AlanF

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 4,636 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AlanF

• 
  25

  Who Were the NWT Translators?

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just posted this information to a private email list, but i think it will be of interest to people on this board.. the following list of translators of the new world translation is a compilation from a variety of sources:.

  frederick w. franz: main translator.

  took liberal arts sequence at university of cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical greek, some latin.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I have to say, scholar, you're typically JW in your attempt to discredit by implication. Have you been taking lessons from the Writing Department? Your post contains virtually no information, but a number of dark implications.

  The list of four NWT translators given by Raymond Franz is correct as far as it goes, but is obviously incomplete. So what? Do you have information that shows that the list I presented is incorrect? If so, then let's have it. If not, then I don't care about your opinions.

  As regards Penton's book, you'll have to ask him. Would you like to? I can put you in touch if you would.

  As for your ramblings about why documentation on the NWT translators ought to exist and why Ray Franz didn't have access to it, you'll have to ask the Society. They're the ones who are keeping it locked up. If it were up to me, the entire archives would be open to the world.

  You seem to wonder darkly why more people who left Bethel have not come forward to 'blow the whistle, so to speak'. I'm not sure just what you're implying ought to be done, but as I said, several people who had information have certainly published the names of those they knew were on the translation committee. It does not follow that they knew all of the translators. However, my private sources tell me that the list I posted is complete. If you have information that indicates that the list is wrong, or incomplete, then let's hear it. Otherwise, you don't really have much you say besides your dark, baseless implications.

  As for your claim that the NWT is the greatest translation ever devised, don't try to insult peoples' intelligence. As I mentioned in that other thread, I think it's great as a literal translation most of the time. But stylistically it's terrible. And of course it contains a number of deliberate misrepresentations that are there to support pre-existing JW doctrine or practice, such as substituting "take in knowledge of" for "come to know" in John 17:3, the mistranslation of "parousia" as "presence", etc. I have to wonder why you failed to comment on those things in that other thread.

  AlanF
• 
  23

  Flood and bristlecone pine

  by Moxy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i mentioned that the dc in our area featured a talk where the speaker, as an illustration of endurance, mentioned methusaleh, the bristlecone pine that had lived for 4700+ years.

  i asked here for some possible explanations of this that allow for the wt flood dating.

  i had assumed that the standard response would be that the dating of the tree was wrong, that the rings had gotten doubled a few times or something.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I don't know of any studies showing specifically that bristlecone pines can't survive a year under thousands of feet of water, but I do know that evergreen trees don't survive well with their roots in soggy ground. Bristlecones like dry conditions -- that's why they do alright in the harsh, dry conditions 3-4,000 meters up in California's White Mountains.

  Their location at such a high elevation is another killer for Flood claims. If someone claims that the White Mountains were there before Noah's Flood, then they have to explain where enough water came from to flood the earth deep enough to cover these mountains, which are up to 4,500 meters high. Same goes for the Andes, Himalayas and other high mountain ranges. The problem is that the oceans contain only enough water to flood the earth to about 2,500 meters, even if the globe were as smooth as a billiard ball. And even if one says, "God created the water", then you have to claim equally, "God made the water disappear". Since even the most rabid of JWs and Fundies don't claim that, but say that God used already-existing water, they have an insurmountable problem.

  Alternatively, on occasion the WTS has claimed that all of today's high mountains were formed after the Flood. But that doesn't work either. The White Mountains are essentially thick piles of granite, and granite is notoriously resistant to erosion. It is simply not possible for the White Mountains to have eroded out of the granite substrate in 4,500 years. And even if there were massive amounts of post-Flood erosion going on, it would necessarily prevent the growth of any vegetation at all on the rapidly-eroding mountains, much less allow 4,700 or 9,000 years of growth of the bristlecone pines that has been documented.

  As ususal, no matter which way you look at such evidence, believers in a global Flood are screwed.

  AlanF
• 
  16

  Misquotes

  by troubled in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone ever written to the society,with evidence of misquotes, and asked them for an explanation of this?

  or has anyone ever written and asked them why they quote and don't give the source of the quote?

  if i did this, do you think i would get into trouble in the congregation, etc.?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To troubled:

  Plenty of people have written to the Society about their misquotes. There have been no substantive replies that I'm aware of. I wrote four letters in 1992, each letter considering one major mistake in detail. I received no replies. Around 1994 I helped an online friend write to one of the European branch offices about a particularly stupid misquote. The guy was not a JW but was "studying". His JW teachers understood that there was a misquote but couldn't figure out how to excuse it and so they told him to write to the branch office. After several letters were exchanged, it became evident that the branch office tried without success to get someone in Brooklyn to answer for the misquote, but without success. The last letter to my friend was a typical face-saving excuse: 'We sort of see your point but we don't agree that there's a misquote, and besides, evolution isn't true so it doesn't matter if there are minor errors in the book'. We had a good laugh over that one.

  Seeker mentioned my little meeting four years ago with Harry Peloyan, compiler of the Creation book and editor-in-chief of Awake! As soon as I mentioned that his book contained some errors that I wanted to discuss, he became hostile. During our 45-minute conversation, he alternated between hostility and curiosity, and revealed some surprising bits of information. Only once did he barely concede that there might be a tiny number of insignificant errors in his book. His overall demeanor was one of lordly arrogance, as if to say, "How dare you, a lowly paean, question me, a lord of the WTB&TS?"

  As for You Know, his response is stereotypically laughable. It follows standard JW notions: "We're special cuz we say so." Can they show that they're special? No. Can they give any evidence that they speak for God? No. Can they show you that they ever actually spoke for God? No. Can they show you in WTS publications where the writer clearly shows that JW leaders speak for God and comprise a "faithful slave"? No. Can they show you where they actually prove that Matthew 24:45 must be interpreted as they claim? No.

