please send me some e-books, about jws and the wbts practice and doctrines: critical literature, analysis etc.
pdfs, docs, and other ebook format.
for example franz's second book, the "captives of a concept" book and others.
Hi!
Please send me some e-books, about JWs and the WBTS practice and doctrines: critical literature, analysis etc. PDFs, DOCs, and other ebook format. For example Franz's second book, the "Captives of a Concept" book and others. May YOU have many of this in this subject.
Please send these to THIS email address.
Thanks.
this was brought up in the phillipians thread by johnathan dough (sp?
), he mentions how in 1john 5:20 jesus is caled god.. .
now, in the niv it goes like this:.
I John 5:20
I John 5:20 in the Greek and two editions of the NWT.
Westcott & Hort's Greek
ο?δαμεν δ? ?τι ? υ??ς το? θεο? ?κει κα? δ?δωκεν ?μ?ν δι?νοιαν ?να γιν?σκομεν τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν, κα? ?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν? ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ?. ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος.
NWT 1950 Edition
But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.
The NWT accepts the Westcott and Hort text without comment, and the 1950 rendering of I John 5:20 remains un-revised.
1. Analysis of the Greek Text
I John 5:20 occurs within the epilogue to John's first epistle, verses 13-21 (Hiebert 1990:309). Verse 13 explicitly states the purpose of the epistle; to foster assurance of eternal life through faith in Christ. Verses 14-17 describe believers' confidence in prayer and responsibility as intercessors on behalf of other believers in need of prayer on account of sin. Verses 18-20 summarize John’s message in three statements beginning with ο?δαμεν.
Verse 21, abruptly ends the epistle with an admonition against idolatry, in counterpoint to the references to the true God in v. 20.
I John 5:20 is complex, formed by two sentences. In the second sentence, θε?ς is arguably used in reference to Jesus Christ. Ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος prompts the relevant question for this research: to whom or what does ο?τ?ς refer? It is impossible to answer this question without analysing each part of the verse and the interrelatedness of the parts.
The verse can be naturally broken down into the following parts:
Verse 20a opens with the particle δ?, unlike the first two ο?δαμεν ?τι clauses, which stood alone. The δ? has the effect of connecting what is known in verse 20 with what is known in verse 19 (Griffith 2002:94). The force of the particle is “weak adversative” (2002:94) introducing the contrast to the two things known; “We know we are God’s children in the Evil one’s territory (v.19)” but, we need not be alarmed, because “we [furthermore] know that the son of God has come and . . . .” Because the Son of God has come, with all the implied consequences of His coming, it is not a crisis for the children of God to be present in the Evil one’s territory. The effect of the historic coming of the Son of God is durative (Olsson 1999:147), as seen by ?κει in the perfective present tense (Wallace 1996:533).
What is the first practical result of the coming of the Son of God? Verse 20b answers, “and he has given us understanding.” The perfect tense δ?δωκεν, conjoined to ?κει by κα?, pointing to the perfective force of ?κει; “The Son of God has come and has given us understanding.”
What is the result of this understanding which the Son has given? “. . . so that we know the True One” (v. 20:c). The Wescott and Hort text has γιν?σκομεν (indicative mood) rather than the expected γιν?σκωμεν20 (subjunctive mood).
If γιν?σκωμεν (subjunctive mood) is accepted as the favored reading, the ?να introduces a purpose clause (Griffith 2002:95), clarifying the purpose of the understanding which has been given in v. 20b; specifically “so that we might know . . .”
The UBS 4, NA 27, and Robinson-Pierpont GNT show no variant reading of γιν?σκωμεν, and Westcott and Hort offer no textual support. However, I shall follow the Wescott and Hort reading, as the NWT gives no explicit indication in footnotes that it has not done so. The NWT translation reads like the subjunctive γιν?σκωμεν. This will be addressed in the next section.
