Posts by Wonderment

12

Holy Spirit

by Sergey Antonov in

jehovah's witnesses say that the holy spirit is inanimate.

but how then can you sin against the holy spirit, if he is not alive ?!

🤔 then it is more correct to say that it is not against the holy spirit, but against god..

Wonderment

"The Holy Spirit spoke and said, "Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas for the work for which I have called them."

Yes, and the donkey SPOKE to Balaam, a human, in the book of Numbers (ch. 22).

Although the donkey "spoke," the account says that the Lord made the donkey talk. At the same time, the narrative speaks of Jehovah's angel behind the on-going action being explained. (Ge. 22.22,24,25,26,27,31) It is obvious that the angel was not the same person as the Lord. The angel was representing the Lord. The angel of the Lord may have been the one behind the donkey talking, since the Lord is resourceful enough to engage with Balaam without a mediator. Regardless, the ultimate source of power originated with God.

Interestingly, Scripture talks about God' spirit some 250 times according to one writer.

What can we learn from this?

12

Holy Spirit

by Sergey Antonov in

jehovah's witnesses say that the holy spirit is inanimate.

but how then can you sin against the holy spirit, if he is not alive ?!

🤔 then it is more correct to say that it is not against the holy spirit, but against god..

Wonderment

"...the bible says that you can grieve , vex and lie to the HS , Eph 4:30 , Isa 63:10 , Acts 5:3 . The HS teaches John 14:26 , testifies John 15:26 , speaks 1Cor 2:13 and commands Acts 8:28 among lots of other things."

And it also tells us that the water and blood together with the spirit "bear witness." (1 John 5:6-8)

The altar "speaks [says]" before heaven. (Rev. 16.7)

Sin "couches" at the door, ‘has desire’ (craves) (Ge. 4.7)

Deserts ‘rejoice, exult’ (Is. 35.1)

Blood "cries" out (Ge. 4.10). Blood "speaks" (Heb. 12.24).

Wisdom "disciplines," or "instructs" in some versions (Prov. 8.10) It even has "children" (Lu. 7.35)

Sin, Grace and Death are "kings [they reign]" (Ro. 5.14,21)

Mountains and Hills "sing" and Trees "clap their hands" (Is. 55.12)

A donkey "speaks" to a human (Nu. 22.21-39). Do animals speak like humans?

Should we take all these statements literally?

More importantly -- Jesus said the following:

"I have spoken these things [like personifying the spirit as a ‘helper’] to you in comparisons" [Other versions: analogies; figures of speech]." (John 16.25)

NIV: “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

Notice that Jesus left the "spirit" out when referencing the Father, curiously just a few words after talking about "the helper." This implies that the spirit was being personified figuratively as God’s advocate in the same chapter.

12

Holy Spirit

by Sergey Antonov in

jehovah's witnesses say that the holy spirit is inanimate.

but how then can you sin against the holy spirit, if he is not alive ?!

🤔 then it is more correct to say that it is not against the holy spirit, but against god..

Wonderment

Sergey Antonov asked: "But how then can you sin against the Holy Spirit, if he is not alive?!"

The King James Version say at James 3.14, "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth."

How could someone be warned to "lie not against the truth"? The "truth" is not a "he," nor is it a person, but somehow the biblical author made it sound like it was. Another version says: "Don't sin against the truth." (TEV, 1976)

‘Sinning against the truth’ does not make "the truth" a person. Does it?

Keeping with the context, it would be better to understand the expression as an allusion to the truth of the gospel. In other words, Christians are warned not to go against God's Word and its message.

50

How Would You Prove To A JW That They Are Wrong?

by minimus in

jw
friends

what could you say to prove to a witness that they simply do not have the truth?.

Wonderment

People generally do not move away from their ideological position (whether political or religious) unless they undergo an impacting negative experience on their own.

3

Stupid sign in's

by DwainBowman in

jw
friends

my eye site and all the stupid pictures make it a real pain to sign in!!!!

!.

Wonderment

I myself wish there was a less annoying way to sign in. I would not be surprised if some prospective posters hold back from submitting more posts because of this very thing. Any alrternatives?

40

Revised NWT in French released yesterday

by careful in

https://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/revised-nwt-released-french/ .

it looks like it may only be available electronically, that is, no printed version(?)..

is the german next?.

