Posts by garyneal

31

The WT LIE re "Sign" of the "Generation"

by AGuest in

jw
friends

to the household of god, israel, and all those who go with... may you have peace!.

the following excerpt was posted from paragraph 14 of the wtbts article, "the holy spirits role in the outworking of jehovahs purpose":.

14 what does this explanation mean to us?

garyneal

AGuest, good to see you back on the board.

41

John 20:28 response to Garyneal

by Blue Grass in

(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).

(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).

everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.

Thanks for starting this new thread, I have to admit I am intrigued by what you are saying but I am having a very difficult time coming to the same conclusions that you came to. As I said on the thread where this began, I understand that translating from one language to another is not simply a strict one to one word translation but requires getting the jist of what was being said in the source langauge based on its rules for grammar and context. My brief studying of the Spanish and Japanese languages taught me at least this much.

However, I still find it difficult to come to the same conclusions that you came to. You say that Thomas isn't addressing anyone, so what do the words, "AND answerED THE THOMAS AND said to-Him" part convey?

I must admit, I find this very fascinating as I am learning new things about this but your argument have so far failed to convince me. Not that I am saying that you are wrong, it is just that I cannot so far prove you right.

but if anyone else with knowledge of the Greek language have anything to add that will be greatly appreciated.

I would love that very much and I would also like to see what authoritative greek scholars had to say one way or the other concerning this verse in particular. Kudos to Leolaia for her contribution.

You see, here's the problem I see. Let's assume that you are indeed correct and that Thomas was not addressing anyone, would not the Bible translators take care to convey this into English? Yet, anyone with an English language translation would immediately from the straight reading of this verse would come away with Thomas saying my Lord and my God to Christ Jesus.

The fact that it reads in such a way says one of the following:

The Bible translators are inferring their own theology into the verse and making the English read to suit their beliefs.
The Bible translators are lazy and just translated it almost word for word, one to one with the literal greek words.
The Greek is indeed indicating that Thomas was addressing Jesus when he said, "My Lord and My God!"

The Watchtower Society, I would think, would've been the most careful to ensure that this verse would've been translated appropriately to convey the message you assert is true. This is especially the case since their doing so would make it fit into their doctrine. Yet, the WT's own Bible also says in this verse, 'In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”' I would think that they would at least left the 'to him' part out to make it more appear that Thomas wasn't addressing anyone.

31

Frustrated with JW Bible study!

by ElizabethTravers in

i am new 2 this forum.. i have been meeting up with 2 jw ladies on a weekly basis.

it has all been "polite".

today we covered a bit of the trinity.. i had read rhodes book on reasoning from the scriptures with jw's, but i found almost all my arguments that i used, in terms of every bible verse we went through (or i attempted to go through with them) went pear shape!

garyneal

Blue Grass,

Concerning your comments about my take on John 20:28, all I have to say is that I will not dogmatically hold on to my conclusions if indeed they can be proven false as you claim. Since it is very late, I am going to bed now and I will research what you said some more tomorrow.

In the meantime, I must say that I have a difficult time coming to the same conclusions you came up with so perhaps you can help me to understand. I know that translating one language to another is not always one to one word translation and that you need to get the jist of it by understanding the rules of the source language. That said, a one for one translation of John 20:28 reads as "AND answerED THE THOMAS AND said to-Him THE Master OF-ME AND THE God OF-ME." My source can be found here.

Your web link does not seem to offer much to explain the nominative case and how it applies to the conclusions that you draw so I will have to perform further research to verify your claims.

At best, this is what I got concering the nominative case:

"Nominative: You already know it. Save for a simple example to prove you do, we don't need to go into detail: The man ate the potato. Here, 'the man' is in the nominative (the one performing the action "ate")."

Admittedly, I did not read it too thoroughly since I need to get to bed and I am tired. I will look into it some more tomorrow.

