Posts by Wonderment

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

TTWSYF: Below from the NWT states explicitly that the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God.

Acts 5:3, "But Peter said: ‘An·a·ni′as, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field. 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control? Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart? You have lied, not to men, but to God.’”

Does the Bible really teach explicitly that the "holy spirit" is God?

The same chapter of Acts (5.9) say that ‘the spirit is of the Lord God.’ Since the spirit emanates from God, it can be said that lying to the spirit is lying to God. Something similar is said in James 3.14 about "lying against the truth." Is the truth a person?

No. The truth of James 3.14 stands for the truth of the Gospel. Analogies of this sort are common in Scripture. No need to impose a foreign doctrine to Scripture to have "tradition" come on top.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity.” (Ed. by David Noel Freedman, Yale University Press / 2007)

TTWSYF: This one [explicitly prophesying Jesus IS GOD] is from

IS 9:6, "For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

There is no doubt that Jesus is referred to as "Mighty God" in Scripture. The question is:

Does this mean that Jesus is "Almighty" God? No. There are only a handful of texts (at most) in all the Bible which are interpreted to mean that Jesus is God. On the other hand, there are more than 100 references in the Gospels alone which state that Jesus is "the Son of God." The wiser course, then, is to put greater weight on the majority of Scriptures which explicitly say Christ is "God's Son," rather than rely on the few disputed texts which describe Jesus as God.

Psalm 82.1, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (KJV)

This text indicates celestial beings near God are called divine, mighty, gods.

Are you willing to claim that no other heavenly beings can be called "gods" in Scripture? Jesus is certainly above other heavenly gods. He is ‘the only-begotten God.’ (John 1.18)

Moses served as "God" before the nations. (Ex. 4.16; 7.1) Was Moses Almighty God? No, he only represented God in one mission. Jesus as the Greater Moses was sent by God to represent him before the world, to save those in the world willing to hear the divine message. (John 3.16)

The crux of the matter is this: “The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that.” (John A.T. Robinson, Honest to God, p. 70.)

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

jhine: "...so do you agree with the WT teaching that Jesus is really a created angel?"

Although Trinitarians often mock the idea of Jesus being ‘a created angel,’ it should be noted that the concept of "angel" as "God's messenger" is there.

"Angel" has been defined as "a supernatural being who acts as messenger Mt 1:20" (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament):

Abbott-Smith: "a messenger, one sent: Mt 11.10, Ja 2.25"

Malachi 3.1 speaks of "the messenger of the covenant" (Heb.: ūmal'akh habberîth) coming to God's people.

Jesus was the One ‘sent by God’ to his people with the message of salvation. (John 3.16)

Keil & Delitzsch explain: “The words ‘Behold he (the covenant angel) cometh’ serve to confirm the assurance, and are still further strengthened by אמר יי צ (saith Jehovah of hosts). This promise was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, in whom the angel of the covenant, the Logos, became flesh, and in the sending of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Him."

Incidentally, the word "apostle" carries a similar meaning: "delegate, envoy, messenger...Hb 3:1 [Applied to Christ: "Consider the apostle--Jesus"]." (Ibid, Shorter Lexicon)

jhine: Now if the Bible as written , without " other " supports that teaching [that Jesus is really a created angel] why do they feel the need to go altering it ? If the Bible as written doesn't support this teaching why do they teach it ?

Watchtower's position: “But even here, it might be added, that, were it not for the prevalence of the trinitarian teaching that Jesus was not created, it would not have been necessary to add the word ‘other.’ ” (The Watchtower, 4/15/1970, p. 255)

BeDuhn adds: “‘Other’ is implied in ‘all’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit. You can argue whether it is necessary or not to do this. But I think the objections that have been raised to it show that it is, in fact, necessary, because those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase ‘firstborn of creation.’ If adding ‘other’ prevents this misreading of the Biblical text, then it is useful to have it there.”

If we take the meaning of the expressions (the firstborn of the creation of God; the beginning of the creation of God) as a reference to Christ as being created (an admitted grammatical possibility by Trinitarians), then the idea does not seem so far-fetched.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

MercyBrew:

Time and personal effort surely went into your lengthy post. I appreciate that. You made some good observations. I agree with some of them, but not all.

