For example,
Deeje says “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.”
However, this scripture says no such thing.
Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.
Since Jehovahs witness theology no longer has the theology of a “spirit” that departs the body, then
this part of the scripture is left out of his quote. Conversely, he
adds the concept in this quote that the dead
“do not think” while the scripture itself simply tells us
“his plans perish”. (fail) Both the "leaving out" and the "adding to" change the scripture.
We are given a redacted and paraphrased form of the actual scripture, that is NOT representative of scripture, but of Jehovahs Witness interpretation.
Let's see....The word rendered "thoughts" in Psalm 146:4, but claimed by you to mean "plans" is "
`eshtonah" which Strongs Concordance says is
"thought". So since we plan things in our minds, all ability to think and plan is gone at death. This is in harmony with Ecclesiastes 9:10...
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." (NASB)
We are all going to "sheol" which is no more scary than resting peacefully in our graves.
In Hebrew the word "thought" is "
chashab" which means...
"to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count".
I don't think the scriptures need your spin when the language experts seem to disagree with your interpretation.
Strongs is a widely recognized reference source that has nothing to do with JW's.
Someone without any pre-conceptions may read the phrase “When their spirit departs” as meaning “their spirit departs or leaves”, and the persons dead body returns to the earth, and thus all future plans made by the dead person will no longer be accomplished by that person.
That is your spin but it does not hold up to scrutiny.....sorry.
The Hebrew word rendered "departs" is "
yatsa'" which means...
"to go out, come out, exit, go forth".
When we say a light "goes out" do we mean that it has left the room? It is extinguished....just as the breath in a dying body "goes out"...it "exits" the body. If you have ever sat with a dying person who takes their last breath....it is an exhale. The spirit (breath) leaves their body.
In Habakkuk 2:19 it says in the Tanach...
"Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it."
According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "
ruwach" which means....
"wind, breath, mind, spirit".
This scripture is saying that an idol is lifeless because it has no "breath". It is dead.
The Jewish understanding of the word "spirit" when it pertains to human beings is the air in their lungs. Adam "became a soul" when God started him breathing. It is the same "spirit" that is in all animate creatures who depend on breathing air.
Solomon lamented that we humans had no advantage over the animals in death when he said....
From the Tanach...Ecclesiastes 3:19-20...
"For there is a happening for the children of men, and there is a happening for the beasts-and they have one happening-like the death of this one is the death of that one, and all have one spirit [ruwach], and the superiority of man over beast is nought, for all is vanity.
20 All go to one place; all came from the dust, and all return to the dust."
Having demonstrated this, I must say that this principle of changing things in subtle ways such that it creates new doctrines to support a new system of religion, ALL of us tend to do this because we ALL make mistakes and we ALL have biases. To claim that we have things “right” because “we follow the bible” is naïve and self delusional. We simply make mistakes.
As you have 'clearly' demonstrated in your assertions....
you have made a mistake in everything you have said. For goodness sake do some research before you continue on with this ridiculous crusade. Your ignorance of the scriptures and your bias in desperately clinging to this doctrine is blinding you to an obvious but inconvenient truth.
It’s not just that I notice “spins” placed on quotes in this thread, but I mentioned that I did not like some of the changes in the Jehovahs Witness creation of a paraphrase of the Bible and calling it a “translation’ while changing some of the text. For example, the NEW TESTAMENT TEXT he quotes as “
Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” (
2 Timothy 2:15-19) The actual greek SAYS, αποστητω απο αδιδιασ πασ ο ονομαζνω το ονομα κυριου". The "name of the LORD" is the actual greek text and, I might point out that there are
NO GN-4 variants of this text in existence that insert the word "jehovah" in the place of "κυριου". While the justification for changing the text is that it is a quote of an old Testament Text that the J.W. church THINKS
should say "JEHOVAH" (but doesn't). This doesn't take into account the historical principle that there may have been a VERY GOOD reason for the writer to use the word "LORD" instead of JEHOVAH. IF the writer was inspired to write "Lord", then what would be the justification to change inspiration other than that it better supports a theological claim. These sorts of subtle changes to the NEW TESTAMENT text in order to support a claim are concerning.
Concerning to whom? Here we go again....
In the NWT we unashamedly write....
“Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” Paul was quoting OT scripture there.
The first reference is to Numbers 16:5 which in the Tanach it says..."
"He spoke to Korah and to all his company, saying, "In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His, and who is holy, and He will draw [them] near to Him, and the one He chooses, He will draw near to Him.
הוַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־קֹ֜רַח וְאֶל־כָּל־עֲדָתוֹ֘ לֵאמֹר֒ בֹּ֠קֶר וְיֹדַ֨ע יְהֹוָ֧ה אֶת־אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ וְאֶת־הַקָּד֖וֹשׁ וְהִקְרִ֣יב אֵלָ֑יו וְאֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַר־בּ֖וֹ יַקְרִ֥יב אֵלָֽיו:
In the Hebrew we see the tetragrammaton
יְהֹוָ֧ה (Yahweh, Jehovah) clearly in the text.
The second reference is from Joel 2:32 from the Tanach reads...
"And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered".
וְהָיָ֗ה כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט כִּ֠י
Again we see God's name in the Hebrew....so why is it that the Jews could write the divine name in their scripture, but not say it out loud?
A
tradition had developed at some point, well before Jesus came to the earth of not uttering the divine name....and substituting the title "Adonai" (Lord) almost 7,000 times. There was no command from God to do this as the Bible writers freely used the divine name right throughout their scriptures. You cannot call on a name you never use.
To my understanding, it was actually a knee jerk for these overly self-righteous, law obsessed Jews because they saw that the Commandment of 'not taking God's name in vain' was being abused. It was becoming apparent that many were making frivolous oaths using God's name and then not honoring them. This in turn brought reproach on the greatest name in existence, so instead of making the people accountable for breaking this commandment, they simply removed the reason for breaking it. You can't break the Law if you do not use the name at all.
It was in this setting that Jesus and his apostles preached...but Jesus said something interesting....
John 17:6; 26...
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. . . . I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
So Jesus knew how important God's name was and revealed it to his apostles. There is no real reason why God's name should not be returned to its rightful place in his word.
What human author would tolerate such a thing.....the removal of his name and substituted with the title "Author".
Just as Deeje added and subtracted to
Psalms 146:4, in subtle changes to scripture, I have felt that subtle screwing with the text itself is NOT a good thing and it creates and supports a theology that the original text did not contain. This is the sort of systematization of errors that Ephesians referred to. The net result is the principle underlying the creation of another religious movement.
But Mormons would never "screw" with the text.....would they? They simply wrote their own scripture.....without a single bit of real evidence that Joseph Smith was not simply a man with delusional mental health issues.
Deeje responded : “We value the truth. That is why we produced the NWT. It is the most accurate translation available because of the research that went into its renderings. All you need is a good concordance to ascertain the original meanings of the words used in the Bible. Please provide examples of where we should "have left the sacred text alone instead of making changes that are inaccurate and unwarranted in scripture". Let's examine them....please....”
I am at work, but will get out my New World Translation and give some examples of the origin of the NW Translation and it's text that is so bothersome.
I eagerly look forward to that.....