At what moment "The Truth" has ceased to be "The Truth"?

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

But they cannot know for sure, can they? No one is infalible. 

So when you go into the ministry you tell people that you might have the truth but you might not do you ? 

[Anna]

1 minute ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So when you go into the ministry you tell people that you might have the truth but you might not do you ? 

When the Bible talks clearly about certain fundamental things like the future for mankind then I would hope that was correct enough for me to try and impart that same hope to others, in this wicked hopeless world. 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Outta Here said:

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Question is, in what context GB put, push verses

I do not understand this question at all.

For help you what i mean by GB context. Example; Bible command say: Do not eat blood. Very simple imperative, almost nothing else is need to understand. For this command you not need any other verse from Bible for purpose of some so called Context. Is this OK with you? If you respond with YES, i will continue. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

7 hours ago, Outta Here said:

" We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong."

It depends on the context of what is being discussed.

That is a philosophical aphorism which is true in a general case, for most things, most of the time.

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting. 

I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make them think. 

You can ask me to look for the truth, but you cannot ask me to find it. 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW members reacting if they, as persons with ability to understand things too,  blindly follow the human rules.

This would imply, the lack of respect for local laws.

Billy! Title of this post, heading is about "The Truth...." All here, old enough as JW members, very well know what means phrase "The Truth". This title  "At what moment "The Truth" has ceased to be "The Truth"?"  was intentionally created to give possibility to speak, to give comment on various and very different subjects as someone wish, but all that have purpose to show how many issues is possible to open and questioning and commenting under "The Truth" title. 

But please, be concentrate when you respond to some comment, in this case mine. I clearly and directly connect Governing Body aka GB with human rules that is created by that same GB ....and NOT talking about secular, or local laws as you said. 

So, to clear it for purpose of issue. If GB making rules are those rules under warning that Jesus and apostles named with "human rules and commands"??  (Mark chapter 7 + Isaiah)  

Their worship of me is worthless.
    The things they teach are only human rules.’

⁸ You have stopped following God’s commands, preferring instead the man-made rules you got from others.”

[Space Merchant]

36 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M and I are in debate about some scripture in Hebrews.

if that is the case - I accept. Just know the Bible and the Bible it is what you must use.

37 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

without going back pages, i think it was Billy that used a scripture that used the word Leaders.

But you yourself said it has nothing to do with leaders whereas the Strong's and context is used against you. How do you make response to that?

38 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In my personal opinion there is a difference. Politicians may call themselves 'leaders', but they seldom physically 'take the lead'.

Again - The Hebrews verses points does not point to political leaders, again the context of the verses and the cross-references counters your claim.

If you seek the other authority, perhaps give Romans a got - not Hebrews.

45 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In years gone by of course a Leader would in fact lead, from the front, leading. 

So how does connect to Hebrews 13:7, 17 granted your claim?

48 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But in modern day terminology  a Leader can be one that gives orders from behind, not actually partaking in the activity.

The terminology should be in regards to the Bible. Do not add in Man's Understanding of the text, Butler. You did this last time with the word Nakedness and Ambassador.

50 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M. has vast knowledge of course and i don't mind being corrected by him. It teaches me humility. 

Is it a crime to adhere to knowledge and learning, according to you? You can use some of that - it is the best thing since sliced bread.

51 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My point, not to SM here, is that most JW's do not do so much research into who wrote the translation, whether Strong's was used, and / or cross reference with other translation, or even going back to 'original manuscripts (as far back as possible). 

How do you know this if you yourself made claim you do know not each and every JW? For instance, Outta Here to JW Insider, to Kathgar to Evo. All of them have different experiences in understanding the Scriptures so you cannot be certain.

I find that last bit funny, Strong's and Cross-references are in EVERY Translation, ironically enough, even to the uninspired text found in the TR-1245. And the Strong's is the only thing that is in connection with manuscripts and codex evidence today which resulted in having a Bible in our language and understanding what a passage and or word of passage means.

You can't be serious if you put forth that claim.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

W's are supposed to trust the GB and take every word from the GB as being correct, including the NWT.   Many JW's (such as myself) are not highly educated people, so tend to follow like sheep. 

But didn't they tell you to learn or research the Bible also? You had left JWs long time ago so surely you would have taken it upon yourself to study and apply, or did you not?

The disciples were not as educated, nor were those of Pentecost, but they had the sense to understand Scripture.

The Scriptures and the truth of the Scriptures is for all persons.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As meanings of words can change and often do, then the NWT has been updated, and I am asking myself now have i been foolish to trust it ?  For me the plot thickens.  

No, the meaning of words do not change. The Strong's in both Hebrew and in Greek still stands. Therefore Hebrews was indeed speaking about leaders, thus putting your claim to shame when you stated it makes no mention of such leaders when the context and references tells you, even if you go to the Strong's, it tells you.

If you cannot understand your Bible, how on earth would you be able to teach? The manuscripts and codex should be a dead giveaway, but like before, with these 2 verses, you remain unaware and unwilling to learn.