The use of the indicative mood forces the ?να clause to indicate result and not purpose (Hiebert 1990:325). The result of having been given understanding by the Son of God is that we know the true one. The object of this knowing is the masculine substantival adjective, τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν.
And who is this “true one?” Two options are available: namely, that the Son of God gave understanding so that (1) he himself, Jesus, is known, or (2) that God the Father, is known. Harris (1992:243) notes that “The Son’s mission is the revelation of the Father, not of himself.” Particularly, in the Johannine context, the Son came into the world (John 1:14) to make the true God (John 17:3) known to those who had not seen Him (John 1:18; John 14:6-9). It is almost certain that τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν here refers to God the Father, and not to Jesus Christ.
I John 5:20d begins with κα?, describing a further result of the understanding given by the Son of God; that along with “knowing the True One” (v. 20c), “we are in the True One” (?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν?). In the absence of an explicit signal that τ? ?ληθιν? is referring to someone other than τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν of verse 20c, one must assume the same referent, God the Father. Had John employed δ? rather than κα?, a change in referent might be inferred, allowing an interpretation of τ? ?ληθιν? as referring to Christ. However, verse 20e strengthens the case for τ? ?ληθιν? to refer to God the Father.
In what respect are we “in the True One?” We are in the True One as we are in the Son of the True One (?ν τ? υ?? α?το?), and that Son is ?ησο? Χριστ? (in epexegetical apposition to τ? υ?? α?το?).
The KJV takes the entire phrase ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ? as appositional to the preceding phrase κα? ?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν?, rendered “and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.” This interpretation is problematic, as it essentially requires τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν of v. 20c to refer to Christ. In this view, Christ the Son of God, gave us understanding, so we know Christ the True One, who is His (The Father's) Son. This renders τ? υ?? α?το? otiose, as he was already identified as the Son of God in v. 20a.
If, however, τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν and τ? ?ληθιν? refer to the Father, then the phrase ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ? makes perfect sense as a description of the means by or manner in which we know and are in the True One: by virtue of our inclusion by faith (1 John 5:11-12) in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is reflective of the verse19; we are safe in enemy territory because as children of God, we are in the Son of God, and greater is the one who is in us, than the one who is in the world (I John 4:4). Our union with Christ preserves us in the world as we await eternal life.
Before addressing the final sentence in I John 5:20, I note Olsson's (1999:152) observation:
“Interpreted in its context 5.20 calls to mind the dualistic nature of the Johannine presentation of God. The true God is contrasted with idols in 5.20-21, the Son of God is contrasted with the evil one in 5.18, and existence in the evil one [or his realm] is contrasted in him who is true in 5.19-20 (brackets added).”
The last sentence of I John 5:20 makes an emphatic assertion; ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος. That ζω? is anarthrous indicates it is to be taken together with ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς. Whoever is the true God, is also eternal life. The question must be answered, does ο?τ?ς refer to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ?
Bultmann (1973:90) offers the grammatical argument, “ο?τ?ς (‘this one’), in its position after the phrase ‘in his Son Jesus Christ,’ cannot refer to God, but only to Jesus Christ, although the preceding ?ν τ? ?ληθιν? (‘in the true one’) can refer only to God.” His rather decisive statement assumes that grammatically, ο?τ?ς must refer to its most immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ. Robertson (1947:702) advocates the general rule of interpreting ο?τ?ς as referring to its nearest antecedent, yet in the case of this verse, believes ο?τ?ς refers to God the Father (Harris 1992:247). Mounce (2003:117) acknowledges that context is sometimes the determining factor for understanding the antecedent of a relative pronoun.
Other arguments for taking Jesus Christ as the referent of ο?τ?ς are that (1) whereas Jesus is identified as “the life” (Jn. 11:25; 14:6) and the source of life (Jn. 1:4) and eternal life (I Jn. 5:11) in Johannine documents, the Father is nowhere else given the predicate ζω?; and (2) ?ληθιν?ς is applied attributively to Jesus five times in Johannine documents, and this attributive construction may signal a shift in subject from the Father to Christ (Harris 1992:248); and (3) John has called Jesus “God” in John 1:1; 1:18: and (quoting Thomas) in 20:28, and therefore, this usage should not seem strange.
