It never made sense to me that God would simply create a human incarnation of himself to shed blood as a figurative sacrifice to pardon sin and save mankind. And better still, it doesn't make too much sense why he sent an "angel" to do the same thing. This legalistic approach viewed by Christians as some expression of love is very strange. Watchtower literature does in fact admit that Jehovah himself created death and he himself pronounced the death sentence on Adam and thus all of his descendants. Yet, to whom is the ransom price paid to? It isn't Satan! Watchtower would shudder if it suggested that! Actually, WT Publications show that the ransom price (to pay the one holding someone hostage) was actually paid to none other than Jehovah himself. So God got his oldest Son to do the dirty work for him, to make everything appear as if there was some kind of loving process to free mankind from sin, when in fact it was Jehovah who enslaved mankind in sin in the first place. Yeah, who would want to worship a God like that?
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Your response and approach to the discussion reveal several fundamental issues that need to be addressed carefully and systematically. Your repeated assertion that I am not engaging with your arguments is misplaced; I am directly addressing your claims and examining the assumptions underpinning them. Let me explain why your methodology and claims fall short of providing a coherent interpretation of the Scriptures you cited.
First, your claim that you haven’t presented arguments yet but only outlined claims of identification is puzzling. Identifications are not neutral statements; they are already interpretations that require justification. When you state, for example, that the Man of Lawlessness (MOL) is the same as the 8th King, the King of the North, or the Small Horn, you are making an interpretive leap that demands evidence. Citing passages that describe these figures without demonstrating their interconnectedness is insufficient. It is not enough to assert that they are the same; you need to show how the text itself justifies this claim through consistent and contextual exegesis.
Second, your approach to symbolic versus literal interpretation lacks clarity and consistency. You accuse me of not understanding your intended point about symbolic and literal timeframes, but you have provided no explanation to reconcile your interpretive method. For instance, when you reference Revelation 13:5 (the 42 months) or Daniel 12:7 (time, times, and half a time), you treat these periods as literal durations, but you ignore the symbolic nature of apocalyptic literature as a whole. Apocalyptic texts frequently use symbolic numbers, imagery, and language to convey theological truths rather than precise chronological timelines. By failing to account for the literary genre of these texts, you impose a rigidity on the interpretation that contradicts their purpose and structure.
Third, your reliance on isolated proof texts creates a fragmented interpretation. By citing a series of unrelated verses about “time” and “judgment,” you attempt to draw conclusions about the timing and nature of prophetic events. However, this approach ignores the broader narrative and theological context of the passages. For example, your use of Revelation 13:5 alongside Daniel 7:25 to establish a specific timeframe for the beast’s authority conflates distinct contexts without addressing their differences. Revelation’s vision is rooted in the first-century context of Roman persecution, while Daniel’s visions relate to successive kingdoms leading to the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. You cannot simply merge these texts without addressing their historical and theological settings.
Fourth, your criticism of my response as repetitive and dismissive overlooks the fact that I am engaging with your claims based on established exegetical principles. I have already outlined why the identification of the MOL with the 8th King and other figures is speculative and lacks textual support. Instead of addressing these points, you reiterate your claims without further justification, accusing me of avoiding your questions. This is unproductive and detracts from meaningful dialogue.
Finally, your appeal to Proverbs 26:4 to characterize my responses as foolish is both dismissive and ironic. That verse warns against engaging with folly in a way that legitimizes it, but it does not preclude addressing misunderstandings or correcting errors. If you genuinely believe my responses lack understanding, you bear the burden of providing evidence and argumentation to substantiate your claims. Insults or dismissive comments do not advance the discussion; they merely highlight an unwillingness to engage in a substantive exchange.
In conclusion, your methodology in interpreting the apocalyptic texts you cite is flawed due to inconsistent interpretive principles, a fragmented approach to Scripture, and a reliance on unsubstantiated claims. I invite you to present a cohesive and contextually grounded argument for your assertions rather than repeating unsupported identifications or dismissing valid criticisms. Constructive dialogue requires clarity, evidence, and respect for the complexities of the biblical text—qualities that I have sought to uphold in this discussion. If you wish to continue, I encourage you to focus on addressing the specific points raised rather than resorting to dismissive rhetoric.