23

Another marriage bites the dust thanks to the WT

by boyzone in

i've known about this couple for a long time and attended their bible studies on occasions.

susan, the wife, has been having a study with the witnesses on and off for 16 years, (yeah i know, one of very useful wet day pioneer calls where we all bundle round sue's house for coffee and still count the time) the sister whose been studying with them was a sooper -uber pioneer sister with a hard-line and total society view on everything.

sue's husband keith has always been polite and interested in what his wife was learning but he loved his beer, fags and christmas too much to take it seriously.. finally a few months ago susan caves in to the pressure from uber-sister christine and wants to get baptized.

garyneal

moshe

How are your kids doing now? Are they also Jehovah's Witnesses or did they manage to avoid that trap?

31

Frustrated with JW Bible study!

by ElizabethTravers in

i am new 2 this forum.. i have been meeting up with 2 jw ladies on a weekly basis.

it has all been "polite".

today we covered a bit of the trinity.. i had read rhodes book on reasoning from the scriptures with jw's, but i found almost all my arguments that i used, in terms of every bible verse we went through (or i attempted to go through with them) went pear shape!

garyneal

Arguing trinity, immortal soul or hell fire will not get you anywheres IMO

I tend to agree with this statement as I no longer try to argue the trinity myself because in some cases it can be taken either way. The deity of Jesus Christ, however, is something that I believe the Bible clearly teaches (provided of course you are not reasoning from their Bible).

That said, since most witnesses believe in their minds that they know the Bible better than you, arguing using the Bible is practically pointless in most cases. The 607 vs 587 BCE is a good place for any witness who is really trying to seek truth. Unfortunately, some will use the Insight and Kingdom come books as their final authority on the subject. This in spite of the fact that the encyclopedias in the libraries use 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

So here's a good scenario to reason on based on this teaching.

I understand that many Christians believe that Christmas Day is not Jesus' birthday. However, I can go to any library and pick up and encyclopedia and look up Christmas and confirm what you teach about Christmas. About is being a pagan holiday and that no one really knows what day Christ was born on, etc.. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that Christmas is not Christ's birthday and if anyone insists that it is, that person is not being reasonable and is just blinding himself or herself to the facts.

I am curious, the Watchtower Society teaches that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE by the Babylons. Yet, if you were to go to the library and research it there, you would find that 587 BCE tends to be the favored date. Wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that 607 BCE could in fact be wrong based on this? Also, since the Watchtower Society insists on 607 BCE in spite of all of the evidence favoring 587 BCE, doesn't this make the society appear to be unreasonable, blinding itself and its members to the facts?

Simply put, ask a Jehovah's Witness to prove 607 BCE using sources other than Watchtower publications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrCleOXkYu0

31

Frustrated with JW Bible study!

by ElizabethTravers in

i am new 2 this forum.. i have been meeting up with 2 jw ladies on a weekly basis.

it has all been "polite".

today we covered a bit of the trinity.. i had read rhodes book on reasoning from the scriptures with jw's, but i found almost all my arguments that i used, in terms of every bible verse we went through (or i attempted to go through with them) went pear shape!

garyneal

Elizabeth,

If you are attempting to witness to Jehovah's Witnesses, keep in mind that as far as they are concerned they know the Bible better than you. Furthermore, if you attempt to reason with them using the Bible alone, they will view you as 'leaning on your own understanding' as they believe that the Bible cannot be understood without a teacher. To them, this teacher is the 'faithful and discreet slave' Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:45. They believe this 'faithful and discreet slave' is the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The best way to witness to a witness is to question their theology and ask why they teach what they do. This should get you started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=949n_xH9nso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ma_iVbSIbg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqQ2taQGio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T0U6fWSY5Q

Also, check out http://www.freeminds.org/ and http://www.4jehovah.org/.

31

Frustrated with JW Bible study!

by ElizabethTravers in

i am new 2 this forum.. i have been meeting up with 2 jw ladies on a weekly basis.

it has all been "polite".

today we covered a bit of the trinity.. i had read rhodes book on reasoning from the scriptures with jw's, but i found almost all my arguments that i used, in terms of every bible verse we went through (or i attempted to go through with them) went pear shape!

garyneal

Elizabeth,

Ask them to explain John 20:28, 'Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"' I would be real interested in what their response is.

