by littlebuddy 177 Replies latest watchtower bible
reniaa said:
I do not need Jehovah in greek scriptures too show Jesus is not God scripturally since hundreds of times Jesus is kept totally separate to God Putting YHWH God's name in the bible is not a big deal since it is already there. They haven't done it loads and I know they could have done it in many more places.
My reply:
Nice admission. You have no problem not using the Divine name in the NT since you feel the NT already teaches your ridiculous thgeology.
Lilith,
Yes, God has NO gender, that is one of our many pre-conceived notions.
The use of father was applicable in a time of Patriarchal dominace.
The bible is nothing more that what man has written down as what God has made clear to them and they did that the best way they could, including all tHEIR biasis too.
The change from the OT to the NT is there for a reason, the "change" is NOT God's for God is perfect and dosn't need to change, the changes was simple because Man got most ( not all) of it wrong or at least "mispreceived" or "misapplied".
Jesus came to fix it, to clear it up and the fix was Love and Grace.
We read the bible to read his words of love, don't forget, many of our modern benevolent beliefs stem from the Bible.
Reniaa said:
lol jojonow tell me what qualifications the early translators had? you know the ones that rendered John 1:1c 'God' when actual SCHOLARS NOW agree with NWT saying it should be either a god, divine or godlike.
Be honest. John 1:1 is a nebulous passage and scholarly opinion is divided since both translations are technically correct. My experience is that the majority still favor the traditional translation. If you ever took the trouble to learn biblical Greek, I would be willing to bet that you would have anything besides "and the word was God." marked wrong by your professor.
look at 'torture stake' a perfectly acceptable honest rendition of the greek word stauros but why don't any bibles put it instead of Cross? THEOLOGY completely. They couldn't put anything else but cross because of theology.
Be honest. You had a Phd proficient in biblical Greek explain to you on this very discussion board the linguistic reasons for cross.
The problem I have with people dissing the 237 times Jw's use jehovah in greek scriptures. Firstly lets discount the 50 or so times that are just quotes from hebrew scriptures, for me it is perfectly acceptable that quotes from hebrew scriptures should also use YHWH if they do.
Be honest. None of them are direct word for word quotes as you well know. You can speculate on why they chose to omit the tetragrammaton but at the end of the day it is just speculation and an honest translator must work with what they have.
How can you question every extant manuscript available today without questioning the Bible itself?
RE: the cross issue.
In the Epistle of Barnabus, the writer mentions the shape of the cross as being the "tau" letter ie: T
Now before someone comes with the whole "not canon" thing realize that this epistle is part of the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest bible ever found.
reniaa,
You are caught in a bind with John 1:1, you know. (Well, you probably DIDN'T know.)
If Jesus was GOD, it supports the trinity.
If Jesus was A god as opposed to THE God as dubbies believe, you have a serious problem. A VERY serious problem. The Bible says there is only ONE TRUE God, so if Jesus is A god, he must be a false god. Since there is only one true god, all other gods must by definition be false.
Furthermore, saying Jesus is a god supports polytheism, something the WTS rejects as false.
You can't have it both ways, because as we all know ONLY the Governing Body can have it both ways.
Farkel
Farkel,
The Wt holds to the fact that many beings are called Gods in the Bible as a reason to ue "a god".
Of course Philippians throws that out the window and adds weight to John 1:1's traditional rendering.
If you ever took the trouble to learn biblical Greek, I would be willing to bet that you would have anything besides "and the word was God." marked wrong by your professor.
Agreed, just like pretty much every koine Greek scholar out there John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God ...
look at 'torture stake' a perfectly acceptable honest rendition of the greek word stauros but why don't any bibles put it instead of Cross?
OK, Greek lesson once again Strong's Greek Dictionary: 4716. stauros (stow-ros')
You will see the word means stake, pole or cross. There is not a single reason that the NWT should add the word "torture" hence the NWT has mistranslated stauros in every instance.
How can you question every extant manuscript available today without questioning the Bible itself?
Exactly! Everything is open to error in that case.
I guess that is the way the WT like it so they can bring the weak will 2 Timothy 3:6 some more "new light" :(
All the best,
Stephen
I assume they use torture because they know that stakes (upright posts) where used to impale ie:kill rather than torture, so they add torutre to show that, in this case, because Jesus was torutred they must have nailed him to a vertical post, as unhistorical as it seems.
Whatever their "logic", their translation of stauros is false.
Stake, pole or cross is be fine but "torture stake" is plain wrong, the word has nothing to do with torture.
Some people might think "does it really matter"? The answer is yes, if you believe this at all John 5:39-40
If the WT add, remove and change words at will then how can the NWT be the "most accurate" as they claim? I am certain it is one of the most misleading translations money can buy.
All the best,
Stephen
The NWT mess of Philippians 2 is another example ( see my thread).
I really have no idea where the WT got the torture stake thing, its like they pulled it of their ass with chopsticks.
And to mention how someone should use the cross as a symbol because it was the instrument of Jesus death, goes against everythign the Paul said and how hew BOASTS of the cross.
