Jehovah's Witnesses, please fight my ignorance

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=SmartAleq]

First off, the JW’s don’t “shun.” The correct term is “disfellowshipping.” This might be perceived as hairsplitting, but in fact it isn’t. “Fellowship” is a term specifically denoting a spiritual, religious form of association. When someone is disfellowshipped, it is forbidden to share spiritual activities with them–since about 90% of ALL activities are spiritually oriented in the minds of most JW’s, it then follows that most will not have any contact whatsoever with a disfellowshipped person, even to the point of meeting their eyes or speaking to them in the most tangential way.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like shunning to me. I knew that JWs refer to it as disfellowshipping (I seem to recall Mormons also use the term although I have no idea whether they are as extreme about it), but in a practical sense your description corresponds to shunning. A rose by any other name…

102

[QUOTE=SmartAleq]

First off, the JW’s don’t “shun.”
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit.

[QUOTE=www.thefreedictionary.com]
shun Pronunciation (shn)
tr.v. shunned, shun·ning, shuns
To avoid deliberately; keep away from. See Synonyms at escape.
[Middle English shunnen, from Old English scunian, to abhor.]
[/QUOTE]

103

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
Your discussion of Dr. Robertson confuses me: Are you saying he declares Jesus Christ to be equal to God Almighty, or that they are not equal? Make up your mind.
[/QUOTE]

You’re really quite the tool aren’t you?

First, you quote Dr. Robertson to support the “a god” translation… when I clearly refute that with what Dr. Robertson actually said (in completeness) that says specifically that the correct translation of the verse is, you still don’t get it.

The point of the quote was in direct response to your assertion:

So, you make up your mind, does Dr. Robertson support the “a god” “lack of article/preposition” argument or does he not?

and ftr, the third quoted paragraph in the cite above, seems to clear up what Dr. Robertson thought on the matter. Perhaps you should re-read it.

104

[QUOTE=simster]
You’re really quite the tool aren’t you?

First, you quote Dr. Robertson to support the “a god” translation… when I clearly refute that with what Dr. Robertson actually said (in completeness) that says specifically that the correct translation of the verse is, you still don’t get it.

The point of the quote was in direct response to your assertion:

So, you make up your mind, does Dr. Robertson support the “a god” “lack of article/preposition” argument or does he not?

and ftr, the third quoted paragraph in the cite above, seems to clear up what Dr. Robertson thought on the matter. Perhaps you should re-read it.
[/QUOTE]

:Sigh:
In any case, I support Tolstoy’s assertion about the prepositional phrase in John 1:1, and I support Dr. Robertson’s statement that the Logos and God Almighty are not one and the same. My mind is made up.

105

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]

Similar construction appears in [An American Translation (1901)
[/QUOTE]

As it so happens, I have a copy of the “Holy Bible - American Standard Version” Dating from 1901… “Newly Revised by the American Revision Committee” NY Thomas Nelson & Sons . (Interior copyrighted both 1901 and 1929 for the edition I have)

Is this the translation you refer to?

If so, John 1:1 Reads:

If so, that shoots down yet another of your arguments against the translation of that verse. If not, please provide better details on the translation to which you refer. A scan of the translation would also be nice.

Also, that particular translation was “Printed and Distributed by the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, INC”…

Scans available upon request.

106

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
:Sigh:
In any case, I support Tolstoy’s assertion about the prepositional phrase in John 1:1, and I support Dr. Robertson’s statement that the Logos and God Almighty are not one and the same. My mind is made up.
[/QUOTE]

So, what is the correct translation of the verse in question… forget the “theological implincations” aspect of it.

That was the entire point of this ‘debate’… not the theological aspect… The only theological aspect raised was that the JW translated it “just so” to support their veiw.

107

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
:Sigh:
In any case, I support Tolstoy’s assertion about the prepositional phrase in John 1:1, and I support Dr. Robertson’s statement that the Logos and God Almighty are not one and the same. My mind is made up.
[/QUOTE]

Last question… (should’ve added it to the prior one, but missed the opportunity)…

I asked you specifically if Dr. Robertson supported your argument, as you implied with your quote of him… I’d appreciate an answer to that question.