-
Anony Mous
@aqswed: it is hard to engage with someone who repeatedly uses the WTBTS mistranslation of the NT to prove a point, they intentionally rewrote large swathes to conform the text to their theology. I’ve quoted the Greek text and got ignored, instead making a statement sourced from the WTBTS that the WTBTS translation is accurate.
I’ve given up, the text is irrefutable in the original Greek, yes there are other texts that SEEM to negate that IF you ignore the meaning of the original Greek words and only read the English without understanding the symbolism and the OT. The problem with those texts is if you accept the original text you then must also accept the divine nature of man, divinity of Christ, immortal soul, existence of hell etc, also written out of the WTBTS translation.
When they stop linking to WOL as their proof, then you can engage in discussion.
-
Duran
When they stop linking to WOL as their proof, then you can engage in discussion.
LOL!
Look back here (last post) and check the hyperlinks to what was used. This is because I can use ANY to prove what I am saying. And there is no engaging in discussion with him. He responds one sided (his side). He lacks the ability to respond to what is asked. And does not understand what he reads.
For example:
When you state, for example, that the Man of Lawlessness (MOL) is the same as the 8th King, the King of the North, or the Small Horn, you are making an interpretive leap that demands evidence. Citing passages that describe these figures without demonstrating their interconnectedness is insufficient.
Second, your approach to symbolic versus literal interpretation lacks clarity and consistency. You accuse me of not understanding your intended point about symbolic and literal timeframes, but you have provided no explanation to reconcile your interpretive method.
Third, your reliance on isolated proof texts creates a fragmented interpretation. By citing a series of unrelated verses about “time” and “judgment,” you attempt to draw conclusions about the timing and nature of prophetic events.
He responds with that even though I told him that I was going to cite Scriptures first for him to review/think about. And I was going to also ask a few questions first to get those answers. (I need those as my foundation for timing.) Then I would explain why I connect those Scriptures to support the claims I do.
Him being told that, and yet he still responds as he did above.
Does that sound like someone that can comprehend...
-
aqwsed12345
@Duran
First, you accuse me of not waiting for you to present your full argument, but the structure of your approach complicates meaningful dialogue. You state that you were “going to cite Scriptures first” and then explain their relevance later. However, when you present passages without any immediate explanation of their connection to your claims, you are effectively asking me to accept your interpretation without critical engagement. It is not unreasonable for me to respond to the claims you have already made—such as equating the MOL with the 8th King, King of the North, and Small Horn—because these are interpretive assertions that require substantiation. If your argument depends on a series of steps, clarity and organization are essential, but this has been lacking in your presentation.
Second, my critique of your interpretive method is valid because the approach you’ve demonstrated so far relies heavily on isolated proof texts. You presented passages about “time” and “judgment” from different contexts without explaining how they fit together. For example, you cited Daniel 7:25, Revelation 13:5, and Daniel 12:7, but these texts address distinct events and contexts. My response highlighted the need for a consistent hermeneutic to connect these passages meaningfully, which is a standard practice in biblical exegesis. Simply citing verses without addressing their literary, historical, and theological contexts does not establish their interconnectedness.
Third, you assert that my responses demonstrate a lack of comprehension, but the problem lies in your presentation of unsubstantiated claims rather than any failure on my part to understand. For example, when you say the MOL, the 8th King, and the King of the North are the same, I am not dismissing the possibility outright. Instead, I am pointing out that you have yet to provide textual evidence that establishes this connection. It is not enough to list their traits or actions; you must show how the biblical authors explicitly or implicitly link these figures. Without this, your claims remain speculative.
Fourth, your approach to timing also requires clarification. You seem to oscillate between symbolic and literal interpretations of prophetic timeframes without explaining your criteria for determining which is appropriate. For instance, Revelation 13:5 mentions 42 months, but apocalyptic literature often uses symbolic numbers to convey theological truths rather than precise durations. When you treat such numbers as literal without addressing the genre’s symbolic nature, you impose an interpretive framework that may not align with the text’s intent.
