Posts by Wonderment

6

26 years WT free!

by Wonderment in

this month makes 26 years since i disassociated from the wt org.

i have not visited a kh or assembly hall once since.

that includes no memorial attendance.

Wonderment

This month makes 26 years since I disassociated from the WT org. I have not visited a KH or Assembly Hall once since. That includes NO Memorial Attendance.

The WT is a Christian turn-off. Sure, the WT groups me with the arrogant, unfaithful ones. I don't care. What matters to me more is that "truth" prevails over peddling fiction. The shunning practice as promoted by the WT must be one of the worst things that anyone could do to a human. I was not disfellowshiped. I just quit the Borg. Even so, my large family disowns me.

From any standard, leaving a religion by one's will should not be punished as a crime. Those who deserted Christ were not harassed afterwards. Were they? There is no record anywhere that Jehovah or Jesus forces one to stay with his people if they should choose not to. But this... no more family social dealing as a punishment (which they paint as doing you a favor). BAD! BAD! BAD!

10

Does anyone own a Chromebook?

by Wonderment in

if so, are you satisfied?

Wonderment

If so, are you satisfied?

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

slimboyfat: It is not as simple as a mundane past tense "I existed since before" as BeDuhn argues, nor is it a simple claim to being the almighty I AM as Trinitarians argue.

I agree! I had focused the greater part of attention to this thread to a simple past tense, versus the common "I am" which results in an un-English rendering, because those objections are most common = that is, the "I am" must be synonymous with "I am the eternal Jehovah." (Present for present verb assumption) An expression of past-time in the verse with ego' eimi' makes that assumption unlikely, as various translators demonstrate by using different wording in the text.

However, I indicated in my previous post by quoting John 8.24, that there was this other issue of Jesus being sent by God (5x in ch. 8) as "God's Son" and "the promised Messiah (8.24, LB)." You however did a better projection than I could have.

So it appears that Jesus Christ addressed two main issues in his statement ("killed two birds with one stone") at John 8.58.

1. Answering the Jews question about his age (long-existence extending to an indefinite past) which explained why Jesus was able to ‘see Abraham's day.’

2. He was very likely addressing the other issue as well, which was in the minds of his enemies and disciples all along: Who was really Jesus Christ? How is he able to perform miracles greater than those of Moses? How could Christ compare to "the Father of the Jews" - "Abraham"? Is Jesus the "savior" of Israel? Is he really "the promised Messiah"?

Jesus himself had been flirting with the concept of his identity, by asking his disciples and sometimes his critics, on various occasions: Who is the Christ? Who is the Messiah? Who do people say I am? Whose son is he?, etc.

The answer to all the above: "I am God's Son"; "I am the Messiah"; "I came to do God's will and not mine"; "I am God's Sent Savior!", etc.

The use of "I am the one" idea repeatedly was necessary to drive such message across.

The Scriptures you presented in Mark illustrate this clearly.

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

Who is behind the translation of Chrysostom's work?

Furthermore, how does the writings of a doctor of the Fourth-Century prove language-wise

that John the Apostle wrote "I am" with the intention of identifying him with God Almighty?

By that time (4th Cent.) the Trinity as we know it was being defined. To base one's

understanding of one polemical scripture by a single man living in the 4th Century

isn't as relevant to Christian understanding as are other Scriptures of the 1st

which accentuate that Christ was subject to, and living to do God's will.

Jesus was accused of many things, for which his opposers wanted him killed. He was

charged for breaking the Sabbath, and for also calling God his Father (Jews

understood this as if Jesus was making himself equal to God). (John 5.18)

Were they correct? No. Jesus wasn't breaking the Sabbath. The accusation was false.

So was the Jewish perception that Jesus was making himself to God.