In dealing with the person of Christ and his relation to God as his Son, many people have presented material that is borderline "Greek philosophy" mixed with Christian doctrine. I cannot fault the noble intention of some of these presentations, for it appears that some of the Christian Writers themselves were either influenced by Greek philosophy or made attempts to correct it. The NIV Study Bible (1985 edition) observes: "Some interpreters have felt that John's aim was to set forth a version of the Christian message that would appeal to Greek thinkers. Others have seen a desire to supplement (or correct) the Synoptic Gospels, to combat some form of heresy, to oppose the continuing followers of John the Baptist or to achieve a similar goal. But the writer himself states his main purpose clearly: ‘They are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:31) He may have had Greek readers mainly in mind, some of whom were being exposed to heretical influence, but his primary intention was evangelistic."

Because of the complexities of the subject, it appears that some posters here have given up on trying to explain the Trinity to others, since they apparently avoid the subject altogether, but continue participating in other themes. So your effort is commendable. However, it is not easy to reconcile many points Trinitarians often make with those of the Bible, which tend to be simpler or totally different. John's target audience lived in a totally different culture, so many of his statements to other audiences, like ours, would have a hard time understanding the fine details of his argumentation.

I would be willing to accept the Trinity doctrine if it was plainly detailed in Scripture. After all, I have dropped many of the WT doctrines with no problem. Also, there are many non-Trinitarians which never been Jehovah's Witnesses in their religious history. One poster (Clambake), may have a valid point when he said in this thread: "I think it is quite arrogant to think we have figured out the nature of god." We can sincerely try to figure out the nature of God, something which in itself may be impossible to carry out, since we humans have limits of divine comprehension.

Thus for now, I will side with the NIV note: "But the writer himself states his main purpose clearly: ‘They are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:31)." Whether John's statement can comfortably fit within the trinitarian matrix is beyond me.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

TTWSYF: "There is a history of interpretation that goes back 2000 years and IS consistent in it's teachings. Why would anyone want a NEW interpretation that has only been around a few hundred years or less? How could such new interpretations be more legitimate than the oldest?"

Good questions!

Paul advised the Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." The problem is that no one can be 100% certain on so many things biblically related. From another angle, on NEW interpretations, someone could say that those who come up with such have the advantage to cull out long-seated errors of traditionalistic dogmas. Again, there is no guarantee that these will offer any better substance than the former. Hence, a lot of things come down to faith.

In some ways, our problems are not so different from the culture of the First-Century C.E. We have so many conflicting issues to deal with, religious and not, just like they did. They had an established system of teachers of great reputation. Their religions could not agree on their differences. Politically speaking they were divided as we are today, and religion was no less a strong factor to deal with.

In the middle of it all, Jesus Christ's preaching was interesting to say the least. His message of relief was sweet to those suffering at the hands of the powerful ones. At the same time, you had the academic and political forces spewing other signals. "Who can you trust" surely was in the minds of the masses. Well, they too had to rely on faith and logic. In the minds of detractors, even the display of miracles of Jesus and his followers were no guarantee that they originated from God. Critics blamed Lucifer or some other for their apparent powers.

In all, among the prevalent uncertainty of the political and religious establishment of the times, the Christian followers had to listen to their own inner wisdom, and had to decide whether to follow the cruel arrogant ways of the world, or go instead after the model of Christ with its plain message of love, mercy and simple daily living. We can all certainly learn from this.

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Wonderment

Are lawsuits by the WT Corporation against other corporations another potential source of new income? Just wondering!

42

Samuel Herd: a woman saying "if she were a man....." is borderline being a homosexual

by Khaleesi in

not sure if this was posted before... but apparently for the wt a woman's smaller cranium than a man's shows she was designed to be in submission to the man!!

unbelievable he dared to say such things!.

https://youtu.be/wqzc2m8_mba.

Wonderment

Heaven: I once told an uncle of mine that I probably should have been born a man as I absolutely LOVE power tools. I can spend hours perusing these aisles in Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, or Home Depot.

Now, when the JWs come knocking I can tell them I'm borderline homosexual as I love power tools. I wonder if they'll skedaddle off my porch?

By the same token, being a man, I must be borderline homosexual as I love kitchen gear, and like to spend hours going over the latest kitchen gadgets anywhere I find them. Also, used to have a girlfriend that loved persusing tools in the stores as much as I did. We both were "homosexuals" and we didn't know it.

24

Youths planning for the future leaflet

by slimboyfat in

does anyone remember around the tear 2000, maybe just before or after, there was a leaflet released at the summer convention aimed at teenagers called something like, "planning for a worthwhile future"?

basically it argued that you shouldn't go to college or university and put your trust in "the world".

instead you should trust in jehovah, pioneer and reach out for bethel or missionary service.

