<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> .
in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.
in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum -- Latin
In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb.
En arche en ho lógos, kai ho lógos en pros ton theón, kai theós en ho lógos
I n beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the G od, and god was the logos.
– (John 1:1) – GREEK
Now, which of these two readings appear closer to the one found in most bible versions today?
i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
One cannot use Isaiah and Hosea scriptures out of its context to support the notion that there is no savior other than God? Why?
Because the Scriptures mention some humans called "saviors" other than Jehovah and Christ. The same hebrew word for all three. Check it out.
And as to Christ being "Savior," the Bible makes it clear that it was God who made him so. What it does prove is that the Supreme Savior is Jehovah.
Any other serving in the capacity of "savior" is due to God allowing it for a special purpose.
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } PRE { font-family: "Times New Roman" } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Acts 5:31: “God exalted him [Christ]at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel.” (NRSV)
And as for John 1:1 being "definitive" because of the Word being called "God," one needs to look at the context,
where it describes the Word being "with" God, so, the Word "God" is not exactly the God he was with.
It is used as an adjective, i.e. as "divine," "a divine being." John clears up any potential confusion by saying,
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not "God" (20:31)
during today's witchtower study there was so much wisdom.
coming forth from the conductor and those in attendance that.
i could only say to myself "can't they hear what they are saying?".
"80% of all websites are pornographic"
Translation: 80% of the websites we click are pornographic. It it happens to me, it surely happens to you. And I don't want all of you being tempted with lustful thoughts as I am.
i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
godrulz:
You seem to have a specific trinitarian view of the word woship. But as others have stated with sound arguments, the Greek word can be applied in different contexts, with various connotations. Thus, the bible meaning is more important than the meaning given by "conservative Christians," as you put it. Don't believe me, check some Greek-English dictionaries where most acknowledge what I just said. I even quoted a few in a previous post.
Whatever Thomas meant by the words he pronounced under emotional excitement, it must be accepted at the light of John's words at 20:31, where he stated: ‘All these things are written down that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.’ Why would John go around circles and not just say that Christ is the God instead of just saying, Son of God. I repeat, Jesus spoke in this very same chapter, that ‘the Father was his God and everyone elses’ too. (20:17) I haven't seen any trinitarian explain that here, including yourself. In fact, I asked of you earlier, to just show me ONE scripture that says all the stuff you are claiming here, (that Jesus and the Father and the holy spirit are three persons but one God). To this date, you have not provided ONE scripture yet to prove your point. Most who hold on to views such as yours end up quoting the massive number of scholars who believe in the Trinity. Please, since you argue everything I have stated, all I ask is for you to come up with ONE scripture that explains the Trinity the way you do. I am sure other posters are equally interested to have your answer, instead of rants about how many conservative Christians, or how many super-scholars believe this or that.
In my case, I'd rather stick to simple statements of Jesus such as this one: ‘I seek the glory, not of myself, but that of my Father... because the Father is greater than I am.’ Or this one: ‘that all may honor the Son as they honorthe Father.’ It all ends with the Father, doesn't it?
i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
sabastious:
That is funny.
i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
Fact: Most bible translators don't "speak" either Hebrew or Greek . Exceptions: George Gangas. George Gangas spoke modern Greek and gave speeches in Greece. He also spoke Spanish, which he learned on his own. Scholar Spiros Zodhiates is of Greek heritage. Zodhiates, however, did not work as a bible translator. He did produce some valuable bible reference works.
George Gangas translated mainly from Greek to English, but what few know outside of Bethel, is that he also translated between Greek, English and Spanish when needed.
Fred Franz' knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was superior to Gangas' knowledge of bible languages. Those who teach bible languages do not generally "speak" either Hebrew and Greek. And it is not expected of bible translators to "speak" the language. They are expected to "read" the Hebrew and Greek text , and with the aid of linguistic aids commit to translation. No bible translator works so casually as to do translation work without linguistic helps. Interestingly, those going around criticizing the NWT, as does "cult experts" Walter Martin, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes, who did obtain some credentials, do not "speak" a ny Greek. Even most "experts" with Ph.D's we usually quote, don't "speak" Greek either. But I believe most of these individuals are able to get a good grasp of the Greek by applying themselves to it.
The WT started the practice of anonimity many years before the 1st portion of the NWT was published in 1950. But since 1942, it has been the general rule of not using names of their writers in their WT publications. If Ray Franz is correct about the translators, none of them had a Ph. D, or even a Master´s degree under their belt. Yes, it would be embarrasing before the world to publish a translation without the "necessary" credentials. Notwithstanding, lacking credentials does not necessarily equate with zero knowledge.