Therefore Jesus corrected them by saying: "Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do

a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing." (Jn 5.19,30)

In essence, Jesus was putting the Father, God, above him. Christ told them:

"And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. You have neither heard

his voice at any time nor seen his form." (Jn 5.37) Just a few verses later Jesus referred

to the Father as "the only God." (5.44)

In John ch. 10.30 , Jews again misunderstood Jesus "oneness" or ""unity" statement

as placing himself in equal status to God. They also misunderstood this statement of Jesus:

"What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, an no one

can snatch them out of the hand of the Father." (5.29)

Were they right in misunderstanding Christ? No, Jesus went on to say that Scripture

call men "gods," so how could they be right in their accusations if Jesus was only

claiming to be "God's Son", not God? (10.33-36)

In John ch. 8, Jesus claims at least five times (5) that he was the one being SENT by God.

In 8.24, Jesus says: "For if you do not believe that I am the one [Others: "I am he";

I am the Messiah," LB; "I am the one I claim to be," early NIV], you will die in your sins.”"

Prior to John 8.58, the Jews were interrogating Jesus about him not being old enough

to have seen Abraham. (Verse 57) "Then the Jews said to him: ‘You are not yet

50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?’” It was at that point where Jesus answered:

“I have existed  before Abraham was born” (James Moffatt)

"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born." (Dr. A, Nyland)

"I already was before Abraham was born." (Worldwide New Testament)

"before Awraham existed, I was!" (Aramaic English New Testament)

"I was alive  before Abraham was born!" (The Simple English Bible)

"I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." (Dag Söderberg)

"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."

 (Kenneth L. McKay)

These translators render the Greek present "I am" with

an imperfect, or present perfect verb. Why?

Because they realize that in English, one cannot use a present

verb with an expression of past time in the same sentence.

Example: Is it correct to say in  English?:

"Before this Karate Academy was built, I am a fighter"?

Would anyone rephrase the above statement in proper English?

So any argument in Greek by Chrysostom must take into account

the English idiom as well in the translation.

Hence, who is right? The millions of religious worshippers

saying that Jesus was claiming to be God? Or the lesser number

of Christians who only repeat what Jesus himself claimed:

"I am God's Son" [Not God]? (John 10.36; 20.31)

Didn't Jesus encouraged others to pray and worship someone else?

(Matt. 6.10; John 4.24)

And unlike most Church-goers today, Jesus did not hesitate

to speak of himself as subjected to God. He also spoke of

‘his God,’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (John 14.28; 20.17)

Thus, the biblical record seems to favor those affirming that

Christ was the one sent by God, the promised Messiah,

God's Son. It was ‘he’ and not someone else fulfilling Bible

prophecy. John 8.24 (ESV):

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you

believe that I am he [the Messiah] you will die in your sins.”

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

Landy: "Wonderment - you either have far too much time on your hands or you need to get a life. There's a big world out there. Go see some of it."

Landy, I like your advice better than Clambake's.

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

Clambake: "An author I found interesting was Daniel B Wallace and he focuses more on

98% of the bible was is the same instead of the 2% that is different....JWs are really trying

to disprove the bible. Once you start to think of the bible in terms of context and probability

from a mathematical point of view, mainstream Christian beliefs are pretty much what the

bible teaches. Pay them no mind. Same with this wonderment poster. He is a bible burnout

who has fried his brain."

Do you know that Daniel B. Wallace has explained what I have stated before in regards to

a Greek construction (as that found in John 8.58), having a Greek "progressive present" verb

in the presence of a temporal indicator, the English present perfect is normally called for in translation.

Wallace wrote under (Present of Past Action Still in Progress):

“The present tense may be used to describe an action that, begun in the past, continues in

the present. The emphasis is on the present time. Note that this is different from the perfect tense in that the perfect speaks only about the results existing in the present time. It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually, if not always, has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element ...

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present tense as an English present perfect …Luke 15:29 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these

many years 1 John 3:8 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap' archēs ho diabolos hamartanei]

the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” (The Basics of New Testament Syntax,

pp. 222-3. Italics and bold letters his. Underline and brackets mine.)

Let look at two texts:

In Luke 15.29, the Greek literally says:

"Look! So many years I am slaving to you..."

