IS the NWT really the WT Bible? (page 9)

larc

Bleep, all through the Russell years, they taught that all would be resurrected. (Divine Plan of the Ages, 1924, pp. 144-172.) Under Rutherford, this was taught up until at least 1930. In 1938, the doctrine was changed, and since then they teach that some will not be resurrected. (Wt, 1938, pp. 314, 326, 376, 377) It was still be taught this way many years later (Divine Purpose book pp. 142, 143, 149). So, Bleep show me where they have reversed this doctrine.

ozziepost

Bleep,

Jesus was the Architect designer. Jehovah caused it to be made after the design.

Either you're a Trinitarian or a blasphemer. Which is it to be?

Ozzie

Earnest

stocwach:

In your last post you suggested that I hadn't rushed to reply because I had no reply. The simple reason for my slow response is that I have a life elsewhere and only pop into my cyber-tavern for a quick pint in the evenings. However, I must agree I am somewhat reluctant to continue this exchange for the following reasons:

1. I said previously that "the direction you are trying to take this thread is more appropriate to a thread such as "God is Jesus" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26273&site=3) where many trinitarian arguments have already been considered. If you wish to stick to the subject of this thread I am happy to respond but see no point in condoning a change of subject simply to repeat what has been said elsewhere." If you wish to change the subject of the thread from a discussion of the NWT to a discussion of the nature of God then I suggest you either join a number of existing threads on this subject or start one of your own. I think that is only a matter of courtesy to whoever started the thread.

2. Not only am I unwilling to repeat what has been said elsewhere, I am also unwilling to repeat what I have previously written on this thread. You queried the absence of 'Jehovah' in 1 Peter 3:15 and 2:3 in your post of Jul 30, 11:36. I replied to this in my post of Jul 30, 23:57. Your only response was to ask how I could be so naive (Jul 31, 1:45) but then you raise the same argument in your post of Aug 4, 3:13 and add the comment "don't bother with your drivel" to demonstrate your objectivity. You queried the translation of "proskuneo" in your post of Aug 3, 10:37. I replied to this in my post of Aug 3, 20:59. In your post of Aug 4, 3:31 you agreed that it could be translated as "obeisance" provided it conveyed the author's intention, but insisted that the author's intention corresponded with your theology. Yet you again repeated your argument in your post of Aug 9, 11:59. In your post of Aug 6, 9:24 you said my argument is "truly baseless" because the definite article does not appear in John 20:28, John 1:1 or Revelation 3:12. When I demonstrated that it occurred in all three verses (Aug 6, 14:35) you replied that "the bottom line is 99% of the population is not going to reference the original Greek to see whether an indefinite or definite article exists" (Aug 6, 20:39). It is rather pointless to continue a discussion when you show yourself so completely unwilling to acknowledge there may be a valid viewpoint other than your own.

3. I chose to respond to this thread because it is fairly quick and easy to demonstrate whether the NWT is accurate in translating a given verse or set of verses. A discussion of the nature of God is altogether different both because there are such strong feelings involved and because for every reply another text can be cited on both sides of the fence. You adopt a particularly juvenile attitude saying "since you haven't replied, you admit you are wrong" which suggests in your mind this is all about scoring points. I rather think you and Bleep deserve each other but I find the nature of God a far more difficult thing to comprehend than a simple trading of texts. I rather feel as Isaiah does - "who has taken the proportions [or, can know the mind - 1 Cor.2:16] of the spirit of Jehovah".

Having said that I will respond to your suggestion that I have been deceptive (although I recognise it as a simple ploy for attention). I had previously said that "the context of our discussion was what John meant when he wrote of "ho theos" and in the Jewish world that invariably referred to God the Father." You responded that "ho theos" is a title for the one True God, not one of the 3 distinct persons of God, and that I had therefore been misleading and deceptive.

"ho theos" does not necessarily refer to either "God the Father" or "the one true God". In Acts 19:27 where it relates Paul's experiences in Ephesus it refers to the temple "of THE great goddess Artemis" ("tes megales theas Artemidos"). She was the goddess of that city and so they referred to her as THE goddess, and the god of the city (had there been one) would have been referred to as "the God" by the Ephesians. But what I said was that in the JEWISH world when they used "ho theos" of God they invariably referred to God the Father. You are quite right that "ho theos" is a title for the one true God but in the Jewish world the two are interchangeable. This can be seen at John 17:3, which I have referred to previously, which says that it means everlasting life to know "the only true God" ("ton monon alethinon theon") AND Jesus Christ. John makes a distinction here between the only true God and Jesus Christ. If you choose to believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead then you must surely believe that John is referring to God the Father when he speaks of "the only true God" who is distinct from Jesus in this verse.

