Posted on 12/21/2009 12:08:37 PM PST by annieup
FIRST OF ALL THE WITNESSES ARE NOT A CULT. THAT OPINION WAS FORMED BY SOMEONE THAT OBVIOUSLY FEELS THREATNED BY THE TRUTH.IT AMAZES ME THAT WHENEVER A WITNESS DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT MAKES THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWS! IF A BABTIST OR PROTESTANT DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELIGION. AND THIS BIG COVER UP GARBAGE IS A JOKE. ADMITTEDLY THEY ARE NOT PERFECT NOR CLAIM TO BE. MATT 24:9 SAYS THAT WE WOULD BE OBJECTS OF HATRED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME. WHAT OTHER RELIGION IS HATED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME? ONLY 1 THAT I CAN THINK OF THE WITNESSES PROUDLY GLORIFY JEHOVAHS NAME. ALSO WE ARE NOT PROGRAMMED. WE HAVE FREE WILL,GOD DOES NOT WANT ROBOTS, THAT IS WHY HE GAVE ADAM AND EVE FREE WILL. AND WE DO BELIEVE IN JESUS. HE IS GODS SON AND HE DID GIVE HIS LIFE FOR OUR SINS. I ALSO GET A KICK OUT OF THOSE WHO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN'T TRUE. PEOPLE JUST MAKE UP WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT THE WITNESSES AND THE NAIVE ONES BELIEVE IT. IF IT IS TRUE THEN LOOK INTO WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE DO. DONT JUST ASSUME TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY TEACH OR BELLIEVE BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION. TALK ABOUT HAVING A MIND OF YOUR OWN!!
In the meantime, I did look it up.. this quoted on Wikipedia:
[CT] Russell believe[d] that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, and that he had been ruling from the heavens since that date. He predicted that a period known as the "Gentile Times" would end in 1914, and that Christ would take power of Earth's affairs at that time. He interpreted the outbreak of World War I as the beginning of Armageddon, which he viewed to be both a gradual deterioration of civilized society, and a climactic multi-national attack on a restored Israel accompanied by worldwide anarchy.
Regarding Russell's claims, Wikipedia cites these points (which are referenced there):
Russell was a charismatic figure, but claimed no special revelation or vision for his teachings and no special authority on his own behalf.[3] He wrote that the "clear unfolding of truth" within his teachings was due to "the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out."[4] He viewed himself—and all other Christians anointed with the Holy Spirit—as "God's mouthpiece" and an ambassador of Christ.[4] Later in his career he accepted without protest that many Bible Students viewed him as the "faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45,[5] and was described by the Watch Tower after his death as having been made "ruler of all the Lord's goods".[5]
You may opt to selectively repudiate Russell's teachings, but certainly they formed the foundation for those of Rutherford and his successors. So while 1914 was the initial prediction of the end of this age (depending on your view of the 1874 phantom prediction that couldn't be proven either way), Watch Tower has continued to make failed prophetic guesses:
In the early 1920s, JWs zealously distributed on the streets and from door to door a book titled Millions Now Living Will Never Die. It was prophesied, "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914 ... we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old ... to the condition of human perfection" ("Millions Now Living Will Never Die," The Watchtower, 7/15/24, p. 89).
Apparently, there was also end-of-age calls for 1918, again in 1941, plus 1975 and 1989. And yet we're all still here... nothing changed. You get the point. Or at least you should: if you want Biblical interpretations, start by reading the book yourself. Then if you want help with it, seek out multiple sources -- not just one. The bottom line is that Jesus Christ is the doctrine-giver and He is the way to salvation... the only way. And you don't have to take that from me (or Russell, or Rutherford, or anyone else): take it from His direct teachings.
Jehovah’s Witness Cultic Placemarker
You wrote: “BTW, Solomon was rebuked by watchtower for doing his work independent of their oversight.”
That was just one of the MANY inaccuracies in your post. That’s a flat, outright lie. Provide your evidence the “Solomon was rebuked by watchtower for doing his work independent of their oversight.”
The stuff you cut and pasted about Coptic from Robert Hommel’s website is also bunkum. It’s several years old, and when he wrote that stuff, Hommel knew no Coptic. Therefore, he mangled the meaning of what the Coptic scholars wrote and tried to pass off his bungled ramblings as scholarship.
If you want to know some truth about the Sahidic Coptic version as it relates to John 1:1, see:
http://coptictruch.blogspot.com/
or
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
There’s so much old, discredited, and outdated stuff being posted here about the NWT that it is actually pathetic. Like people claiming to know about the NWT Translating Committee who actually know nothing about it at all. About the objections of scholars whose objection to the NWT is not really based on scholarship, but on their theological biases.
Pasting the same old ignorance about Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation over and over just doesn’t work. You need to read some new stuff:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/
bar_enosh
Wikipedia is not the best source.
For accurate historical information about Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah’s Witnesses, see:
http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/
bar_enosh
And you possess what scholarship credentials to make that assertion about the NWT?
That’s only one opinion. I prefer the opinion of New Testament scholar and professor Dr. Jason Beduhn, who highly praised the New World Translation in his book “Truth in Translation.” (2003, University Press of America)
The NWT is neither incompetent nor deceitful, but I have read NWT critics whose comments were both.
