New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  I didn't explain anything away or justify anything as you claim, I simply read the verse. Notice it from Green.

  Zec 12:10 And I will pour on the house of David, and on those living in Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of prayers. And they shall look on Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they shall be bitter over Him, like the bitterness over the first-born.

  If "me" is the proper rendering, which is questionable, there is still the issue of the switch from 1st person to third person. The natural way to read this would be as I defined. God is pierced because the one he sent was, and to do it to the one he sent is to do it to him.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I'll take it you are researching Revelation 5 more carefully before responding.
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  there is still the issue of the switch from 1st person to third person.

  Yes, it`s peculiar, isn`t it? Unless you accept that Jesus is (part of) God, that is. Then it`s not peculiar at all.

  The natural way to read this would be as I defined

  Well, but that`s not what the Bible says, does it?

  God is pierced because the one he sent was, and to do it to the one he sent is to do it to him.

  Yahweh says that it is himself, you`re claiming (I assume) that this is something he means only in a figurative manner, that he will be so hurt by it, when they crucify Christ, that it will be as if it was himself that was pierced, correct?

  A) First of all, this is not what the text says. The text says "they will look on ME", and then comes the change in person. This can be explained in two ways: Either to read something into the text that isn`t there at all (which is what you`re doing), or accepting that God himself would be pierced (literally). We know that nothing is impossible for God, so that is not shocking at all.

  B) According to John 19: 37 " and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced", and by this, John establishes that it is Jesus that Yahweh means, when he says "ME". How do you explain that away? And you can`t claim that it is figurative, because John is here identifying the "ME" with Jesus, and we both KNOW that it is Yahweh speaking in Zechariah, right?

  C) Fortunately, you whole explaining-away-seanse doesn`t make any sense, because the WTS forgot to mistranslate parts of the preceding chapter:

  Zechariah 11: 10 "Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations. 11 It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the LORD.

  12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

  13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter. "

  ...So I guess this is figurative too? Awful lot of figurative passages in WT-doctrines, I must say...
• 

  Mondo1

  I already responded and noted that they were not directly addressed.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Mondo1,

  It strikes me that you can explain away every prayer of praise in the entire Bible as simply an exclamation. Would you mind giving me an example of a prayer of praise that cannot be explained away as an exclamation?

  You mentioned Revelation 4:11, but the form is nearly identical.

  "You are worthy to receive..."

  "To the One seated on the throne and to the Lamb be the..."

  If Revelation 4:11 is an example of a prayer of praise, then so is the excerpt to which I drew your attention. If the excerpt I drew your attention to is NOT a prayer of praise, then there is no such thing as a prayer of praise.

  In Revelation 4, the Lamb had not yet entered the scene, which explains his absence from the praise. In Revelation 5, the Lamb is praised moreso than the One seated on the throne.

  You still have not answered regarding the identity of the Alpha and the Omega.

  Why does the name Jehovah appear at all in the NWT version of the book of Revelation, a book which specifically cautions againstadding to or subtracting from its contents in the very chapter that has the name Jehovah inserted twice?
• 

  Mondo1

  Why would I assume that God exists as some type of polypersonal being that is never once taught? I'd rather take Scripture for what it says and apply principles that are explicitly shown in Scripture to understand them.

  A) Actually, it was an accepted way of writing to attribute to oneself what is said/done to ones agent, for one's agent is as himself, as the Talmud clearly defines. So if God's agent was pierced, according to understanding of the day, it would be the same thing as saying that they pierced the one that he sent.

  B) Well this goes back to the principle of agency. To pierce the agent is to pierce the sender... and so the agent is indeed pierced. There is no issue.

  C) Well again, agency would apply quite naturally. In case you do not understand this concept, Johnson explains it: "In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended throughout his entire household to his wives, his sons and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one" personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch as lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally - and in his very words - the presence of the sender."

  In other words, to attribute something or do something to the agent is it attribute it or do it to the one that sent him. Buchanan brings to light this application to Jesus: "As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has power of attorney for the one who sent him. . . He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who received his apostles whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him. (John 13:20). . . Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. . . As an ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him."

  Buchanan notes John 13:20, which tells us that he who receives the Son receives the Father, and so in a similar way, what one does to the son is what one does to the Father.

  If you want to argue for a polypersonal God, you have to prove that one exists first. Otherwise, what you are doing is purely circular, expecting us to interpret Scripture in light of there being one when you have not yet demonstrated that one even exists!

  Mondo
• 

  Mondo1

  It is quite simple. Revelation 4:11 is direct address, Revelation 5:13 is not. Prayer is direct address. As Revelation 5:13 is not direct address, it is not prayer.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Mondo1,

  Can you prove the existence of ANY God, polypersonal or otherwise? I can't.

  Are you polytheistic, like Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you believe there is more than one true God?
• 

  Hellrider

  I read what you just wrote. I have no idea what to do with you, as you seem to be able to explain AWAY (!!!) any scripture thrown at you, even in the most insane, out-of-context way, and then you have the audacity to claim that this insane interpretation of yours is "plausible". I am pretty sure you could twist John 1.1 into saying "In the beginning there was a giant double Cheese burger with bacon and fries, and on the side there was a coke, and the coke was fully (a) softdrink", and prove it, biblically. I`ll give you a compliment: You are a fantastic demagogue. There is no sense in what you`re saying, but you are very, very good with words. To bad you`re a jw, you should go into politics, you`d make it to the top.
• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  If we want to understand the Bible, we must understand how those that were alive when it was wrote would look at it. I've attempted to give you a bit of insight into how they thought and how they wrote. You can call it explaining away, but it is hardly that. It is simply a fact that they looked at things as I put forth. Obviously this is not my thing or a JW thing, for I have given you a couple of sources that clearly speak of what I have put forth, and there are plenty of other sources as well.