some of those are not even found in the Septuagint.

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks.

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament

This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament.

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep.

Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts

who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not.

you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.   

I thought that the wt did't ask for money? Or is it literally about a plate being passed? 

I noticed that in the past few years, lots and lots of property has been sold in Brooklyn and surrounding areas as well as some kh's. Why this sudden grab for money? In addition to this, we can see in the screen shot above that credit cards are now an option? Really? Whatever happend to what Russell said way back when? Here is a quote from next weeks wt study that quotes yesteryear: 

 

chapter 18 of "God's Kingdom Rules."

 

“It Will Never Beg nor Petition Men for Support”

7 Brother Russell and his associates refused to imitate the money-raising schemes so common in the churches of Christendom.  In the second issue of the Watch Tower, under the heading “Do You Want ‘Zion’s Watch Tower’?” Russell stated: “‘Zion’s Watch Tower’ has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support. When He.........fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication.” Over 130 years later, The Watchtower and the organization that publishes it are still going strong! 

8 Jehovah’s people do not beg for money. They do not pass collection plates or send out letters of solicitation. 

 

This also reminds me of the relatively recent change in mortgages on hk's. No longer are there mortgages on some property's (kh's), they were paid off by the wt, but they are still required to continue to pay the same amount as they did before, but now pay it to the wt for an indefinite amount of time. Where do they get these funds to pay the "fake" mortgages? regular donations from the locals. 

 

Lastly, what is the rewards program listed in the screen shot above? 

 

 

Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

 

I believe you own your crosswords. But at any rate, I'm sure you can't look beyond the "deception" offered by Christendom, But at least you're willing to admit, you need to further your studies.

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar?

You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

4 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I enjoy the NWT because it's more accurate as I stated

This is only within your own mind, which is ok.  Numerous scholars disagree with you. F Franz was a very educated man, but...

According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)

Two years of Greek does not compare in the slightest to the Greek scholars who disagree with Franz and the nwt. It really doesn't matter too much, as I'm sure you have convinced yourself otherwise. I'm just not wired that way, I choose to search and see for myself if things are true or not. 

Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

Isn't that what happened with the church fathers between the time frame you gloriously indicated in 100CE to the 15^th century? Now you want to change the prospective to fit your ideal?  

 

 

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 

1 minute ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Your type of ideology is the one that is not necessary. But, I do understand your disinterest in wanting to learn a complex way of reasoning, since that is the issue with “past” translations, who is correct.

What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 

3 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That’s why I find The Watchtower NWT to be a more reliable translation above all others. But, I'm glad you admit it doesn't make sense to you, as a nonlinguist, it shouldn't.    

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You still need Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek, and then interpret those to Latin and then to English.

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

53 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

This is the many Christian Bible Versions, accepted, translation from the old Vulgate by which the majority of modern bibles are based on.

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1

The Gospel According To John

 

 Chapter 1

 

The incorrect translation of Latin into English:

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.   The Correct translation of Latin into English:     In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word     With this subtle transfer of words, allowed for Trinity to exist. Therefore, the “error” is on the early church fathers to claim their argument was correct, thus eventually giving power to the Vatican under a “false” premise.    The same argument that was being made back then, on how to identify Jesus Divinity status, reignited with the reformation of Martin Luther in 1517AD

 

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up:

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

Just now, Gone Fishing said:

The big if.......again.

the wt has already admitted it, so from the stance of the wt he did and from Gerber himself he said he did, but YOU.....you're not too sure. 

ok

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good to keep in mind that WT was using Greber's rendering as a support, not "Greber and his demons". 

Like I stated earlier in this thread, even satan uses scripture but is wrong by means of context. So if Gerber received his information from evil sources, then it is not to be trusted as being accurate.

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good question!

Even better answer:

2 Thess.2:9-11

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

So you must believe that the "man of lawlessness has been revealed already? verses 1-8

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

This Trinitarian rebuttal is self-evident when attempting to distract people from their own ill-conceived notions, of unscholarly understanding in the Greek language, that is best suited for a true linguist.

