Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 13

message: I was just working my way through the article doing some mostly minor copyedits, seeing what it looks like now, when I found the Publications section. I have to ask, does an encyclopedia need this much product detail? If it does, why not just add the catalog ID numbers and a links to subscribe to each directly? Seriously though, can we trim this down, just describe each publication, mention that it comes in lots of editions and languages, and link once to the publication's main off site page where people can find all the fine details if they're interested? Any serious objections before I do that? Wesley 03:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, we're not here to market JW publications. Kevin Rector (talk) 06:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
We have been asked for details! details! details! on everything. If you want to cut it down, I don't object, but if we get hit up for more detail again I will send the requester your way! :0D George 11:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, ok, fair enough. Send the complaints to me. I'll try not to cut out too much. :-D  Wesley 16:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications Advertising? 

message: the last editor apparently added this line to the origins sections
"Jehovah's Witnesses are a group of false prophets whose prophecies do not come true."
that IMO is not a NPOV
:I think we can safely classify that as "vandalism" and not bother giving it much more discussion.  That is, of course, unless the author of those changes would like to justify them and explain how they can possibly be a NPOV. -- uberpenguin 01:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
::On 13 Jun 2005, EliasAlucard added a NPOV Dispute link but did not offer any explanation or make any commentary here on the Talk page. He/She/It did leave this cryptic Edit summary:
:::"This article is the result of ongoing compromise and effort by JW and other editors." If that's the case, then NPOV'ed. Jehova's [sic] Witnesses may very well not be neutral when editing.
::Since this user did not raise a valid point of dispute I am removing this warning. Discussion is welcome. --DannyMuse 18:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: I'd like to solve this amicably.  I prefer: 
* Use of the Hebrew name of God, commonly rendered Jehovah in English
Over:
* Use of an archaic romanised transliteration of the Hebrew name for God, Jehovah.
Technically the transliteration is not archaic, first appearing in the early 15th century by cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (contrary to the blurb on the Tetragrammaton page.. so much editing so little time!!), On top of that "Jehovah" wasn't an overnight decision.  The evolution of the transliterated name spans several centuries.  Most of those scholars venturing to render the name as accurately as possible, cite the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and transliterate from there (contrary to the myth that it was a concoction of the consanents of "YHWH" + the vowels of the Hebrew word for "God": Adonai).  It wasn't really "Romanised" or "Latinized" though it certainly is a transliteration.  It's more a product of evolution than any form of latin transliteration.  The author Gérard Gertoux shows just how influential Maimonides was in the evolution of the name (The "Summary" and "F.A.Q." sections of the website are great resources).  The point is:  We use the most commonly accepted ENGLISH rendering of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton "Jehovah", and I feel the first option (the way it was) reflects that better than the later.  Duffer 02:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Duffer's reasoning. Also Fire Star's edit put the emphasis on the transliteration rather than the name of God, which is what JW's emphasize: The God of the Bible has a personal name. JW's say it in whatever form is common in the language they speak. This is the English WP so we use "Jehovah" here. --DannyMuse 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I can see why calling it "archaic" is debatable, but what's wrong with calling it a "transliteration?" That seems like a more precise version of "rendered" without being insulting or excessively wordy. I'm going to try changing that back. Wesley 02:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Jehovah" intro 

message: QUESTION-- Why do the Great Crowd refuse the Lord's Supper?   Melissa
ANSWER  It is not a refusal so much as the fact that they are not entitled.  The bread and the wine represent the Covenant with the Anointed.  The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant- CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Who edited my reply here??? - CobaltBlueTony 15:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I did not edit but merely quoted from this text.- Melissa   
It is not a refusal so much as the fact that we are not entitled.  The bread and the wine represent the covenant with the anointed.  The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant, to be 'kings and priests with him' in heaven.  However, in Revelation Chapter 7, the great crowd is identified right after the 144,000 anointed ones:
"After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: 'Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.'... 'These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.'" (Rev.7:9, 10, 14b-17, NWT)
Obviously, those who identify with the Great Crowd are not denying themselves of anything that has been offered to them.  Rather, they are recongized by God for their devotion, and are 'shepherded' by Christ (as the Lamb) as he does so with the congregation as one flock.
If you would like to use references not dated back to 1935, but reflect our current beliefs and means od expressing them, try this web page: What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe? - CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
REQUEST--List the benefits and duties of the Covenant with the Anointed compared with the Great Crowd. Then we will have an honest article. --Melissa
:Melissa, If you'd like to prepare a draft list and submit it to the JW Talk page for discussion I'm sure we'd be happy to review it! Cheers, --DannyMuse 06:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Covenant with the Anointed but not the Great Crowd (aka Jonadabs)