I suspect too that the WTS was concerned of reports of money contributions not making it to the Kingdom Hall. Hey, after the voluntary arrangement episode, every penny counts...
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
35
Getting rid of the Book Study - a way to isolate the JW?
by skeeter1 inthe book study meeting was cancelled a while back.
the watch tower said that it was to provide for a family study night and high gas costs.
hmmm.. i thought about the cancellation of the book study meeting after listening to another pastor discus his mega-churchs dependence on small circle groups.
-
-
-
28
Are Jehovahs Witnesses a Cult?
by mankkeli inthis is an excerpt from the 1994 watchtower, february 15. in the entire article, the watchtower tries to debunk any claim of their cultism.
see how they go about it.. " would it be accurate to refer to jehovahs witnesses as a religious group with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted as normal social behavior?
are jehovahs witnesses a cult?.
-
-
Wonderment
Pams girl said:
YES, they are a CULT.
B - Behaviour Control
I - Information Control
T - Thought Control
E - Emotional Control.
And there you have it.
--------------
I like your summary!
==================
Apeman: Good points!
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san:
Wonderment said: At Eph 5:33, Paul is not expressing just a simple wish, but by using hina with phobetai with the other words, it becomes kind of a practical imperative.
possible-san said: I think that this your explanation is right/correct. But, this is NOT the "imperative mood."
Therefore, I think that the meanings of the original word will completely disappear if it is translated into "should", IMO.My answer to u: Yes, I know that hina phobetai at Eph. 5:33 is not strictly an imperative mood. However, the combination usage of hina with phobetai in the subjunctive mood becomes in a way, an imperative.
A Greek Grammar of the NT...: "387...(3) As a substitute for the imperative, in addition to the subjunctive...hina with the subjunctive is also occasionally employed...E[phesians] 5:33 (after agapáto) he de gune hina phobetai ton andra..." (Blass &Debrunner, Robert W. Funk, p. 195)
The Expositor's Greek Testament (under Eph 5:33):
"The change in the construction from the usual imperative to the form hina phobetai is explained by some by supplying Blepéto, as Blépete stands in v. 15. But hina with the conj. is used elsewhere in the NT (Mark v. 23; 2 Cor. Viii. 7) as an imperative formula, originally no doubt an elliptical form for ‘I bid you that you do,' or, ‘see you that you do' . It occurs also in later Greek prose (e.g. Arrian, Epict., iv.m I, 41) as the corresponding formula hópos is used in the same way in classical Greek with the fut. indic. (Aristoph., Nubes, 823) and more occasionally with the conj. (Xen., Cyr., i., 3,18) [...] phobetai, fear, in the sense of reverence, spontaneous, obedient regard; cf. the frequent application of the verb to the fear of God (Luke i.50, xviii. 2, 4; Acts x. 2, 22, 35, etc.); and its use in the case of Herod (Mark vi. 20)." (Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. 3, pp. 374-75)
A Grammatical Aid to the Greek NT: "Hina phobetai is parallel with the imperative agapáto (cf. R994, Eph. 4:29..." by Dr. Robert Hanna, p. 356.
As to your objection to "should" you said:Therefore, I think that the meanings of the original word will completely disappear if it is translated into "should", IMO.
Not really!It is one good way to express what Paul was exhorting. Various grammarians explain phobetai in the "passive" voice (where the subject receives the action of the verb), or as a "middle" voice (the action of a verse in the middle voice in some way affects the subject) or as passive deponent. (Deponent=a verb that is middle or passive in form but active in meaning.) A grammarian, Mounce, explains the middle voice can be "difficult" to deal with or explain.
"deep" is variously used as an adjective, noun or adverb, not a verb. And "respect" can be used as a noun or verb, and even as an adverb, respectfully. The NWT uses a helping verb "have" to get the intended message through... "the wife should have respect for her husband." Many translations ADD words here for a smoother English. Notice below how other versions deal with this verse: NIV: However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
New Living Translation: So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
New American Standard Bible: Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
International Standard Version: But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.
GOD'S WORD Translation: But every husband must love his wife as he loves himself, and wives should respect their husbands.Montgomery NT: ...and the wife, on her part, should reverence her husband.