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about? Do you mean to tell me that God Himself allowed misunderstanding from 100 ad until the 1500's for the world to be in confusion? Really? Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding? Isn't it your belief that the Word of God is in fact complete? Why does it take a group of men to change the meaning of the Bible from what gods people, ANYONE WILLING TO READ THE BIBLE AND ACCEPT IT, to what the wt says it means? 

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

just a drop of poison won't hurt will it? 

Please do not take anything I am about to say as anything more than secondary questions. I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions and being forthright in your responses. 

22 hours ago, Witness said:

Even though the GB dismisses Jesus’ parables as just warnings, Jesus tells us there is more behind them than what appears on the surface.

 ^“The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”  He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.  Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”  Matt 13:10-13

He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’  Luke 8:10

So by this comparison, and others in your post, you believe that Jesus' parables are literal but described in a parable for the sake of keeping the true meanings from those who would/will distort them? 

22 hours ago, Witness said:

It is ironic that the parable of the “faithful and discreet slave” of Matt 24:48-51 holds validity with the GB until it speaks of the “wicked slave”.  Apparently, it is at that point that the parable’s application ends, and Jesus’ words are held up as just a story, - a warning. 

I find this also interesting. Applying only what they want to apply, instead of the complete picture. Makes me wonder how the R&F eat this up without digging deeper into what is being taught. We are told to question and search to find out if what we are being taught is true and in complete harmony with scripture. Acts 17:11

22 hours ago, Witness said:

Each anointed one is to be found faithful and discreet upon Jesus’ return.  Yet, he did appoint a steward over God’s “household” of slaves, and the (composite) GB act in that capacity. Luke 12:42; 1 Tim 3:15; 5:8, 1 Cor 12:28   However, they fulfill the parable of the “wicked slave” who “beats” the other anointed slaves. Matt 24:48-51

When? When did Jesus appoint anyone or any group over anything? John was to take care of His mother (John 19:27), Peter was to build the church (Matt 16:18&19), but no mention of a group of men to be appointed over anything. So my question on this part is, when did this take place and what proof is there to support it?

22 hours ago, Witness said:

What is the burr in the GB’s saddle, if not the understanding of “this generation” which must constantly be changed to support the teaching of 1914?

agreed

22 hours ago, Witness said:

Who are the drunkards, and what are they drunk on? They are those whom the wicked slave has set up an alliance with, to carry out the “beating” – the elder body; and who are ‘drunk’ on their given power and prominence.  Rev 9:1-3; 13:15,7;19:20; 11:7; Mark 10:42,43; Matt 23:34; Rev 18:3

interesting application, which I'm sure many jw's would not agreed or atleast wish away into the corn field. Having never been a jw, I can see the parallel, but it can also be applied to the hierarchy of many denominations. 

22 hours ago, Witness said:

Another way to determine if the GB are of the genuine anointed is found in 2 Thess 2:1-4 where it speaks of the coming of Christ announced in the form of a spoken word, letter or spirit (prophesy),“allegedly from us” – from another anointed one. Clearly, the coming of Christ has been announced by the GB.

So by this logic, is Harold Camping also anointed in your eyes?   In Matthew and Luke, Jesus tells us that many will come professing to come in His name and saying  look here or look there, He is in the inner rooms and for us NOT to believe them. Why would those people in Matthew 24:24-27 say Jesus would be in the inner rooms? Isn't this because the average person could NOT access the inner rooms to see for themselves? That place was reserved for the priesthood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of an invisible parousia?   

22 hours ago, Witness said:

There’s a pattern to discern of the premature timing of Christ being the focus of these genuine, yet fallen anointed ones.  One of the main reason anointed and all are disfellowshipped, is for the rejection of 1914. As soon as I answered “no” to the question, “do you believe that God’s Kingdom was established in heaven in 1914”, it was immediately stated by the elder that I would be announced as disfellowshipped at the next meeting. John 16:1,2; Rev 11:7-10 

Wasn't the same thing done to those who received blood fractions prior to the acceptance of such? A jw must adjust their thinking on a whim, if the gb says so and if they do not........Cathloic excommunication......errr.....dissfellow.........same thing.

