Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures/Archive 5

message: Please use a dictionary before using some words. For instance the word 'cult', refers to a human being in charge of a program, organization, etc. Jehovah's Witness are NOT A CULT. They look to Jehovah and Jesus Christ as their leader and they are not human beings. This is done by using the Bible as their source of information. 
:The above statements are completely useless in the determination either way whether JWs are a cult or not. Any group can claim that it looks to an entity whose existence is not proven, and such a claim has no bearing at all on whether the group is or is not a "cult".--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoees, do you intend this section as a discussion point, or a pulpit?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Header

message: THE WORD STAUROS OBVIOUSLY MEANS CROSS. WHAT´S THE GREEK LETTER FOR "T", IT IS THE LETTER "TAU". ANYONE CAN GUESS THAT THE WORD STAUROS COMES FROM THE LETTER "TAU" AND THE SHAPE OF THIS LETTER WHETHER LATIN OR GREEK IS A CROSS. JEHOVA´S WITNESS DO NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE NOR HISTORY, ´CAUSE CRUCIFICATION WAS THE COMMON DEATH PENALTY IN THAT AGE.
I beleive you are mistaken. FWI if your trying to make a point, do it in a tacful way. Not an ALL CAPS RAVE. That just makes you look childish. --Iron Chef 21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting reasoning. It makes as much sense as saying that cats are naturally scathing, because the word 'scathe' contains the word 'cat'.--Jeffro77 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I keep re-reading you statement, trying to make any sense out of it. It sickens me to see people so confused about history. --75.6.215.91 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cross

message: It is ad hominem to say that things were said by "disfellowshipped" persons. The implication is that JWs shouldn't believe something because it was stated by a 'disfellowshipped' person, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether what they say is true. It is sufficient to say they are former members.--Jeffro77 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disfellowshipped"

message: the lead in states that there was another bible at one time published by the WTBTS. I have not heard of this, please provide more information. what was the Bible called?  Ice9Tea 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they have published the King James Version (which is and has been in the public domain for some time). I believe they also had the copyright to the American Standard Version, which they liked because it uses the name "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" in the Old Testament.71.142.67.206 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: Any body interested? 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)
SV 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD's 

message: I have removed the reference to Exodus 20:7 because it is not actually 'supportive' of the statement it follows. Though it does not contradict the statement, it also does not explain it. The 'Jewish superstition' to not use 'god's' name at all was a later theological development.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ten Commandments do not explain not using the name at all. Exodus only provides the background for why the name came not to be used at all, and is not the reason. The verse mentions nothing about superstition, nor about never using the name, and is therefore invalid as a reference. It would be suitable as part of a parenthetical statement at best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, if the statement being referenced was "don't take up the lord's name in vain", then the Exodus reference would be appropriate. However, it does not explain never using the name at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff -- there is not other source for the "Jewish superstition."  If you don't accept that, then I invite you to FIND a Jewish source that gives any other reason for the practice.  Once you'll look, you'll put the Exodus citation back in yourself -- because there is no other origin for the practice.  But don't just delete a source and leave NOTHING in its place.  That's disrespectful to Wikipedia readers.  They aren't stupid.  They know the practice had to come from SOMEWHERE.Tim (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Superstition 'reference'