by toladest 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Time after time I hear phrases on this forum such as "if evolution is true, then God can't exist", or "If our Holy Book isn't consistent then God can't exist". These things are not mutually exclusive, but we were conditioned to believe they were (as are some other fundamentalist groups, incidentally).
It's quite possible for evolution to be true, Holy Books to be a bunch of diaries, and God to exist.
It's quite possible for evolution to be true, Holy Books to be a bunch of diaries, and God to exist.
yes, that is possible. however, if the holy book turns out to be a bunch of diaries, there's no reason given to believe the things it says about god. especially when it says exclusive things about god.
there definately is the possibility that god exists, most atheists won't deny that, there's only no evidence to believe it. it's also possible that a rabbit named "fluffy" lives on mars. but there's no reason to believe it.
do you know the "invisible pink unicorn"?
Never met Fluffy or a unicorn, but God was pretty cool...
I wonder if the Police ignore all evidence, just because it isn't 100% in agreement?
take the bible like any other story book, set out who are the main characters and what are their roles etc...
you will find from beginning to end there are always two main characters and both of them are explained gradually as we go
the first being - ELoHYiM - [translated God in the plural of majesty with singular verbs] who makes his appearance in genesis 1:1 and is later identified as YHVH ELoHYiM.
The next one is not mentioned till Genesis 3 where we are told he would be THE SEED who would bruise the serpent in the head.
We are given many attributes of YHVH and we are given that he is not alone but has hundreds of thousands of godlike beings with him in his heavenly realm and that he is the El ELoHYim or the God of gods.
The Seed is also given attributes, we are told he is Shiloh, the one to whom it belongs, who will one day be king of all and he will be a descendent of David, a human, but he will have complete divine backing and his kingdom will be eternal
The Jews never saw any thing in their readings or understandings to give them the impression that YHVH himself would be coming as this human and every indication to see them as two seperate beings and the christians scriptures dont really alter this understanding in any direct or open way.
That the messiah would turn out to be from the divine family, the Elohim [plural] or the Beni-elohim, the sons of God [the members of the guild of god like beings is also valid] would likely cause some confusion.... since his nature was godlike in this sense.... he was of the divine beings who emptied himself and took on the form of a human slave... but was exhaulted back to his former divine glory and given a name above all the other names of his fellow divine beings, etc.
even in the Reveltations, the distinction between these two main characters is maintained and there is no confusion between the ONE who sits on the throne as LORD GOD ALMIGHTY and the other who approaches as the lamb OF God, the lion of Judah
and even in the culimnation when all is said and done, there are these two who are now ruling as one but yet still seperate in the new jerusalem as the light of all the universe, God and his Lamb. both were in the beginning of the story and both are found at the end of the story....and both remained seperate characters the whole time.
In French John 1:1 is "la parole etait dieu"
It is a descriptive statement, like
"M Lebrun etait medicin." Mr Lebrun was a doctor.
To add "un" here would turn the phrase into a statement of number not quality or occupation.
Mr Lebrun was ONE doctor.
The WTS so misunderstands this that they INSISTED that in france rules of grammar were broken in the NWT and inserted "UN" so John 1:1 in the french NWT is "la parole etait UN dieu." I cringe at such ignorance.
Probably they have also overlooked the fact that Ukrainian and other slavic tongues lack the indefinite article and will make fools of themselves there too.
Hopin'
HB
i know you didn’t ask but,
don’t bother showing your brother anything. he is in battle mode and still under the WT conditioning. he will put up walls and you will become his attacker. the way out of the WT is a jagged slow road.
Zen
I'm not a trinitarian, but again, one trinitarian idea is that they are separate persons, but one god. Guess since i tend toward pantheism that this is no problem for me to understand.
S
S:
The predominant idea for the last 1600 years has been that they are three persons. As you quite rightly state, pantheists have no difficulty with the concepts involved, and in fact take them that step further. It's not really all that difficult, for all the WTS tweets on about it.
now you'll tell me about your "personal experiences", mr. flanders? ;-)
Not at all! The deposit of faith, which the bible is a part of, also includes the writings of the Church Fathers, the Councils, etc. etc. But here's the big question, can doctrine develop?
Hamsterbait,
I'm curious: how did you hear about that?
In French John 1:1 is "la parole etait dieu"It is a descriptive statement, like
"M Lebrun etait medicin." Mr Lebrun was a doctor.
To add "un" here would turn the phrase into a statement of number not quality or occupation.
Mr Lebrun was ONE doctor.
The WTS so misunderstands this that they INSISTED that in france rules of grammar were broken in the NWT and inserted "UN" so John 1:1 in the french NWT is "la parole etait UN dieu." I cringe at such ignorance.
Actually "la Parole était dieu" was the option of the first complete French NWT (1974) and was only "corrected" to "la Parole était un dieu" about 20 years later (in the 1995 revision afaik). The predicative (attributive) argument, with the very example of "médecin/doctor," was the one usually put forward by the translator to explain the formal difference with the English "original". However I don't remember it was ever written like that. The closest I find (without the "medical" example) is an added paragraph in the French Watchtower 2.15.1975, QFR:
Translation:[Pour marquer la valeur d’attribut du nom "dieu", la Traduction du monde nouveau en langue anglaise a inséré entre le verbe "était" et le nom "dieu" l’article indéfini "un" : "La Parole était un dieu." Cela est tout à fait conforme au génie de la langue anglaise. Notre langue, par contre, suivant en cela le grec, qui n’a pas d’article devant théos, n’impose pas l’emploi idiomatique de l’article indéfini devant l’attribut : d’où notre traduction : "La Parole était dieu" (sans article), c’est-à-dire : La Parole avait la qualité divine, elle possédait la divinité, elle était dieu (d minuscule). Notez au passage ces traductions de Jean 1:1: "Le Verbe était un être divin." (Bible du Centenaire). "La Parole était dieu." (Oltramare, 1879). "La Parole était d’essence divine." (Oltramare révisée). N.D.L.T.]
To mark off the predicative function of the noun "god," the English NWT inserted between the verb "was" and the noun "god" the indefinite article, "a". This is fully consistent with the genius of the English language. However, our language, just as Greek which has no article before theos, doesn't require the idiomatic use of the indefinite article before the predicate -- whence our translation "La Parole était dieu" (anarthrous), that is: The Word had divine quality, it possessed the divinity, it was "god" (lower case). Note the following translations of John 1:1...
