Posts by rocky

6

W.W.W. links about JW

by MacHislopp in

jw
friends

1) http://www.freeminds.org/foreign/francais.htm.

2) http://www.chez.com/tjrecherches/index.html.

3) http://www.microtec.net/mleblank/occulte/demasquons.html.

rocky

Thanx for it ... maybe someone can help me getting the French Watchtower library 2009??

5

Proverbs 26:4-5 ... I'm confused.

by darkl1ght3r in

(proverbs 26:4-5)4 do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him.

5 answer someone stupid according to his foolishness, that he may not become someone wise in his own eyes.. so which is it?

.

Answering a fool in harmony with or “according to his foolishness” in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool’s unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, we are counseled by the proverb: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness.” On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial

***

Is
There is no contradiction here. Rather, the verses simply contrast the right and the wrong ways to answer a stupid person. Verse four gives instruction not to answer a stupid person in harmony with his foolishness in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument—ridicule, attacks on personalities, loud boisterous talk, fits of rage, and so forth. One would thereby show oneself to be on the same level as the stupid one, and that is what the latter part of verse four warns against. So, it is the second part of the verse that indicates how the first part is to be understood.—Compare Proverbs 20:3; 29:11.
On the other hand, it would be proper to answer the stupid one “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous. Showing that his arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn would be deterrent to his continuance in his stupid way. It should serve as a reproof and a rebuke. He should not feel so wise. Enforcing the consequences of a foolish argument, that is, demonstrating the absurdity and undesirability to which that viewpoint leads, is one of the best ways of dealing with such an argument.
For example, someone who wishes to ridicule the Bible may hold that the evolution theory makes the Bible out of date, or that the Bible consists merely of fables for the ignorant. In this case, rather than to appeal directly to the Scriptures, the believer in creation could present arguments such as are found in the book DidManGetHerebyEvolutionorbyCreation? which take the beliefs, theories and statements of persons who will not accept the Bible’s testimony and point out the insurmountable difficulties that evolution presents to its believers in explaining the existence of matter, life, and so forth.
There is also another sense in which the Christian should not answer according to the foolishness of the stupid one. He should avoid empty, high-sounding phrases. He should speak, “not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we combine spiritual matters with spiritual words.” Therefore, when a Christian is before those who are versed in the wisdom of this world he should not be fearful or hesitant, because men relying on such wisdom are stupid, foolish in God’s eyes. He should not try to adopt their manner of speaking, nor their language, even though it may sound very polished and erudite. He should use the spiritual words of the Bible, the simple, plain truths, relying on God to open the hearts of those who may possibly listen and be moved by these words of real wisdom. Paul followed this course when in the presence of such worldly-wise men in the city of Corinth.—1 Cor. 2:1-5, 13.
The Hebrew word kesil′, used for “stupid” one at Proverbs 26:4, 5, carries with it the notion of impiety, ungodliness or insolence (in a religious way). The term does not necessarily refer to an ignorant person, but rather to moral stupidity, lack of understanding and wisdom. It is failure to use one’s mental faculties in a proper way, especially in matters pertaining to spiritual things.—Compare Psalm 14:1.
Men who rely on the wisdom of this world are not spiritual, but are fleshly in their viewpoint. The Bible plainly says that they are stupid. Not that they are ignorant; they are sophisticated. But what they are doing puts them on a collision course with God.—1 Cor. 2:14.

16

Watchtower Library 2009 is available to download in multi languages

by Fabricio in

watchtower library 2009 is available for download in english and spanish on this site: www.watchtowerlibrary.blogspot.com.. soon also in portuguese, and maybe in french e germany..

rocky

OK....

Maybe our friend processor does not want/ like that I placed his link of the German Libr. in this topic??? So Pls ask him in a Private Message for a new working link... if not I will send it up to a downloadsite like Rapidshare or megaupload... The Portugese link I do not now how long it could/would be working... I only can upload it ... or you should wait for a new link on www.watchtowerlibrary.blogspot.com

Sorry I could not react earlier today I was almost gone away for the whole day.... When uploaded for German and/or Portugese version I send here a new link for you people...