Simplified Bible: The wife should respect her husband.
Analytical Literal NT: but the wife, that she should be respecting her husband.
An Understandable Version: And the wife should respect her husband.
Darby Bible Translation: But ye also, every one of you, let each so love his own wife as himself; but as to the wife [I speak] that she may fear the husband.
Bible in Basic English: But do you, everyone, have love for his wife, even as for himself; and let the wife see that she has respect for her husband.
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
Blues Brother: Try again.
possible san: "Thus" is like saying: therefore, consequently, along these lines, so, hence, etc.
"Phobetai" is a verb in the subjunctive mood (passive; middle, some) which implies: potentiality, uncertainty, prediction, obligation, and desire. (Hewett, p. 5) Don't confuse this mood with the "optative" mood, the mood of wish, not used much in Hellenistic Greek.
"Passive" denotes a characteristic of a verb which indicates the relationship between the subject and the verbal action. "Active" voice = the subject performs the action... I hear. Middle voice: I hear myself. "Passive" voice = I am being heard. Basically, this is what "passive" is, but there are other explanations in the realm of Grammars, such as: simple passive, permissive passive, primary agency, secondary agency, instrumental agency, and so forth.
The idea of phobeo (from which phobetai derives) here is to have a profound measure of respect for one's husband. It also assumes that the husband will so love his wife as to be worthy of such deference.
At Eph 5:33, Paul is not expressing just a simple wish, but by using hina with phobetai and the other words, it becomes kind of a practical imperative.
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san:
The Greek literally says: ‘that she may be fearing the man’ - Concordant Greek Text.
"hina phobetai" is a present passive subjunctive. Thus, the rendering, "should have deep respect for her husband," reflects the Greek text well.
The words may, might and should are commonly used to translate the Greek subjunctive, as the link you provided shows.
By the way, my copy of NIV shows the following reading: "and the wife must respect her husband."
-
96
The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
by howdidtihappen inyou've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
-
-
Wonderment
Here is the link to John 17:3 previously posted about "taking in knowledge of God and Christ," and an excerpt to show how it was used in context. TD has a problem agreeing with the author of this article. He thinks the author is quoting out of context. See for yourself, if this is the case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
To determine more accurately what ‘knowing' God and Christ entails we should consider another clue. The word "know" at John 17:3 (KJV) in the Greek is a form of ginosko, in the present subjunctive active mood. Verbs in this mood usually state a potential condition, a purpose, a wish, or a doubt. It is used to express a possibility, an uncertainty or indefinite statement. The subjunctive mood is generally indicated by words such as "may," "might," "ever," and "should." It will normally follow words such as: hína (in order that) and eán (if). An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament wrote: "In the subjunctive [...] the present tense is timeless and durative." (by W. D. Chamberlain, p. 87) New Testament Greek states: "The present tense [subjunctive] views activity as durative, ongoing, or repetitive in nature." (by James Allen Hewett, Revised edition, p. 205)
You can see this subjunctive in action by reading the part of John 17:3
which says: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God..." Take note that the KJV uses the stative form "know" instead of the progressive form (participle) "their knowing you" found in the NWT footnote. Most translations follow the KJV here. However, the Greek basically says: "in order that they may be knowing you..." The Concordant Greek Text likewise reads: ‘that they may be knowing you.' The New Testament in Modern Speech, by R.F. Weymouth) explains in a footnote: "Knowing] Or, as the tense implies, ‘an ever-enlarging knowledge of.'"
Other scholars recognize the durative, progressive factor of the present subjunctive, deriving from the verb ginósko:A. T. Robertson: "Should know (ginoskosin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), ‘should keep on knowing'." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 275)
W. E. Vine: "GINOSKO (γιν?σκω) signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
J. H. Bernard: "...the present tense (ginóskosin) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life." (The International Critical Commentary, St John, vol II, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928, p.561)
G. Abbott-Smith says under ginósko: "to be taking in knowledge, come to know, recognize, perceive, understand. [...] freq. of the knowledge of divine things, of God and Christ...Jo 17:3." (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT, 92)
J. H. Moulton: "The present simplex, γιν?σκειν, is durative, ‘to be taking in knowledge.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena, p. 113)
(Note: γιν?σκειν [ginóskein] is the present infinitive form of ginósko, i.e. "to know"...durative: "knowing," "to be taking in knowledge.")Max Zerwick writes: "ginóskosin sub[junctive mood of ] ginósko, pre[sent tense] implying a continuous process." (An Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 336)
Marvin R. Vincent: "Might know (ginóskosi). Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare ver. 23; x. 38; 1 John v. 20; iv. 7, 8." (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 263. Cursive letters his.)
