i haven't seen this topic on here so i thought i'd.... hmmm, maybe it's because it's just too disturbing?
to me, the scene in saving private ryan - the two soldiers in the small upstairs room fighting hand to hand to the death (by stabbing).
i think that is the most disturbing thing i've seen on screen and there were plenty just in that film alone.
I usually avoid most of the kind films mentioned, such as Saw.
I did end up watching Seven though. It had been hyped by the critics, which should've sounded alarm bells for me, so I went. There it was a most disturbing and depressing film. I almost walked out on the film but stayed as I couldn't see how it could seriously get any worse. I was wrong. I guess the critics loved it because evil triumphed (their world view).
Forscher
this verse came up on the thread about whether or not jesus is michael the archangel.
i wanted to discuss it in further detail on a new thread because i think raised on the other thread was an important point about how jw's and bs translate john 1:1.
1in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.. as we know the nwt adds an "a" to say "and the word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient greek manuscripts.
I'll bite lovelylil, though I am not a Bible Student.
As we know the NWT adds an "a" to say "and the Word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In Charles Russells' study of the scripture books, he also adds an (a) when translating John 1:1. Isn't this tampering with the scriptures?
Fair enough LL. An anarthrous noun, what the theos is in John 1:1c, can be translated one of four ways.
Any of the three are possible and depend entirely on which of the three makes the most sense in the context. The problem with both "God," and "the God" is that they make the clause read just the opposite of what the Greek Grammar indicates. That is why grammarians had to invent Colwell's rule to justify using option number one.
When I first studied Ancient Greek, I used a programmed primer written by an episcopalian scholar, Dr. John H. Werner, hardly an anti-trinitarian. Dr. Werner included John 1:1 among the pieces in his translation exercises to illustrate some of the nuances of the use of the definite article in ancient Greek. He made it quite clear to the student that Greek Grammar did not in any way imply in that passage that the "word" and God were in any way the same personage, the meaning implied when one translates the last clause as "and the word was God." So options numbers one and three are eliminated out of hand. That leaves options numbers two and four are what we are left with. Unfortunately there is nothing in the text of the verse to definitively guide us as to which option to use. So of necessity one ends up falling back on one's theology as a guide.
Ironically, after going to great pains to point out that the grammar didn't support the the use of the English "and the word was God" to his students, Dr. Werner made it clear that that particular translation was the accepted form for rendering the verse in the scholarly community. He just simply cautioned to student to be aware of what the Greek really meant. That was my introduction to the fact that the scholarly community, despite all of its publicly trashing the NWT rendering of that verse, knew for a fact that the NWT rendering had a better basis than the standard. Some translators, because the first option is actually misleading, use the fourth option.
There is another positive proof for the second or third options, the Sahidic Coptic translation, which goes back to the earliest times of the Christian era. Coptic does have the indefinite article and both the Sahidic and Boharic Coptic Translations use it in John 1:1. You will find a discussion of it at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145795/1.ashx. Even Leolaia participated in that one. In short, the consensus seems to be that the Coptic equally supports options two or four. just as the grammatical use or non use of the definite article in Greek does.
Forsher
i thought some might find this humorous.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_intelligence_iran_possesses.
u.s. intelligence: iran possesses trillions of potentially dangerous atoms.
I like the humor there Gopher
As for the issue of Iran, I think we should just let the Israelis do their thing if it comes to that and look the other way while they fly over. Since they've demonstrated that they can jam powerful Russian radar, something I understand not even we can do, I think a credible case can be made that we couldn't figure out their positions as they flew over Iraq to get there.
;)
there are several doctrinal explications in the wt literature about which the average jw is not aware.
one that has always puzzled me is the definition that the insight book gives to lying.
it explains that lying does not mean to provide false information, but that it means to give wrong information to whoever has the right to know.
There are several doctrinal explications in the WT literature about which the average JW is not aware. One that has always puzzled me is the definition that the Insight book gives to lying. It explains that lying does not mean to provide false information, but that it means to give wrong information to whoever has the right to know. Therefore, if you give wrong information to an individual who does not have the right to know such information, you are not lying. This is, of course, very interesting, because, based on such interpretation, the Governing Body may considered, and in fact it has done it, as shown by the UN scandal, that the average Witness does not have the right to know this or that. I have experienced that most witnesses do not think on the implications of this, or do not even know about it. What has your experience been on this issue?
That is obviously the legal department at work. The definition of lying is the same one which policemen use to ethically justify lying to suspects. I think it is based on Kantian reasoning.
