I understand the meaning of John 8:58, but since this meaning is well known, how is this information any defence of fitting with the title:
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kepler
Wonderment:
Of the languages I have studied beside English, Greek is far down the list. More of an analyst with a dictionary and grammar than someone with any type of fluency. So I will concede to all that I am not able to argue this matter from a standpoint of grammar much beyond the rudimentary. But all the same, I am not arguing this matter because I am that much more naturally comfortable with notions such as a triune God. My case is simply what I read in the text of John and what, evidently, early church writers saw in the text as well speaking in the same tongue. They appear to spell it out.
It was pointed out elsewhere as well that if Jesus simply asserted that he existed in some form prior to birth, he was not necessarily evoking an idea that was blasphemy. Many, including the Jews of the time, have suggested that we have some existence prior to birth. And the duration of this might have been a speculation as well, an existence that could have extended prior to the time of Abraham - though it seems like a stretch as well for it to come up as a rejoinder in such a context.
But what clearly provoked the rage in Chist's listeners was his choice of words.
Significantly, Origen in breaking all this down does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but simply the Father and Son.He does not suggest that Jesus was the Archangel Michael or a spirit older than Methuselah.
And in the case of Chrysostoms:
"But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father uses this expression, “I Am,” so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?"
If you believe that this quote is somehow carefully edited to convey such an idea, then perhaps someone can provide us with an alternate translation of what the first sentence of the quote above must have said.
-
Wonderment
Acts 5v29: There are plenty of flaws in the NWT - both the old Bible and the new one - so why cite something which is well-known to be true as a credit when those other flaws are still there? Respectfully, is that not hypocrisy?
Yes, there are flaws in the NWT. Some of these have been pointed out eloquently by other posters.
Some famous person stated elsewhere that ‘every translation is a failure.’ I take that to mean that as much as we try to faithfully convey the original document in all its glory, we are going to fail miserably in various places. The reason for that is that it is impossible at times to convey "all" the minutia across from one language to another. Not to mention, that we would have to know the person who wrote the material well in order to understand the subtleties of its message. And "religious" themes complicate the matter further.
The NWT and the NIV are two of my favorite Bible versions. And I like many others nearly the same. However, they all have flaws. I could perhaps sit down and start jotting down what I perceive are flaws from the NWT, NIV or any other. But overall, in my view, most versions are good translations to keep around. Most Bible translators are sincere in what they do. They can't help though to transmit their own theology in their versions.
That said, I don't think it is "hypocrisy" to use the good parts from them while avoiding what we perceive are flaws.
Bible versions are like the humans who translate them. Let's say someone here has a large family. Each individual in the family has virtues and flaws, like Dad & Mom, like brother or sister, my marriage partner, etc. The same with my boss, my coworker, etc. In fact, that goes with the cars or gadgets we use every day. They all have their strengths and their flaws. As much as we try to be perfect, we can't eliminate their flaws. Why not? Because we ourselves are flawed humans, and we produce flawed products. And when we write, we do so transmitting our flaws in the matter. Can we avoid that altogether? Only by wishful thinking.
We all have limitations one way or the other. The fact is that we all can learn from flawed humans. The whole human community has survived and thrived around it for the betterment of society.
-
Acts5v29
===
That said, I don't think it is "hypocrisy" to use the good parts from them while avoiding what we perceive are flaws.
===
I would claim that that is the essential definition of hypocrisy [Matthew 23:24], especially as the thread questions the credibility of watchtower critics.
We are on earth as an apprenticeship in preparation of working for God in the next life - in this one we can seek God by valuing truth, or we can defend what ungodly things are attached to our earthly master... but the two are mutually exclusive. Personally I believe there is too much sophistry and tangential avoidance of the former - how many religions survive by saying:
"You can't prove that we're not right"
- but its a peculiar preparation for our future life, don't you think?
-
Wonderment
Acts5v29:That said, I don't think it is "hypocrisy" to use the good parts from them while avoiding what we perceive are flaws.
===
I would claim that that is the essential definition of hypocrisy [Matthew 23:24], especially as the thread questions the credibility of watchtower critics.
My friend, when I stated: "I don't think it is ‘hypocrisy’ to use the good parts from them while avoiding what we perceive are flaws" I said so within the context that bible versions are done by imperfect humans with their own religious agenda. As much as religious writers strive to be "perfect" in their writings, they fall short because of imperfection. And it is not uncommon for readers from all grounds to be selective in perusing renderings of Bible versions which inherently reflect the theology of the translators.We are encouraged to "examine everything carefully and hang on to what is good." (1 Thess. 5.21, CEB) Are we not?
-
Acts5v29
I think that is a sophisticated answer.
To "hang on to what is good" is certainly good, but why hang on to - and defend - the bad also?
If religions are to be ranked according to the lowest number of flaws, then the best religion simply has to have one less flaw than the others to feel settled - even though this is to negate the notion of "carefully examining everything and hanging on to what is good". But religion is not the issue: the issue is the God we worship, and perpetuated debate as to which religion is the least worst is a very earthly distraction from that.
There is an example in the LDS - they added some text to the end of the book of Genesis to prophesy the advent of Joseph Smith. LDS explain this in various ways, such as
"God told him to do it"
which is difficult to disprove, and with that the - quite disgraceful - flaw is perpetuated. Other religions do the same... The simple way out of this is to practice 1st Thessalonians 5 in loyalty to God rather than church, and especially with regard to the churches which say that to follow them is to follow God.
-
Wonderment
Acts5v29: The simple way out of this is to practice 1st Thessalonians 5 in loyalty to God rather than church, and especially with regard to the churches which say that to follow them is to follow God.
I agree!
-
Acts5v29
Acts5v29: The simple way out of this is to practice 1st Thessalonians 5 in loyalty to God rather than church, and especially with regard to the churches which say that to follow them is to follow God.
===
I agree!===
... that would include the watchtower...
-
Wonderment
Jesus is ‘the [only] way to the Father (God).’ (John 14.6)
Anyone who attempts to usurp the role of Jesus Christ as "mediator" is not only an impostor, but such one is also disrespecting the One who sent him. By replacing Jesus Christ as "mediator" between God and mankind with the so-called "faithful and discreet slave," the Watchtower organization is committing the greatest imaginable blunder. Of course, the WT org. may deny this, but in practice, this is exactly what they are doing.
-
Acts5v29
They are indeed - but in all honesty I think the whole thing has a life of its own, and none of them an stop what it is doing. That's worrying!
Take away the middle-man - whether he be Rome of Jerusalem or Brooklyn or Salt-Lake City - and you take away an immense blockage, just as our Lord described those who close the gates of the Kingdom to others yet do not go in themselves.
Religions warn that evil spirits might divert those who are not guided by religion, but those approaching with a sincere heart will at least have a sincere heart - they have no free will if they follow a church. and their heart is placed in a box. Far far better to turn to God ourselves and let that sincere heart bring God's guidance than to relinquish all that it is to a third party.