---onacruse---
Hello inquirer
I still believe that God's name is Jehovah,
A wonderful OT god, indeed...rates right up there with Baal and Ashtoreth.
his son is Jesus,
The unknowable god has an unprovable son. Seems to me that the Almighty could have done a better job in proving his point...or, at least, in vetting his own son.
no trinity,
That I agree with, except that the Bible says otherwise.
and he died on a torture stake
No, it was a crucifix; no significant historical evidence exists to prove otherwise.
I love reading the New World Translation, I believe it's the best one
The NWT is one of the most stilted supposed translations of the original languages that has ever posted its face on this planet. I'd rather read the KJ than rely on one word in the NWT.
but I love reading other translations too!
Now there, I totally agree with you!!
I believe that you are suppose to preach and then you don't see others doing it, except for Mormons and a few other kinds, but then again they believe in Joseph Smith and the cross (The Society did offer proof in my opinion anyway.)
But I don't think they Have "love," and they are a bit cold blodded and superficial when they ask about you.
And what constitutes "preaching"? Door-to-door? Why? Because of a couple of misinterpreted passages from Acts?
"A bit cold-blooded."
They're way beyond being just "a bit" cold blooded. They have liquid nitrogen for blood.
Respectfully,
Craig
___
---inquirer---
It's a torture stake. Please read this. It's from the NWT supplement.
"The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koi·ne´) Greek and used the word stau·ros´ to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. The apostles Peter and Paul also use the word xy´lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy´lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) In LXX we find xy´lon in Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as in Ac 5:30; 10:39.
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux ?a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.? In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. ?Cross? is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim´plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19. The photograph of the crux simplex on our p. 1578 is an actual reproduction from his book."
I suppose the WTBTS made this up? :(
*I think it's very bias of you to be so anti-NWT! It's taken so much out of proportion. I can't believe how biased people are towards! I find it very unfair.
*How do you get your word around about the truth if you don't preach? Even Joel got into trouble when he didn't preach to the people in Nineveh! Even this Catholic guy said it was a good thing. Please read this also!
(from -- Reasoning from the Scriptures.)
"Why do Jehovah?s Witnesses preach from house to house?
Jesus foretold for our day this work: ?This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.? He also instructed his followers: ?Go . . . and make disciples of people of all the nations.??Matt. 24:14; 28:19.
When Jesus sent out his early disciples, he directed them to go to the homes of the people. (Matt. 10:7, 11-13) The apostle Paul said regarding his ministry: ?I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house.??Acts 20:20, 21; see also Acts 5:42.
The message that the Witnesses proclaim involves the lives of people; they want to be careful to miss no one. (Zeph. 2:2, 3) Their calls are motivated by love?first for God, also for their neighbor.
A conference of religious leaders in Spain noted this: ?Perhaps [the churches] are excessively neglectful about that which precisely constitutes the greatest preoccupation of the Witnesses?the home visit, which comes within the apostolic methodology of the primitive church. While the churches, on not a few occasions, limit themselves to constructing their temples, ringing their bells to attract the people and to preaching inside their places of worship, [the Witnesses] follow the apostolic tactic of going from house to house and of taking advantage of every occasion to witness.??El Catolicismo, Bogotá, Colombia, September 14, 1975, p. 14."
*What is so bad about preaching anyway?
*It doesn't really matter if I choose to read other transltions or not. I do it because I want to. I don't to get yours or anybody else's approval. I just love to appreciate many translations including the NWT. I like others like the NRSV, GNB, NJB...
*I don't necessarily think that every Witness is cold-blooded. I think the monsters right next to them might be. :D ;)
Anyone like me where you still believe in MOST of their doctrines?
by inquirer 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
inquirer
-
onacruse
inquirer, thank you for taking my post in the way it was intended! I meant no disrespect to you, or to anyone who shows a willingness to think about their belief system (as you are doing)...and getting COC (mentioned in another of your threads) will go a long way in that regard. Kudos.
Re: your last post--
1) The cross vs. the stake: I said that "no significant historical evidence exists." I'm well aware of the appendices in the various NWTs and Interlinear, and they did seem to provide compelling evidence. However, I've subsequently learned that the great preponderance of evidence from other historical sources, combined with the fact that Jesus was executed under Roman authority, gives very good reason to reconsider the adamacy with which the WTS virtually demands that Jesus was executed on a stake. All said and done, though, that's really a relatively small issue.
2) Bias against the NWT: I said it was a "very stilted translation." Having done some small amount of study in the original Biblical languages, I can say that from personal knowledge. Yes, the NWT does (as do all translations, versions, and paraphrases) have some unique virtues. However, in various and many crucial theological passages, the NWT betrays a lack of scholarship and honesty tantamount to deliberate deception. ( Of course, this is just mho)
3) Preaching: The reason I took objection to "preaching" is based on the original meaning (and Biblical usage) of the Greek word. Kerygmos (translated 'preaching') is simply to announce something: no dialogue, no discussion--just a trumpet blast, and thence the wrath of God.