16

Watchtower Library 2009 is available to download in multi languages

by Fabricio in

watchtower library 2009 is available for download in english and spanish on this site: www.watchtowerlibrary.blogspot.com.. soon also in portuguese, and maybe in french e germany..

rocky

LINKS for it.... in 6 languages so far:
The French one last year cd 2008) had some protection... I do not have the 2009 version yet... I got rid/lost (protection) with help of a slysoft proggy... called clonecd... I think they use again copyprotection for the French version... maybe more langages will follow.. so far the 6 ones below do NOT use copyprotection so it looks....

Dutch 2009:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KQA4TR7R

German 2009:

http://prozessor.bplaced.net/lib/wlib09_d.rar

Portugese 2009: http://www.4shared.com/dir/27292899/4b2870c6/sharing.html English: http://www.4shared.com/dir/27292899/4b2870c6/sharing.html Polish: http://rapidshare.com/files/329360780/WTLIB09P.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/329360787/WTLIB09P.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/329374670/WTLIB09P.part3.rar Spanish: http://hotfile.com/dl/24847854/bb01786/Watchtower_Library_2009_Espanol.zip.html

If someone here got still more/other 2009 versions please feel free to post links to it here...

30

as a JW were you comfortable with this question?

by highdose in

a few times in the ministry i would find someone clued in who would ask the jw on their doorstep " so what your saying is, unless i join your religon god will kill me?

and everyone else who isn't part of your religon?

" now theres only one answer to that question as far as jw's are concerned but i never saw a single one answer that with a straight answer, mostly i suspect because they were so uncomfortable about being made to face the truth about their beliefs..

rocky

When you do not join them they think you have a great chance of being destroyed yes....
because you did not support them / their religion which is the one and only true religion they think (mt. 25:34-46). All other (false) religion will be destroyed as revelation shows us that (babylon the great).... (chapter 17)...

Only a minority would be saved as a non JW.... like the man on a(n) other stake/cross... Lu 23:43
and also many who had no chance of knowing the truth but with a good hart... (acts 24:15)... of course the Jewish people who acted correct like the profets... before christ came... in the ancient past...

14

Who is the "Lord of Lords"?

by Chalam in

i ran across this before but i think it is worth mentioning in its own thread.. i will quote the nwt for extra effect!.

nwt deuteronomy 10:17. for jehovah your god is the god of gods and the lord of lords, the god great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, .

nwt psalms 136:1-3. give thanks to jehovah, o you people, for he is good:.

rocky

Well Chalam.....

Nice point you tell us here... but sometimes I get a little tired of answering again to same (points or kind of) questions.... sorry to say so..
Look to my posts on: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/174505/1/NT-ho-theos-and-John-8-58

Then you find some answers to John 10:30 and 14:8,9

I answer here LIKE a JW but (still not am again) (not) one of them..... so far... hope elders might be not as hard as a rock to me all the time...
I now live like a JW still DF so far.... now about 1,25 year...

Rocky

14

Who is the "Lord of Lords"?

by Chalam in

i ran across this before but i think it is worth mentioning in its own thread.. i will quote the nwt for extra effect!.

nwt deuteronomy 10:17. for jehovah your god is the god of gods and the lord of lords, the god great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, .

nwt psalms 136:1-3. give thanks to jehovah, o you people, for he is good:.

rocky

Maybe both Jehohovah and Jesus can carry those titles..... and maybe in the same way or in some other meaning.. I do not know so far...
still I found this:

rsp.414par.1Trinity

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

14

Who is the "Lord of Lords"?

by Chalam in

i ran across this before but i think it is worth mentioning in its own thread.. i will quote the nwt for extra effect!.

nwt deuteronomy 10:17. for jehovah your god is the god of gods and the lord of lords, the god great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, .

nwt psalms 136:1-3. give thanks to jehovah, o you people, for he is good:.

rocky

I hope this will give some indication.....??

***it-2p.267Lord***

TheHebrew“Adhohn”and“Adhonai.” The Hebrew word ’a·dhohn′ occurs 334 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It carries the thought of ownership or headship and is used of God and of men. The plural form ’adho·nim′ sometimes denotes the simple numerical plural and is then translated “lords” or “masters.” (Ps 136:3; Isa 26:13) At other places the plural form denotes excellence, or majesty, whether of God or of man (Ps 8:1; Ge 39:2), and in such cases any appositional pronouns or modifying adjectives are in the singular number. (Ps 45:11; 147:5) In some places, two plurals are used side by side to distinguish Jehovah by the plural of excellence from the numerous other lords.—De 10:17; Ps 136:3; compare 1Co 8:5, 6.

