Sunday's Radio Show with the Dub's

by Unclepenn1 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Unclepenn1

  Accuracy- Gregs conclusion was that the word we translate 'True' could also mean genuine. That doesn't help you much. If you have only one genuine Mona Lisa, then all the rest are ingenuine, or not genuine or false. It is a very thin hedge the JW's try to hide behind and I think it is just as the apostle Paul says 'They twist the scritpures to their own destruction'. You do not get your theology from the scritpures but rather from the WT, then go to the scriptiures and butcher them to make them say what you want. Again I will ask, if the Bible says that Jehovah is called the ONLY GENUINE GOD, then please supply me with an example of something being the ONLY GENUINE______ and everything else not being false or not genuine.

  Penn

  Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
  Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
  Jesus- 'I am the truth'
• 

  Stephanus

  Accuracy, which part of "Now, shut up!" don't you understand?? You've lost - get over it!
• 

  Escargot

  How about the ONLY GENUINE SON OF GOD? That would make you divine...........

  Erasmus (1520 AD): "If we want truth, every person ought to be free to speak what they think without fear."
• 

  outnfree

  I listened to the show last night on the internet, UnclePenn, and think you posted quite an accurate summary.

  The show was boring and inconclusive. Stafford wouldn't budge (and wouldn't take up the host's challenge, either, re: filling in the blank.)

  In my opinion, it was a standoff, which, I take it, was not the intent.

  Also, I was rather hoping that the JW guest would NOT be Stafford, but more of an 'elder off the street' type of interview. (I can dream, can't I?)

  outnfree

  P.S. I really enjoyed When Jesus Became God, too! Quite an eyeopener on early church sectarianism!!!

  Par dessus toutes choses, soyez bons. La bonte est ce qui ressemble le plus a Dieu et ce qui desarme le plus les hommes -- Lacordaire
• 

  Alf3831

  To whom it may concern,

  I was amongst those attending the radio show at KPRZ. I must say that UnclePenn's analysis falls short of reality. Don't get me wrong, Larry, Clay Jones, and the other staffers were all very nice, but it was quite obvious from the outset that Mr. Jones was incapable of handling such a discussion.

  It is true that the entire discussion revolved around the meaning of the Greek word "alethinos." Mr. Jones attempted to maintain a certain definition of this word, based on Webster's Dictionary. This was silly considering the discussion involved a Biblical term used in the first century, and to attempt to justify its meaning by a 21st century dictionary is shallow research to say the least. Greg Stafford made several attempts to show Mr. Jones that we are dealing with Koine Greek and its meaning, and NOT english usage. By the time, Mr. Jones finally understood this, and pulled out a Greek-English lexicon, he quoted Vine's Expository Dictionary on the air, of which the defintion stated therein was consistent with the definition given to "alethinos" by Greg! Mr. Jones did say he would pull out other lexicons, but failed to do so on the air (probably because the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon also provided a definition consistent with what Stafford presented).

  Regarding the "only true ___" deal. Greg responded with "the only genuine Mona Lisa." Mr. Jones failed to understand the meaning of such an example. But even requesting such an example is silly since we are dealing with biblical words, and how they are used in the first century. So an example must be provided or requested from the bible or first century usage, but Mr. Jones wanted to as he said "leave the Bible out of it" and simply stick with 21st century English usage. Amazing! Yes, Greg was right when he said "Webster's Dictionary is irrelevent." Basically, Greg was not going to allow Mr. Jones to play the Rhodes/Bowman play on words, ie. everything that is not true, must be false. Mr. Jones failed to understand the biblical example given by Greg regarding Jesus' statement about his flesh being "true bread from heaven." This clearly indicated that "true" in its first century usage does carry a meaning of "genuine." Something, Mr. Clay was unwilling to admit, although the weight of evidence (ie. the lexicons) was against him.

  I was surprised that Larry spoke negatively about the presentation. I can only imagine that trinitarians will see light as darkness no matter how bright the light.

  Larry said:

  <<The discussion started by Greg saying that they believed Jesus was not God in an ontological sense, but rather that he held attributes that made him like God, or as a god. I knew right away that the discussion would be a battle over semantics, since that is all that the JW's are left with to make their teachings fit scripture.>>

  Actually this is incorrect. Greg and Mr. Jones were defining terms, and Greg had to correct him when he said "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah." The theology of Jehovah's Witnesses does allow for Jesus to be viewed as Jehovah in the sense that he represents him, and may speak on his behalf, as the angels did in the hebrew scriptures, and that is the point that Greg was trying to make.

  <<Greg pulled a trick that Clinton used during the Monica Lewinsky trials and put emphasis on what the word 'true' really means. Clay quoted the definition from Websters dictionary which states 'Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous'. Greg went on to say that English was irrelevant and we all kind of rolled our eyes after that.>>

  Considering that Mr. Jones claims to have taken graduate Greek courses, I was astonished that he maintained English usage for a first century Greek term. He maintained this position throughout, and gives one reason to doubt his ability to understand Biblical Greek.

  <<For those who listened I would like to hear your views, and if you didn't hear it, we are going to play clips next week and discuss what went on.>>

  Will you allow call-ins? This could be interesting.

  Sincerely,

  Alf3831
• 

  Stephanus

  Okay "Greg Stafford pretends to be an disinterested bystander, Mk II", just who do you think you're kidding? You people ignore this board until now, when Mr Stafford, a known self-congratulator, has been mentioned. Just "happened along", did you? LOL You are so transparent!