The arguments for God the Father as the referent of ο?τ?ς are that (1) the relative pronoun is referring to the dominant logical subject of the verse (God the Father) rather than to the immediate antecedent, or to the grammatical subject (? υ??ς); (2) repetition (of ?ληθιν?ς in this case) is a “characteristic of John” (Hiebert 1990:326); (3) The Father as source of the life one finds in the Son is attested to in John 5:26, and more immediately in I John 5:11; (4) Jesus calls the Father τ?ν μ?νον ?ληθιν?ν θε?ν in John 17:3. Ferreira points out that “the one true God” in John 17:3 has been taken as more Pauline, than Johannine language, and that John 17:3 may be a later emendation to the text. There is no textual evidence for this theory. Furthermore, knowing this “One True God” is eternal life (α?τη δ? ?στιν ? α??νιος ζω? ?να γιν?σκωσιν σε τ?ν μ?νον ?ληθιν?ν θε?ν . . .), as in I John 5:20; and (5) perhaps most importantly, the reference to the “true God” in verse 20 establishes the context for its antithesis in verse 21, Τεκν?α, φυλ?ξατε ?αυτ? ?π? τ?ν ε?δ?λων. If John is contrasting idols with Jesus Christ, it is without parallel.
Smalley (1984:308) believes the lack of crystallizing evidence may betray a deliberate ambivalence on John’s part. While this may be possible, and while John certainly communicates the interconnected involvement of Father and Son in the eternal life of the believer (Strecker 1996:211), this position ignores the singularity of ο?τ?ς, ?στιν, ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς, and ζω? α??νιος, and seems to take an “easy way out” of a difficult decision.
Bennett (1910:319) sees a possible broader Trinitarian implication, taking the anointing of I John 2:27 as a Holy Spirit reference that might be connected with the “understanding” given by Christ. The result of Bennett's theory is that the references to ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς are to be seen as references to the Godhead. This seems unlikely, as John had the word ? θε?της available to him had he wished to state, “This is the true Godhead and eternal life.”
I concur with Harris (1992:253) that God the Father is the probable referent of ο?τ?ς. I base this conclusion on the argument in the immediate context of the verse. Specifically, that (1) the Son of God has come, and (2) has given us understanding, (3) so consequently (a) we know the true God (whose Son gave us understanding), and (b) we are in the true God, (4) by virtue of being in the Son of the true God. (5) This one is the true God and eternal life, and we are in the true God and have eternal life by virtue of being in His son (vv. 11-12), who has given us understanding of the true God. In light of this, O children of the true God, keep yourselves from idols (v. 21).
As Brooke (1912:153) states, “The God who completely fulfils the highest conception of Godhead is the God who has been revealed in Christ Jesus, as contrasted with all false conceptions of God, against which the readers are warned in the next verse.”
I acknowledge the merits of Wallace’s position (1996:327), that (1) grammar cannot decisively decide this issue, and (2) there are no grammatical reasons to preclude Jesus Christ as the referent of ο?τ?ς. The strength of argument for each of the two available positions seems weighty enough to make dogmatism in either case unwise if not unwarranted. It is certainly possible that θε?ς is used in reference to Jesus Christ in I John 5:20. However, I believe it is more likely that θε?ς refers to God the Father in I John 5:20.
2. Critique of the NWT’s Exegesis
The NWT’s treatment of I John 5:20 is generally consistent with the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis. The rendering of the verse indicates that the NWT translators believe ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος refers to God the Father and not to Jesus Christ.
3. Critique of the NWT's Consistency with the Translators’ Stated Philosophy and Values of Translation
There are no noteworthy inconsistencies with the translators’ stated philosophy and values of translation.