I checked these references myself, and I want to point out as an observation that when A.T. Robertson, Max Zerwick and Marvin Vincent said the above, they said so under the section of John 17:3 being considered.
I don't see how the quote above of Abbot-Smith is out of context either. The others are not against the context either.
When it comes to Vine, he gives the basic definition of Ginosko as: "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely," e.g., Mk 13:28,29; Jn 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 10:34; 1 Jn 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice), 7, 13; 5:2, 20" Vine does not mention 17:3 here as he does further as indicated by TD. But does this mean his basic definition above changes meaning from this basic meaning of the word to the other reference of John 17:3? I tend to see it more as an added nuance and relationship to the basic meaning, more than assuming Vine totally changes the meaning. This is akin to admitting that stauros does mean basically, "stake" and then saying that stauros must mean (a two piece) cross and only cross in this other scripture. Even if we accept cross as a meaning of stauros, it still does not change the basic meaning of stauros as stake. Does it?
Vine does say: "In the N.T. ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known; in this respect, what is known is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship."
"...The same idea of appreciation as well as knowledge underlies several statements concerning the knowledge of God and His truth on the part of the believers, e.g. John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3..." And: "..such knowledge is obtained, no by mere intellectual acivity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ."
Vine adds: "Nor is such ‘knowledge’ marked by finality; se e.g., 2 Pet 3:18 [...but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"]." And: "Ginosko as a verb, means ‘to know by observation and experience’ is translated to know (to learn -Mk 15:45; Jn 12:9)"
This brings up a couple of questions for those who hold that ginosko rules out the rendering "their taking in knowledge."
Is it really possible "to know" God without involving "intellectual activity" which Vine apparently does not rule out? ...Without true knowledge?
Is Vincent Marvin wrong when he says: "This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know."? Similarly, the The Bible in Basic English tells us: "And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ."
See also Moulton's Prolegomena comments on hina and what it conveys next at John 17:3. (Page 206)
The author of the link did write: "...the Bible context associates an objective revelation of God (factual side) with a personal relation. What is wrong though, is the conclusion that a personal relationship with God (of faith, trust, love, and obedience) can be obtained without true knowledge. Also, it is wrong for anyone to imply that "taking in knowledge" is accomplished by a systematic course of learning the publications of a religious organization."
The author of the link obviously was aware of JWs contention that "taking in knowledge" requires studying the Bible a la WT. He turns that down, but seems to go further than Evangelicals in insinuating that "knowing" God goes beyond a person just claiming he/she has a personal relation with God and Christ without the pursuit of true knowledge. 2 Pet 3:18 indicates that orientation.
-
25
We can't let them get away with it: HAVING IT BOTH WAYS!
by Terry inwhat is the claim of the watchtower society as to the source of their authority to create public messages of dire warning?.
mouthpiece of god.. .
anointed remnant (faithful and discreet slave).
-
-
Wonderment
Terry has made some good observations.
Those inside the WTS refuse openly to admit there are plenty of "double-speak" declarations being published by this "double-standard" group.
Really, you can't have it both ways. What applies to other religious groups must be applied to them as well. I see good in the WT, but I also see plenty of inconsistencies in their religious approach.
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?
-
96
The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
by howdidtihappen inyou've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
-
-
Wonderment
TD: I enjoyed your comment. For the most part I agree with your statements. I would just like to add some material to it for anyone wanting to go further.
I myself would have wished the NWT translators revealed the names of their Committee. I don't think they care much about what most "worldly" people outside the WT feel about it. It should be mentioned though, that the WTS started way before 1950 with the practice of not using the names of authors in their publications. By 1942, according to their history book (JWs-Proclaimers...p. 146), it was applied throughout. It says:
"Since 1942 it has been the general rule that literature published by the Watch Tower Society does not draw attention to any individual as the writer."
