Posts by Mondo1

137

New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning in

for what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.

the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".

at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.

Mondo1

Weak argument folks. There isn't a Bible out there that doesn't do this very thing. EVERYONE does it, because Greek does not always correspond 1:1 with English. Some Bibles use brackets, others italics and others don't do anything at all! It would be worthwhile to understand how Bible translations are produced before one argues against a translation.

For "other" in Colossians 1:16, there is nothing wrong with it. It is implied by the statement PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KITSEWS... TA PANTA. The word "other" is often added in various places throughout the Bible, and this is in most every Bible, including the likes of the NIV and NASB. To get away from theology, even in the translation of Josephus we see those say two words TA PANTA and it is at times translated "all other."

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

I'm really not discussing anything new here. This stuff is discussed extensively at this link: Scripturaltruths.com so it may be better to just go and look at all the data. I don't think this text is addressed there actually, but the others all are.

I only had a chance to briefly skim it once, but Stafford also discusses this quite extensively in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended.

Now for the specific texts, the first thing I would notice is that these two verses are different from what God says, for he says ANI HU and these only say ANI. So if these are being appealed to in order to show a divine name or title, they definitely are not going to do it.

Notice that she says, "I and no one else." Literally this would be, "I and only I." In other words, "I'm the greatest among the nations. None of the others compare to me." This would not be a claim to be Jehovah, for such a claim would make little sense given the speaker. It would not be a claim to be the most high God, for to Babylonians, that was Marduk. Albert Barnes hits the nail on the head... he states: "The language of pride. She regarded herself as the principal city of the world, and all others as unworthy to be named in comparison with her."

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

There are many non-doctrinal churches that doesn't focus on doctrine, but praise and worship and living clean moral lives. I'm not advocating such, but I suspect it might be better than nothing at all.

For "a god," there are quite a number, but most are older. Some say "a god," others "a divine being," etc.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

In fact, it is refering back to "Teacher and Lord." This is quite clear in the text. What he would do would serve as a confirmation of that fact. Notice what A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature states:

"To establish identity the formula egw, eimi is oft[en] used in the gospels (corresp[onding] to Hebr[ew] ani hu] Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr[om] the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19;"

The only predicate available that can "be understood from the context" is "teacher and Lord."

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Well Luke isn't the only Gospel now is it? Read Mark 14.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

If you look carefully, they thought he was insane. They thought he had a demon controlling him. Notice though they he doesn't forgive sins here. He only says that if you don't believe in him you will die. He doesn't say he gives life, he simply says that those that believe in him will have it. He does claim that they must be saved through him. That is correct.

Essentially we are looking at what was a breaking point, the final straw. A similar thing took place when Stephen was stoned.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

So what if he did translate it? It wouldn't change the point being conveyed by the Greek.

Btw, they did condemn Jesus to death for claiming to be "the son of man." So that rather shoots your son of man vs. son of God argument in the foot.

For the matter of making himself equal with God in John 5, I refer to you Westcott's commentary, which explains that Jesus was “placing His action on the same level with the action of God.” His claim to sonship was understood as appointed position (cf. Psa. 82:6) and so legally he was making himself equally to God, but not ontologically.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

UD,

The issue is claiming a position or authority that is granted only by God for yourself when God did not grant it. With Jesus, God did grant it, but the Jews didn't accept it. Remember, they thought he was from Satan! I would suggest you pickup a copy of Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism - The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-56 by Darrell L. Bock. It makes a VERY extensive review what was considered blasphemy, and upon reviewing the material, the principles well fit the events of John 8:58-59. Further, they also cover Jesus' claim for himself to be God's son.

Mondo

22

trinity

by inactive in jersey in

hi, i became inactive fifteen years ago.

there is a lot that i just don't believe.

that is why i left.

Mondo1

Hmm.. lets see. Rev. 22:13 isn't about Jesus. Acts 1's location only deals with departing. Gospel of them both. Jesus is MADE Lord. (Acts 2:36) Jesus is God's means of saving (John 3:16-17) Jesus is not said to be creator, but the one that God used to create. (Joh. 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) Jewish king is worshipped (1Chron. 29:20 KJV) Christians shall judge too. Jesus didn't know the Revelation he was given. (Rev. 1:1) The apostles could forgive sins. (Joh. 20:22-23) Every knee bows to Jesus because God exalted him, not because he is God. (Phil. 2:8-11).

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

They don't have "special theological meanings!" That is the very point. They have meanings. Those meanings can be made use of, but they didn't suddenly invent new and unheard of meanings.