[Space Merchant]

@JOHN BUTLER Other than that I accept in conjunction with what you said, as stated before. We can begin with omitted verses and or the Strong's that correlates to a word in the verse or not, you can go first.

[Judith Sweeney]

Good "Meat of the Matter" today.    The way I like it.       Thank You. 

 

[Space Merchant]

48 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting. 

I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make them think. 

You can ask me to look for the truth, but you cannot ask me to find it. 

But wouldn't the defeat the purpose of Jesus own words and the same thing practices by others?

If you know the truth you teach it so in turn student can be the teacher and minister to others, the process of making disciples.

Jesus stated that we should be coming to know the True God and to know of his Kingdom, as well as know who he has sent.

Seek and you shall find do not ring any bells?

To find the truth in the Scriptures isn't a mistake.

 

That being said, your own statement can be used against you judging by your previous comments.

[JOHN BUTLER]

10 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

@JOHN BUTLER Other than that I accept in conjunction with what you said, as stated before. We can begin with omitted verses and or the Strong's that correlates to a word in the verse or not, you can go first.

But unfortunately you don't want to relate it to the Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems you wish to talk about the Bible from a general viewpoint. My point is that JW's 'learn' at their meetings. They use the NWT and are taught from that.  

The leaders of the JW Org are the Governing Body. The 'ones taking the lead' are the Elders and others that do the ministry regularly. I'm sure you can understand that difference. 

This whole forum is about Jehovah's Witnesses but you still want to bring in other issues. 

As with the word nakedness which you didn't want to understand my viewpoint on. The GB either wrote the word or approved of the word nakedness, but why ?  If the original meaning was lightly clad or wearing underclothes then why say naked ? To a JW reading that scripture from the NWT it mens naked. You don't agree, that's up to you. 

There is another phrase in the NWT 'torture stake', which is used in place of cross. Now the word, i think would be stake. But the GB has used 'torture stake'.  I can understand it is to show what type of stake, but, is it  true to translation ?  

You see the whole point of this is not about a general meaning, not about what every religion thinks of it. It is about how JW's view it through the NWT.  Because as I've said  many times this is a JW Forum. 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

When the Bible talks clearly about certain fundamental things like the future for mankind then I would hope that was correct enough for me to try and impart that same hope to others, in this wicked hopeless world. 

When the Bible talks clearly about ... and when you or me or someone else believe that with all our heart .... it is understandable you want share that hope with others.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The leaders of the JW Org are the Governing Body. The 'ones taking the lead' are the Elders and others that do the ministry regularly. I'm sure you can understand that difference.

I think this point showed excellent insight. I wondered if this is what you meant from the start. The very context shows that the type of leadership in this case is more like the local elders rather than the far-away GB:

• (Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

However, I wouldn't get too hung up on variations in translations, or changes from one NWT to a newer version. As JWs, we are always happy to quote other translations that support our view of Scriptures. There are always several different ways to translate something and it doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. They could both be right. Often there are two ways to say the exact same thing. Often there are slight differences, and sometimes larger differences in meaning, and a translator is obligated to take an educated guess.

The "nakedness" vs "lacking clothing" discussion is an example of that. The word for nakedness in the original Greek is "gymnos." (Strong's Greek #1131)  It's the same word from which we get "gymnasium" because sports in the Greek/Roman world were often performed naked (and sometimes nearly so). This reminds me that I gave a funeral talk in Manhattan in 2013 on the day of the Annual Meeting, and the elder from Bethel (Patterson) who was supposed to give the talk had to leave early for his seat in Jersey City. I already had a copy of the NWT 2013 Revised on PDF, and was under strict orders not to share this fact with anyone, not even my wife. But I cheated a bit. The funeral was attended by a lot of her "worldly" neighbors in addition to brothers and sisters. She had been well-known as a Dorcas-like sister who actually had bought me a new warm coat when I first came to Bethel in 1976. I wanted to use the example in James 2:15, but I always hated the fact that it said "naked" there, and I especially didn't want to read it that way in front of non-Witnesses:

• (James 2:15-16) 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it?

So I used the 2013 NWT Revised, against orders, but no one called me out on it. Because no one else should have known anyway. Besides, the new Bible was to be released in just a few hours:

• (James 2:15, 16) 15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it?

The first is actually a little more accurate from a literal point of view. But the second is probably more accurate from a practical point of view, as it's hard to imagine someone coming into the KH completely naked.

The word "torture stake" vs "stake" is a good point. One is for understanding and the other more literal. A better example might be the word "impaled" which was completely wrong in its most common connotations. That was fixed in 2013.

Some other points are still questionable, and the translators might still wonder whether they may have had a better choice in the old version of the NWT. Here's an example, I wanted to share earlier when discussion the term "illiterate" with @Outta Here so I'll use this excuse to bring it up now:

• (John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT)

• (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)

The older version could be saying something specific about literacy, where the second is referring to knowledge of Scripture itself.