You see, in the Greek the text is definitive and is totally unanswerable. This is because the word theos is preceded by the definite article ho where Thomas says THE GOD OF ME to Jesus. The literal translation is, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

This is important because the lack of the definite article (ho) in John 1:1 is the very reason witnesses use to explain why they translated it to say, "... and the Word was a god." They claim that when theos is not preceded by the article ho then it does not reference Jehovah God. However, in John 20:28 ho theos is clearly present.

To explain this, they may respond with:

Well Thomas was astonished and he was saying something along the lines of "Oh My God!" because of the way Jesus appeared to him.

So you mean to tell me that Thomas was blaspheming God in the presence of Jesus?

Thomas was acknowledging Jesus' presence when he said "My Lord" and Jehovah's presence when he said "My God."

Um, yeah and how can you honestly infer that from the text?

Well, Satan is a god isn't he?

This misses the point of their arguing their translation of John 1:1. In John 20:28 Thomas does not call Jesus A GOD, he calls Him THE GOD and according to Watchtower reasoning (concerning John 1:1) if the definite article appears in the text, it refers to Jehovah God. Therefore, using their reasoning, Thomas is calling Jesus Jehovah God.

Simply put, there is no way out and I cornered an elder that my wife knew since she was a little girl on this. He tried to wiggle his way out by saying that it is not really blaspheming God but insisted on the fact that it must be astonishment because of the exclamation mark in the verse. Nevermind the fact that the Greek text has no punctuation.

48

Jehovah's Witness warning: "Watch out for the movie Avatar".

by Cindi_67 in

this is an email i received from my brother in law:.

after discussing with our family and several friends about the popular movie avatar, and the prevalence of "avatars" on the internet, we thought that other friends might be interested in what we found in our family worship research, tell us what you think:.

merriam-websterdictionary - avatar: the incarnation of a hindu deity (as vishnu).

garyneal

Cindi_67

Post 322

Wow, all of that rambling reminds me of how that old fundamentalist preacher use to preach at the independant fundamental baptist church I use to attend. Tell him if he ever leaves the witnesses and wishes to hold on to those idiotic ideas of his, he can become an independant fundamental baptist preacher.

23

Another marriage bites the dust thanks to the WT

by boyzone in

i've known about this couple for a long time and attended their bible studies on occasions.

susan, the wife, has been having a study with the witnesses on and off for 16 years, (yeah i know, one of very useful wet day pioneer calls where we all bundle round sue's house for coffee and still count the time) the sister whose been studying with them was a sooper -uber pioneer sister with a hard-line and total society view on everything.

sue's husband keith has always been polite and interested in what his wife was learning but he loved his beer, fags and christmas too much to take it seriously.. finally a few months ago susan caves in to the pressure from uber-sister christine and wants to get baptized.

garyneal

It's a vague, wishy-washy, meaningless term - and intentionally so. It's sort of like "loose conduct" or "causing divisions" - it's a wild card that can be trotted out to fit a situtation in order to get the result you want.

Like "sexual harassment." I think terms like that get to the point to where it is totally subjective and is defined by what 'offends' someone.

I feel so sorry for the married couple, I can only imagine what the husband went through emotionally dealing with such an unreasonable person that his wife has become. In the end, I guess, it works out for the best as he is now free to find someone who will be a better spouse. However, that is still cold comfort for him and especially his kids. I would be interested to see how the wife's life unfolds in her service to the organization.

49

my mum taught us very valuable lessons about Jehovah in her special way. Any other parents out there as psycho?

by God Chick in

jw
friends

ok before i start i know my mum was um "special" and had some, well...... bizzare training ideas.. .

i was one of 7 kids, dad didnt help much coz he was sick, so my mum was left to run the 'ship' and she did it with an iron fist.. .

we were never late for a meeting we sat, parents and 2 kids in one row the other 5 in row in front.

garyneal

This thread reminds me of the book I read entitled, "The Spanking Room: A Child's Eye View of the Jehovah's Witnesses."