22 hours ago, Witness said:

...and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.”  Dan 7:25

seems very similar to what it going on today in MANY religions. Making up new "laws" the people have to abide by, dress and appearance, education, adherence to all that we say and deviation is unacceptable, even though we are only human.

22 hours ago, Witness said:

This beast represents the fallen anointed GB and are now false prophets used by Satan to carry out his plan, to destroy those in Christ.

I do not agree nor disagree here on this point, and the reason why is because this is prophesy and it is best understood after the events take place. On the other hand, it could very well apply to the gb, but that is assuming they once were correct at some point in time. No real solid tie here for me. 

22 hours ago, Witness said:

Surely...surely, it can be determined that Gog and Magog who target the anointed ones does not come from the most suspected source in Satan’s world – political entities. Rev 20:7-9  It would come from the least expected place, and which Christ’s parables help us to discern. 

There is evidence in the time of the end of the presence of both a wicked slave, as well as a “faithful and discreet slave” who has been assigned to care for God’s household.

The choice is before all anointed slaves of Christ to be found either “foolish and wicked”, or “faithful and discreet”. 

I somewhat agree that it will come from an unexpected place, but that would be unexpected by those who do not keep watch. I feel we all have the ability to be either the faithful or wicked slave in that particular parable, because it really boils down to are you faithful to Jesus or not? That is exactly what He was saying, because when He comes back, He will reward or punish. Are we not all our brother's keeper? Are we not all told to treat others how we want to be treated? Are we not held accountable for how we teach the little ones?  We are all responsible for our part of God's Kingdom, and if we are given just a small piece and do well, we shall be given more based upon our faith. Its not about if we fail, because we WILL, it is about our heart and faith. Moses.....failed, Abraham......failed, David......failed, we ......fail, but it is our hearts God reads. So on your last point I fully agree. 

Thank you

1 minute ago, Gone Fishing said:

Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT.

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

14 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it? Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now. 

8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries

On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

It is not irrelevant. Based upon your statements, you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof. If there is no proof, then the wt used Gerber to support what they might have been thinking, but the support is from the occult/spiritism. The teaching is not in harmony with what was actually written in John's gospel. It is only a play of tricks on wording that the wt inserted their influence onto the gospel. Your dismissal of those facts is a part of the actual problem, people seems to think that because the wt says its true, but the fact of the matter is that they use Gerber to insert their doctri

8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.

you can think so, but I've already given you scripture that shows that satan misleads by use of quoting scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. JUST LIKE THE WT.  

10 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him

Can you provide proof that the wt had this teaching prior to Gerber, and merely used him as support? I seem to think that the NWT wasn't even in existence until the 40's/50's? Prior to then the wt used the KJV and the KJV does not have the same teachings as Gerber.

15 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

OH NO IT DOESN'T

This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................

Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it so. The real evidence is the Bible itself: 

Genesis 3:1, John 8:44, Matt 4:5-7

Satan may quote scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. Just as we see with Eve and Jesus. He quoted perfectly, but changed the meaning to trick. So it does matter the source, because there are motives behind the source which do not align with the Word of God. 

 

On 9/9/2017 at 7:56 PM, Witness said:

The GB are authentic anointed ones, the majority of the elder body are the phony ones;

How do YOU make this determination? I seriously want to know.

On 9/10/2017 at 0:32 AM, Gone Fishing said:

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts

YES IT DOES, because Satan quoted out of context just as the wt does. 

On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

And so this makes it ok to accept teachings from demon inspired people, when God prohibits it? I'm not sure about you, but my God does not approve and tells me that through His word we can gather all the teachings He wants us to know by the means of the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13-15

4 hours ago, Cos said:

did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? 

Yes, and even if they distance themselves from it now, it is still the basis of the nwt.