Wonderment

The controlling spirit of the WT is also seen by their strongly discouraging prospect mothers from having children in the same time frame, solely because the end of "the system of things" was just around the corner.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

Beth Sarim: Secondly, Revelation is a ''figurative'' book. The 144,000 is symbolic.

Also John1:1. You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

I agree with you that "Revelation is a '‘figurative'’ book. The 144,000 is symbolic."

On this statement: You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

The four examples provided at the top show that the process of translation is a compromise. Some interpretation is involved and unavoidable in the job.

Although there is no indefinite article in the Greek, one is often used in English to approximate what the Greek language itself said a long time ago. The WT Society is aware of this. How so? Their modern Greek version (NWT) does not use the indefinite article in John 1.1 because an explicit indefinite article is lacking in the idiom. Some versions of the NWT in other languages may or may not use one either at John 1.1. Various former NWT versions (like the earlier Portuguese edition) added the indefinite article within brackets. The same applies to John 4.19 which has similar grammar to John 1.1, some NWT versions have the indefinite article, others do not. For instance, compare various French and Spanish versions. Although some here take this as evidence of ineptness, it is more of an effort to adapt the idiom to the local language, or to have them read more uniformly from one version to another.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

cyberjesus: "There are no originals.... So it doesnt matter... All translations are inaccurate"

We are aware there are no "originals," per se. The term is freely used for "copies" available. Those copies have been the source of untold inspiration for millions for centuries.

Vidqun: "These [examples] demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial."

I like and use both overall, just as am sure that you do too. Like you, I have a preference for the literal ones for study, but for enjoyable reading it's hard to beat the easy-reading versions. Some of these, albeit eccentric, incorporate fresh readings which challenge established ideas of old. The Message Bible is a fine example of this.

Bobcat: "She [my wife] would have to ask me how the NIV was worded on various verses. In other words, the NIV would tend to always explain a difficult passage in the NWT. But I never noticed the other way around. The NWT was usually too literal (some would say ‘wooden.’"

The NIV has been one of my favorite translations to date. It is remarkably a good compromise between the wooden versions and the paraphrases making their mark. Likewise, the NIV Study Bible is my preferred commentary version of those printed so far.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

Some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of Bible versions of not sticking to the original Scriptures. A few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary. Others do not believe so. Who is right?

The answer is not that simple. Please feel free to analyze these four samples,and see what to make of these! Comments please!

To be literal or not in Bible translation?

Matt 1.6b (Greek): “David but generated the Solomon out of the* of the Ourios”

*(tēs, article = genitive, singular, feminine)

KIT: “David but generated the Solomon out of the [wife] of Uriah”

Disciples Literal NT: “And David fathered Solomon by the one of Uriah”

NASB” “David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah”

NWTr: “David became father to Solʹo·mon by the wife of U·riʹah”

ESV: “And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah”

NIV: “David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife”

Darby: “And David begat Solomon, of her [that had been the wife] of Urias” (Brackets his.)

Acts 4:23 (Greek): “Having-been-loosed-off but they-came toward the own* and they-reported-back as-much-as toward them the chief-priests and the elders said.”

NWTr: “After being released, they went to their own people and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

ESV: “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”
NLT: “As soon as they were freed, Peter and John returned to the other believers and told them what the leading priests and elders had said”

NIV: “On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

Ex 17.13 (Hebrew): “And-he-overcame Joshua *** Amalek and*** people-of-him by-mouth-of sword.” (*** represents the direct object, normally left untranslated)

NASB: “So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword”

NWTr: “Thus Joshua defeated Am′a·lek and his people with the sword”

NIV: “So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword”

ESV: “And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword”

YLT: “and Joshua weakeneth Amalek and his people by the mouth of the sword”

Psalm 73.21 (Hebrew): “For he-was-embittered*, heart-of-me and-kidneys-of-me I-was-pierced” (*he-was-embittered, verb in third person singular masculine gender)

NWT: “For my heart was soured And in my kidneys I was sharply pained”

NWTr: “But my heart was sour, And deep inside I felt sharp pain”

ASV: “For my soul was grieved, And I was pricked in my heart”

ISV: “When I chose to be bitter I was emotionally pained”

NIV: “When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered”

CEV: “Once I was bitter and brokenhearted”

VOICE: “You see, my heart overflowed with bitterness and cynicism; I felt as if someone stabbed me in the back”