I submit that this sort of "communication" has no place in productive human relationships. The Ayatollahs do as much; has human life been thereby improved?
Again, respectfully...and with every good hope for you on your journey,
Craig
-
inquirer
onacruse--
inquirer, thank you for taking my post in the way it was intended! I meant no disrespect to you, or to anyone who shows a willingness to think about their belief system (as you are doing)...and getting COC (mentioned in another of your threads) will go a long way in that regard. Kudos.
Re: your last post--
1) The cross vs. the stake: I said that "no significant historical evidence exists." I'm well aware of the appendices in the various NWTs and Interlinear, and they did seem to provide compelling evidence. However, I've subsequently learned that the great preponderance of evidence from other historical sources, combined with the fact that Jesus was executed under Roman authority, gives very good reason to reconsider the adamacy with which the WTS virtually demands that Jesus was executed on a stake. All said and done, though, that's really a relatively small issue.
2) Bias against the NWT: I said it was a "very stilted translation." Having done some small amount of study in the original Biblical languages, I can say that from personal knowledge. Yes, the NWT does (as do all translations, versions, and paraphrases) have some unique virtues. However, in various and many crucial theological passages, the NWT betrays a lack of scholarship and honesty tantamount to deliberate deception. ( Of course, this is just mho)
3) Preaching: The reason I took objection to "preaching" is based on the original meaning (and Biblical usage) of the Greek word. Kerygmos (translated 'preaching') is simply to announce something: no dialogue, no discussion--just a trumpet blast, and thence the wrath of God.
I submit that this sort of "communication" has no place in productive human relationships. The Ayatollahs do as much; has human life been thereby improved?
Again, respectfully...and with every good hope for you on your journey,
Craig
I don't know if you have the WT CD-rom, but it has all their publications on it. On further discussion of the cross, they quote these sources:
"?Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.??Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.
?The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.??An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256."
So, the "cross" is a very pagan concept and unfamiliar to that very major incident.
2) I have looked at the KIT (Kingdom INterlinear -- Greek Scripture translation.) I have looked at the Westcott and Hort (sp?) and then looked at the New World translation. It looks pretty spot on to me. And regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, this was said: "The Hebrew scholar Professor Dr. Benjamin Kedar of Israel, in an interview with a representative of the Watch Tower Society, evaluated the New World Translation as follows: (Insight from the Scriptures)?In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.?
3) About preaching. (Insight from the Scriptures.) "The Biblical concept of ?preaching? is best ascertained from an examination of the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek terms. The Greek ke·rys´so, which is commonly rendered ?preach,? means, basically, ?make proclamation as a herald, to be a herald, officiate as herald, proclaim (as conqueror).? The related noun is ke´ryx and means ?herald, public messenger, envoy, crier (who made proclamation and kept order in assemblies, etc.).? Another related noun is ke´ryg·ma, which means ?that which is cried by a herald, proclamation, announcement (of victory in games), mandate, summons.? (A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 949) Ke·rys´so thus does not convey the thought of the delivery of a sermon to a closed group of disciples but, rather, of an open, public proclamation. This is illustrated by its use to describe the ?strong angel proclaiming [ke·rys´son·ta] with a loud voice: ?Who is worthy to open the scroll and loose its seals????Re 5:2; compare also Mt 10:27.
The word eu·ag·ge·li´zo·mai means ?declare good news.? (Mt 11:5) Related words are di·ag·gel´lo, ?declare abroad; give notice? (Lu 9:60; Ac 21:26; Ro 9:17) and ka·tag·gel´lo, ?publish; talk about; proclaim; publicize.? (Ac 13:5; Ro 1:8; 1Co 11:26; Col 1:28) The principal difference between ke·rys´so and eu·ag·ge·li´zo·mai is that the former stresses the manner of the proclamation, that it is a public, authorized pronouncement, and the latter stresses the content thereof, the declaring or bringing of the eu·ag·ge´li·on, the good news or gospel.
Ke·rys´so corresponds in some measure to the Hebrew ba·sar´, meaning ?bear news; announce; act as a news bearer.? (1Sa 4:17; 2Sa 1:20; 1Ch 16:23) Ba·sar´, however, does not imply official capacity to the same extent."
So, this is much more than announcement. But I quoted (Maybe in this quote, can't remember now) about a Catholic official approving of their way of peraching because they grab any opportunity to let people hear the good news.
...
Anyway, thanks for your kind words. :)