Forscher
who is the antichrist?
the antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a persons relationship with christ and with god.
john 2:22 - who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that jesus is the christ?
Sorry I'm late, what did I miss?
Not a whole lot Anti Christ. We were just having a little fun feeding the troll!
Forscher
if i opened/ended my exchances with "assalamu alaikum," would so many be so offended?
i personally don't think so.
in fact, i think there would be some who would think, "hey, cool!
Don't be too uptight about it Aguest.
One thing I learned a long time ago about learning foreign languages is that one will always make mistakes. So one should have a sense of humor about it. Generally, I find that when one offers correction, as I did, they are generally trying to be constructive about it, as I was. Sure, there will be a jerk every now and then who is just trying to embarrass you, but I've found they are generally few and far between and I don't concern myself with them beyond making sure they were truthful in there criticism (always a good policy since it does help one to move forward).
Forscher
a few weeks ago, i was coming home from having a beer with my bro.
when i started having a minor seizure and he had to hold me up.
5-7 guys in the parking lot started calling us faggots.
Sorry to hear about what happened to you and your brother
Now. What happened was not simple assault, it was battery. Traditionally battery carries a heavier penalty since it usually involves actually harming someone physically instead of putting them in fear of harm. Unfortunately, current practices in the criminal justice system generally allows perpetrators to plea to a lesser charge in order to avoid taking the chance that a jury might acquit. Simply put, prosecutors go for the sure thing in order to drive up their conviction stats.
My problem with hate crime laws is that they create certain privileged classes whom the law tends to consider more worthy of avenging than regular folks, the very antithesis of our cultural foundation that all are equally worthy of protection. Now just why should somebody of a different skin color than mine, or engaging in a lifestyle I object to no moral grounds be considered more meritous than I to have his or her grievance addressed by the government? And just why should their injuries carry a greater penalty than equal injuries of my person? I see no rational reason why that should be so.
Added to that, hate crime laws are a step towards censorship since they penalize personal opinions, something the government has no right to do under our Constitution. Once we head down that road, the slope gets mighty slippery as evidenced by prosecutions both in the U.S. and other countries abundantly demonstrate.
I hope the perpetrators of that cowardly act get caught and penalized to the fullest extent of the law.
Forscher
if i opened/ended my exchances with "assalamu alaikum," would so many be so offended?
i personally don't think so.
in fact, i think there would be some who would think, "hey, cool!
Al’ham dulilah, dear Forscher, and thanks for asking. Kaif haalich?
Bi-khair, al-Hamdu li-l-ah. Though I will respectfully point out that the correct way to ask me how I am is "Kaif haal-ak" as I am a male (Arabic, just like Hebrew, requires that the gender of the one being addressed be acknowledged by the inflection of the words, with a few exceptions). I will also mention for our readers that the difference in my transliteration of the Arabic is due to the text I study. Different texts use different equivalents.
Excellent advice, of course! I will try to remember ask for God’s spirit to help me do that when I need to. Again, thanks!
Aafwan Aguest!
Ahlan wa sahlan
Forscher
who is the antichrist?
the antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a persons relationship with christ and with god.
john 2:22 - who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that jesus is the christ?
Who is the antichrist? All of you are! The antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a person’s relationship with Christ and with God.
My, my, Aleman. Engaging in a little presumptuous ad homenism aren't we? I won't go into all the scriptures about judging others as they've been covered already. For your information there are plenty on this forum here who'd agree with you that they are anti-Christs, as one or two already have. But I do not number myself among them and thoroughly take umbrage at your bigotry.
Your little rant assumes that Jehovah's Witnesses are God's sole chosen people and mouthpiece. I hate to burst your bubble but, as Peter acknowledged "I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:35,35) Search the Bible all you may but you will find no requirement that one be associated with any specific organization to be in God's good graces. God's arrangement is with individuals, not corporations or organizations. We all have to stand before him individually, and we all will have to give an account for ourselves to him as individuals. No institution, can or will be able to do that for us.
Please consider the following warning from Jesus before you launch another sort of tirade:
...Whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says "you despicable fool!" will be liable to the fiery Ge-hen'na. (Matt. 5:22)
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to find myself in danger of that judgment from God.
Forscher
if i opened/ended my exchances with "assalamu alaikum," would so many be so offended?
i personally don't think so.
in fact, i think there would be some who would think, "hey, cool!
Wa aleikum as-salam Aguest. Kaif haalich?
Yes, some folks do have problems for the most ridiculous reasons. I had a professor who used to constantly remind the class "that there will always be somebody who won't like you, so don't worry about it."
Ahlan wa sahlan.
Forscher
