Jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar to preach the Bible.

by paradisebeauty 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  I am no Greek scholar but the term in John 1:1 (In the beginning) is the same term used in Genesis 1:1 in the LXX regarding creation of the heavens and the earth. For John to have used that same expression is he not only saying that "in the beginning", when the heavens and the earth were created, the Word already existed and was with God. It does not say that the Word did not exist before time began, but before the creation of the material universe.

  As for the video, I think that both Sir Anthony Buzzard and the two witnesses acquitted themselves well although I thought Anthony Buzzard displayed a bit of one-upmanship and was, perhaps, too pleased with himself.
  
• 

  paradisebeauty

  @ Village Idiot

  The "word" in Isaiah 11:55 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

  is never understood to be Jesus, nor a person, why would the word in John 1:1 be a person?

  I think it is the power of God to create and to make his plans a reality.
• 

  paradisebeauty

  @ Earnest, same comment as above, see the word in Isaiah 11:55 - not a person at all.
• 

  Vidiot

  Pwned.

  I have no doubt whatsoever that calls (and videos) like this are a huge source of incentive towards trolly and park table ministry work.
• 

  freeman

  For me, the key to the entire sentence which refutes Arianism are the very first three words.

  Ἐν

  ἀρχῇ

  ἦν

  Or in English: In Beginning Was

  The first three words say in effect that if you push back time as far as you can, to the very origin of time itself, the subject of the sentence which is “the Word” was already [past tense] existing. That means in effect that whatever this Word is, transcends time itself and has no starting point. The question then becomes who or what is the word.

  Mr Buzzard questions the preexistence of the son of God. He thinks the Word being spoken about is not a pre-human Jesus called the Word. I'll leave that for others to answer. However, as far as I know, Mr. Buzzard does not disagree with the eternity of the Word, but rather only the personhood of the Word. At least that is the way I see it.

  Freeman
• 

  Earnest

  @ paradisebeauty

  You ask why the "Word" in John 1:1 should be a person.

  vs 14 of the first chapter of John (NIV) says :

  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

  A straight-forward reading of the verse leaves little doubt that the "Word" refers to the Son of God.
  
• 

  sparky1

  If anyone is interested in what Anthony Buzzard believes (I personally am not) this is a link to his website. He publishes a magazine called Focus on the Kingdom and is straightforwardly a non-Trinitarian. His magazine kind of looks like the old Kingdom Ministry.

  http://focusonthekingdom.org/magazine.htm