Posts by Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

So I believe you have no problem that in case of doubt, it is better to leave the original word in its place, and let the reader decide.

With regards to Acts 20:28, I have to protest though, the inclusion of "Son" is an unnecessary alteration of the text. There is no need to add "Son" to make sense of the text. An acceptable and even better translation is also: "to feed the congregation (Gr: Ecclesia) of the lord, which he purchased with his own blood."

Sorry that I have to disagree with you on this point

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

No problems with the examples you gave. Some extra clarifications are not a luxury to understand these verses.

However that does not take away it is an interpretation, and even more important, it does not justify ALL the instances where "Jehovah" is inserted in the NWT (Greek scriptures).

When you write: "Again that difficulty is removed if we suppose the distinction was clear in the original text because the divine name stood where "Lord" refers to God rather than Jesus.", it must also be stated that on many places where Lord is used, it clearly points out to Jesus. So it is incorrect too to uniformly change every verse where Lord is used directly into Jehovah. It would definitely be more correct, in case of doubt, to leave the original word in its place, and let the reader decide. It is still possible to put the other options in a footnote.

I would like to refer to my post in the middle of the previous page where I demonstrated with quite a few verses where it is not OK to replace Lord with Jehovah.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

"when attempting to make sense of the text."

Kyrios as Greek word makes sense to me. Not many attempts are needed to translate it correctly as "lord".

Hope you still have an example that can shed some light.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

Can you give an example?

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

To come to a correct translation concerning this issue, actually it does not matter what your personal opinion on the issue is. If you want to make a TRANSLATION of the NT, you can only translate what was written in the Greek text. As there is not a single Greek NT text with the name Jehovah or the Tetragrammaton, you cannot use it in a translation either.

If you want to use the name Jehovah, your bible should be called an interpretation and not a translation. That is the case until the 1st Greek text with the name Jehovah is found, which did not happen in the last 1500 years.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

and for Davidl7,

I would like to point out to the verses I quoted from the Greek Scriptures where "Jehovah" was inserted in places where it definitely does not belong. (mostly as a reply to Slimboyfat). None of the explanations given by you about this subjects adresses that issue. There are no quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures near to this verses at all. And these are just a sample, there are many more verses like these.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

Hello Bobby, (if this your name)

Thanks for the reply, and apologies to the others that we side tracked a little this thread.

You wrote: "If you examine the use of the word "earth" in Revelation, it is clear that the present physical earth (prior to the recreation) is being described. It would be an wrong to teach as anything but assumption, that the new earth will not be literal as well."

That is a nice starting point, but unfortunately there was not even one scripture quoted from Revelation to support this. My arguments, that Revelation 21 stated that there is no sun or moon, and no night that give light to this new earth, and from revelation 22 about the river of water of life that flows from Gods throne in heaven from outer space onto the new earth were not adressed.

And then you went on to say: "BTW the concept of a new heavens and a new earth is not only found in Revelation."

And you quoted mostly Hebrew scriptures for that support. Which speak about a hope and belief system that Jesus has replaced by something way better. Concerning the verses in Romans 8 & 2 Pet 3:13, there is nothing in there either that points to a literal earth.

Both Jesus and Paul said and wrote, that in order to inherit the Kingdom of God, one would have to lay down his physical body and take up a spiritual one. To be very honest, I do not understand all the details of what this brings along either, but that is how the Greek Scriptures and the hope therein come to me.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

By the way, interesting rendering of Revelation 21: 3, 4 in the NIV: And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them.

Can God dwell among people with a physical body, exposing them to his radiant glory? The chance of them surviving this is quite small. One more reason why the resurrection is with a spiritual body, and not with flesh and bones.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

Hello Vanderhoven,

Good point you make, and I am glad you bring it up. The question is not "Who do you think is going to live on the new earth?", but, is this "new earth" also the "literal earth" as we know it? Because if it cannot positively identified with the "literal, material earth", then there is no reason to believe that the paradise will be on this "literal" earth either. The context of this chapter (Rev 20:11 - 22:5) gives a few enlightening statements:

When the devil is hurled in the lake of fire Rev 20:11 reads (NWT): "And I saw a great white throne and the one seated on it. From before him the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them". If the "old" earth fled away, is it likely we will live upon it, or that the paradise will be made upon it? I don't think so. Nowhere in chapter 21 the "old" or literal, material earth" is coming back. In the last part of ch 21 and beginning of ch 22 the holy city Jerusalem, the new temple and the river of water of life is shown, and they are all connected together in John's vision. The river was "flowing out from the throne of God (which is in heaven) and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of its broad way (of the holy city jerusalem, which has descended from heaven Rev 21:2). And on this side of the river and on that side [there were] trees of life producing t welve crops of fruit, yielding their fruits each month. And the leaves of the trees [were] for the curing of the nations. (which are living on the "new earth").

Do you estimate it for normal that a river of water flows from heaven onto the literal earth? It is quite obvious that the language used for "new heaven" and "new earth" is highly symbolic, referring to the place where the newly resurrected live, but as no river of water flows from outer space onto the earth, a literal earth is not a possibility.

Furthermore, Rev 21: 23, 24 states there is no need for light of the sun or moon, and the night does not exist, things you would expect there to be on a literal earth. It reads in the NWT: "And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God lighted it up, and its lamp was the Lamb. 24 And the nations will walk by means of its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 And its gates will not be closed at all by day, for night will not exist there." Furthermore, no physical person can whitstand the glory of God and yet live (remember Moses), and therefore I don't think the resurrection is in the flesh.

All these verses tell me John was not writing about a literal earth, and hence, Revelation 21:3, 4 cannot be used to advocate life in a paradise on earth. Looking forward to your rebuttal.

Hoffnung

220

2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts in

the 2012 yearbook has released the publisher statistics for the 2011 service year.

a scan of the report can be found at http://www.jwfacts.com/images/2011-publisher-report.pdf and i have started updating the graphs at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php.

as expected, it is following on from similar trends to the last 15 years.

Hoffnung

Thank for the reply. However, nowhere is it stated in the Greek Scriptures that Jesus did not have angels under his command, rather the opposite. Hence "the angel of the Lord" should not be interpreted automatically as "the angel of Jehovah".

The invalidity of your 2nd point about "the word of the lord" is illustrated in 1 Thess 4:15, 16 (NWT): "For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." Greek word Kurios in all 3 occurences.

How do you understand these verses if you replace "Jehovah" by "Lord"? If "the presence of the Lord" is clearly identifying Jesus, and if the descendance from heaven from the Lord is also about Jesus, is it not a correct conclusion that "the word of the Lord" in this verse, is the word of Jesus as well?

Let us take a few more occurences:

Acts 6:59, 60 (NWT): And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.” And after saying this he fell asleep [in death].

Which Ot verse is quoted here? If Stephen appealed to Jesus in verse 59, was he not appealing to Jesus either in verse 60? (Greek word Kurie both occurences)

Acts 13:1-12 - in the NWT, Jehovah occurs 4 times (v2,10, 11 & 12), and there is not even one of them a quotation or anything else that could identify either Jehovah or Jesus. Why is Jehovah used in the NWT?

Acts 21:14, (NWT), Then Paul answered: “What are YOU doing by weeping and making me weak at heart? Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we acquiesced with the words: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.”

Greek word Kurios in both occurences. If Paul refers to Jesus as the Lord in v.13, is Jesus also the Lord in v.14? If this was not intended, would the writer not have written "God" instead?

If you want some more examples, please let me know.

Hoffnung