by Amazing1914 111 Replies latest jw friends
I, an avowed unbeliever, now state unequivocally that the Watchtower organization is is God's spokesman.
Norman: But if everything you say is a lie, then you are lying when you lie but that would be telling the truth but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie except when you lie then you are telling the truth which is a lie. Please advise! Please advise!
Harry: Now listen carefully Norman: I am lying.
I, Mudd Star Trek
scholar,
: Why don't you inquire of Fuerbacher's beliefs about God, Christ and the Bible or are are you in the same bed with him?
This is three logical fallacies. That's pretty hard to do in just one, short sentence, you know. 1) It's a red-herring because it is designed to try to detract the readers from the actual facts, 2) it's a false dilemma, becuase it only presents two possibilities, when there may be more than just two, i.e. I may not be "in bed" with AlanF and may know what he actually believes. 3) It's the "do you still beat your wife?, argument, too. This may work in dubland, but people like us can see it for the specious and very childish attempt to draw attention away from the facts like it happens to be.
I know Fuerbacher. I've known him for six years. I've met him and spent time with him in person. He and I speak on the phone frequently. I know what he believes and what he doesn't believe. He and I have changed our opinions about the WTS, God, the Bible and other stuff over the years, sometimes in sync and sometimes not. That is what religious FREEDOM empowers people to do. Too bad you don't enjoy that freedom, Mr. scholar.
Your red-herring is just that: it doesn't MATTER what he believes, or doesn't believe. You are pathetically trying to shoot the messenger and ignoring the message.
If Sadaam Hussein stood up and told the truth and made a valid argument, would it be less valid because he said it and Jesus Christ didn't make the very same argument first? Would the very SAME argument made by Jesus and Sadaam be lessened because Sadaam also made it?
NO! The argument stands all by itself! You are trying to demonize Alan because you cannot deal with his arguments. His arguments stand, and if Jehovah God himself made the same arguments, it wouldn't add any more weight to them.
You are such a typical, blinded and tragic dub Mr. scholar if you cannot see this which is so very obvious to the rest of us.
Alan has you nailed: you may or may not be educated, but you are certainly braindead.
Farkel
marvin,
: Farkel, you let me down man! I can't believe you let this get by without the thorough trouncing it deserves and you are so eminently qualified to perform.
I'm on probation! I get my "privileges" back in six months if I suck up to the elders and the CO!
Good to see ya around, old friend. I hope you and yours are well and prospering.
Farkel
Even if you are right Scholar, it all seems unbelievably ridiculous that God would have things so convolutedly written in what some feel is his inspired word that we all need to be Einsteins to figure it out. Many of the WTS teachings are such that we need to tie half our brains behind our backs in order to get our head around them. Since according to the WTS we have to accept everything the WTS says as coming from God it seems quite ridiculous that if there is a God he will destroy us for conscientiously disagreeing with them, yet this is what they teach. Take for instance the ridiculous blood policy they now have in force.
What say you Scholar?
Toreador
Scholar,
I am confident that the NWT a translation on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship will be vindicated in this respect.
Another Greek Scholar, Dr. Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Thd. D, PH. D, D.D. is an author of the "Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament." The Watchtower Society quoted him to try and justify their NWT product. Dr. Mantey took great exception with the NWT, and wrote some commentaries refuting the NWT. The Society had quoted Dr. Mantay out of context, so he wrote to the Society demanding they stop quoting him. He once commented that the NWT is a horrible translation containing thousands of errors.
Dr. Mantey, I believe, is now deceased. However, I recommend that you contact Greek scholars in both modern and ancient Greek, at Lunds University.
Click here: http://www.lu.se/klass/klasspr/greschol.html
I have already sent them an e-mail and asked their opinion of "parousia" as it is used in the NWT at Matthew 24:3. I have asked their permission to post their response to this site. Further, I am sending them a link to this post in case they wish to review your comments v. the in-depth arguments excellently developed by AlanF. Let's see what independant experts have to say about this. I hope they find the time to respond.
Amazing
PS: I wrote to Dr. Blomqvist at Lunds University. He is a Ph.D., Professor emeritus of Greek Language and Literature. Research areas: grammar; historical linguistics; Hellenistic poetry; mythology; history of science and medicine; skeptic philosophy.
This should be interesting Jim. Please keep us posted as soon as you hear from them.
Toreador
Excellent, Amazing!
I too look forward to Dr. Blomqvist's reply.
Joe
Scholar,
Perhaps you may find the matter comical but I feel that when a person comes out publicly renouncing his previously held Christian beliefs and then has the pomposity to be taken seriously on Scriptural matters is a attitude that I find repugnant as you should if you are a Christian.
On this basis a person who sees the error of his ways, in your Scholarly opinion, has no right to use his past experiences to dissuade others from falling into the same trap!
The accusation of pomposity surely applies to someone confused enough to criticize such a person and that would be....errr...YOU.