4. Conclusions
There is sufficient evidence to support the positions of both those who believe θε?ς in I John 5:20f refers to God the Father and those who believe the referent is Jesus Christ. Also, there is a lack of decisive evidence to disqualify either position.
As such, while I John 5:20 may be considered as evidence of the NT calling Jesus Christ God, it should not be considered as definitive evidence. More clear texts are available for settling this issue.
The NWT’s treatment of the verse is generally within the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis.
i owe this question entirely to hadit but i cannot get this thought out of my head.
all i heard growing up was that we have to call god jehovah because they are many god's, this way jehovah knows we are trying to speak to him.
that is just one of many reasons the fds and wt say to why we much call him jehovah.
Becasuse of the JW 'two-class salvation doctrine'. The members of the so-called 'earthly class' are not adopted as the children of God, so the cannot call God their Father properly. So only calling him 'Jehovah' remained.
True christians are all born-again as children of God, so they call God as Father.
Shame on Rutherford's damned heretic idea invented in 1935!
my younger brother recently moved in with me.
for the past 5 years he has done really nothing but abuse substance.
cocaine, alcohol cigarettes etc.
What's wrong withe word 'grace' ? Why don't the NWT use this word? Do they want to creat a new language to control the minds, like the Orwells' Newspeak?
have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?
think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.
on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.
Watchtowerist and Communist paradise
have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?
think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.
on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.
have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?
think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.
on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.
Have you ever wondered about the similarity of the Watchtower-style and Communist propaganda? Think about the "Years' text" on Kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies. On communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "Long live the socialism" etc. Here are sem pictures. Look at the idealised smiling characters, for they are happy to be faithful JWs/communists. In communism there were buzzwords for the enemy like Kulak, imperialist etc. Just like in the WT regime: apostates, opposers, unbelievers...
what this i hear?.
bethelites whisperings in my ear?.
what branch?
These texts on Kingdom Halls' walls is like catchwords of the old communist party assemblies. On those assemblies there were always some short sentences like "Long live the Soviet friendship!" or "Be faithful to the great marxist party" etc.
is the doctrine of hell a hindrance or a help in witnessing?
many evangelicals are ashamed of this biblical doctrine, viewing it as a blemish to be covered up by the cosmetic of divine love.
but this dishonors gods word.
Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17 - John the Baptist said the Lord will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This unquenchable fire is the state of eternal separation from God, which the Church has called "hell" for 2,000 years. Some Protestant communities no longer acknowledge the reality of hell.
Matt. 25:41 - Jesus says, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matt. 25:46 - Jesus says, "they will go away into eternal punishment" which is in reference to this eternal fire.
Mark 9:47-48 - Jesus refers to hell as where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It lasts forever.
2 Thess. 1:6-9 - the angels will come with flaming fire and the disobedient will suffer punishment of eternal destruction. It is important to note that "destruction" does not mean "annihilation," as some Protestant denominations teach. It means eternal exclusion from the presence of God.
Jude 6-7 - the rebelling angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 14:11 - the worshipers of the beast suffer and the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever.
Rev. 20:10 - they're tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone day and night forever and ever.
Isaiah 33:14 - "Who of us can dwell in the everlasting fire?" This is a reference to hell which is forever.
Isaiah 66:24 - their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched. We cannot fathom the pain of this eternal separation from God.
Jer. 15:14 - in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn forever. Hell is the proper compliment to the eternal bliss of heaven.
Judith 16:17 - in the day of judgment the Lord will take vengeance on the wicked and they shall weep in pain forever. Hell is a place that sinners have prepared for themselves by rejecting God, who desires all people to be saved in His Son Jesus Christ. God sends no one to hell.
is the doctrine of hell a hindrance or a help in witnessing?
many evangelicals are ashamed of this biblical doctrine, viewing it as a blemish to be covered up by the cosmetic of divine love.
but this dishonors gods word.
You all should read this book from Stewart Salmond