Wonderment

Spanish language differences among various countries is akin to the English language varieties found in USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

https://blogs.transparent.com/spanish/the-many-dialects-of-spanish-and-what-they-mean-for-language-learners/: "It’s true that, like in English, most native speakers of the many different dialects of Spanish understand each other with relative ease or by listening just a bit more closely. But also like a non-native learning English in New York City will struggle to understand a thick Scottish brogue, dialects of Spanish often feature differences that present challenges for learners....The majority of vocabulary and grammar differences in the Spanish-speaking world are between European Spanish and the Latin American dialects."

Even so, just as an English speaker form USA can travel to other English speaking countries, and be understood, so can the Spanish speaker from the Iberian peninsula travel to Latin America and communicate fairly well. Of course, there are a lot of local idioms and accents that may pose a challenge at times, but not a major one to prevent adequate communication.

In regards to Bible translations, most publishers make an effort to use universal Spanish, that is, Spanish that can be understood in most countries without much difficulty. There is no way a Bible publisher is going to produce Spanish versions for dozens of countries, when only one or two versions would suffice.

23

NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it

by LevelThePlayingField in

this is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.

they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.

but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7:

TD is right when he wrote: Whether Thomas was expressing orthodoxy (i.e. Jesus partakes of the Divine nature) or whether he was identifying Jesus with the person of God (Sabellianism) or whether he was using "lord" and "god" simply as honorifics (Arianism) are theological arguments that can't be resolved by translation alone.

Having Thomas exclaim of Jesus: My lord and my god (or, My Lord and my God) is the English way of saying what we have in the Greek text (The lord of me or the god of me; or: The Lord of me and the God of me.) English translations commonly drop the article because it is not necessary in translation, and it would not add any meaningful nuance.

That is why I pointed to Scriptures as John 17.3; 20.31 (we may add John 14.28; 20.17 to those) if we want to make the appropriate sense of Thomas declaration in the light of other Johannine statements. On the other hand, those who seek to portray Jesus as God will refer to John 1.1; 8.58; 10.30, etc., in mainstream versions to make their case.

23

NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it

by LevelThePlayingField in

this is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.

they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.

but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: "True in [John] 1:1 and in jn. 20:28 are different. In Jn 20 Thomas is identifying Jesus as The God."

If Thomas really acknowledged Jesus as "The God," should we not expect John the closest one to Jesus reach the same conclusion?

John wrote instead: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [not "The God"], and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20.31) Jesus being superior to us in every way, including having greater knowledge about the Creator, confessed in prayer: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17.3)

Now, if Jesus himself conceded that his Father was "the only true God," why would anyone prefer the bewildering exclamation of Thomas (which has been understood variously - q.v. C.F.D. Moule's quote above) over our Lord's direct and clear confession?

23

NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it

by LevelThePlayingField in

this is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.

they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.

but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.

Wonderment

venus: "I never knew this, and looked up the interlinear and found Thomas' statement as being literally: "ho theos mou" -- "the god of me." Very interesting point which flatly refutes JW reasoning which plays with article such as "a" and "the."

Not quite! The grammatical construction of John 20.28 and 1.1 are not equal. John 1.1c uses a simple anarthrous nominative form for theós, while John 20.28 combines an articular nominative in a genitive-vocative construct. There is also the matter of Semitic influence in the statement.

C.F.D. Moule explains: "In John xx.28...it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous [without the article]...; the article before [theós] may, therefore, not be significant.... Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense...the use of the article with a virtual Vocative (cf. John xx.28 referred to above...) may also be due to Semitic idiom." (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 116-17. Cambridge University Press)

17

The Most Hypocritical Talk I've ever heard

by javierjiminy in

pimo filmed a marking talk about him.

crazy how the many of things mentioned are the same thing the borg does, like brainwashing and indoctrinating.

what's crazier is how he's saying to the congregation not to do research or look up bad news articles because they are all "fake news.

Wonderment

The Watchtower conglomerate are using the same tactics the politicians use....Keep repeating a lie until it sticks.

Many people say they don't trust politicians one bit. However, they tend to fall for it, and engage in preaching the same lies as they do. Obviously, repeating lies works. The more a politician or religious preacher repeat the lie, the more likely is going to get embedded in people's psyche. Elections are won or lost based on misinformation. And religious bodies retain their members by the same practice. Speaking truth don't take you so far, nor preaching love will get you the free publicity.