WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team 212 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephMalik

  .......... Do you mean that Jesus is God, not the Father.... AND not THE deity ? ...... ................... Sorry might not have taken all your post "in"... stupid PDA formatting. AO

  AlphaOmega,

  No, I mean that such use is proper in regards to others and does not also convey Identity the way Trinitarians use it. And as you have shown they will use it that way no matter what or regardless of how many times it is explained. Another example found in scripture is this one:

  Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

  The verse essentially is extracted from Psalm 45:6,7 and it is addressing the Kings of Israel which now includes Jesus. And we also know that as the Word this Jesus created humankind, established the governments of this earth, the heavens as they are called here which will perish when the Kingdom is finally established in their place. Such use is proper and use of the word God does not prove identity, deity and the like. .

  Joseph
• 

  AlphaOmega

  Thanks for that Joseph. I understand the point.

  Also to Death to the Pixies, thanks for your post...

  I know about as much about Biblical Greek as the New World Translation "Commitee" by that I mean that I can figure out my way around by using a phrase book - in much the same was as an ignorant tourist in a foreign land !

  I will check out the reference to Satan - that would be a gem to have up my sleeve.

  Sometimes here I forget that I am not only posting to those of a JW mindset (or now liberated ex-JWs) and usually post with as though "debating" with the usual JW dogma.

  My point was that if the JW argument about "Ho Theos" were correct, then it falls to pieces in the face of John 20:28 (and also that Satan quote).

  Thanks all
• 

  heathen

  Frank- I've looked at it both ways , I'm not a brainwashed dubby . I don't follow the trinity belief at all . Just because it says we will create them in "our" image in genesis is not evidence of a trinity ,YHVH God had created everything else including angels prior to making that statement, and so on so forth. Way too many dogmatic hurdles to jump to conclude trinity. To me there is a clear difference between the time that jesus walked as a human and was resurected as a spirit , he did say , "father into your hands I entrust my spirit", He was king but could not redeem anybody until he died faithfully. I don't have a problem with the capital G in God while in reference to Jesus but he is not part of a trinity. IMO. He was the promised seed from genesis that bruises the head of the serpent and later in Revelation it's shown that arch angel Michael is the one that actually wars with satan in heaven and removes him permenantly , to me that is bruising him in the head just like bruising in the heal meant killing jesus in the flesh. Revs 12:7 .
• 

  glenster

  Here's what I have so far about that so far (pp.4,7-10 at the next link): http://gtw6437.tripod.com/
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Alpha,

  Actually if you read it closer I was challenging what you were saying. The article appears (from one possible explanation as pointed out by Moule) not because it is being used as a proper name (like in John 1:1) but due to grammatical reasons (it's possessive). No Big whoop though.

  edit to add this from Trinintarian Murray Harris:

  Similarly, the differentiation made between hO QEOS as the one who
  speaks in both eras and hUIOS as his final means of speaking shows
  that in the author's mind it was not the Triune God of Christian
  theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to
  say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may
  suggest) "the God of our fathers," Yahweh, was no other than "the God
  and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33;
  3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; note also 5:30). Such a conclusion is
  entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of hO QEOS. It would be
  inappropriate for ELOHIM or YHWH ever to refer to the Trinity in the
  OT when in the NT QEOS regularly refers to the Father alone and
  apparently never to the Trinity.
• 

  theMartian

  Just what do you claim needs to be corrected? Our view, or the translation?

  
• 

  Frank75

  Heathen:

  I take it then that you are passing on the John 2:19 problem.

  Fair enough. I am not promoting one view or the other, just casting a light on flaws in both arguments. In the end it is not important who did what. IMHO

  Frank75
• 

  heathen

  I take it then that you are passing on the John 2:19 problem.

  Not passing on it just didn't comment on it because I felt there were better arguments. I think it very likely that jesus was raised as a spirit then went to his body and raised it by his self. Since he did say his body was his temple and he clearly was not talking about the temple in jerusalem . I already quoted the scripture where he states , "father , into your hands I entrust my spirit." Luke 23:34
• 

  Frank75

  Hmmm!

  Well trained in the Jedi er Dub arts of misdirection I see.

  I'll end this with simply, people will believe what they want to believe no matter what.

  Frank75
• 

  AlphaOmega

  Heathen,

  I know that you were "countering" what I said. All the same, even if my ideas are wrong, it goes to show that the WT writers know as much about Biblical Greek as I do.

  If Satan is also referred to as "Ho Theos" in the NT then the WT idea that "Ho Thoes" always points to "Jehovah" falls to pieces.

  as I said...

  Sometimes here I forget that I am not only posting to those of a JW mindset (or now liberated ex-JWs) and usually post with as though "debating" with the usual JW dogma.

  My point was that if the JW argument about "Ho Theos" were correct, then it falls to pieces in the face of John 20:28 (and also that Satan quote).

  I find that the only way to loosen the grip of the WT overbearing control on people is to those peopls that the WT isn't always corrent in its "scholarship and motive". That then opens the door for people to feel okay about thinking for themselves.

  AO