NWT Scholars

by homme perdu 166 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Earnest,

  I meant my attempt at typographically indicating all the formal differences between the original and the translation as an ab absurdo demonstration. Actually I prefer using no brackets at all: the translator takes the entire responsibility for the translation s/he thinks is the best and offers the alternatives in footnotes.

  If you use brackets sometimes, it means: where there are no brackets we are on solid ground; and this is pretty deceptive for the average reader.

  I don't own a NWT with complete footnotes anymore, and I don't remember very well about them. But I doubt they offer really alternative translations of the most serious problems.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  scholar writes:

  So we have two first hand accounts for the identity of the NWT Committee,.What are these accounts? Please provide a transcript of such testimony or at least supply more meaningful information than a list of names as supplied by Franz in his COC.

  When the question is who were the members of the NWT committee then, short of acknowledgement in the NWT itself, there is no more meaningful data than firsthand witnesses providing a list of those names, which is what both men provided. It is precisely the absence of publishing these names in the NWT that the need for witnesses arises in order to know with any degree of certainty who they were, and the Bible teaches Christians to accept the word of undisputed witnesses, especially when we know those witnesses were in a position to know what they are talking about.

  1. Are you Christian? Yes or no.

  2. Do you accept the biblical tenet of the testimony of two firsthand and undisputed witnesses firmly establishing a matter or do you reject this biblical tenet? Yes or no.

  3. Do you believe the WTS should teach elders to demand the same level of corroboration you apparently demand before they accept the word of multiple undisputed witnesses interviewed in non-public hearings? Yes or no?

  4. Do you believe congregation publishers should demand the same level of corroboration you apparently demand before accepting the word of elders that undisputed witnesses in non-public hearings have firmly established a matter? Yes or no?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  LittleToe

  Scholar:

  So we have two first hand accounts for the identity of the NWT Committee,.What are these accounts? Please provide a transcript of such testimony or at least supply more meaningful information than a list of names as supplied by Franz in his COC.

  ???
  Franz is published, complete with ISBN#. What could be more meaningful?
  Surely all that is needed is the attestation by first-hand sources that such is the list?
  To that end surely all that is needed is for [edited] to also confirm said list in writing?
  Hmm, methinks that's been done, too!
• 

  MegaDude

  Just wanted to add that one of the editors of the magazines visiting from Bethel during Knorr's administration told my then father-in-law there was no NWT translation committee. He said it was really only Fred Franz.
• 

  LittleToe

  Jerry:Now if that editor would only speak up, Scholar might be semi-tempted to believe you. However as it is, that's third-hand
  Ray and Norm are first-hand, though.

  I bring that up because it's clear that there's a world of difference between gossip and first-hand accounts!
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  You miss the point, I am not saying that Franz and Swif did not know the men on the committee because the list of names could well have been that committee and that Franz was correct in revealing those names. But it is a fact that the committe requested that their identity be not revealed. So, that means that we cannot know or prove such matters because the Society will neither affirm or deny such a matter.

  No Neil, *you* miss the point. The fact that the WTS has chosen not to reveal the names of those who participated in the translation of the NWT is irrelevant as those names *have* been revealed by N.S. and Ramond Franz, two people who were in a position to know.

  A reader must conclude that either you are suggesting the word of these two people cannot be trusted, which would give rise to the puzzling question of their motives, or that you expect every verbal statement made that contains references, to be backed with a triplicate form signed by participating members.

  In which case, can we see written evidence that you are actually have a BA in religious studies? We only have *your* word for that.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  I do not rum away and have reponded as requested. I have not been busted but I have busted critics of WT chronology showing the gaps in the secular record and showing no gaps in the biblical list. You in fact cowardly flee when you cannot and will not put a proposed biblical chronology as the FDS has done. Why don't you put up or shut up?

  Mine's a Scotch actually!