Shame on your Masters in Brooklyn who denounced their previously held Christian beliefs in order to take up...newly held Christian beliefs. I presume you will be writing to them regarding their pomposity in doing so.
Best regards - HS
Sorry Neil - you have well and truly theologically trounced, yet again. But no doubt you will proclaim yourself the champion in this debate merely be default, you being a 'true' worshiper an all.
edited to include some emoticons...here is another....
For non-scholar:
Just to be complete:
A few days ago I didn't have one source reference that non-scholar misrepresented, but now I do, so here's a rewrite of the relevant material:
: In fact, if you had bothered to consult the grammar you would have found that the NWT is absolutely correct as the following reference works prove:
Being grammatically allowable is not the same as being contextually correct.
: Regarding the verb with the infinitive in Mark13:4 ''mellle pres. subj. mello to be about to. Used w. infinitive the future. sunteleisthai pres.pass. inf. sunteleo to complete, to bring to an end".Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament by Fritz Reinecker, 1982 p.124. In the same reference work on page 203 for Luke 21:7 it says"mello to be about to. Used w. infinitive to ecpress fut.(s.MKG,307)".
This reference completely proves my point. Why you don't see that is a complete mystery. As regards Mark 13:4, it obviously gives the meaning, "to be about to complete" -- which is exactly what I've been arguing for. The same goes for Luke 21:7.
: So, if we consult MKG page 307 (The Morphology of Koine Greek:As used in the Apocalypse of St. John by G. Mussies, 1971 Supplement To Novum Testamentum)
In my last post on this subject, I said this:
I don't have this reference in my library, but have ordered it. In view of the fact that you've misrepresented most of the source references you've used in these threads, you now have the opportunity to review your use of this one, and correct any mistakes. If you don't, you can be sure that I will point them out when I receive my order.
I will now point out your errors.
You quoted from section 11.6.4, which begins on page 306. By way of introducing a subsection, Mussies states:
11.6.4. The last kind of periphrastic constructions which we have to treat of, are those that have no exact equivalents in the word system of the verb:
Mussies then discusses various subtopics under headings a) through g). For section b) we have:
b) Durative Future Indicative: three varieties occur in the N.T., namely:
esomai plus durative participle e.g. Matt. X 22 esesthe misoumenoi (10x)
mellw plus durative infinitive e.g. Matt. XVII 12 mellei paskhein (23x)
mellesw plus durative infinitive e.g. Matt. XXIV 6 mellesete de akouein (2x)
These word groups have a futural as well as a durative value, and are marked as opposed to the future indicative word category, which is neutral as to durativity just as the only N.T. instance of mellw plus aorist infinitive found in Apc III 16 mellw se emesai.
The obsolete future participle esomenos and infinitive esesthai were not used as components of periphrastic constructions. Instead the participle and infinitive of mellw were used in combination with in infinitive (see 11.6.4.5.-6).
The middle scripture given above, Matt. 17:12, is the one of interest here. It contains the root mellw in the present indicative form mellei, which is what you claim as an example of the usage in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. But that's wrong, as I already showed with respect to your misrepresentation of Robertson's A Grammar Of The Greek Mew Testament: Mussies' example of Matt. 17:12 is with respect to mellei, which is in the indicative mood, whereas Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 have melle, which is in the subjunctive mood. Hence, your example from Mussies, quoted below, does not apply.
: it says the following under Section11.6.4 : (b) Durative Future Indicative:
: mello plus durative infinitive
: These words groups have a futural as well as a durative value...
Readers can easily compare your abbreviated and misrepresentative quote with the full one above.
Mussies goes on and, in section d) presents the following:
d) Future Subjunctive: mellw, melles etc. plus (durative) infinitive (3x) e.g. Luke XXI 7 hotan melle tauta ginesthai. An optative melloimi plus infinitive does not occur, as the optative is falling into disuse.
Of course, all this says is that Mussies correctly classifies melle in Luke 21:7 as an example of the "future subjunctive". He says nothing about the meaning of the phrase hotan melle tauta ginesthai, so his comments are simply irrelevant to the question of its meaning.
Furthermore, it's obvious that once again you've horribly mangled several references, in this case, managing to confuse Mussie's example of the "b) Future Durative Indicative" with his example of "d) Future Subjunctive". You obviously don't understand the difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods -- something that any first-year Greek student learns. But I already pointed this out in my last post on this topic.
Readers can compare your quote below with what Mussies actually says, as shown above:
: (d) Future Subjunctive: mello plus (durative) infinitive eg. Luke 21:7 melle ginesthai.
In summary, we already know that the tense melle, "be about to", when used in the expression "hotan melle tauta sunteleisthai panta" refers to the future. The references to Mussie simply confirm this. Big deal.
AlanF
Alan F
In Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, melle is a verb with present tense, active voice, subjunctive mood followed by the infinitive. Thus according to the advanced Grammars this verbal construction denotes a durative future aspect and is fittingly rendered by the NWT as '"are destined...'".
scholar
