this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
Alan,
I already started to go into this with him and he made it clear that he was not making an argument about what the Bible actually says, but based upon the NWT's addition of the bracketed "[true]" when translating ha'elohim in the OT. So his argument is not a Biblical one, but more on to just try and trick somebody up.
5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.
10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.
as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.
I think that you are taking the two as mutually exclusive. Get the most out of life now, yes, but doing so in the service of God, as we see in chapter 12. His argument is not completed in chapter 9, but it is only a portion of it.
this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
Forgive me Auldsoul, I thought you were trying to make a Biblical argument. Definitely a misunderstanding on my part!
5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.
10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.
as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.
I am not saying that it was the focus of his discussion, but rather that he does not rule it out. His point, in context, is to get the most out of the current life for in death there is nothing. His point is not impacted by the thought of a future resurrection or lack thereof.
5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.
10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.
as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.
Not at all JWtruth, for the very fact that OLAM is used rules that out. They have no portion in what is done under the son "to the age" which is the kingdom. Within the present age the statement is absolutely true, but it is in "the age to come" that Scripture speaks of when they will be resurrected. The Scripture is entirely accurate. I have saw that argument before in David Reed's JW book and couldn't understand how anyone actually thought that it would hold up. The NWT uses "time indefinite," but for some reason people think that "time indefinite" = "eternity." It can denote it, but often does not.
this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
V,
I would argue that such is highly subjective. I'd just assume let this issue die though as it is something highly subjective. If you really feel we should go forward with it I will, but I just don't see anything constructive coming from it.
this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
Auldsoul,
That is rather inconsistent, for you are turning to the Greek word qeos. You would seem to want to be consistent. If you are going to refer to Christ in the Greek as "god" you should then relate how he is in Greek as "true." To argue based upon a bracketed addition of true in an English Bible does not justify your assertion and only shows that it is not a Scriptural distinction.
You may not realize it, but even in contrast to idols, they are not spoken of as "false gods" in the sense of Jehovah as the "true God." They are considered based upon him, where he is the model upon which they were created by their makers, for he is God of all. He is the archetype upon which they are designed and so even with the idols the comparison isn't entirely proper in any example that I have been able to find. In the NT and LXX it is always AHQINOS in every example that I can find.
As for Isaiah 45, you have removed that Scripture completely from context, for it refers clearly to the idols of the nation when in context, having no bearing on others. Would you just as well go into Exodus 20:8 and say we cannot have art by removing it from its context?
For Psalm 8:5, elohim does not mean angels. "Angels" is a rendering based upon the LXX and is by no means a *meaning* of Elohim. Please do not confuse application with meaning. Here it is applied to angels but the word itself does not mean it. Glosses will note the application to them, but Hebrew lexicons do not argue for that meaning.
In Exodus 7:1 you are right that Moses is not "God" but the LXX makes it very clear that he is "a god to Pharaoh." This not not merely metaphorical, but it describes a role that Moses held to him and a role that Aaron held.
And finally for Psa. 82:6, they indeed are not gods in the worship sense as idols are, but they are to be honored and respected, for they are gods because they have been given a position of authority by God. The sense varies, but it still does not change the fact that properly they are called gods.
So in contrast what you said, these ones are properly called gods. They are not false gods, but they are gods positively. Psa. 82:6 confirms this especially, for in parallel to being "gods" they are "sons of the most high," a positive expression.
I'm calling you out on this argument not because of what the Watchtower says, but because of what the Bible says, so if you're going to make an argument, a Watchtower quote is not going to phase me and it is not going to make your argument true or false. The fact is, the Biblical use of "true" with respects God in contrast to Jesus does not support the position that you are arguing for. One could argue *at most* that it is an implication, but in light of who it is applied to, that would be false.
5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.
10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.
as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.
One thing that must be kept in mind is that Psa. 146:4 confirms that Ecc. 9:5-10 is the proper Biblical understanding of the state of the dead. The text says that "his thoughts do perish." It does not say that the body's thoughts perish or that the person lives on as a soul and has thoughts, but the persons thoughts perish, period.
this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
V, It is not polytheism. You may wish to investigate your -theisms. At most one could say it is henotheism, but I would even dispute that. It is not Satan and Jesus that are called gods alone, but we also find that the angels are (Psa. 8:5, compare LXX), the judges of Israel (Psa. 82:6), Moses (Ex. 7:1 LXX), etc. The Bible is very clear in that others are properly called gods. Mondo
this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.
my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.
read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.
Auldsoul, It is unfortunate that you make a false argument. When God is identified as "the only true God" the Greek word translated as "true" is ALQHINOS. This does not mean true in contrast to false, so it does not make Jesus a false god. The word that would be necessary for that is ALHQHS, which is not present. Bad argument based upon a misunderstanding of the Bible and New Testament Greek. I would encourage you not to repeat this argument if you are an honest person. Mondo