"[Look!] I have served you for these many years" - (Wallace's translation)

In 1 John 3.8, the Greek says:

"because from beginning the Devil is sinning."

"the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” - (Wallace's translation)

So in effect, Wallace understands this construction similarly to grammarians Hardy Hansen

& Gerald M. Quinn previously quoted:

“When [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time, the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect."

Consider too that although many Trinitarians are confident the "I am" expression issued by

Christ is surely linked to Exodus 3.14, not all agree. One such scholar, James White, is an Evangelical who defends the Trinity with passion before Jehovah's Witnesses, but came to this conclusion:

“It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of

John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise.” (“Purpose and Meaning of ‘Ego Eimi’ in the Gospel of

John In Reference to the Deity of Christ.”)

Another scholar, C. K. Barrett, who served as Professor of Divinity in the University of Durham, concluded:

That the Jews' reaction in verse 59  "does not mean  that Jesus

had claimed to be God.”  (The Gospel According to St. John)


I will say this:  Not everyone has the same understanding of things

relating to a particular scripture. And that is true even among

Catholics and Protestant believers. The challenge then, is to analyze

the various available explanations to see which ones fit better with

Jesus' own simple statements... "I live because of the Father";

 "I am God's Son." (John 6.57; 10.36)

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

slimboyfat: "Unfortunately I can't read the opening post because it is obscured by an advert. Am I the only one?"

No, I accidentally hit some keyboard button which spread the margins. Sorry!

I sent you by "e-mail" the full message hoping it is correct now. Check your mailbox.

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

Wonderment

megaboy: "He was saying that he was Yah, which was not the same person as YHWH."

Your personal conclusion is welcomed just as any other. But consider this:

The book Fundamentals of New Testament Greek had this to say of the use of ego eimi in John 8.58:

"[ eimi' ] can be used as the main verb of several types of sentences. For example, it is often used as a linking verb in which one thing is equated or linked with another. In the English sentence ‘He is an athlete,’ the person referred to its equated with being an athlete. For example: Mark 14:70 ... you are a Galilean.

" Sometimes the verb is used on its own, as a verb of existence. Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following: John 8.58 [ ego'eimi' ] I am." (Page 72)

I take this to mean that the authors are not assigning any mystical significance to the Greek phrase as others are tempted in doing in regards to Jesus' deity. It is simply expressing existence. In other words, if I understand then correctly, the meaning is: "I was alive before Abraham was born." (The New Testament in Plain English)

Or: “I already was before Abraham was born.” – Worldwide English New Testament.

Or, if you don't like the use of the imperfect in the above version and prefer using a present verb, the conclusion would be: "I am in existence since before Abraham was born.

Or better yet, use the English present perfect as does The Source New Testament:

“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”

19

"Freeness of speech"

by Wonderment in

this was posted on another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6040010839031808/christmas-tree-word-appreciation), but wondered about how others here would see this with one experience i had as an elder now as ex-jws.. when we were jw's we had to be extremely careful with what we said around the brotherhood.

if someone said anything out of the ordinary, relationships among the involved were halted immediately, or were never the same afterwards.

in this place, one can say almost anything without the fear of having a truck run over us.

Wonderment

The Searcher: "‘Even Thomas doubted the Lord.’

Not only Thomas - Matthew 28:17 - ‘When they saw, him they did obeisance, but some doubted.’"

To "doubt" is human.

19

"Freeness of speech"

by Wonderment in

this was posted on another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6040010839031808/christmas-tree-word-appreciation), but wondered about how others here would see this with one experience i had as an elder now as ex-jws.. when we were jw's we had to be extremely careful with what we said around the brotherhood.

if someone said anything out of the ordinary, relationships among the involved were halted immediately, or were never the same afterwards.

in this place, one can say almost anything without the fear of having a truck run over us.

Wonderment

Vidiot: "One of my little wake-up moments was realizing that even though the WTS supposedly championed "free speech" in the courts, they did not practice or tolerate said freedom internally."

Well put!