  The *fact* is Scholar, that over the past year or two in our exchanges I have 'put up' and you have shut up. Any reader who choses to use the search facilities here and on Channel C will see this for themselves, but I give you just two small examples :

  1) I finally weaked an admission from you that you believed that the WTS was going beyond its authority in disfellowshipping those who questioned its 607 / 1914 CE chronology. I then asked what you would do if confronted in a judicial committee with a person being accused of apostasy for questioning this chronology. Would you stand up and be counted, or would you disfellowship them? You consistently refused to answer this question. Would you answer it now, or would you prefer to 'shut up'......again?

  2) I also asked if you could name one prophetic interpretation of scripture exclusive to the WTS, contained in its literature the past fifty years that they had actually been correct about. Once again you remained silent on this issue, as in 'shut up'. Perhaps you might answer this question now?

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Bubbamar

  Therfore, I repeat that the Committee is unknown [to me] and unknowable [to me] at this stage until firm evidence[from the Society] is produced [in the Watchtower magazine]. In a way, the whole matter has mystical [occult] overtones which sends shivers through one me is it not?

  Boy!! Now you've really said a lot.

  From Lifton's 8 forms of Mind Control: (Just a refresher)

  Sacred Science'Maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence; evident in the prohibition (explicit or implicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, in the reverence demanded for the originators of the teaching, the present bearers of the teaching, and the teaching itself; while thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, it makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute `scientific' precision.

  I am anxiously awaiting your answers to Hillary's questions!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  scholar writes:

  Marvin Shilmer & hilary_step

  Both of you should re-read the challenge to WT critics by me posted on Channel C. In fact, I requested such critics to respond to 3 specific subjects:

  1. Date for Adam's creation?

  2. List of reigns for the Divided Monarchy?

  3. Dates for birth, ministry and death of our Lord.?

  Thus far, No one responded by supplying an alternative chronology despite the fact that there were many responses including those from Carl Jonsson which continues. So, I have not lied and in fact I had made a similar challenge on this board which to this DAY remains unanswered!!!

  Here is a channel-c web address to one of your challenges: http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9481

  You challenged the belief that WTS chronology is false or inaccurate. Since you apparently have the memory of my dear 98-year-old demented uncle, your challenge was successfully taken up,

  Here:

  http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9484

  You replied here:

  http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9489

  Your reply, and what was left of your initial challenge, was decimated here:

  http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9493

  You lied when you claim,

  …when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate….

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  ellderwho

  elderwho........... The list of Neo-Babylonian rulers that I posted is simply what has appeared in recent WT publications, Where some authorities have different figures then I use 'proposed' and a question mark to indicate that the data is problematic.

  If the WT has established as you suggest, than why is it problematic?
  

  ET chronology uses biblical and secular evidence to establish the beginning of Neb's reign in 624 and not 604 as you suggest, if the data has a gap this is because there are some problems with the secular data and not the date for Neb's reign.

  Okay, then what is specifically established by the Society?
  

  I agree with the Babylon book but I based these figure on the latest Insight volumes. If I was writing for a professional source I would have taken more time and checked everything but as this is an informal board and I wished to respond quickly so my list was submitted in haste but it gives a broad outline for the period.

  If you agree with the Babylon Book then your contradicting your proposed list.
  

  However, with all the time needed there still has been no response to my requests for an alternative chronology so perhaps you should begin to focus on an alternative if in fact yo believe that Neb reigned in 604.

  Neil Ive asked you for a list. You gave me a "sorta list" with many options.

  Nebs reign fits with 605 to 587, Eighteenth year(destruction) and "plug in" the Babylon book years given of reign for the rest of the kings and you wind up with 539BC. no problem.

  But you want it with Neb starting at 624 and are unable to reach 539 with the Societys years of rule.

  Which thus far has been un-answerable for you. Why do you think I keep asking for your list, maybe its unfair because I know you cannot produce one from the Societys literature.

  If your going to give a list, give a list. Not some question mark or maybees or proposes.

  PS: why would the Society quote A.K. Grayson and not quote his kings list?