Posts by Wonderment

51

New NWT deception at Genesis 8:22 to indicate earth remains forever.

by jwfacts in

i could not find mention of this before.

i was reading genesis 8:22 in the niv and was surprised i had never noticed that this verse gives the impression that the earth will not remain forever.

genesis 8:22 stated by god after the flood, when promising to never again destroy all living creatures.. as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

Wonderment

Whether the earth's lasts forever or not is not the main idea within the context.

The idea is brought out well by the New Living Translation: "As long as the earth remains, there will be planting and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night."

ISV: ""Never again, as long as the earth exists, will sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night ever cease."

The Hebrew adverb ‛ôd has been rendered with the idea of a: going-around, continuance, still, again, yet, while, as long as, during, etc.

The LXX (Greek) literally says: "All the days of the earth, seed and harvest, chilliness and sweltering heat, summer and spring, day and knight, will not be caused to cease." The Latin Vulgate reads alike. See also NABRE.

The Concordant Version reads: "In the future, all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and warmth, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

And in Ge. 8:21,22, The Five Books of Moses by Everett Fox, reads: "21 And when YHVH smelled the soothing savor YHVH said in his heart: I will never curse the soil again on humankind's account, since what the human heart forms is evil from its youth; I will never again strike down all living-things, as I have done; 22 (never) again, all the days of the earth, shall sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night ever cease!" (Parenthesis his.)

So the main idea is: God promised that the daily and annual cycles of nature would continue as long as the earth remains.

The revised NWT cleverly and conveniently took the negative particle lō' meaning "not" or "never" toward the end of the sentence, and placed it at the beginning of the verse (as did ISV) after the constituent adverb ‛ôd, still within the bounds of Hebrew-English translation to have it say: "From now on, the earth will never cease to have seed-sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night."

BUT, the NWT reader may get the overall impression, more so than with Fox's translation, that the verse somehow indicates the eternal existence of the earth, when that in itself is not explicit by the wording used.

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: I have noticed that JWs when faced with the Isaiah passage always sieze on Mighty God . I looked into this a bit and the word translated as " Mighty " is " g'bur " . Isaiah uses that same word 2 or 3 more times in verses where he is clearly referring to Jehovah . What gets overlooked is the title "Eternal Father."

The Hebrew word gib·bōr is biblically applied to God (as in Deut. 10.17, hag·gib·bōr), the promised Messiah (Is. 9.6), angels (Psalm 103.20, gib·bō·rîm), to men (as in Genesis 10.9, "just like Nimrod, a mighty hunter"). Most biblical references are of men. Are men "deities"? So the context is paramount for the basic understanding of the term. In Isaiah 9.6, the stress falls on the Prince of Peace: "His divine power as a warrior." (NIV)

Any attempt to connect the expression "Eternal Father" of Isaiah 9.6 to a "trinity" is unfounded.

The Hebrew word " 'ad " for everlasting does not always mean "eternal."

The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament says of the word:

"A noun meaning eternity...The word's references to mountains that would be shattered (Hab. 3:6; the sun and the moon (Ps. 148:6) may show that the word sometimes means less than eternity or only an apparent eternity."

How should we then understand the words "Eternal Father" of Isaiah 9.6 when referenced to the "Prince of Peace"?

The NIV Study Bible notes: "Everlasting Father. He will be an enduring, compassionate provider and protector (cf. 40:9-11)."

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:

Thanks for your words of paragraph 1 from your last post.

You mention so many points in your last two posts that it is not easy for me to pick just one to address. Even though we may disagree on the subject of the extent of Jesus' Godhood, your calm tone is appreciated in the exchange.

You mentioned that the fact that Jesus should be ‘honored’ just as the Father is honored is indicative of Jesus being the equal to God. (John 5.23) The way I see this is explained in my previous post in page 3 to jhine. This is not a matter of: The Father gets 50% of honor and the Son gets the other 50% to prove they are equal. To illustrate: If a King sends an envoy to represent him before the recipient, the King expects the envoy to be treated just as if he was the King in person. To disrespect the messenger is to dishonor the King himself. To honor the envoy is just as good as honoring the King himself. As Jesus said: ‘The one sent is lesser than the one doing the sending.’ The King is greater than the messenger, and Jesus was happy to report that his mission involved being "sent" by God. (Compare to Jesus' description in Heb. 3.1 of an "apostle".) Is this gibberish?

No, because Scripture overall subordinates Christ throughout as slimboyfat succinctly indicated in his post. The letter to the Philippians speaks of Christ being ‘exalted by God to a superior position.’ The author of the epistle writes that ‘God kindly gave Christ the name that is above every other name.’ (Phil. 2.9) Why so?

"So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground--and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (vv. 10,11) Thus, whatever glory Jesus was to be honored with - had the ultimate purpose of further glorifying the Supreme God. It ends with God. No mention of "the Holy Ghost" receiving any glory in this text, nor is there any mention in John ch. 5 that "the Holy Ghost" should be honored just as the Father and Son is honored.

Another interesting tidbit is found in Philippians (2.9) where it says that ‘God exalted Christ to a superior position and kindly gave him the name above every other name.’ If Jesus was the equal of God, how could he be exalted "to a superior position" than the one he previously had? There is no higher position that God's. Logically, the One doing the exalting is superior to one being "exalted." And if that wasn't enough, the author of the letter states that God kindly gave him the name above every other name. The Greek word (echari'sato) there implies that the name was handed out as ‘a gift of grace,’ an act of kindness, from someone mighty to a lesser one. Whatever glory and might Jesus gained was all due to God's will. (Col. 1.19)

And finally, it is crucial to abide by Jesus' own words, and not by Plato's. Did Jesus at any time claim to be God? Can you mention ONE explicit verse from anywhere in the Bible where Jesus claims: "I am God"? You mention that the Jew's blasphemy response indicated that Jesus was God. The blasphemy charge itself could be brought by various actions. Even if the accusation of blasphemy was justified, more important by far is whether Jesus believed he was God. When pushed against a corner, Jesus only admitted being "God's Son," not God. (John 10.36)

Jesus did, however, ask Mary Magdalene to inform others that he was going back to God (incidentally the same God of the disciples). (John 20.17) He literally said: ‘I am ascending to...my God and your God." Any lengthy appeal to Jesus' Godhood must take into account Jesus' own admission.

Even Thomas confession at 20.28 must be viewed in light of Christ's statement in 20.17 and 20.31. Can long-winded trinitarian explanations (to use Cofty's words) be accommodated with Jesus' own statement at John 20.17? Do they agree with the exalted Christ's own declarations in Rev. 3.12 where he speaks of his Father as "my God" repeatedly? Is "the Holy Ghost" ever called out as "my God" by anyone anywhere? Why would Jesus speak so highly of his Father as "my God" but not even mention "the Holy Ghost" in equal share? Obviously, the purported "Christian" Trinity is just as weak as the multiple triads of the pagan nations. There is no equal strength or attention among the so called "three persons" of the "trinity."

Hence, what I would like to bring out here is exactly what Jesus instructed Mary Magdalene: "Go to your brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to...my God and your God.’"

This is what we should be preaching about. That Jesus had a God he worshipped, and his God is the One he instructed others to worship." (John 4.23) Is that instruction so difficult to carry out?

I suppose not as difficult as trying to explain Plato's trinity concept and how his ideas influenced "Christian" worship!

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient religions.” (Edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, 1467, Paris, 1865-1870).

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.