User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2009c

What Needs Clarification?
Please review and comment. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WT library
Don't know if you have, or want, the 2008 Watchtower Library, but it's available for download. Let me know if you can't find it. LTSally (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah
You have reverted my "Clarify me" request on the Jehovah page, but I'm still puzzled about the meaning of the statement that "Jehovah" is a faithfully translated form of the original Hebrew term (יהוה). Can the same be said of "Yahweh"? And of other English terms that have in fact been used, not only forms like "Jahweh" and "Iehoua", but also "the LORD"? If it can, the phrase seems meaningless to me. Can you help me? Soidi (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're puzzled. The answer to your question for "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Jahweh" and "Iehoua", is Yes. It would seem pointedly obvious that "the LORD" is not a translation of a name, but rather, a substitution.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then would it be acceptable (and more neutral) to write that "Jehovah" is one of the faithfully translated forms of the Hebrew name יהוה?
 * Rather, isn't "Jehovah" also "a substitution", not "a translation" (in your strict interpretation of "translation")? The scholarly consensus is that the supposed Hebrew word underlying that form did not exist, and so "Jehovah" is only a replacement for the word actually in the texts (יהוה), not a translation of it.
 * Or, in short, wouldn't "one interpretation" be more exact that "a faithfully translated form"? Soidi (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase in question says "a faithfully translated form", inherently indicating one of any number of possible translations that might be arrived at (though "the LORD" certainly isn't one of them). I have no inclination to discuss what you imagine to be 'my' 'strict' interpretation of translation, as this seems to be of your own imagining.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But just in case you are genuinely confused about the difference between translation and transliteration, Jehovah (or Yahweh, or any other form derived from the tetragrammaton) is a "translation" of יהוה, irrespective of whether it directly resembles it (as distinct from a transliteration, which would be "YHWH"). To illustrate, the Czech word most (kind of rhymes with English cost) bears no direct similarity to the English word bridge, but that does not alter the fact that it is a translation of that word.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right in saying that "Jehovah" is a "faithful" (this is for me the most troublesome word in the phrase) translation (not a transliteration) of "יהוה"; but I can't help thinking that it is like saying that "Jesse" is a faithful translation of "Jesús", just because some Spanish speakers whose name is Jesús call themselves Jesse rather than Jesus in an English-speaking ambience. I doubt that those people, or anybody else, would describe "Jesse" as a "translation" of "Jesús", and even more strongly doubt that they would call it a "faithful translation".  In the same way, I would not call "Agnew" a faithful translation of "Anagnostopoulos": for a faithful translation of "Anagnostopoulos" I would look for something like "Readerson", "Lectorson".  (And I have just come across the following in the Jehovah article: "The Bible in Today's English (Good News Bible), published by the American Bible Society, 1976, in ... (a) footnote to Exodus 3:14 states, 'Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah'" - not translated as Jehovah!)  But perhaps I must let the matter rest.  Soidi (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your example is quite poor. Jesse is, of course, a translation of Hebrew Yishai, and is not at all a translation of Jesus (Hebrew Yeshúa). You've completely lost me on the second example, but I really, really don't care. All transliterations are translations, but not all translations are transliterations - I hope that helps clarify for you. Please go away now.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the matter today. Soidi (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar at Tetragrammaton
Concerning your comment, I do not totally disagree with its first point ("they use the name Jehovah specifically because there is ambiguity") as I clearly have in mind the "distinction between since and although". I tried to improve the existing problematic of the specific paragraph. But I think that your second comment relates/joins two un-related notions as well. You said: "They prefer the name Jehovah "although" (i.e. "despite the fact that") there is ambiguity." The fact is that their "preference" has nothing to do with the ambiguity about rendering the Tetragrammaton. The reasons they use the Jehovah form is not the "ambiguity" but because, as they explain, "it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have". -- pvasiliadis   15:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact the ambiguity exists at all inherently means that their use of any particular name must have something to do with the ambiguity. The use of although is entirely suitable and consistent with the fact that the ambiguity is not central to their preference, and with the primary reason of their preference for the relatively common use of Jehovah in contrast to Yahweh.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is ambiguity for a matter does not mean that you stop using it. The ambiguity about rendering Tetragrammaton is universally admitted, it is a fact. The use of Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH is just a practical way to keep on naming the God. For example, we don't explain in the second paragraph of the "Yahweh" article that this form is used as a prefered refering of the Tetragrammaton by most Roman Catholic theologians. The simplification I made, I think, resolves the matter adequately. -- pvasiliadis   11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no contention in my comment that one form is better than the other. I was simply letting you know why "although" was a better choice of words than "since". The matter is irrelevant in the current version of the article. Incidentally, for reasons that should be obvious, it is much more relevant to mention Jehovah in regard to Jehovah's Witnesses than it is to mention Yahweh in reference to Roman Catholics.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War, Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
It seems you're entering into a conversation with individuals in your edit history. I highly advise against this as those edit summaries will continue long after you dispute has been resolved. If you need mediation in a dispute I offer my assistance to you.

