So we ought to be organising a ceremony to mark the centenary of one of the not-so-great works of literature?
(Sorry guys, I am rather prone to understatement!)
hello everyone i wish everyone a good day and many good prayers to all.
as a newcomer here 2nd post overall.
and i have to approach this subject of this book, now i know this book has been talked about on this site a while ago, but i had to bring it back up as most still in jw's know today is the first day of them doing the memorial preaching work.
So we ought to be organising a ceremony to mark the centenary of one of the not-so-great works of literature?
(Sorry guys, I am rather prone to understatement!)
from an apologist site:.
http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.
hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .
Some good creative accounting at work here, together with the old principle of "Never Let The Facts Get In The Way of a Bloody Good Story!"
The real question is:
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses choose to accept 537BC and count backwards, instead of accepting 587BC and counting forward?
When you put it like that, it does indeed come over as a thoroughly back-to-front way of doing things!
PS: Where is old DJ Damnfool Eggnog when you need him?
does the rank and file or the elders view us as disassociated or disfellowshipped or simply "weak" or possibly a "prodigal son" type?.
In the same way they haven't contacted you, it sounds as though you haven't contact ed them.
That is quite correct - as far as it goes.
However, at the conclusion of our last meeting, this person voluntarily left further such meetings firmly in his "ball court", as the saying goes. His - not mine.
does the rank and file or the elders view us as disassociated or disfellowshipped or simply "weak" or possibly a "prodigal son" type?.
Last year, I was able to spend a pleasant afternoon with an old friend, who is now an elder in one of the local congregations. However, we have heard no more from he and his wife - probably as they have learned of my "official status" amongst the JWs!
does the rank and file or the elders view us as disassociated or disfellowshipped or simply "weak" or possibly a "prodigal son" type?.
Very definitely as a lower form of life!
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
when the noun lacks the definite article it is up to the translator to translate definite or indefinite depending on the context.
And accurately performing that "translation" requires more than just a superficial understanding of Koine Greek grammar and its nuances. Definitely not for the amatuer to attempt! (or some college dropout such as FW Franz).
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
Again, more than a superficicial knowledge of Koine Greek grammar is required to accurately determine what is going on here.
Despite having a surfeit of time on my hands at the moment, I don't intend to wade my way through the 50-odd pages of Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that deal with both this matter and how it relates to John 1:1
(even if our local library had a copy of this work, which they haven't).
obviously, trump doesn't.
but do you?
do you think that they are generally fair, unbiased and honest?.
Our local media appears to be reasonably accurate as far as it goes - but only as far as it goes!
By that I mean it typically provides a very superficial coverage of a very few headline-grabbing events, but then has absolutely no follow up news after the initial report. The whole effect is to leave a person feeling much like they have been completely left in the dark.
It is difficult to know where to turn in order to keep reasonably well informed. Not the local news media, anyway (perhaps I should resume reading of Awake! Sorry, just kidding).
So far, the best I have been able to come up with is the reading of periodicals that deal with specific matters, rather than general news. In my case, this principally means the regular reading of engineering and technical publications, such as Create, the journal of the Institute of Engineers, Australia. Such publications do deal with a surprising variety of subjects, and at a much greater depth than could ever be obtained from an eight-second sound bite on TV.
I remain, however, open to suggestions!
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
An interesting take on what seems will always be an everlasting point of contention!
Certainly, almost all scholars are in agreement that the NWT's rendering of the second part of the statement as "and the Word was a god" is taking excessive liberties.
However, determining what the Bible writer actually meant in John 1:1 does require more than a superficial understanding of the grammatical structure and nuances of the Koine Greek language - particularly as to how this relates to the use (or not) of the definite article.
For example, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, includes an complete 50 pages dealing entirely with just with the use of the definite article. (This section is entitled "The Article - Part 1"). Furthermore, he then goes on with a further 15 pages that apply directly just to John 1:1. The outcome of this dissection of that verse is very much one of "nature and essence" rather than identity:
- i.e. The Bible writer is here saying that "The Word" is of the same nature and essence as God, but he is not saying that "The Word" and God are one and the same being (not in this verse, anyway!).
Given this, it would seem very few translations of The Bible render John 1:1 correctly. Most render the second part as ".... and The Word was God." According to most informed commentators of the Bibilcal Languages, that is no more correct than the New World Translation's "and the Word was a god".
Just saying, anyway! (Certainly don't intend to re-open the 2000 year old dispute over whether or not God is a Trinity)
hi, everyone.. i haven't posted here much in quite a while, but having just been laid low by injury, i'll likely be a frequent visitor for some time to come!.
two weeks ago, i was involved in a workplace accident that left me with my lower l.h.
leg fractured in three places (the tibia and fibular both broken clean through, plus another crack in the "neck" of the fibular for good measure!
At my next hospital appointment, which is scheduled for next Tuesday, they will be fitting me out with a fibreglass cast of the type commonly referred to as a "moonboot". After that, I ought to be able to venture a bit further outside the house (to say nothing of being able to take a proper shower!).
Fortunately, the pain has been controllable with nothing more than paracetamol and asprin. (Except immediately after the injury occurred - when the paramedics administered a double-shot of morphine before the rescue operation commenced!) I have been also given a supply of something more potent, a type of synthetic codiene. However, that stuff plays havoc with ones intestinal tract, so I try to avoid having to use those tablets!
My employer has been wonderfully supportive, to the extent of this morning sending one of the junior staff around to mow my lawns. A full accident investigation has been initiated, both internally (as per company requirements), and externally (as per statutory requirements).
I had managed to last 62 years without ever breaking a bone, despite having played rugby football, crashed motorbikes and been thrown from horses. Just goes to show that - like most cliches - the one about there "Always Being a First TimeFor Everything" is quite true!