*** w059/1p.27QuestionsFromReaders

Readersbasisisthereforsayingthatsuchphrasesas“theonealonehavingimmortality”andtheone“whomnotoneofmenhasseenorcansee”refertoJesusratherthantoJehovah

God?

The apostle Paul wrote: “This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”—1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

Bible commentators generally reason: ‘How could such phrases as “the one alone having immortality,” the “only Potentate,” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” point to anyone other than the Almighty?’ Admittedly, such terms could be used to describe Jehovah. However, the context indicates that at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, Paul was specifically referring to Jesus.

At the end of verse 14, Paul mentions “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:14) Hence, when Paul writes in verse 15 that “this manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times,” he is referring to a manifestation of Jesus, not of Jehovah God. Who, then, is the “only Potentate”? It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Potentate referred to by Paul. Why? The context makes it evident that Paul is comparing Jesus with human rulers. Jesus truly is, as Paul wrote, “King of those [humans] who rule as kings and Lord of those [humans] who rule as lords.” Yes, compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate.” Jesus has been given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:14) No human potentate can make that claim!

What about the phrase “the one alone having immortality”? Again, a comparison is being drawn between Jesus and human kings. No earthly rulers can claim to have been granted immortality, but Jesus can. Paul wrote: “We know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Romans 6:9) Thus, Jesus is the first one to be described in the Bible as receiving the gift of immortality. Indeed, at the time of Paul’s writing, Jesus was the only one who had attained indestructible life.

It should also be kept in mind that it would have been wrong for Paul to say that Jehovah God alone had immortality, since Jesus too was immortal when Paul wrote those words. But Paul could say that Jesus alone was immortal in comparison with earthly rulers.

Further, it is certainly true that after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, he can be described as one “whom not one of men has seen or can see.” Granted, his anointed disciples would behold Jesus after their own death and subsequent resurrection to heaven as spirit creatures. (John 17:24) But no man on earth would see Jesus in his glorified state. Hence, it can truthfully be stated that since Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, “not one of men” has actually seen Jesus.

True, at first glance, it may seem as if the descriptions found at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 could apply to God. But the context of Paul’s words—along with the corroboration of other scriptures—shows that Paul was referring to Jesus.[Footnote]

Similar expressions are applied to Jesus at 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6; Revelation 17:12, 14; 19:16.

3

Req French WTLibrary 2008

by rocky in

someone allready has the french wtlibrary (cd) version of 2008?

if so pls share it with me/us.... rocky.

.

rocky

Thanks Motema Bolingo.... I got your cd... but it has a protection on it as you said.... after a lot of trouble (when trying to make a working copy and reiinstal it with you cd).. I had to use a FULL backup with norton ghost...

Also cdclone did the job... so now I have a copy of your (protected) copy without the protection so now I can freely upload it to who likes to have it.
It cost me some hours (more then half a day) to do it... and not ready jet.. (still have to reinstall some proggies like office...)..
who likes it let me know it.. ([email protected])...

Bijbelcursus

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

Thanx JustHuman14 for info.

I hope you have the wtlibr. 2008 so you can find yourself a lot info about it (if you do not have it look at the next link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/169948/2/2008-WT-Library-Question-1st-JWN-posting-too if you need help about it mail me to [email protected]) ... like the next here below..

***

Was
THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the NewWorldTranslation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, andtheWordwasagod.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (ANewTranslationoftheBible, by James Moffatt; TheNewEnglishBible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—TheHolyBible—NewInternationalVersion;TheJerusalem
Bible.

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the NewWorldTranslation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.

The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, TheAnchorBibleDictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

[Diagram/Pictures

onpage
24]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

JOHN

1:1. SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT; P. CHESTER BEATTY-813; WITH INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION

In the beginning existed the Word

and the Word existed with

the God and a god was

the Word

[Credit

Line]

Reproduced by Permission of the Chester Beatty Library