108

[QUOTE=simster]
Last question… (should’ve added it to the prior one, but missed the opportunity)…

I asked you specifically if Dr. Robertson supported your argument, as you implied with your quote of him… I’d appreciate an answer to that question.
[/QUOTE]

I have found out that the version of the ASV which renders the phrase in John 1:2 as “and the Word was divine” was the *1943 reprint–*and that was in my original source. :o
That is the only concession I will make. I stand by the rest of my argument.

109

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
I have found out that the version of the ASV which renders the phrase in John 1:2 as “and the Word was divine” was the *1943 reprint–*and that was in my original source. :o
That is the only concession I will make. I stand by the rest of my argument.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a copy of the 1943 version, tell me this much, was it still being printed and distributed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society at that time?

110

[QUOTE=simster]
I don’t have a copy of the 1943 version, tell me this much, was it still being printed and distributed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society at that time?
[/QUOTE]

How would I know?

111

Without even looking at my NWTs, I can tell you that the Bible translation dubbed “An American Translation” & referenced in the NWT Bible is not the 1901 American Standard Version (of which I have an original printing & the WB&TS printing and they are the same).

112

[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
How would I know?
[/QUOTE]

well… if you have a copy, look at the interior copyright page, it will state it pretty clearly.

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Without even looking at my NWTs, I can tell you that the Bible translation dubbed “An American Translation” & referenced in the NWT Bible is not the 1901 American Standard Version (of which I have an original printing & the WB&TS printing and they are the same).
[/QUOTE]

Do you know any more about the “American Translation” I have yet to find a reference to it, or a copy of it… I found a 1939 edition online and the translation is

Which still does not support the “a god” argument of the JW. While it does support the theology of Logos not being God. (*and again, I am not arguing the theology of it).

As far as the ASV, I’m curious if the later edition, this translation was changed to “was divine” and if that particular translation is unique to the JW printing of it.

113

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Well, whatever the outcome of the thread, and whatever your beliefs about God, Raindog, I have a great deal of respect for you. I’m so renegade with my own interpretations, I certainly have no standing to question yours.
[/QUOTE]

Thank You, Liberal.

The feelings are mutual.

114

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
As a friendly adversary, I want to thank the raindog for his presence here & his willingness to contend for his faith. And I want to thank my fellow Dopers for not turning this into a lions den.
[/QUOTE]

You’re welcome FriarTed.

FTR, my interest here is a bit more narrowly focused. I am glad to “contend for my faith” here, but I have zero interest in debating doctrine—whether it be JW, LDS, WWCOG, or others—as much I have an interest in the bible. Of course, my faith and the bible will naturally intersect. But I try to keep my participation limited to what the bible says on topics rather than how that should be manifest in one’s life.

There is a reason for this, and Beaucarnea touched on it in post 79. I do not come here to “witness”, or debate doctrine or theology. I’m more interested in the bible itself. My participation in this thread is more of an anomaly that a defense of JW doctrine. (although I will play a little longer)

At any rate, this narrow focus has strange side effects, like being in agreement with Diogenes on the issues of “Hell” and the “Trinity.” In the end, you, Diogenes, Polycarp and tomndebb have become my favorite posters, even though it is abundantly clear you are all severely misguided. :wink:

Thank you all for being good sports and worthy “opponents.” :slight_smile:

115

[QUOTE=simster]
We will not discuss my history… it is irrelivant to the point. I will simply say this, I am better informed about both the NWT and the JW History than most… I may be a little rusty in a point by point debate, but I know both the History of the Organization and its techniques better than you would like.

This is not meant as a slam or a challenge to you, it is simply to inform you that I have done extensive research on this subject… and FTR, while I do not agree with the JW (to be more specific, the teachings of the “Watchtower Bible and Tract Society”), I have no personal bias against the followers…

I’m simply going to post a few cites… I haven’t reviewed them all in entirety, but they hit the primary points fairly well…

Wiki Article on the NWT

Article on “Jehovah”

Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation

Point being… do not take my word on the subject… do some research and ask questions.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t generally post to threads that speak to JW doctrine.
**

  1. Some guy with a copy of Dreamweaver and an Agenda doesn’t a Scholar make.** In a MB that seeks to “Fight Ignorance”, it should be noted that now more than ever we should all be cautious to assign credulity and merit to stuff we can google up. The internet is full of passionate people who have something to say. All too often however, their information is biased, poorly conceived, and faulty. In short, the guy with the scholarly web page may still be an idiot.