  Greg, if you want to be in the Who's Who, you'll have to stand still while I take a snapshot, or your bio will be as twisted as your logic! LOL
• 

  accuracy

  Stephanus, 'Shut up, you lost' sounds like sour grapes to me, and the response of someone who really has no response.

  Alf3831 is correct in what he has said.

  If anyone wants to make a case based on English usage, they should do so with a work written originally in English. Otherwise, we are comparing apples and oranges here.

  Strange that people would ask for dialogue and then get upset when the dialogue does not go their way, or as they expected.

  But I will have no more to say on this subject. The Bible does not teach a Trinity, but it does teach that Jesus is the Son of God, and our Exemplar. My personal concern is with trying to live like Jesus, not with arguing about him.
• 

  Escargot

  I must agree with accuracy..........

  Erasmus (1520 AD): "If we want truth, every person ought to be free to speak what they think without fear."
• 

  Unclepenn1

  Alf said>>It is true that the entire discussion revolved around the meaning of the Greek word "alethinos." Mr. Jones attempted to maintain a certain definition of this word, based on Webster's
  Dictionary. This was silly considering the discussion involved a Biblical term used in the first century, and to attempt to justify its meaning by a 21st century dictionary is shallow research to say the least

  Let me ask you something Alf, do you read the Bible in English? If so, how do you know what you are reading is not just a bunch of 21 century words that do not mean what the original text states. Regardless of what the word true is in Greek or English, obviously every translator that has ever attempted to translate that word in the Bible has chosen the word true. Should Bibles contain a footnote next to it saying that true is really not an accurate rendering? I fail to see your point about using Websters dictionary. I just looked at that verse in 12 different translations on the internet and they all translate the word TRUE, including the NWT. You can play games with scripture all you want, and take words apart to fit your distorted teachings, but let's not be condescening and say that the Websters dictionary is 'silly' and 'shallow' research.

  >>Will you allow call-ins? This could be interesting.

  Yes we will. Tune in at noon on Sunday.

  Penn

  Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
  Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
  Jesus- 'I am the truth'
• 

  Gwendolyn

  Unclepenn;

  There are several points which you are missing:

  1) Greg never said that “true” was an inaccurate translation of the word alethinos. Therefore, demonstrating that you can look up 12 bible translations that use the word “true” proves nothing. He acknowledged that alethinos means “true” but was asking the question “IN WHAT SENSE TRUE?” This necessitates clarifying the meaning of the Greek word by going to a GREEK lexicon, and/or comparing it to other examples in the bible of its usage which clarify what the meaning is in this context. (For examples, see accuracy’s post).

  2) You asked Alf if he reads the bible in English, and if so how does he know he is not just reading a bunch of 21st century words? Of course, it is not practical for the average Bible reader to look up every word in the Bible, locate the original Greek, and examine the meaning using a Greek lexicon. Nor is it necessary. HOWEVER, when passages or words are encountered that raise questions that may not be explicitly clear, or one simply wants a deeper understanding, then you go to the original language. Obviously in this case, it was necessary because Clay was contending that the phrase “only true” in John 17:3 meant that there are no other gods IN EXISTENCE besides Jehovah (actually the verse doesn’t even say “Jehovah”, but simply says “you” referring (see verse 1) to the Father). Clay was implying a meaning for false of “absolutely doesn’t exist” which necessitated a clarifying of terms. He did not seem to understand the qualitative usage of the term which was illuminated by Greg’s illustration of the Mona Lisa. Yes, there is the genuine Mona Lisa, and there are COUNTERFEITS (BTW ingenuine isn’t a word, check it out in your beloved Websters). The counterfeits have all the qualities and attributes of the Mona Lisa, and theoretically could be exactly like the Mona Lisa down to the brush-stroke and artist (assuming Da Vinci made copies). However they are not the “only true Mona Lisa” in that they are not the FIRST Mona Lisa ever painted, therefore they do not have the value of the original, nor should they be put on display in the museum as the original. Just as you would not want to put any other god (no matter who or what it is) in the place reserved for Jehovah. This does not seem very complicated at all.

  3) You accuse Greg of wasting time with semanitcs. I hardly see how the wasting of time on the show was his fault. Clay was the host, and started out the show by expressing what he thought to be Greg’s position. Greg obviously needed to clarify so that his position was not misstated. As a host, Clay would have done better to just ask Greg to state his position in the first place, rather than setting up a situation that required clarification. Also, when it became obvious (I would say at least sometime before the second break) that Clay and Greg had differing positions about the meaning of the term alethinos in John 17:3, and that neither of them was likely to change their position, a good host would have acknowledged the difference and moved on to another subject. Greg answered Clay’s questions, but Clay did not answer Greg’s (even though he promised he would at some point in the discussion), therefore the pace and direction of the show became a function of where Clay led it (or stalled it, as the case may be).

  4) It was obvious that Clay was unprepared for who his guest would be. Unclepenn needs to take responsibility for setting up the host of the show in a situation where he didn’t know who was coming, and thus didn’t know what the caliber of the discussion would be. Also, I find it rather arrogant that the host assumed that since a witness was coming he didn’t need to prepare...obvious from how he reacted when he found out who was sitting in front of him. At the very least, I hope that you have learned to research your guests more thoroughly and prepare your host for future shows...and avoid “radio death”.

  Gwen