Ray Franz was no close buddy of Fred, his uncle. Some say, there was a marked rift between them. Even so, Ray admitted to me and to countless others over the years of his uncle's linguistic capabilities. I myself heard Fred speak in three languages fluently. Ray spent nearly 20 years in the Caribbean, and came to dominate the Spanish language. Ray said that Fred learned Spanish on his own, and not once, he said, did he commit one single errror in all those years he heard Fred speaking Spanish, either in private conversations or public appearances. He did the same with Portuguese, which he spoke fluently.
Now, if he was able to dominate those languages the way he did, why would someone here in this website doubt that he was not able to dominate the bible languages? Remember, there are a number of scholars who admit that the NWT translation committee was up to the task.
I am aware that the number of scholars who praise the NWT are small compared to the number criticizing it. That is to be expected, though, for the simple reason, that the NWT does not support mainstream religion. The theology of the majority will win in such comparisons. Always!
i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
dgp:
Excuse me, but I don't understand your question. Is the "individual consulting G & H originals" a reference to the NWT Committee?
i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
VanderHoven7: "it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself (John 20:28)"
No, it is not that clear. In the same chapter Jesus speaks of ‘his God’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (20:17) Just 3 verses later, John sums up the correct message for all: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God..."
Previously, he had stated the ‘he owes his existence to the Father’ (6:57), ‘the Father being greater than him’ (14:28) and that ‘the true worshippers will worship the Father [not the Son] with spirit and truth.’
John 20:28 has been controversial among leading scholars. Some see it as hebraistic idiom addressed to God in a moment full of emotional drama. We humans say, or hear others say all the time, Oh my God! when something dramatic happens, as when the Twin Towers came crashing down 9/11. Just about everyone was saying: Oh my God!
Thus for Thomas to experience Jesus' appearance after his death was no less dramatic. What do u expect him to say? "Oh, Son of God"? That is not what humans say under shock (though some in America say, "Jesus Christ!") But generally, in a shocking or dramatic situation it is not unusual to invoke "God" in such manner. And in hebraistic fashion, Thomas saying "the God of me and the Lord of me" would be the acceptable jewish statement to make without making Jesus identical with God. Remember, John cleared the matter by his main statement: "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John could easily have said that Jesus is ho theos. We should not change this statement otherwise. I will stick with Jesus' statement that "true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." And don't forget as previously posted, that Christ gave the creation credit to God, not himself.
i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
GOrwell:
That is fine with me.
i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
It should be noted that in Rev. 5:12 it says that the Lamb "is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing," but it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. A similar statement is made in -v. 13- by every creature in heaven and earth in regards to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Again it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. It is in v. 14 that it says: "And the four living creatures went saying 'Amen!' and the elders fell down and worshipped."
So, it does not say directly that God and Christ both received worship. If you understand it in a way that both should receive it, that is fine. But v. 14 does not say that Christ received woship, at least not directly.
However we understand who is the object of proskyne'o (worship or obeisance) being done by by elders in v. 14, what is true is that Christ is portrayed as subordinate in the book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it makes a difference between God and Christ by saying that Christ received a "revelation" from God to pass on to "his slaves" the things that must take place. Does God ever need someone to give him a "revelation."? I don't think so! Verses 4 & 5 shows a distinction between "the One who is and who was" and Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness and the Firstborn from the dead. One can argue that God can be a Witness, but God dead? No! God does not die! Ch. 3:14 talks about Christ being "the beginning of the creation by God." Some oppose the translation "creation by God," but is there really that much difference between saying that Christ is the beginning of the creation of God, or by God? It does not matter! God is the creator, not Christ. Other scriptures show that Christ was the agent of creation of everything else. Christ attributed the creation to God. See previous post. Ch. 5 supplies a vision of the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb subordinately. Ch. 14 gives us another vision where Christ is NOT depicted as the Supreme Being. Ch. 19 again describes the Word as "of God," not God Supreme. And the last chapter of Rev. speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. If Jesus was identical to God almighty, why portray him always as subordinate. Never mind holy spirit!. It is not seen anywhere in the throne, or close to it.
Interestingly, Jesus himself applied the word proskyne'o when a slave who owed the king a lot of money asked for mercy, and rendered him worship or obeisance. (Mt. 18:23-35) Some in this forum would like to believe that proskyne'o is rendered only to God, hence, Christ is God. Well, Jesus himself shows us one way we should understand proskyne'o. And to me, Christ is a higher authority than some "scholars" claiming the contrary.
