JW's mistaken claim...

[Space Merchant]

On 2/3/2018 at 10:20 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

REVELATION 1:1-2

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ^2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. "

GOD GAVE  ------>> TO JESUS

...

get it?

As what I have stated before, this is indeed true. God has given Jesus power and authority for Jesus cannot give himself such on his own, which some will lead others to believe.  Matthew 28:18, which reads: And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority (and/or power) in heaven and on earth has been given to me. - ESV   

Which both can be compared/connected to (just a few verses)

Ephesians 1:20-23

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Philippians 2:9-10

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

So we know that God has given such a task to the Son, Jesus Christ. He entrusts Jesus to judge, in other words, being one a judge in His court, another example can be found in this next one here (which connects well with chapters, like Hebrews 1 for example):

John 5: 20,23

The Authority of the Son

For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

In addition to that, even the Jews knew who God was and who Jesus was, a verse that is sometimes overlooked, well this individual isn't mentioned as much by most mainstream Christians. This person's name is Nicodemus.

Nicodemus, Pharisee, a teacher of Israel, as well as the ruler of the Jews (member of the Sanhedrin). He is only mentioned in the gospel of John only (4 chapters only), to be more specific, John 2:23, 3:1-21, 7:45-52, 19:38-40.

 Nicodemus was very impressed with the things Jesus had done, especially with hat was done in Jerusalem at Passover time of 30 C.E. for what took place intrigued him. Eventually, Nicodemus visited Jesus one night, choosing the dead of night to do this because obviously he didn’t want to be seen speaking to Jesus, reason can be seen in John 12:42. He confessed in his own words that Jesus must have come from God. For he said to Jesus “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

Nicodemus himself spoke to Jesus in regarding to one being “born again” in order to see the Kingdom of God, of no man’s having ascended to heaven, about the love of God is shown by sending the Son, Jesus Christ, to earth, and about the need to exercise faith, which we can see by reading John 2:23 and 3:1-21.

During the Festival of Booths, 2 ½ years prior, the Pharisees had sent officers to go to Jesus. When the officers returned with nothing to show for what they had been tasked, the Pharisees lectured them for making a report of Jesus in a positive way, pretty much taking his side, as for Nicodemus, he spoke and he said the following saying: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” After saying such, of course the response would not be in his favor and he was ridiculed by the others, which we see here in John 7:45-52.

After the death and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Nicodemus, who was with Joseph (of Arimathea), bringing myrrh and aloes to prepare JesusÂ’ body for burial, John 19:38-40.

But yeah, this is just one example of those knowing that Jesus Christ, who is the Son, is the one who has been sent by the Father, for whatever Jesus speaks and teachings are not of his own, but originates from the Father, who is the Almighty God.

 

As for Revelations 1:1-2, it also points back to connected verses such as

Daniel 2:28, Amos 3:7

Revelations 7:3, 4, Matthew 10:2

Mark 1:19, John 21:20

 

and that is just a few  for verses connect/compare to other verses, and the cycle continues, like a labyrinth of scriptural information that mesh so well together. But at the same time, it opens door to truth that you can interpret, meditate on and to teach.

[Foreigner]

It’s hilarious when opposers attempt to sway their argument by introducing an “interlinear” to make a point. First, the Bible Students were criticized for relying on the Emphatic Diaglott Bible with the Westcott and Hort interlinear (Vatican Manuscripts), and now, the Watchtower is being criticized for thinking it hasnÂ’t consulted the TR-MSS. No different with what the J.P. Green SR interlinear offers. What will people think of next?

Textual basis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

The Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)

Modern Midrash: The Retelling of Traditional Jewish Narratives By Twentieth-century Hebrew Writers SUNY Series in Modern Jewish 1987

Midrash-and-Multiplicity-Pirke-De-Rabbi-Eliezer-and-the-Renewal-of-Rabbinic-Interpretive-Culture-Studia-Judaica-48 2009

Targum and Testament Revisited 2010

The Vatican Manuscript of Spinoza's Ethica (Brill's Studies in Intellectual History) (English and Latin Edition) 2011

 

WhatÂ’s, even funnier the J.P. Green SR, GLT bible, agrees with the NWT in certain text, by using the name of God (Jehovah) NOT (Yahweh) such as in, 2 King 24:1-2

Therefore, an interlinear is as good as its interpretation with the proper context attached to the ancient script. Anything else is meaningless rhetoric.

Masoretic Text 1524

2 Kings 24:1

????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?