In 2007 after lander's 'discovery' Kingdom ministries sought to clamp down on independent Bible study, since it was precisely through such independent research on which the Kingdom Ministry frowned that Witness apologists uncovered the Coptic version's support for the NWT's rendering of John 1:1. Live with it.
If you want to know some truth about the Sahidic Coptic version as it relates to John 1:1, see:
Been there - truth, lol bogus and twisted cartwheels.
There’s so much old, discredited, and outdated stuff being posted here about the NWT that it is actually pathetic. Like people claiming to know about the NWT Translating Committee who actually know nothing about it at all. About the objections of scholars whose objection to the NWT is not really based on scholarship, but on their theological biases.
Oh, this is such a wonderful piece of worthless drivel. The original 'translators" were rookies with no respected credentials. Shall I post the court testimony where they were forced to admit it. Later editions continued to twist the translation into pretzels. On the contrary to your bleat, their criticism was based squarely upon their lack of scholarship as well as the poor job they did of the "translation".
Pasting the same old ignorance about Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation over and over just doesn’t work. You need to read some new stuff:
Well, so far I haven't referred to you'all as 'Russelites'. What I HAVE done so far is show how JW translations and doctrine are not supported by the very scriptures they claim to follow. You "new" stuff is just the same 'ol old stuff warmed over too many times.
And have a nice Christmas anyway, even if you don't celebrate it.
Twisting, LOL, I'm not the one who has to violate basic rules of Greek to obtain the translations the NWT does. No, the NWT was written to provide bogus support to their arianism.
As far as a previous post on John 1:1 you said that it is translated as "God" in other instances; and implied that according to my "rules" it should be translated as "a God" everywhere else.
No, that is the application of the JW translation 'rule' they pulled out of thin air. Same grammatical constructs should yield the same translation - very simple and consistent. Go back FOE and see that the constructs are THE SAME therefore the translations should be the same.
You have not responded to the scriptures cited about God being superior to Christ, and my questions about the Holy Spirit.
I already have about the apparent 'subordination' of Jesus and the Father. I showed while there was a subordination, those area were also due to the agreement of Jesus as well. I have also showed where Jesus is fully equal to the Father.
Now reagarding the Holy Spirit - you never really even asked a question and since you complained of being sooooo short of time and your failure to address my posts, I figured it could wait for another day. So go ahead and be a little more specific in your question.
I am trying to have a decent discussion, and you are giving misleading replies, hurling insults and now inferring that I am a hypocrite, when you know little about me personally, and nothing about my work situation.
I have never talked about your work 'situation' except that you like others will have today off - whether or not you celebrate Christmas. If that hurts your feelings, sorry, but if you want to hang here you'll need a little tougher skin.
You should provide substance, not empty watchtower rhetoric.
You know aruanan, you are exactly correct in your opinion of the NWT and fully entitled to make that assertion - you are in good company of many, many greek scholars. BeDuhn only has a masters level experience in greek, intermediate level of competence, his pHD is in comparative religions. His doctoral dissertation was on Manicheaism. That hardly qualifies him as a Greek Scholar. BeDuhn cannot even correctly state the Granville Sharp rule.
As usual and well documented, JWs cite favorable authors regardless of what their greater context is. BeDuhn also had high regard for the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. They will also ignore that BeDuhn has some pretty harsh criticism toward their use of the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament, something they are particularly proud of.
The NWT is neither incompetent nor deceitful, but I have read NWT critics whose comments were both.
The NWT is inaccurate and heavily theologically influenced, it was the so-called scholars who did the work 'translating' it that were incompetent and deceitful
:)
Cultic JW Placemarker
Everything quoted was sourced.
You are saying WIKI is not the best source (and it normally isn't) but your better “source” in all of your postings so far are blogs?
You are kidding, right?
Too bad that people here prefer to be blinded by their biases and prejudices, but that’s your right. As Jesus said, “Let them be. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
Trinitarians trumpet their own scholars as if these are somehow more objective and scholarly than others, when the fact is that their presuppositions are Trinitarian, and such scholars consistently bend their scholarship toward the support of their Trinitarian beliefs. Such scholars have a perfect right to their opinions, but don’t call them objective and neutral. They are not.
People who make statements about the translators of the NWT are speaking from ignorance and 4th-handed “information.” And the NWT has been revised since that Committee did its work. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses there are competent, degreed scholars who know Hebrew and Greek well. Rolf Furuli and Edgar Foster, both Ph.D.’s, come to mind.
The KMs about independent research had absolutely nothing to do with Coptic research. And in November, 2008, The Watchtower published an article itself about the Coptic version, which embraced that so-called “independent research.”
The fact is that many blogs do contain better and more accurate information than the mish-mash that is often found on Wikipedia. Each blog I listed has important information for anyone really interested in knowing both sides of a story, so as to arrive at an objective knowledge of the truth.
bar_enosh
http://coptictruch.blogspot.com/
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/
Funny how you leave off the "being correct" part, as is susbtatiated by 2000 years of straight forward scholarship by thousands of scholars, not some odd few "scholars" who like throwing around prepositions and what not trying to "recreate" what they want God to say.
Which in itself makes your overall statement somewhat ironic...
Degrees mean little, there are many degreed atheist out there.
Referencing your own blog to make a point means even less Solomon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.