all other early translations very clearly point towards the Jesus is God interpretation.
I am not sure that is the case. I seem to remember that the Latin is ambiguous like the Greek. As for the Syriac, I don't know.
apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.
i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.
here is what i gather: .
all other early translations very clearly point towards the Jesus is God interpretation.
I am not sure that is the case. I seem to remember that the Latin is ambiguous like the Greek. As for the Syriac, I don't know.
apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.
i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.
here is what i gather: .
It still doesn't clear up the polytheistic component of that verse, if translated that way
First century Jews viewed angels, patriarchs and divine agents as 'gods' in a lesser sense. John himself refers to such usage in his quote from the Psalms in chapter 10.
apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.
i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.
here is what i gather: .
NOW THAT IS A FAT LIE
Well, I am glad you cleared that one up.
apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.
i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.
here is what i gather: .
Apparently there has been quite a stir in JW apologetic circles recently about the translation of John 1:1 in the early Sahidic version of John. I don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great. Here is what I gather:
In Sahidic the second "God" in John 1:1 appears with the indefinite article, lending support to the Witnesses' translation "and the Word was a god".
Sahidic was perhaps the first language into which the NT was translated, meaning that the Witnesses can claim support for their much reviled rendering from the very earliest translational testimony as to how this verse should be understood.
On top of that it also appears that, whereas the first "God" in John 1:1 appears as a nomen sacrum, the second "God" in reference to Jesus is written out in full.
If these facts have been accurately reported to JW apologetic circles, then we can reasonably expect that the Society will make much of this new support for their view in future publications.
What with this and BeDuhn on the NWT and Buchannan on the form of the divine name, it does seem that a number of JW theologial positions have been gaining ground of late. Just too bad that they have all the organizational, legal and general lethargic problems within the community that they are not able to capitalize on such vindications. Were Freddy Franz still around I can imagine he would have a field day with this new support for his theology - much as he did in the 1970s when George Howard's article came out about the tetragrammaton in the NT.
.
i have been on the toilet for about four months now (with brief interludes involving the non-toilet world)
All,
Thank you all for your individual messages. I am sorry I don't feel up to answering everyone individually, but I have read all you have written and thanks for the advice and messages of support.
LDH
I never worry about anything. Others are often exasperated that I don't get overly concerned about things perhaps I should. I really doubt my Ulcerative Colitis has a psychological cause. I live in the here and now and let tomorrow take care of itself. As I pretty much claim ownership of the bathroom these days you could say that there is some friction in the family now, especially since my illness looks like its here for good.
Danny,
Thanks for all the information and support. I got some probiotic yoghurt and I don't know if it is helping yet, but it does taste rather good. I asked my doctor and he said I can go back up to 60mg of prednisone because my symptoms have got much worse again.
Can I ask how you could have acted differently during the early stages of your illness that would have made it better in the long run?
Some people swear by diets and supplements and others say not to take any notice and that it has nothing to do with diet, so I am quite confused at the moment and don't know what to believe. Since I will have this for the rest of my life, or until I have surgery, I guess I have plenty of time to research and experiment and make up my own mind.
.
i have been on the toilet for about four months now (with brief interludes involving the non-toilet world)
Champion,
I am trying various foods, but I am not hopeful since I have read that while the condition may be helped slightly by finding agreeable foods for each individual, no diet can provide a cure since the problems are caused by the diseased bowel itself, not by the particular substances it encounters. I am eager to look for alternatives to steroids though. I will look up Amazon for your suggestion, thanks.
Slim
i had never heard this before, but according to royston pike those were russell's last words.
can anyone verify this, or show where this story comes from?
How on earth did Farkel's coment manage to be the last in this thread???
Someone better dig him up quick (assuming Rutherford never mover the body ) - but are you sure tests would even work after all this time???
Most witnesses (in terms of numbers) live in the US, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Italy and Japan. Witnesses have the highest percentages (against the general population) in Zambia, Guadeloupe (can't spell), Malawi, Mexico and St Helens. Witnesses are banned in most of the middle east, China, and have legal difficulties in some of eastern Europe. At one time or another Jehovah's Witnesses have had legal restrictions in most countries, including most of the western world during world war two.
.
i have been on the toilet for about four months now (with brief interludes involving the non-toilet world)
I have been on the toilet for about four months now (with brief interludes involving the non-toilet world); and about three months ago the doctor put his finger, then an inflexible (I assure you) "flexi-scope" in my rear end only to discover that I have inflamatory bowel disease: either UC or Crohn's (tentatively UC). I am now on steroids, that worked for a while, but now having reduced them no longer seem to be helping. I have looked at other forums specifically for persons similarly afflicted, but it is hard to relate somehow. So I would be oh so happy were there someone here in apostate-land for me to have a shared experience with.
has anyone else read this book?
i am finding it to be a ripping good yarn.
i heard that alfs was a witness when he wrote the book (1990), but has since turned apostate.
Some interesting things from the book so far:
1. A. H. MacMillan did not write "Faith on the March", Alfs has it on "good authority" that a committee in Brooklyn actually wrote the book for the aged loyalist on the basis of a few interviews and their own research. This, avers Alfs, explains some errors that are otherwise difficult to account for from an eyewitness.
2. Rutherford actually had very warm relations with his wife and son, that being the reason he made the much criticized move to Beth Sarim on the west coast to be close to them.
3. Alfs praises the Watchtower Society's enlightened attitude to sex, especially their commendation of the healing powers of the female orgasm.
4. Alfs also maintains that female Witnesses are "on the average" certainly more beautiful than the general population.
5. Alfs was especially pleased with an Awake! from 1989 on the subject of beauty that boasted three "stunning" sisters on the front cover. (I sure hope someone could post a copy of that picture!)