24:2        ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????

In his days, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up and Jehoiakim became a servant for three years, and sat down:

24: 2 And Jehovah sent to him the battalions of Gadim, and the divisions of Aram, and the battalions of Moab, and the battalions of the Ammonites, and sent them in Judah to destroy him, as the word of the LORD was spoken by the servants of the prophets.

 

24:2	  Young's Literal Translation 1862   24:1     In his days hath Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come up, and Jehoiakim is to him a servant three years; and he turneth and rebelleth against him, 24:2     and Jehovah sendeth against him the troops of the Chaldeans, and the troops of Aram, and the troops of Moab, and the troops of the sons of Ammon, and He sendeth them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Jehovah, that He spake by the hand of His servants the prophets;
Â	Reina Valera 1909 Â
4:1	EN su tiempo subió Nabucodonosor rey de Babilonia, al cual sirvió Joacim tres años; volvióse luego, y se rebeló contra él.
24:2	Jehová empero envió contra él tropas de Caldeos, y tropas de Siros, y tropas de Moabitas, y tropas de Ammonitas; los cuales envió contra Judá para que la destruyesen, conforme á la palabra de Jehová que había hablado por sus siervos los profetas.   GOOGLE TRANSLATE: Substitutes JEHOVA for LORD. This shows the bias in translation.

24: 1 In his time Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up, and Jehoiakim served for three years; He turned then, and rebelled against him.

24: 2 But the LORD sent against him troops of the Chaldeans, and troops of Syrians, and troops of the Moabites, and troops of the Ammonites; and he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servants the prophets.

 

 

ALL these translation derive from the TR-MSS. Only a selective few honor God by using his proper name, (i.e. translated in its CORRECT context) and doesn’t hide his name like many bibles out there. Where does that leave that ideology, when applying an interlinear as bases for an argument? But, this also falls in line, when, POPE John Paul II “ordered” the REMOVAL of the Tetragrammaton and use of God’s personal name from all Catholic Churches services.

http://forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1230#post7756

https://vn.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130804071545AAj7aHJ

Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor. http://www.zenit.org/article-23414?l=english (dead-link) Permission, not granted!!

 

Any other disingenuous argument can be scrutinized by the works, like Norman L. Geisler.

Since this forum is hypothetically anything but an academic forum, Copyright rules apply.

 “No portion of this e-book may legally be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form and by any means, electronic or mechanical.”

A similar clause, the Watchtower has for its printed material.

Copyright

© 2017 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

This website is published and maintained by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“Watchtower”). Unless otherwise indicated, all text and other information on this website are the intellectual property of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“Watch Tower”).

“But please do not reproduce its contents on another website or application.”

You may not:

·         Post artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, videos, or articles from this website on the Internet (any website, file-sharing site, video-sharing site, or social network).

·         Distribute artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, text, or videos from this website with or as part of any software application (including uploading such materials to a server for use by a software application).

·         Reproduce, duplicate, copy, distribute, or otherwise exploit any artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, text, or videos on this website for a commercial purpose or for money (even if no profit is involved).

 

Therefore, I recommend everyone keep their views of opposition to works that donÂ’t VIOLATE copyright law.

2018 has become a different beast. There are forces out there, which will get, people to start complying with the LAWS of the LAND. No exceptions, LBR, TTH, JTR. This, however, doesn’t apply to “public domain” works. I’m sure you would agree on TTH, you wouldn’t want your published work on an open forum to be butchered by opposers to make irrelevant claims when they don’t have a cognitive understanding of scripture, to begin with. So, why turn a blind eye to the Watchtower publications. I hope people will finally understand the irony why the Watchtower doesn’t attach a name to any of its publications in order to preserve their works from becoming public domain.

In general, works published after 1977 will not fall into the public domain until 70 years after the death of the author, or, for corporate works, anonymous works, or works for hire, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.

An organization is an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department. A corporation is a large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law. An organization can be a part of a corporation.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/copyright-laws-and-regulations/usa

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/its-a-wrap-what-to-expect-from-the-copyright-wars-in-2018/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/copyright-week-2018-join-us-fighting-better-copyright-law-and-policy

 

So, this infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting, what is “fair use” will be a thing of the past. So, gear up folks, Web sites are included in this battle. Yes, that also applies to archives of published works without the expressed permission or consent of the owner.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

They can restrict EVERYTHING.

Copyright law says ..... they cannot.

