That's right big...all the credit should go to Jehovah Jireh. You know, when I first heard "Jehoavh Jireh" at Kingdom hall I immediately thought of "Jehovah Gyroscope."
FireNBandits
JoinedPosts by FireNBandits
-
6
just a thought.
by bigdreaux inlet me start out by saying, i know this is nit picking.
i know it's not a big deal.
it's just interesting to me.
-
-
-
30
The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated
by FireNBandits infinally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.
this proves that noah built the original ark.
if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?
-
-
FireNBandits
Oh man...from the vantage point of the age I am now..Mrs. Howell looks kinda cute.
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Hi Leo
I have apparently been vague once more. No surprise there.
I find the NT texts, as well as the deuterocanonicals, the pseudopigrapha, and even the Nag Hammadi texts all very interesting and alive. I enjoy delving into the thought world of the people that wrote them, in trying to make them live for me, today, in the thought world I inhabit. This is why I asked for you and Narkissos to comment. I knew what I'd be given would be very lively.
It's creeds that I find lifeless and brittle because they do not seem to grow or live. They're static.
The NT will always be a source of new thoughts and inspiration, but not the Nicene creed, or the Chaalcedonian creed. They're of historical interest to me, however.
Sincerely,
Martin -
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Leolaia, if you're asking ME what I think of the Ignatian parallel, I think it's spot on!
Danke.
Martin -
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
I read the verse in Timothy and I am in no way being "controversial" with Leolaia and Narkissos. Rather, I'm seeking to learn what I cn from two genuine scholars that I both respect and like. I was unaware this was, in the words of "Paul" in 2 Timothy 2:14b, "epi katastrophe ho akouo." It's best to ignore those things that upset one, and allow others to enjoy their own lives and to ask whatever questions that suit their fancy. Relax and enjoy your brief time here.
Sincerely,
Martin -
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Hello Joseph
Thank you for the enlightenment.
Martin. -
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Hey NVR, save a seat for me. I'l bring some herb.
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Yes, Doug, and I feel badly for these abused men. It's my understanding that some of them have taken, or are currently taking, the WTS to court. Do you have any information about this? if so, let me know. Thank you. It's good to "meet" you Doug.
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Hello Jospeh
Football strikes me as a monumental waste of time, yet many others enjoy it very much. I prefer womens figure skating. Studying these matters is not a waste of my time as I find it very interesting and downright absorbing. I'm aware of the purpose the writers of John's evangel had in writing: "These are written that you may believe." They make no secret of it. John didn't have to establish the identity of the Logos because the philosophy of the Logos was well known in his time. However, times have changed and human thought has moved far away from that particular Greek philosophical system. So, we moderns need to do some study to understand the thought world which "John" inhabited and took for granted that his readers and hearers understood. That's a part, but only a part, of what I'm doing. It's a mistake to divorce any writing, not just the evangel of John, from it's historical moorings and then attempt to interpret it. The mind-boggling disunity of evangelicals and fundamentalists is a sad testament to this truth.
Martin -
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
Leo, it was the Ignatian Epistles that opened my--at the time--evangelical mind to the sub-apostolic and early post-apostolic Church! I had to literally sit down and colllect myself after reading several of his letters. Since that time I've followed the various arguments as to which epistles are genuine, and to what degree they're genuine, but at the time of my first exposure I was dumbfounded. A clearly liturgical worship, an understanding of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ conferring immortality, a clearly hierarchial structure very close to that of the modern Orthodox and catholic churches...it was heady stuff indeed. It still is. It's a far cry from the fictions invented by fundamentalists and evangelicals who have little or no knowledge of the early church they so venerate. I continue to find Ignatius edifying, probably because of the influence of John's evangel.