Posts by Doug Mason

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Doug Mason

Wonderment,

Everything in life requires faith, and particularly when dealing with material from the past.

I prepared that material. It is a chapter from one part of a series of Studies I prepared in recent times dealing with the history of Judaeo-Christian doctrines of Salvation. At the moment I have removed the series from circulation. My intention is to reformat the material, which will take me some time to achieve.

If you email me, I can provide you with material as it exists today.

http://www.jwstudies.com/contact_me.html

Doug

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Doug Mason

Absolutely, context is everything.

What was the Johannine Community? What motivated them to write? Who were they writings against? What were their opponents saying?

What did their words mean to them at the time they wrote?

What were their concepts? Did they think that matter came into existence because of the word (logos) coming from God (his "mouth")?

================

This is a chapter from material I released maybe a year ago:

http://www.jwstudies.com/JOHANNINE_SOTERIOLOGY_AND_CHRISTOLOGY.pdf

================

Did the Johannine Community reason that Logos climbed into Mary's fertilized (or pre-fertilized) egg and existed in there until the human element had fully developed? Did they think that during Jesus' life, that Logos co-existed inside Jesus as a separate entity?

Or did Logos morph into a spirit being named Michael - who lived inside Jesus?

Is the Watchtower's rationale equally as fanciful as the Trinitarian's?

================

The biggest question about John's Gospel is: Why should anyone believe what they wrote? How did they know these things, living 100 years after Jesus' birth?

Doug

10

HOURGLASS!--What Do We Know About It?

by Atlantis in

your assistance and opinions will be very much appreciated.

a friend sent me the information listed below wanting to bring some attention to the website hourglass.. i myself know very little about the site other than the information i received today.

perhaps there are others here that could shed some light.. is this a dangerous site?

Doug Mason

Have you "Googled" with this expression?

hourglass jehovah

Doug

=============

The term "hourglass" rang a very ancient bell. Somewhere, somehow, I obtained a list from a site that is now defunct. Most probably a deeply colored red herring.

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_List_from_Hourglass.pdf

4

What do you mean by "The Bible"?

by Doug Mason in

two books that i purchased recently for my research into the latter centuries bce open in similar fashion, having to explain the use of the term, "hebrews' scriptures".

one book was published in 1971 and again in 1987, while the other book was published in 2017.. i provide a searchable scan of these opening pages:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/what_do_you_mean_by__the_bible_.pdf .

Doug Mason

Two books that I purchased recently for my research into the latter centuries BCE open in similar fashion, having to explain the use of the term, "Hebrews' Scriptures". One book was published in 1971 and again in 1987, while the other book was published in 2017.

I provide a searchable scan of these opening pages:

http://www.jwstudies.com/What_do_you_mean_by__The_Bible_.pdf

Doug

14

Most illogical verse in the Bible

by Ireneus in

in exodus 20:3-5 god is depicted as saying: “you should have no other gods” and worshipping them would bring ‘punishment for three to four generation’ and worshipping me would bring blessings for “a thousand generations.”.

the sentiments behind this command is same as the one that was displayed by othello who punished his wife desdemona all because of a handkerchief (given to her by othello on their honeymoon) that was happened to be found with someone else.. if it were the real god, he would have said something like this: “you are my children, and you should not worship me.

how can father accept worship from his children?

Doug Mason

Exod 20:1-17 The differences between the Ten Commandments as they appear here [at Exodus 20:1-17] and in Deuteronomy 5 indicate that there was an original text of the Ten Commandments—which appears to have been a part of E originally—that was elaborated upon by the person who produced P in typical P terminology, and by the person who produced Dtr1 in typical D terminology. Compare especially the Sabbath commandment in Exod 20:11 and Deut 5:15. The J text of the Ten Commandments meanwhile appears in Exodus 34:14–28. (Who Wrote the Bible? Richard Elliott Friedman, Kindle locations 4157-4161; also pages 258-259, paperback).

14

Most illogical verse in the Bible

by Ireneus in

in exodus 20:3-5 god is depicted as saying: “you should have no other gods” and worshipping them would bring ‘punishment for three to four generation’ and worshipping me would bring blessings for “a thousand generations.”.

the sentiments behind this command is same as the one that was displayed by othello who punished his wife desdemona all because of a handkerchief (given to her by othello on their honeymoon) that was happened to be found with someone else.. if it were the real god, he would have said something like this: “you are my children, and you should not worship me.

how can father accept worship from his children?

Doug Mason

Scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures assign four major sources of the Pentateuch (Torah): J, E, P, D.

Exodus 20 was written by P, who was a priest living at Jerusalem after the destruction of Israel in 722 BCE and before the death of Josiah in 720 BCE. (See "Who Wrote the Bible?", Richard Elliott Friedman).

This was therefore immediately prior to the Babylonian Captivity and Exile. Until that event, the vast majority of the Hebrews were polytheists or at least monolatrists (worship one god but recognize that other gods do exist).

This passage from Exodus was a demand by P that people must put his God first. (Religious politics). He added the warning and the promise that is typical of any religious propaganda ("join us and you will live forever").

Because people do not learn from history, they repeat it. The past was full of empty unprovable promises and it carries on today in every shade and color.

Monotheism and Judaism rose out of the ashes of the 6th century BCE Babylonian Captivity and Exile.

Doug

3

Update on my “Satan” Study

by Doug Mason in

after releasing my study, “satan.

lucifer.

devil”, i came across additional supporting information in the book, “crucible of faith” and in two articles at the biblical archaeology society.. as well as including passages from these resources, i restructured the chapters up to and including the chapter on qumran (essenes).. i added the word “revised” to the cover and to the filename:.

Doug Mason

Thanks doubtfull1799,

I make references to her book, "Origin of Satan" in my Study, which is searchable.

Another great resource is "Satan: A Biography", by Henry Ansgar Kelly, a noted expert on the subject.

Doug

3

Update on my “Satan” Study

by Doug Mason in

after releasing my study, “satan.

lucifer.

devil”, i came across additional supporting information in the book, “crucible of faith” and in two articles at the biblical archaeology society.. as well as including passages from these resources, i restructured the chapters up to and including the chapter on qumran (essenes).. i added the word “revised” to the cover and to the filename:.

Doug Mason

After releasing my Study, “Satan. Lucifer. Devil”, I came across additional supporting information in the book, “Crucible of Faith” and in two articles at the Biblical Archaeology Society.

As well as including passages from these resources, I restructured the Chapters up to and including the Chapter on Qumran (Essenes).

I added the word “Revised” to the cover and to the filename:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Revolutions_Part_5__Satan__Lucifer__Devil__REVISED_.pdf

Doug