Finally, your assertion that my response is evidence of a lack of comprehension is not a valid critique of the points I raised. My responses have consistently engaged with your claims based on the information you provided. If you feel that my responses are premature or not aligned with your intended argument, it may be because your method—citing passages without immediate explanation—creates ambiguity. To move forward productively, I encourage you to present a clear, step-by-step argument that connects your claims to the biblical text in a coherent and substantiated manner.
In summary, your criticisms do not address the substance of my responses but rather mischaracterize them as dismissive or one-sided. I have engaged with your claims, pointed out where evidence or clarity is lacking, and highlighted the need for a consistent interpretive method. If you wish to continue this discussion, I am open to engaging with your arguments as long as they are presented clearly and with adequate support from the text.
-
Anony Mous
@duran: the last post you linked to the MEV version of the Bible (a retranslation of the KJV that attempts to be inclusive for modern Christian thoughts) and stated that you could not be rebutted because you only made claims from scripture as if what you had quoted up to that point could not be rebutted (claim to authority)
But it is exactly the WTBTS interpretation and translation of scripture that is being rebutted. Nobody is saying that the scripture doesn’t state certain things, but that in and of itself does not provide any meaning to the text. The WTBTS uses the same format to “stump” lay people that aren’t educated on Biblical/Christian history, translation but then in that interpretation you are yourself jumping back and forth between literal and figurative speech. You can’t have it both ways, either the entire thing is figurative and the meaning of the numbers have a meaning that has probably been lost to time, or meant something specific related to the customs and culture of that day (eg 1000 years from now, people will find reference to Swifties, which without cultural context could mean lots of things). Or it is read literal and then you can’t turn days into years and beasts into specific organizations that did not exist yet and you likewise can’t just jump from sentence to sentence across books and string together a coherent story.
Pick one of the books you want to make an argument about and then from the same book, string together the context about the idea that was being conveyed. If the King of the North is not the widely believed to be physically the King of the North at the time of writing, then prove that from the book of Daniel. The context of Daniel then would make clear that this is not written for the Jews as a warning and message of hope, John of Patmos largely rewrote the story for early Christians with similar messaging, which clearly does not indicate the same message because the numbers are different, but the story itself is important. Were it a prophecy, the numbers would be the same, except there is pretty strong evidence the numbers 666 was a transliteration of Nero Caesar, likely Daniel had similar coding which was lost to time. So the story stayed the same, the characters changed, it is possible history repeats itself but those numbers would have to change for every large empire.
-
Duran
the last post you linked to the MEV version of the Bible (a retranslation of the KJV that attempts to be inclusive for modern Christian thoughts) and stated that you could not be rebutted because you only made claims from scripture as if what you had quoted up to that point could not be rebutted
LOL! Take a breath.
Whatever version I used I just picked randomly. He linked a site, and I picked one on there. (I believe more than one I used.) I have no preference. You seem to! What do you prefer?
And the initial claims can be rebutted as he did. And because of doing so is why I set out to explain/support what I claimed.
Here is his rebutted to my initial claim which is fine at that point:
Equating the MOL with the 8th king and other apocalyptic figures (e.g., King of the North, small horn) is speculative and unsupported by Scripture. Paul’s reference to the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks to a spiritual rebellion, which Catholic teaching sees as applicable across history, not confined to one individual or regime. Your claim that the MOL sits in God’s temple (2 Thessalonians 2:4) being the same as the 8th king in Revelation 17 misreads both texts. The "temple" in Paul’s writing likely refers to the Church or God's spiritual dwelling, not a literal structure tied to a specific political entity.
Here is my replay:
In regard to the 8th king/MOL/KOTN/DT etc., before I say more, answer these questions first and mull for a bit on those following Scriptures.
But then his response right after (you can go read it here) caused for me to have to say:
Regardless, you could not even do what was asked and that was to first tell me the when and how those 4 come to their end.
And in regard to the Scriptures, I asked you just to mull over them for a bit before I say more, meaning don't reply about them yet,And on and on it went.
