Posts by Earnest

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Many scholars ... have extensively argued that the use of nomina sacra reflects the early Christian desire to show reverence for the sacred names of God and Christ.

These conclusions seem reasonable. Larry Hurtado, whom you mention, says regarding the nomina sacra, "at a point still earlier than any of the extant manuscripts, one of these four ['Jesus', 'Lord', 'Christ', or 'God'] may have been written in the special manner, from which the subsequent Christian scribal convention developed." (Lord Jesus Christ, 2005, p.626). That seems a more reasonable explanation for the evolution of this practice than to suggest that the original writers all started abbreviating these four names independently and without reference to each other, as slimboyfat points out above. Hurtado thinks it started with the name "Jesus", but it could just as easily (and in my opinion more likely) have started with replacing the tetragrammaton/Iao if the original writers followed the pattern of the first century LXX in their treatment of God's name.

My reason for stating that the original writers did not use the nomina sacra is, first of all, there is no record of nomina sacra being used in the LXX in (or before) the first century (when most scholars believe the majority of the NT was written). If we accept that nomina sacra were a Christian innovation then this is not surprising. But as they were all Jews they would have shared the Jewish view that scripture should not be altered, so especially when they were quoting from the Torah or other writings it would have been anathema to represent God's name in a way different to what they found written. It is more reasonable to suppose that when gentile scribes who did not share this view of sacred writings were tasked with copying, they took it on themselves (or were authorised by some sort of editorial board) to make these changes.

Your suggestion that the use of nomina sacra in John 1:1 for both references to God is a precedent for capitalising both in English is something I will have to give some thought to. However, as we have agreed that the second reference ("the Word was God") is qualitative, my inclination is that capitalising "God" blurs the meaning with that of the first reference ("the Word was with God") for English readers.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The presence of [nomina sacra] for both Christ and the Father indicates that the earliest Christian scribes viewed Christ as fully divine ...
aqwsed12345 : The use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son in the earliest manuscripts signals that the early Christians were expressing their belief in the shared divinity of the Father and the Son.
aqwsed12345 : these sacred abbreviations reveal a deliberate and consistent effort to honor Christ as fully divine, in the same way that God the Father is honored.

These are interesting interpretations of the use of nomina sacra, but are necessarily subjective as we have no contemporaneous record for the reason that nomina sacra were standardised. What we can say for sure is that the original writers of the gospels and letters did not use nomina sacra, but that this practice was developed later by copyists.

Colin Roberts identified three classes of words as nomina sacra: (1) 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christ' and 'Lord', whose contractions were early and fairly consistent (2) 'spirit', 'man' and 'stauros', which are contracted relatively early and frequently, and (3) 'father', 'son', 'saviour', 'mother', 'heaven', 'Israel', 'David', and 'Jerusalem', which are contracted irregularly or inconsistently.

If the use of nomina sacra indicated "shared divinity" of "full divinity", it is difficult to explain why it was also used of 'mother', 'Israel' or 'Jerusalem' unless they were also thought to share in "full divinity". Further, your suggestion that nomina sacra were only generalised in later mansuscripts is not altogether correct.

As early as the second half of the second century, wholesale contraction of 'lord', 'spirit' and 'father' occurred, both sacred and mundane. In papyrus P66 (c. 200) every occurrence of 'lord' is contracted, and most occurrences of 'father' including reference to the devil (John 8:44). In papyrus P75 (third century) every occurrence of 'spirit' is contracted, including unclean spirits (e.g. Luke 4:36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:39,42; 10:20; 11:24,26).

You may be right that some understood the use of nomina sacra for 'Jesus' and 'Lord' (when it referred to Jesus) to give him a similar reverence as that given to God. And likely those who accepted the trinitarian doctrine in later years understood it in a similar way that you do. But the widespread use of nomina sacra beyond 'God' and 'Jesus' suggests that you are reading more into it than the early scribes intended.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The phrase [John 1:1c] doesn't say "the Word was the God," which would confuse the Logos with the Father.
aqwsed12345 : John 1:1b should actually be translated as "and the Word was with the God".

Let me try again. I think we can agree that the readers of John's gospel at the time he wrote it would have understood what the Greek meant. Perhaps the Jewish audience would have understood it slightly differently to the gentile audience, but both would have appreciated the relevance of the definite article or lack of it.

Now we are talking about translation into English. You say that John 1:1b should actually be translated as "and the Word was with the God", but it isn't, is it? It is invariably translated "and the Word was with God". Then you have John 1:1c which reads in English that "the Word was God". How does the English reader know that there is any distinction between the God of John 1:1b and that of John 1:1c? If "the God" is implied in John 1:1b "and the Word was with [the] God", how does the English reader know that it is not implied in John 1:1c "the Word was [the] God". They do not, and often assume that the definite article is implied in both cases. This is no fault of the writer, who wrote in Greek. It is the fault of the translator. While you agree that John 1:1c refers to the nature of the Word, you support this misleading translation which most English readers understand to refer to a person rather than a quality. You can do better.