[Foreigner]

Perhaps, to opposers and unscrupulous people that don’t adhere to Caesar’s law much less God’s law, until they find the words “slander” and “defamation” attached to their senseless rhetoric. Even then, a dying atheist wants to believe in a higher being.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, this infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting, what is “fair use” will be a thing of the past.

Actually, I don't think so. "Fair use" is a pretty bedrock principle of American law. Otherwise there could be no commentary of anything and most of the news and print and internet media would implode into a black hole. 

Fair use allows for short passages to be quoted. Long segments are another thing entirely.

I try to be careful on this and not abuse what is permissible . While I do have some short quotes (not many, really, at least not in comparison) I have not used the organization's artwork or logo, as though it were my own. 

It is obvious why they would not want a liar doing this. But even a friend - to use their artwork suggests to the casual reader (which is the majority) that you are them. You thereby impute all of your idiosyncrasies to them. (I have none, of course, so this is not a big deal in my case, but all others here are absolute lunatics.  )

 

[Foreigner]

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Actually, I don't think so. "Fair use" is a pretty bedrock principle of American law. Otherwise there could be no commentary of anything and most of the news and print and internet media would implode into a black hole. 

Then I suggest you start educating yourself in the laws that govern copyright, and not assume as JWI has about fair use. There are plenty of websites to aid you. This ideology of violating other people’s rights just to make websites of opposition, viable, is no longer an excuse.

However, Does this mean, I can publish YOUR books content online?

[TrueTomHarley]

45 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

However, Does this mean, I can publish YOUR books content online?

I believe it does, in short segments (a sentence or two) for the sake of commentary. Longer passages would have to be authorized by me. 

Do you think every book or movie reviewer has the permission of the artist?

Nor should you think I am in cahoots with JWI or even sympathetic to his aims. What he is doing, he is doing, and can defend himself if he chooses to. I can answer only to what I am doing.

I knew of "fair use" long before I knew of @JW Insider. It is not something obscure.

Should you want to post anything relevant to law, I will be grateful to you. If it turns out I am doing wrong, I will mend my ways. However, as stated, I would have to search some to find even where I have copied anything of theirs. I mean, I would not challenge that I have done it, but it is not frequent and it is never long. Some here (and everywhere) have reproduced entire articles. I have never done that, believing it to be a violation of copyright unless done with written authorization.

A snippet is something else entirely.

[Foreigner]

25 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I believe it does, in short segments (a sentence or two) for the sake of commentary. Longer passages would have to be authorized by me. 

Exactly. You, as an AUTHOR, should have been aware of copyright, even before JWI obscured, the fair use, view. So, what makes your works better, that it needs YOUR PERMISSION, from, that of the Watchtowers, that people think they DON’T need permission from the Watchtower to publish ANY of their copyrighted material. If, you’re NOT willing to subject your own published works to the same standard, then, don’t advocate, the infringement of the Watchtower copyrighted material.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Exactly

I think we are somehow not communicating. If anyone else is doing wrong, fry him. But I am not.

To reproduce long excerpts from a copyrighted work, you need permission. 

To reproduce short ones - a sentence or two  - you do not. Watchtower publications do it all the time.

 

 

[Foreigner]

Religious organizations do a limited Q&A to confirm or refute some underline claim, by others. The Bible Students used their publications for rebuttal. However, there are circumstances that even the Watchtower has to be given permission to use information that is copyrighted. They also GRANT permission too many that have an interest in the Watchtower publications, History and Chronology.

None of which is Granted automatically, as its being abused here. I used your position as an Author to make a point, not directly to you, BUT EVERYONE HERE. This includes Witnesses, opposers, and the OWNER, that contributed this hilarious controversial portion of this website for people to malign the Watchtower.

Just, like you wouldn’t want your works stolen, what makes anyone think the Watchtower does?

 

Ephesians 4:28 World English Bible (WEB)

 

28 Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, producing with his hands something that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need.

World English Bible (WEB)

 

By Public Domain. The name "World English Bible" is trademarked.

[TrueTomHarley]

A good place to start (and finish, for the most part) is to google: 'wikipedia fair use'

[Foreigner]

Under the law, ignorance is no excuse or substitute to make a defense. First, you would start, by not justifying the abuse, and then, ask yourself, which laws you think can be broken to satisfy defamation.

God starts with your heart, where, does those calling themselves witnesses, START!!

Then anyone can use you published work without your permission, just because you think “fair use” is “fair game”. That's amusing coming from you.