On John 17:3, see here for another opinion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
On Psalms 23:5, I find the NWT rendering very odd. It is one of those things, as some here have pointed out, the Committee gave preference to Hebrew technicalities instead of going with standard English. I will provide some info so readers here can arrive at their own conclusions. "With oil you have greased my head;..." (NWT)
"Thou anointest my head with oil;..." (KJV)Literal translation: "You have made fat with the oil my head"
Heb: dishshanta vashshemen ro'shiελιπανας εν ελαιω την κεφαλην μου (LXX)
inpinguasti oleo caput meum calix meus inebrians (Latin Vulgate)
(inpinguasti = from pingue, pinguis = fat, grease. J.C. Traupman)
(pingue, pinguis = grasa, manteca, sebo, Vox Latino-Español)"You generously anoint my head" (Anchor Bible Commentaries)
"Thou hast richly bathed my head with oil" (NEB)
"With oil you have greased my head" (NWT)
"thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil" (Brenton, LXX)
"thou madest fat mine head with oil" (Julia Smith Translation)
"You have sleeked my head with oil" (Concordant Literal Version)
"You have lavished oil on my head" (The Bible in Living English)
"you anoint my head with ointment" (exeGeses Companion Bible)"perfumas con ungüento mi cabeza" (Biblia de América)
(you perfume my head with ointment)"Bañaste de óleo o perfumaste mi cabeza" (Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo
(You bathed me with oil or perfumated my head) [Católico)Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:
she'men, sheh'men; from shaman; grease, especially liquid (as from the olive, often perfumed); fig. richness
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew:
1. fat, oil
a. fat, fatness
b. oil, olive oil
1. as staple, medicament or unguent
2. for anointing
c. fat (of fruitful land, valleys) (metaph)The Complete Word Study Old Testament:
Shemen; ‘this masc. noun originates from shamen. It refers to grease, liquid, (olive) oil (Gen. 28;18; 1 Kgs. 6:23; Neh. 8:15) which was sometimes perfumed (Song 1:3); fat, fatness (Is. 10:27; 25:6).'
Barne's Notes on the Bible: "hou anointest my head with oil - Margin, as in Hebrew, "makest fat." That is, thou dost pour oil on my head so abundantly that it seems to be made fat with it. The expression indicates abundance. The allusion is to the custom of anointing the head on festival occasions, as an indication of prosperity and rejoicing (see Matthew 6:17, note; Luke 7:46, note), and the whole is indicative of the divine favor, of prosperity, and of joy."
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible: "Thou anointest my head with oil - Perfumed oil was poured on the heads of distinguished guests, when at the feasts of great personages. The woman in the Gospel, who poured the box of ointment of spikenard on the head of our Lord (see Matthew 26:7, Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:8; Luke 7:46), only acted according to the custom of her own country, which the host, who invited our Lord, had shamefully neglected." -
96
The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
by howdidtihappen inyou've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
-
-
Wonderment
Sulla: "If it had been a problem for the early Christians, well, I suppose they could have made a point to use YHWH in their letters and Gospels. That they did not should be instructive (and normative)."
I agree!
Sulla: "Further, its removal from the OT can hardly be considerd to be "just as bad," since it was the Jews themselves who went and removed it (from the LXX)."
I see your point! However, although the main existing LXX Text lacks the Name throughout, the Hebrew Text as we have it today does contains the Name thousands of times. Removing the Tetragramatton from our English bibles in the OT is just as bad as introducing it in the NT. Should we follow the tradition of those Jews who removed it from LXX copies, or should we not rather stick to the Hebrew Text that does contain the Name thousands of times?
Most people in mainstream churches seem to have an aversion to God's name, (because of their dislike for JWs, perhaps?), while a minority sticks to the Hebrew Text and reproduce it in English, using Jehovah, or Yahweh.
I side with bible translator, Steven T. Byington who wrote: "There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like ‘Lord,’ or much worse, by a substantivized adjective." (Translator's Preface, The Bible in Living English)