No matter what you believe, I would have thought it was clear that the thirteen instances which refer to "my God" are distinctly referring to God the Father. In the ten instances where Jesus refers to "my God" both before and after his resurrection do you think he was addressing the entire Godhead as you understand it or just God the Father? And if the expression "my God" referred to the Father in John 20:17 then why does it not refer to the Father eleven verses later. I freely agreed I had some difficulty reconciling John 20:28 with the rest of scripture. If you cannot agree that it is referring to God the Father then you must surely have difficulty with all these verses, especially those spoken by Jesus himself.

As for the other points you raise on a matter of translation:

You say: "there is no difference between saying 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. They are both incorrect. John was a monotheistic Jew, who would simply not call a creature 'theos'."

Thereby you show yourself ignorant of both scripture and the meaning of "theos". Moreover, it is quite clear you haven't bothered to read the information provided by AlanF in the link http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26273&site=3&page=2 (to which I referred) as you wouldn't otherwise write such nonsense. I see no reason to repeat what Alan says simply because you're apparently unwilling to read it yourself but would also recommend his comments on the true god/false god argument at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25376&site=3&page=3. As he puts it, are you fit to sleep with pigs? Read what he has to say before answering.

Quite clearly the meaning that John gives to the word "theos" is different to that which you give because he does refer to creatures as "theos". At John 10:34,35 Jesus says: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods [theoi]"'? If he called 'gods [theous]' those against whom the word of God came...do you say to me...'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am [the] God's [tou theou] Son?"

I quite agree that there is little difference in saying "the Word was a god" and saying "the Word was divine". But both Moffatt and 'An American Translation' (Goodspeed) do convey the sense of "theos" just so. The New English Bible also shows it is referring to a quality rather than a person when it renders it "what God was the Word was". Why John didn't use the adjective "theios" (meaning "divine") is quite immaterial. Earnest Haenchen (not related) suggests that "theios" is literary Greek not in the Johannine vocabulary. I am more inclined to think that John was emphasizing the godness of the quality by expressing it the way he did. But whatever the reason he was using a word that described what it is to be godlike and "divine" is one way that thought can be conveyed.

I'm surprised you do not see the absurdity of using Matthew 1:23 ("they will call his name Immanuel, which means, when translated, 'With Us Is [the] God'") to support your cause. If it means that Jesus is [the] God then it must also mean that the original Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 was also God. The obvious meaning in both scriptures is that the birth of the child is evidence of God being with them.

Much against my better judgement I will just touch briefly on your argument that Jesus could not have been created because he was maker of all things.

Genesis 1:26, which says "Let us make man in our image", is the first scripture which indicates Jehovah was not alone as maker. Colossians 1:15-20 shows that everything was created "by means of him [Jesus]", "through him and for him". Proverbs 8, which speaks of wisdom personified and which early Christians identified with Christ, adds to our understanding in describing him as a "master worker". Incidentally, the Greek translation of the O.T. used by the early Christians says of this "master worker" that "the Lord created ["ektise"] me as the beginning of his way". This is the same word Paul uses in Colossians 1:16. Even had verse 15 not described him as "firstborn of all creation" it would have been evident to anyone familiar with Proverbs that he was the first creation. So Paul's words on the matter of subjection are appropriate: "[His God and Father] 'subjected all things under his feet.' But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him." (1 Corinthians 15:27) I would likewise say "when he says 'ALL things have been created through him and for him' it is evident that the "ALL" is with the exception of him through whom all things have been created."

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 11 August 2002 23:43:39

stocwach

Earnest,

I see you still cannot reconcile the creation dilemma, other than making assumptions to fit your theology. Your other clearly biased points are not worth commenting on, because until you can OBJECTIVELY rationalize the creation issue, the rest is moot.

Bleep

Ozziepost, Could you make a few more thoughts about that since I have no idea where you got that information from.

[larc] made that same claim that I know nothing about the second death and still shows no remorse after I spent some time to show him I do know some basic Bible knowledge.

lark, Since you know what the WT says, why are you still asking me?

Just saying this is not what they teach is not good enough for me. Show me some Bible principles that are not being used in the Watchtower and then maybe I can show a thing or two.

In other words, "Give a dog a bone".

Crazy151drinker

Why dont I give you a library card? My bad you already have one with the UN....

Bleep

Jehovah did design Jesus and made all things. Jesus helped Jehovah since he was his first creation. Is that so hard to understand? I have knowledge from the Bible that shows Jesus being the one who helped design. This is basic knowledge for a Jehovah's Witness. Explains why Jesus came down to help mankind as well. Did you need more information ozziepost?

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

Share this