i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".
sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.
some of you may recall this.
enough...Translators of necessity introduce new viewpoints to the work. modern values, personal biases, interpretive choices. Functionally the words used by translations for 'checed' each carry a nuanced meaning. So no, these words cannot all equally accurately convey the meaning of checed in any particular usage.
The WT is making a choice to use 'loyalty'.
simple question.
while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.
if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.
First thanks for all responses.
EdenOne...it is almost as if there was more than one author.
Hopeless1...Your post raises another point. If the anthropomorphisms in the visionary descriptions ought be regarded as metaphorical and allegorical word pictures, mustn't these narratives where YHWH interacts with humans in human form then be viewed as the same? The narrative itself be merely an allegory?
The point remains that at the most fundamental level there is a contradiction. The anthropomorphic depiction and descriptions against the higher theological notion that the absolutely indescribable transcendent God cannot and ought not be reduced to the likeness of humans or anything else.
simple question.
while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.
if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.
Enough...ok rewording the question, would it seem consistent for God to give visions of himself and have these described in text while simultaneously condemn drawing a picture to represent him? Are both not human creations to assist praying or conceptualizing God? Would a God who rejects earthly visualizations of himself provide visualizations in earthy forms? Why is the one blasphemous and not the other?
Tangentially, is it coincidental their visions were identical with iconography of other gods?
i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".
sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.
some of you may recall this.
I understand, my post was off topic.
i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".
sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.
some of you may recall this.
I feel compelled to remind you that Micah was extensively redacted and expanded. The 8th century prophet 'prophesied' (chapts 1-3) the Assyrian destruction of Samria and Judah including Jerusalem and temple, when it was quite evident it was likely. Samaria fell as we know and was easy to predict, but Jerusalem did not. IOW the prophet was a 'false' prophet. In response one of the latest editors of Jeremiah (26:18) explained the failure away by saying the people repented. Interestingly this is not reflected in the LXX suggesting this is a very late addition to Jeremiah. The book was reformed/revised/expanded heavily by postExile writers to say he also predicted the destruction of the temple by Babylon. It's a long and winding road but simply said 6:8 was not likely said by the 8th century would be prophet named Micah.
in the recent coronavirus scare, masks were promoted as one way to minimise possible infection.
a study, reviewed yesterday by an english medical commentator, dr john campbell, says, no!.
watch what he has to say on this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vy2lyqn1a.. the study he reviews can be found at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.cd006207.pub6/full.
i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".
sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.
some of you may recall this.
They have for many years identified the word 'checed' to mean 'loyal love'. It's not a new concept but you may be right that the adjustment reflects the emphasis upon loyalty to the org.
Like countless examples, translators' biases direct word choice. The word does not seem to have a singular meaning, it is defined a variety of ways from simple 'loveliness' to doing a 'favor' for etc. In some contexts it reflects an implied relationship motivating the kindness. It is this shade of meaning that the WT is exploiting. Other commentators have stressed the same, if nothing other than to minimize the idea that God is merely interested in humans expressing kindness to one another.
I should have added that the recipient of the kindness is fellow humans, and even if we read the passage as implying a relational kindness, (love shown to friends and family) it still is not directing blind allegiance to an organization.
simple question.
while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.
if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.
Simple question. While the Deuteronomists and later writers of the Bible condemned the use of images of Yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne. If the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?
the organisation is now creating museums in 35 countries, is that their new way of making money?
nowhere does the bible say that christians should engage to such activity but is it possible the watchtower is now making it a priority for :.
a. look like they have something to offer to the community.
I hope they have dinosaurs!
jw magazines have claimed the flood story has so much detail that it couldn’t be just a made up story.. is it detailed?
name one person outside of noah’s family.
name one nephilim.
"Gopher" wood and all the subsequent attempts to identify the wood are the result of a scribal corruption. Beyond reasonable doubt the phrase was "pitched wood". The very next line repeats the direction to pitch the wood inside and out. It's an example of rivers of 'scholarly' ink spent on nothing.
| 1613 [e] ḡō·p̄er, גֹ֔פֶר gopher |
bak·kō·p̄er.
בַּכֹּֽפֶר׃
with pitch