  In short, JWs cannot prove, or even offer much evidence for, their claims about JW leaders. Thus their 'defenses', like YK's here, consist of emotional appeals to the always claimed but never proved notion that JW leaders ought to be respected like Moses -- even though the Bible claims that Moses had miracles to back up his claims. The idea appears to be that if someone is credible enough to swallow that nonsense in the first place -- which is exactly what you and I and most other posters on this board once were -- they will remain blindly credible and will continue to be susceptible to the same old garbage.

  JWs are great at coming up with excuses why people should shut up and ignore their massive errors and leave them alone. Of course, they're hypocritical because they don't do this with anyone else. A taste of their own medicine is good for them and exposes their double standards.

  AlanF
• 
  19

  Alan Does the Twist

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it never ceases to amaze me seeing how alan's various toadies here fawn over his posts and kiss his behind up to the brown spot.

  evidence of this is in the responses to his post about ot & nt morality.. alan uses his own lack of context to twist scripture as well as any jw writer.

  a case in point is his notion that adultery and fornication are primarily related to an economic loss (with a woman as property) and not a violation of a clear moral code.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Ah, Mishnah releases his hold on Rex's dick long enough to tickle a keyboard. I see that you and Rex are in a typical Fundy mutual masturbation relationship. Neither you nor he provide arguments for anything -- just claims or pointers to other brandead Fundies. Birds of a feather and all that.

  AlanF
• 
  19

  Alan Does the Twist

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it never ceases to amaze me seeing how alan's various toadies here fawn over his posts and kiss his behind up to the brown spot.

  evidence of this is in the responses to his post about ot & nt morality.. alan uses his own lack of context to twist scripture as well as any jw writer.

  a case in point is his notion that adultery and fornication are primarily related to an economic loss (with a woman as property) and not a violation of a clear moral code.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  You've completely missed the point of my post, WW. I won't try bothering to set you straight; it would be a waste of time.

  AlanF
• 
  2

  Zev Please Contact Me

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey zev!

  i hear you're going to an upcoming district assembly.

  please contact me about doing me a big favor: [email protected] or 970-206-1555 in colorado.. thanks!.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  AlanF

  Hey Zev! I hear you're going to an upcoming District Assembly. Please contact me about doing me a big favor: [email protected] or 970-206-1555 in Colorado.

  Thanks!
  AlanF
• 
  25

  Who Were the NWT Translators?

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just posted this information to a private email list, but i think it will be of interest to people on this board.. the following list of translators of the new world translation is a compilation from a variety of sources:.

  frederick w. franz: main translator.

  took liberal arts sequence at university of cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical greek, some latin.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  bj:

  The observations of various people who worked closely with the translation committee or with documentation produced by it. Some of these folks are not comfortable with making themselves known just yet.

  AlanF
• 
  16

  Sexual Morality in OT & NT

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sexual morality in the old testament differs from that in the new testament .

  conservative christians like the jehovah's witnesses often claim that, like the new testament, the old testament forbids all sexual relations outside marriage, including relations between unmarried people.

  that is not quite true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To you, WW, truth is moot.

  AlanF
• 
  16

  Sexual Morality in OT & NT

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sexual morality in the old testament differs from that in the new testament .

  conservative christians like the jehovah's witnesses often claim that, like the new testament, the old testament forbids all sexual relations outside marriage, including relations between unmarried people.

  that is not quite true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To blondie:

  You may certainly use this material for whatever you want. I consider anything on a public forum up for grabs.

  To Amazing:

  You're right, one of the points of my article was that God's standards have not been consistent, and therefore that what is right or wrong today may not be tomorrow. Thus, God determines right and wrong. Right and wrong are not necessarily things that are -- let's call it, basic properties of the universe -- to which God conforms.

  Another point I want people to understand is that Jesus' explanation about God's allowing the Jews to divorce their wives because of their hardheartedness applies only to divorce. It does not apply to polygamy or levirate marriage. This is proved by the account of Onan, where when Onan refused to perform levirate marriage, God killed him. Thus, God seems to have had a patriarchal law requiring brother-in-law marriage, which would of course apply to surviving brothers whether they were married or not. Thus, at least in this circumstance, polygamy was required by God. If polygamy were required here, then logically it would be allowed by God under normal circumstances, and that is exactly what we find in patriarchal and Israelite culture. Conversely, if God really detested polygamy, then he would not have required married men to perform brother-in-law marriage.

  I find that conservative Christians are quite unable to understand these things.

  AlanF
• 
  58

  What's wrong w/JW's?

  by GodRules in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would sincerely like to know what is so wrong with jehovah's witnesses.

  i invite anyone to post here.

  please use facts not personal opinions.. i am not interested in dates, the blood issue, nor the disfellowshipping issue since i am conviced that these do not prove that they are wrong.. i am weighing in to see if you as an opposer of jehovah's witnesses have the facts or not.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I knew it, GodRules: you're just a typical friggin' braindead JW dork. You didn't read anything in that essay, so you're talking through your ass. You shoot from the hip as if you know what you're yapping about.

  The fact is, what is in my essay is not mere opinion. It contains direct comparisons between what the JW author wrote about source references and what the source references actually said. It points out where the JW author went wrong.

  Of course, we all know that you're too afraid to actually deal with those facts, so you cavalierly dismiss them in the stereotypical way.

  Actually GodRules, perhaps the worst thing wrong with the JWs is that they produce braindead people like you who are terrified of facts. People who claim to love truth -- the facts -- but run like hell when confronted with them.

  I hope that one day the leaders of La-La-Land kick you in the face, as they've done with so many others, and wake you up. You're obviously too asleep to do it on your own.

  AlanF