So, what I said that you are referring to is, that he cannot rebut my argument/explanation, because I never even got the chance to give it.
Yet he says:
3. Rebuttal of Your Arguments
He is still trying to rebut my initial claims and Scriptures that I CLEARLY told him to read now, don't reply back yet about them, I will say more later.
Anyway, I am done speaking about it.
The problem is that he is a Catholic here trying to promote their teachings. That is as bad as a JW here trying to promote their teachings.
It is different than others here that are ex-JWs that still believe the Bible and try to talk about things to a degree of trying to understand things, while not promoting any particular religion. If anything, the WTS by all its BS, has shown to need to get away from ALL religions, including it.
That said about trying to understand that Bible, I also can see and appreciate comments like this:
nicolaou
You guys will strain out the Watchtowers gnats but swallow the Bible's camels. -
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Your response reveals several misunderstandings and misconceptions that need addressing. Let me clarify and refute your claims step by step while maintaining a respectful and constructive tone.
First, your accusation that I am “trying to promote Catholic teachings” is misguided. My goal is not to impose any particular denominational stance but to engage critically and thoughtfully with the claims and interpretations you present. If you interpret my responses as reflective of Catholic theology, it is because I am grounding them in historical, scriptural, and scholarly reasoning rather than speculative assertions. Unlike the Watchtower’s approach or other sectarian interpretations, Catholic theology strives for a holistic understanding of Scripture, incorporating context, tradition, and consistent hermeneutics.
Second, your repeated claim that I should not engage with your cited Scriptures until you “say more” is problematic. When you present claims—such as equating the MOL with the 8th King or other apocalyptic figures—alongside a series of verses, you are inherently inviting analysis. Expecting me to “mull over” these Scriptures without addressing the connections you are trying to imply creates ambiguity. Moreover, by delaying your explanation, you effectively ask me to engage with a moving target. My responses aim to critically examine the claims you have made and the Scriptures you have cited, which is a standard approach in theological discourse.
Third, your accusation that I am rebutting arguments you haven’t made is unfounded. You have made explicit claims about the identities and interconnections of apocalyptic figures like the MOL, 8th King, and King of the North. Even if you have not yet elaborated on every detail, the claims themselves demand scrutiny. For instance:
• You claim the MOL and the 8th King are the same. Yet, the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is described in spiritual terms, sitting in God’s temple, which the broader New Testament context often equates with the Church or God’s spiritual dwelling (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22). On the other hand, the 8th King in Revelation 17:11 emerges from a series of earthly kingdoms, described in political and symbolic terms, not as an individual figure acting within the Church.
• Your interpretation of these figures as synonymous is speculative unless you provide textual evidence that directly links them. As of now, you have not done so, which is why I critically evaluate the Scriptures you cite rather than simply “mulling over” them in silence.
Fourth, your assertion that I am akin to a JW promoting their teachings is ironic, given that your approach mirrors many of the Watchtower’s methods. Like the Watchtower, you rely on isolated proof texts and unsupported interpretive leaps while dismissing broader historical and theological contexts. For example, the Watchtower often pulls verses from different parts of Scripture to construct a narrative while ignoring the original context and intended audience of those verses. This fragmented approach leads to speculative interpretations rather than a coherent biblical theology.
Fifth, your dismissal of all organized religion as inherently flawed due to the WTS’s errors is an overgeneralization. While it is true that human institutions are imperfect, this does not mean that all religious structures are inherently corrupt or without value. The Bible itself affirms the necessity of communal worship, accountability, and the preservation of sound teaching (Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:24-25). Rejecting “all religion” based on the Watchtower’s failures risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater, ignoring the vital role of the Church in maintaining the faith and spreading the Gospel.
Finally, your claim that I “cannot rebut” your arguments because you have not yet presented them fully is disingenuous. You have made specific assertions, provided scriptural references, and invited critique. If you feel I have misunderstood your points, the responsibility lies with you to clarify them rather than deflecting criticism by claiming I lack understanding. Constructive dialogue requires both parties to present their views clearly and respond to critique directly, without resorting to accusations or evasion.