I would also like to touch on your reference to the nomina sacra. You suggest that because Lord is a "sacred name" (i.e. it is abbreviated) when referring to both God and Christ, this shows that the Gospel writers (and Paul) viewed them both the same. First it must be said that while some papyri distinguish between Lord when it referred to God or Christ, and Lord when it referred to others, other papyri treat all references to Lord as a sacred name. Should that cause us to view all lords as equally sacred? I think not. Secondly, we know that the Jews did not use nomina sacra prior to the time it is used in Christian writings, so it is reasonable to believe that the earliest Christian writings also did not use them. We don't know because we don't have those writings, but we do know all the earliest Christian writings were by Jews so it is reasonable they would write in the same way. Some maintain that nomina sacra were first used to replace the divine name, as we know that happened in the LXX. Of course, it then became more difficult to distinguish between Lord when it referred to God and when it referred to Christ. This is the fallacy which you are highlighting.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The traditional rendering, "the Word was God," reflects this qualitative distinction properly without introducing monalatristic henotheism or creating ambiguity. It emphasizes that the Logos is fully divine without confusing the Logos with the Father. The traditional rendering is not definite, it would be "the Word was *the God", but as far as I know, no one has ever translated it that way.

Au contraire. The English translation "The Word was with God and the Word was God" confuses the Logos with the Father, as English readers infer the definite article in both references to 'God'. In saying "the Word was God" there is no distinction between who the Word was and what the Word was. If it was written as the Greek is, namely "THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" that would be a bit less confusing, but in our monotheistic culture that is still subject to ambiguity. The NEB translates this verse as "what God was the Word was" which certainly makes the distinction clearer, but I fail to see the difference between that and saying "the Word was a god" apart from the fact that the second rendering follows the Greek more closely.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

Reading through the article by aqwsed12345, it seems he supports the view that John 1:1c ("the Word was God/a god") should be understood qualitatively. In other words, that theos refers to "godness", what the Logos was, not who the Logos was. If that is the case, the question arises whether the translation "the Word was God" conveys that thought to most English readers, as in English it makes no distinction between the God with whom the Word was and the God that the Word was. In Greek the distinction is clear, in English it is not. The NWT is one of the few English translations which accurately reflects that distinction.

42

Two new Governing Body members

by slimboyfat in

jeddoly and rumph???.

who are they?

.

Earnest

slimboyfat : Only joined Bethel in 2020? I wonder what he was he doing before that.

He (Rumph) and his wife graduated from the 132nd class of Gilead in 2012.

42

Two new Governing Body members

by slimboyfat in

jeddoly and rumph???.

who are they?

.

Earnest

Brother Jedele began his full-time service in 1989 and Bethel service in 1990. Brother Rumph began his full-time service in 1995 and Bethel service in 2020. Both brothers served as helpers to the Service Committee of the Governing Body, Jody Jedele since March 8, 2023.- Breaking News.

53

WTS 2024 Annual Business Meeting ...

by careful in

... is just three weeks from this saturday.

the org has been tight-lipped, really, successfully secret about advance info on these in recent years,.

now that these relatively recent changes on dress and grooming, reporting fs time, judicial matters, etc.

Earnest

Rattigan350, the book Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand identifies 1919 as the year Jesus recognised "the small band of genuine anointed Christians as his 'faithful and discrete slave'" (p.63) as well as the year when the male child was born to the woman of Revelation 12 (p.183).

Although there was a convention in September 1919 at Cedar Point, Ohio, the convention with the theme "Advertise the King and Kingdom" was in 1922.

52

EXPLOSIVE NEW LEAKED VIDEO OF C.O. CHASTISING ELDERS

by raymond frantz in

jw
friends

https://youtu.be/np05twylal8?si=wjcdevvpxmlwxb2p.

shame is an ancient form of control.

shame is the mechanism used to control behaviour.

Earnest

Shepherd The Flock of God, 2024, Chapter 13, section 3 :

Such abhorrent forms of pornography include homosexuality (sex between those of the same gender), group sex, bestiality, sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, the brutalizing of women, or child pornography.

62

Ten reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses have the true religion (plus a bonus one)

by slimboyfat in

thinking back when i was a true believer these are probably the top ten reasons why i believed jws are the true religion.

1. they show love among themselves by not going to war.

not killing your fellow believers in any circumstances, including war, would seem to be a very basic requirement for true christianity.

Earnest

Their being no part of the world which included refusing to support either the government military or the "freedom fighters" in apartheid South Africa, refusing to salute the flag or sing either the national anthem or "freedom songs". It was a faith that lived what they preached in a polarised country in which the churches were equally polarised.