Now rather than formulating a focused, cogent, answer, simster offers us these hyperlinks without an argument. I don’t know how much of these he’s read–if any–because he offers us no arguments in support of them. I did read them, and I can see several interesting things to discuss, but I’m not sure how to respond to the dozen or so topics that I could discern. It’s impossible to have a discussion with a web site.

I’m not doing simster’s work for him, and I don’t think the lurkers should do either, but I would note a couple things about the links he provides.

In the Wiki article–which appears to be a pretty well written and fairly balanced article—it appears that the biggest difference between the NWT and other translations is the use of the proper name “Jehovah.” (A point I’ve made here before) That opens up a lot of potential discussions, not the least of which is,:

  1. Is it appropriate for translators to simply use the word “LORD” where God’s proper name existed in the original text?
  2. Is there evidence that the Jews, or Jewish Christians actually used God’s name in either written or verbal communication?
  3. If so, is there evidence to support—either way—that the Jews were given direction as to the use of God’s name?
  4. Is there historical evidence that indicates that non-biblical sources—namely post-Christ Jewish superstitions—are the origin of the movement to remove God’s proper name from the bible, and worship?

There are all very interesting topics of discussions—and it seems to me will either vindicate or repudiate the NWT as a scholarly translation. It’s also a lot of work.

Anybody want to take up the cause when simster hasn’t? me neither.
**
2) A guy with Google-Fu and an Agenda doesn’t a Genius make.** In the 2nd and 3rd hyperlink—and I’m not kidding or making this up—a guy named Andy Bjorklund posted a few dozen comparisons between the NWT and the NIV and proclaimed the NWT faulty. Does the cite give us a single gram of evidence to support the notion that the NIV is the Gold Standard from which to judge the NWT? I’ll quote Mr.Bjorklund: “In the examples below, the New International Version of the Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society, c. 1978) has been used to depict a correct translation in the first quotation. (The translators’ choice of words is further verified by highly similar renditions in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible.)” Does the link provide any scholarly reference to support the notion that NIV alone should be used to judge other translations? Nope. Mr. Bjorklund apparently believes the JWs are a cult as evidenced by his post here. His post is actually a link to his website here. Mr. Bjorklund is a welcome guest on this site, and you can find more information about the web sites’s owners background here and the founder’s (Randall Watters) “testimony” here. This web site has much more to say and it’s all for sale here and here. Folks, Google is not your friend. It is not a surrogate for research. The next time someone says, *“…I’m simply going to post a few cites… I haven’t reviewed them all in entirety, but they hit the primary points fairly well… …”*in lieu of a cogent response, you should be looking for the intellectual exits.

116

[QUOTE=simster]
You should, by now, realize that I am intimately familar with the JW and thier teachings and methods.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, what I realize, is that you are passionate about what you believe and are proficient with Google. I also infer that you assign [apparently blind] credulity to googled websites and use them as a surrogate for a cojent argument. I surmise you may be young—younger than 25. (which in itself means little) I guess that you are a former JW, or have had some conflict with them in some way—either yourself or a love interest or family member.

Listen, the world is full of people who are angry and have an axe to grind. I wouldn’t expect to find an unbiased perspective on drunk driving from a mother who’s child who was killed by a drunk driver, nor an unbiased perspective on Catholicism from a parent who’s child was abused by a priest. (among the hundreds of thousands of decent hard working priests)

You have successfully googled up some web sites from some ex-JWs who are passionate enough about their experiences to make this their life work—it is their witness. I have no interest in arguing with them or you.

But their experiences lack objectivty, scholarly substance and often clarity. (even though it is clear that they are passionate) You simply cannot cut and paste your way to credibility; and expect the websites of formwe JWs to be the arbiter on matters of JW doctrine.

So, I regret to inform you that I am not impressed. I’m also not so interested in JW theology. (here anyway…) I am interested in the bible however, and our interaction started with a request to show what doctrines JWs espouse that are uniquely present in the NWT, and couldn’t be defended in other translations. Rather than an answer I received boodles of other things–none of them focused and some hyperlinks. Maybe it’s ADD on my part, but I find it hard to have a clear,non-fractured, discussion with you.

So, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. Next week I’ll start a thread on a bible topic that you’ve touched on, and we’ll see what your thoughts are.

117

raindog…

Those links were to start the conversation and were a direct response to your challenge.

With the myriads of topics to discuss with regaurd to the JW, the NWT, etc… you have to start somewhere.

I made the statment about the NWT that you challenged… I responded, and made the simple statement that these three site serve to hit the primary points of my argument.

Admittedly, the third one was more biased than I initially realized, but I really didn’t care, as the point was to highlite some of the translation differences, not to debate the correctness of them.

In all of this, all you seem to be able to do is to raise “credibility” questions about the authors intent… you make alot of grand statements in doing so… but you have yet to deal with any of the information provided. You have yet to provide anything that refutes the information linked to, or even question how it applies to my statements, or prove how they did not back up the statements I made.

IOW, you keep attacking the people as if that somehow disproves the information they have provided… prove the information wrong instead.

Wrong on all counts… I use google to save my own typing, and I only reference sites that I have validated the information within it… you totally took my comment and blew it out of proportion when I said that “I haven’t reviewed them all in entirety” to mean that I hadn’t read them at all… you’re going to have to do better than that.

Don’t bother, as I have no interest in debating theology with you…

118

raindog…

I would be remiss if I did not point out that I laid out my arguments with regards to the NWT translation in post 54 of this thread. (which you either missed or flat out ignored).

An even simpler proof would be wrt **the use of the proper name “Jehovah.” ** Since it is a doctrine of the JW that the proper name is “Jehovah” and that it was to be “sanctified” and used, the NWT “restored it”, ergo, the translation is biased and uniquely supports the JW doctrine in that regaurd alone.

There is also evidence that suggests that the NWT translation committee was not entirely consistent with this restoration.

119

[QUOTE=the raindog]

At any rate, this narrow focus has strange side effects, like being in agreement with Diogenes on the issues of “Hell” and the “Trinity.” In the end, you, Diogenes, Polycarp and tomndebb have become my favorite posters, even though it is abundantly clear you are all severely misguided. :wink:

Thank you all for being good sports and worthy “opponents.” :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Well, thanks, I think.

For what it’s worth, I’d like to second FriarTeds’s sentiments that I’ve grown to quite respect the passion and thought that you put into defending your faith. Hopefully you won’t take this the wrong way, but you’re one of the types of theists who cause me to ask myself “How is it that such a clearly intelligent person can still believe in such superstitions?” Please understand that’s a compliment from me. I think the same way about my wife and few others on this board (Tom, Poly, FriarTed, to name a few…I’d put Lib on that list but I’m not quite sure if what he believes can rightly be termed “superstition”).

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight. I’d get really bored if I could only talk to atheists all the time.

120

[QUOTE=simster]
raindog…

I would be remiss if I did not point out that I laid out my arguments with regards to the NWT translation in post 54 of this thread. (which you either missed or flat out ignored).

An even simpler proof would be wrt **the use of the proper name “Jehovah.” ** Since it is a doctrine of the JW that the proper name is “Jehovah” and that it was to be “sanctified” and used, the NWT “restored it”, ergo, the translation is biased and uniquely supports the JW doctrine in that regaurd alone.

There is also evidence that suggests that the NWT translation committee was not entirely consistent with this restoration.
[/QUOTE]

You know, you might just as easily call translations such as the King James version “biased” in another direction for using “Lord” instead of the divine name…
Moffatt uses “Eternal”…
In a Catholic work from the 13th Century, titled Pugio Fidei (“Dagger of the Faith”) a response to the Talmud, the word *Jehova appears; the text is Hebrew and Latin side-by-side, and this rendering of the divine name appears in the place corresponding to the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text.
The name Jehovah, of course, appears in four place in the KJV (1611), where, according to one authority, “where it would have been embarrassing to omit the name.”
The Douay version (1610) used it in a footnote at Exodus 6.3.
When missionary John Eliot translated the Book of Psalms for the Algonquian Indians, in the 17th Century, his version of the 23rd Psalm used the divine name as “Ehovah.”
The point of the foregoing is that the usage “Jehovah” has historical support.
In a collection of the American Bible Society in New York there are twenty spellings, tfrom thirty-eight languages (other than English or Hebrew; none, in fact, is Indo-European or used in Europe or Western Asia)