In summary, your critiques of my approach misunderstand the nature of theological dialogue. I have engaged with the claims and evidence you presented, highlighting where your interpretations lack clarity, consistency, or textual support. If you wish to continue this discussion, I welcome your explanations and arguments. However, dismissing my responses as one-sided or accusing me of promoting a particular agenda without engaging with the substance of my points only undermines the possibility of a productive exchange.
-
Blotty
"you have become fixated on attacking my character. The personal insults and attempts to undermine my credibility reflect more attention on me than on the actual discussion at hand." - simply put: too me, you have NO credibility..
I think you are a nice person (generally)
But are like a 4 yr old when it comes to actaul adult debates
basically what Im saying is you are incompetent at actaully debating without having an agenda.
you cite mainstream scholarship for support ONLY when it suits - but ignore or omit it when it doesnt
unlike others on here, Who will still cite it no matter what.
"If you have specific examples of inaccuracies in my citations or evidence to support your accusations, I encourage you to provide them directly and let’s examine them together." - I have cited three alerady, this proves you do not read..
"If you’d like a translation verified by a third party, I’m open to discussing it with another reputable source." - verify with a thirdd party, your tranlsation of that dictionary please.
" Dismissing my openness to source requests without citing specific instances where sources were withheld detracts from the focus on the argument itself." - alright in my next post a link will be at the top for this
"Regarding the issue of nomina sacra in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, you claim that I omitted details about the singular versus plural forms. This does not equate to “lying” about the nomina sacra"
- So why did you say [quoted verbatum] "an interesting difference" and you go on about nomina sacra proving that Jesus is God - omitting to mention one set( in 8:5) is plural and is NEVER written as nomina sacra.
omitting information you likely know is a form of lieing (or atleast not being 100% honest)
(again I will link a source in my next post)
"However, dismissing my translated portion without engaging its actual content avoids addressing the argument itself." - when did I dismiss your translation?
yours even says "Arkhe" should be understood as "Firstfruits" - negating the first-cause implication.
"If you’d prefer, I can provide the title and page number of the non-English source for transparency." - I have it, admittedly you did end up providing it. And have translated it myself.
"Your response seems to be fueled by frustration, leading to personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations rather than engagement with the primary arguments. " - note how I type in MY started therads
I am naturally blunt in text - blunter with you because of your blatant disrespect for others and their requests for answers or sources (and the amount of times you have had to be CORRECTED on things, you should have mentioned to start) to me warrents what I have said, others may disagree - But with you, and others like you (theologically motivated ones who purposefully omit infomration to suit an agenda) I am much harsher and will call any ommision of information into queston.
Am I right for this treatment? probably not
Am I subject to a certain relgious point of view? No - So I cant be held to account on those grounds.
Do I feel justiied in being harsher with you? 100% its the only way to get actaul answers and not rubbish.
you recently said:
"I would like to ask you to avoid copying whole Bible chapters in the future, especially from the NWT, I can find it too."
How many people have asked you not to make such long posts? I can count atleast 6
When you are ready for ACTAUL dislouge, instead of dominating conversations with ONLY your theology - send me a message on here.
" archē often signifies origin or foundational principle (see John 1:1, "In the beginning," En archē)." - this is a Dative construction tho - not genitive so is not a grammatical paralel and not relevant to the discussion of gentives
No person on here does this ever,
(cites a nominative construction for an accusative for example)
I am ware at one point the church fathers did, however this is WRONG and was actaully a highly misleading argument - the point from my recollection was on the article.
"Scholars have debated this translation choice, and some argue that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 could imply “possess” or “acquire” rather than “create.”" - yes, but it never implies they always had it, every instance means they got something they did not have in the past.
8:23's use of "aion" is clarified by "The beginning" as in the beginning of created things. refering to how the Targum interprets Gen 1:1 with Proverbs 8
Wisdom claims to have existed before then, How long? its never stated.
note Origen also seems to understand the world to be "eternally begotten" in some sense.
