Posts by peacefulpete

13

Does anybody ever wonder why ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

supposedly, god jehovah, el , or whatever else he may have been called many thousands of years ago, or so the storys goes ,dealt with humans on a regular basis communicating with them for either good or bad.according to how they pleased him or displeased him.. so the bible record says.. how is it that god , jehovah or whatever other name you want to call him has not communicated with humans on any level for the past 2000 years ???.

in this scientific ,technological age ,wouldn`t you think this would be the time he would communicate with the potential dangers we face in potentially destroying ourselves and ruining the planets wildlife unless he interveined ?.

that`s if you even beleive that such a god actually exists .. and if he does why so silent in this day and age,?.

peacefulpete

Of course many, if not most, churches believe God is communicating today through miracles and charismata. Church Fathers centuries after the birth of Christianity believed that magic and sorcery by non-Christians was real. Read how it was believed that Simon Magnus could levitate for example. That outlook of accepting supernaturalism continues unchanged for many and seems immune from growth in scientific knowledge.

Our religion as it happens did not have this acceptance of ongoing miracles and mocked those who did. But, at least when I was young, they still believed demons could make things and people do things supernatural. It's just another example of a church carving out a unique identity.

14

2013 New World Translation

by Jerome56 in

on their website in the video "organizational accomplishments" watchtower devotes this segment to praising the superiority of the new world translation.

about half way through, david splane relates the reason for a change in wording from the old 1984 nwt reference bible to the 2013 revised nwt.

he said this was because of the recent discovery of an older manuscript that contained the greek word for overseer that was unavailable when the reference bible was being compiled.

peacefulpete

The role of translator is not only to convert one word to another but choose words that the translator believes reflects the author's meaning.

Take this 1 Peter 5:2 for example. The word (episkopeó) is used twice in the NT and means "be watchful" . If you wish to add a shade of meaning you could use the English word "oversee" which carries the connotation of authority over or you could use a more neutral word like watchful or careful like the NWT does at Hebrews 12:15.

The NWT is hardly unique in doing this, but few readers would be aware that the two verses use the same word. That is one simple example of of the tiny role translating has in perpetuating a church identity. Ultimately the identity is formed by personalities and circumstances and merely bolstered by the translation used.

The WT today using computer software could create a new translation in short order. Motives for a new translation are probably twofold, raise revenue selling millions of new Bibles and projecting an image as a scholarly religion.

14

2013 New World Translation

by Jerome56 in

on their website in the video "organizational accomplishments" watchtower devotes this segment to praising the superiority of the new world translation.

about half way through, david splane relates the reason for a change in wording from the old 1984 nwt reference bible to the 2013 revised nwt.

he said this was because of the recent discovery of an older manuscript that contained the greek word for overseer that was unavailable when the reference bible was being compiled.

peacefulpete

Worrying about which translation to use is a bit of a red herring. For the WT it merely perpetuates the narrative of being a "bible based" religion. In reality religions are about community and Identity. Us or them, being inside or outside.

All Christian religions use the same book and yet have different doctrine. Doctrine merely serves to differentiate one group from the others. Few members care about the doctrinal details, in fact it can change over time. As long as it is different, it works.

Translations play a very small role in this. JWs were JWs long before making their own translation. It was basically a pet project of F. Franz that cemented his reputation for being a 'scholar' among JWs. In reality anyone can make a new translation using reference works and following the lead of the preexisting translations. There really isn't much in the NWT that precedents can't be pointed to by someone with similar theological outlook on a particular topic. Don't get drawn into believing the NWT is the issue, it's not any worse than most others, it's just different.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

peacefulpete

Wow, so glad you came through. No idea why the bleeding?

No worries about offending me, I left the JWs 22 years ago. I left mentally and physically. My wife gets irked by my having been on this forum for 20 years. But for me it was a valuable sounding board and place to vent my new outlook on life. I've matured some in my understanding but basically I came to terms with the Bible being cultural literature not a message from God long ago. I feel like a detective trying to put together clues when discussing the theological evolution of the Jews and Christians.

Well anyway, I wish you well and lets try to revitalize this board with real conversations.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

peacefulpete

We all want a simple solution for complex medical issues. I have cancer and am currently taking a fairly high dosage of D3 and Magnesium as well as Pterostilbene. Enough studies have shown a value for D3 those with cancer, ironically it has been recently connected with a higher risk of some cancers for those who do not have cancer. Resveratrol has good invitro results but problem is it is very low absorption and pretty worthless as a supplement as a result. Pterostilbene is a related compound that has better absorption. I'm not endorsing it, just saying it may have value, it might yet prove to do harm who knows.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221111155632.htm

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood

As a theological concept it actually has much appeal. We are in God's image right? Judaism's founding texts certainly had no problem with their God having a body. He walks around and eats and interacts like anyone else. Many Rabbis throughout the centuries asserted he did have a physical body. While others disagreed it was due to the increasing sophistication of their theology not by textural rebuttal. It makes God accessible and relatable like the Jesus figure does centuries later.

(.https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Reappraised-Civilization/dp/1906764239) Has a chapter on the evolving notion of God's body.

Interestingly millions of Christians today embrace the idea of God having a body...they are called Mormons:

Doct&Cov 130 22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.

25

God Has Only One Visible Organization on Earth!

by Vanderhoven7 in

why is it important to some that god only have one visible organization to represent him on earth?

why is it important to jehovah's witnesses that people recognize their organization as such?

what makes a witness more moral or righteous or save-worthy if they accept that it is his one and only organization?

peacefulpete

That aspect of Christianity was probably inherited from it's Jewish rootstock. Judaism was incredibly diverse by the first century, with dozens or more sects that each hated each other. For example, the Qumran community famously rejected the apostate priesthood in Jerusalem. The Romans saw Jews and Christians as equally stubborn, sectarian and divisive.

As it happened it was this intolerance (combined with State power) that eventually established one branch of the cult as a world religion.

24

New Discovery at Mt. Ebal: the earliest historical instance of the name of God

by Terry in

.

https://youtu.be/guzbxzdpflo.

peacefulpete

https://www.facebook.com/Prof.IsraelFinkelstein/posts/1852051938327635

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

At the time of the writing of Acts (whether you prefer an early or late date) the debate about the nature of Christ was raging already. (I regard this as the 3rd stage of Xtian development) Some felt he was spirit with the appearance of flesh like angels in OT, some felt he was a spirit that adopted/possessed a man named Jesus, some held no particular purpose to his death other than the tragedy betrayed the corruption of the earthly world, some were attracted to the idea that the human sacrifice was transactional. Some assumed the end of the Law some did not. All these ideas were popular within different communities and are on display through the writings of the time and the hundreds of recognized alterations to the text of the books the winning orthodoxy eventually chose to include in its canon. To ponder how this one text in Acts originally read without considering these facts would be folly.

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

"the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

Variant 1 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου
“the church of the Lord”
P74 A C* D E Ψ 33. 453. 945. 1739. 1891. 2818 gig p syhmg co; Irlat Lcf

Variant 2 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και του θεου
“the church of the Lord and God”
C3 L 323. 1241 Maj

My point is simply that either the verse created discomfort very early and variants emerged to resolve it OR that the verse has been altered to support the deification of Jesus. Nowhere else does the writer of Acts use the expression "church of God" but Paul does. It's possible it was altered to harmonize with Pauline usage. Who knows.