"Any good reason for replacing referenced statements with an anonymous opinion???"

WP:ES is a guide for edit summaries and includes the following text as guidance to editors:

"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."

Is an example of such an edit history note. These types of discussions should be held on talk pages. Alan.ca (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. However, it was a rhetorical question.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Organ transplants
It's a sad state of affairs that I need to raise this issue, but I disagree with your interpretation of the November 15, 1967 Watchtower article on organ transplants. The article is written in a very obscure fashion, possibly (and curiously) to avoid giving an explicit direction yet containing enough coded language for Witnesses to understand and comply. However my reading is that the concluding paragraph, referring to "personal whim or emotion", is intended to link back to the opening paragraph that also refers to "human emotion". If that's the case, the reference to "these decisions" in the final paragraph does indeed indicate that Witnesses should make a personal decision on both the issues raised in the question, viz. donating one's body for medical research and accepting donated organs.

As I commented to User:Mrsrpwiki, the suggestion that Witnesses were then free to make a personal decision is a cynical and fraudulent one, because the WTS had already loaded the article with such phrases as "cannibalism", "abhorrent to all civilized people" and "disrespect for the sanctity of human life". Without a shadow of doubt, the article was written to make clear that the only personal decision a Witness should take was the one indicated throughout the article – to reject organ transplants. The July 8 1972 Awake article, which refers to Witnesses (not some Witnesses, but clearly the whole community) taking a "stand" on the issue of cannibalism and being spared any grief surrounding the issue, assumes that all Witnesses followed in lockstep with the clear message of the 1967 article.

That fact, however, doesn't alter my view that the 1967 article does, in a legalistic fashion, give Witnesses – however much in theory – the freedom to make a choice of their own. The other references I've added (Penton and Muramoto) cut to the chase, however, providing the only rational interpretation: that is, that the WTS was indicating clear, strong disapproval of the practice and telling Witnesses that if they went ahead, it would be on their own head. LTSally (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no disagreement here. As I stated at the talk page, every decision a person makes is ultimately a 'personal decision', whether it's to accept an organ transplant, smoke a cigarette, or take a rifle to the nearest clock tower. The Watchtower vaguely admitting that something is a "personal decision" (though the 1967 article does not explicitly do so in the case of accepting human organs) does not automatically mean that there are no repercussions for whatever that personal decision might be.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Prior to 1980 Watchtower doctrine treated organ transplantation as cannibalism, and Watchtower doctrine treated cannibalism as something just as immoral as blood transfusion:


 * “Are you one to whom disobeying God’s law is repulsive? Then the taking of blood is just as despicable to you as cannibalism. Think of eating of the flesh of another human creature! It is shocking! Is drinking human blood any different? Does bypassing the mouth and putting it directly into the veins change it? Not at all!” (The Watchtower, July 1, 1966 p. 401)


 * “…Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism… . (Awake, June 8, 1968 p. 21)

To this day Witnesses found out for cannibalism are disfellowshipped. Believe it or not, in places such as remote pacific island nations this persists and Witnesses face disfellowshipping if discovered. So long as there has been a disfellowshipping policy Witnesses have suffered the policy for cannibalism. The reason Witnesses ceased disfellowshipping for organ transplantation as of 1980 is because Watchtower doctrine began treating organ transplantation as possibly something different than cannibalism.

As a side note, the reasons Watchtower provided in 1980 as to why organ transplantation may not be cannibalism apply equally to blood transfusion. Yet Watchtower continued teaching that blood transfusion was, effectively, cannibalism since it continued teaching that transfusion of blood was eating blood.

More about Watchtower and disfellowshipping for cannibalism is available at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TA1OR2JO8VKJPK45R --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Magazines' link to jw-media.org web page
Just want to say thanks for helping me get the updated link made by The Watchtower and Awake! to the http://www.jw-media.org web page corrected. I just realized this morning while inserting the new Awake! printing stats that the link had been changed and not corrected in either magazine. I also noted that they were referred to differently, with The Watchtower having a better look, so (thanks again to you) now they are consistent in this citation abd appearance. ---Glenn L (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Though you did all the hard work. I just prettied it up a bit.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)