Note the focus of Gen 1 as a while is the creation of earth and things on it. The author is "not interested" in the creation of heaven or anything before the start of the earths creation - you will notice in alot of the Bible authors focus on ONE element ommiting anything else that is not relevant to their cause.
(But also not omitting in a misleading manner ether, there is a difference)
-
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
Credibility is not determined by personal feelings but by the accuracy, reliability, and proper use of evidence. Mainstream scholarship has been consistently cited across discussions. When disagreements with certain scholarly interpretations arise, they are addressed with alternative academic viewpoints or through logical reasoning. This is standard in academic debates. The accusation of selective citation is itself vague and unsubstantiated. If specific examples of misrepresentation exist, they must be directly addressed with evidence, not generalizations.
If the citations provided are accurate and relevant, their content should be discussed to demonstrate their implications for the argument. A blanket accusation of not reading is unproductive and does not advance the discussion. Assertions of misrepresentation must engage with the specifics of the argument rather than relying on dismissive rhetoric. If the citations are valid, their relevance to the theological and linguistic issues should be debated point by point.
This just proves my point that the plural theoi does not refer to the one true God, so the earliest manuscripts only used the Nomina Sacra when it referred to that. The omission of plural forms in a specific instance (1 Corinthians 8:5) does not invalidate the broader argument regarding nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts. The plural gods in verse 5 are deliberately contrasted with the singular God and Lord in verse 6, where nomina sacra are applied. Nomina sacra were used as theological markers to denote sacred terms. Their absence in certain plural forms does not negate their significance in singular references to Christ and the Father, which emphasize monotheism and the divine status of Jesus. The claim that this omission is “lying” misunderstands the purpose of nomina sacra, which was to highlight central theological points rather than apply uniformly to all instances.
While "ἀρχή" (archē) can have multiple meanings, its specific use in contexts such as John 1:1 and Revelation 3:14 aligns with the notion of "origin" or "source" rather than "firstfruits." The suggestion that “firstfruits” 'negates' first-cause implications is unsupported. Even if "firstfruits" were a plausible translation, it would imply a primacy in rank or origin, consistent with Christ’s role as the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16-17).
The Hebrew term "qanah" (Proverbs 8:22) is context-dependent and can mean "acquire," "possess," or "create." In the context of divine wisdom, "possess" does not imply a temporal beginning but rather denotes ownership or intrinsic association. Early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, understood "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 metaphorically, referring to the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a literal creation event. The broader context of Proverbs 8 emphasizes wisdom’s preexistence "before the mountains were settled, before the hills" (Proverbs 8:25), which is consistent with Christ’s eternal nature, not a point of origin in time.
The term "aion" in Proverbs 8:23, combined with the phrase "from everlasting" (LXX: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος), emphasizes timelessness rather than a specific point of origin. This context supports the understanding of Christ’s eternal preexistence. The interpretation of "aion" as merely referring to the beginning of created things imposes a narrow reading that ignores its broader usage to denote eternity in both biblical and extra-biblical literature.
Origen’s concept of the eternal generation of the Son refers to the Son’s relationship to the Father, not the creation of the world. Origen distinguishes between the eternal Logos and the temporal world, explicitly affirming that the Logos is uncreated. The idea of the world being "eternally begotten" in Origen’s writings reflects his speculative philosophy and allegorical interpretation, not a denial of creation’s temporal beginning.
While Genesis 1 after the 2nd verse focuses on the creation of the physical universe, it does not exclude the preexistence of the Logos or Wisdom. John 1:1 explicitly clarifies that "In the beginning was the Word," emphasizing the Logos’s existence before all creation. Proverbs 8:22-30 complements this by portraying Wisdom as present before the foundation of the world, consistent with the Logos’s eternal nature. Omitting this broader scriptural context distorts the interpretation of both passages.
The debate over "qanah" reflects the richness of its semantic range. While it can mean "acquire" or "create," its use in Proverbs 8:22, in the context of divine Wisdom, aligns with "possess" or "bring forth" in a manner that does not imply temporal origination. The interpretation of "qanah" as "create" imposes a temporal framework inconsistent with the broader theological understanding of Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father.