at john 14:14 did jesus mean: to ask him directly for anything in his name; or to ask (the father) of anything in his name?
various bibles translate this differently.
if ye shall ask any thing in my name, i will do it.. american king james version.
W & H actually retained only nine so-called "Western non-interpolations" (in double brackets).
hahaha
Narkissos,
I know that well.
So, I wrote the page number of that book.
I only expressed my view in the case of John 14:14. Therefore I said, "Probably, I think that it is related to ..."
Even if I talk with you, I do not get enlightenment from you.The partial opinion is worthless even if knowledgeable.
jesus was john's father in spirit, but not in flesh.. furthermore jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and joseph being dead, gave his mother to "the one whom he loved".
is not his mother called mary, and his brothers james and joseph and simon and judas?
jn 20:2. then she runneth, and cometh to simon peter, and to the other disciple, whom jesus loved, and saith unto them, they have taken away the lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.. jn 21:7. therefore that disciple whom jesus loved saith unto peter, it is the lord.
Hi, BurnTheShips.
I appreciate your effort! I wish I could speak Japanese with you.
Thank you, my American friend.
I also want to talk with you more freely in English.
Please teach me English more.
at john 14:14 did jesus mean: to ask him directly for anything in his name; or to ask (the father) of anything in his name?
various bibles translate this differently.
if ye shall ask any thing in my name, i will do it.. american king james version.
Narkissos.
Thank you for the quotation.
The notation of W & H is unambiguous. Their choice for John 14:14 is the inclusion of me. Careful readers of the KIT (how many among JWs?) can understand that. Readers of the NWT (footnote included) can't.
Although you are clever, I think that your explanation is sometimes not well.
KIT omitted "single brackets" from the original Greek text (WH).
So, even if Jehovah's Witnesses examine KIT, they do not know that there is "brackets" in the original Greek text (WH).
Probably, I think that it is related to what Westcott and Hort called "Western non-interpolations."
("The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (3rd enlarged edition) by Bruce M. Metzger, p. 134.)
That is, it is "D (Bezae Codices)" and "It (Old Latin Versions)." (which the footnote of "Reference Bible" describes.)
at john 14:14 did jesus mean: to ask him directly for anything in his name; or to ask (the father) of anything in his name?
various bibles translate this differently.
if ye shall ask any thing in my name, i will do it.. american king james version.
When discussing this topic, why do you ignore the footnote of the "Reference Bible" purposely?
*** Rbi8 John 14:14 ***
“Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 Aleph BWVgSyh,p, “ask me.”
In addition, in the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, Greek "me" is in single brackets.
http://www.ccel.org/w/westcott/gnt/john/john_14.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh14.pdf
Please refer to "Editionum Differentiae" (Appendices three) in "Nestle-Aland" (27th edition).
So, KIT (Watch Tower society) omits "single brackets", and is printing it.
jesus was john's father in spirit, but not in flesh.. furthermore jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and joseph being dead, gave his mother to "the one whom he loved".
is not his mother called mary, and his brothers james and joseph and simon and judas?
jn 20:2. then she runneth, and cometh to simon peter, and to the other disciple, whom jesus loved, and saith unto them, they have taken away the lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.. jn 21:7. therefore that disciple whom jesus loved saith unto peter, it is the lord.
Leolaia,
Thank you for the reply of your long text.
Since I do not speak English, even if I have something to say you, I cannot say.
Since I have written the article about Mary Magdalene in Japanese, please look at it.
http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/hitorigoto/magdalene.html
Although I read all your explanation, I think that there is no reason which we should consider that that person is Lazarus.
First of all, many people will not believe that Lazarus was resurrected. (unless fundamentalists.)
For me, the description in John 13:25 looks like "man and woman's relations."
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_013.htm#bk25
If people look at John 20 and those contents are considered well, I think that people will understand it.
That Jesus loved Mary Magdalene.
jesus was john's father in spirit, but not in flesh.. furthermore jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and joseph being dead, gave his mother to "the one whom he loved".
is not his mother called mary, and his brothers james and joseph and simon and judas?
jn 20:2. then she runneth, and cometh to simon peter, and to the other disciple, whom jesus loved, and saith unto them, they have taken away the lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.. jn 21:7. therefore that disciple whom jesus loved saith unto peter, it is the lord.
Although I do not deny completely a possibility that that person is Lazarus (or John)...
In John 19:25, Jesus looked Mary Magdalene there.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_019.htm#bk25
And next, in John 19:26, it has started in the word "Therefore" (Greek, "oun").
It is logical.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_019.htm#bk26
Jesus said then. "see! Your son!".
Possibly, it may be that the deep meaning is included in that word.
jesus was john's father in spirit, but not in flesh.. furthermore jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and joseph being dead, gave his mother to "the one whom he loved".
is not his mother called mary, and his brothers james and joseph and simon and judas?
jn 20:2. then she runneth, and cometh to simon peter, and to the other disciple, whom jesus loved, and saith unto them, they have taken away the lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.. jn 21:7. therefore that disciple whom jesus loved saith unto peter, it is the lord.
About that "disciple whom Jesus loved", it is not clearly written in the Bible.
This is a "mystery."
I do not deny a possibility that that person is "Mary Magdalene."
Please look at the article written by me.
(This is Japanese.
This title is "Did Mary Magdalene like (love) Jesus?.")
http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/hitorigoto/magdalene.html
here is the awake from 1950. its the complete year thanks to jaydee who scanned the page i missed.. the file is searchable and bookmarked.. http://www.sendspace.com/file/uolu45if the link does not work anymore try the internet archive at www.archive.org you can find a lot there including mp3 s of the 1968 gilead graduation and the 1977 annual meeting.
if you have something worth analyzing why not upload it to the archive.
maybe someone can upload more old convention speeches and more of the old rutherford/knorr records or some other interesting old recordings.. .
bereanbiblestudent,
Jaydee,
Thank you.
I got it.
Your hard work and ability.
I appreciate to you.
possible
not only did the public watchtower issue attempt to screw with educate those who believe in being born again, but their preach to teach your children article (pg 24-25) also reinforced the idea of keeping away from those who aren't jws worship false gods.
reminds me of their recent meanderings in their april study edition, only this one has been dubbed down simplified to brain wash teach the children.
a small box on the bottom of pg 29 relates the catholic observence of lent to pagan practices.. i'm not any good at a blondie type rehash, but this issue makes me wish i was.. for those who are interested in the parts of this issue that were not already posted and do not have a copy of their own, i scanned the issue in its entirety and put in a searchable pdf format.. http://www.sendspace.com/file/0amdvy.
studier,
Thank you.
I got it.
possible
part of the reasoning for the end coming in 1975 was that would be 6000 years after creation.
the 1000 year reign would start and the end of it would coincide with the 7000 rest for god (like an omnipotent god needed to rest after creation, but that is a different topic.).
the 1966 book life everlasting, which presented the idea that the end would be 1975 lists in the following table that the 1000 year reign ends in 2975.. that was a neat concept prior to 1975, but since armageddon did not come then it now makes watchtower eschatology look quite foolish, and more so with each passing year.
Hi, Black Sheep.
That article of "Watchtower 15 October, 1988, pages 10-15" is not correct.
It has disregarded completely the context of the words which Rutherford said.
http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/jw/adv.html
We cannot trust the article of that Watchtower at all.
