scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,054 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  164

  How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

  but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

  new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  aqwsed12345

  In John 1:1, the context clearly refers to the divine nature of the Word (Logos). The statement "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" ("and the Word was God") affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The capitalization of "God" in English reflects the qualitative nature of the Greek construction, where "theos" without the article is used to emphasize divine essence rather than to suggest a second, lesser god.

  ---

  Bunkum! The context clearly shows that the anarthrous theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is not only indefinite as the noun omits the definite article but it is also qualitative.Wisely, the NWT Committee. stated in the Appendix article on John 1:1 in 1950 the following: "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos 'was divine' is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God".

  It would appear that you and your Roman Catholic theologians some being mystics have been influenced by Neo-Platonism originated with Plotinus which accounts for the theological mumbo-jumbo dressed up as biblical theology but is nothing but Mysticism rather than sound Biblical scholarship, presented in the 'celebrated' NWT -the most brilliant translation of the Bible ever made which puts modern scholars to shame.

  scholar JW

  University of Sydney

  
  
• 
  164

  How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

  but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

  new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  aqwsed12345

  A prime example is the rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT as "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God." This translation violates standard Greek grammar and has been rejected by mainstream biblical scholars across various denominations. The translation reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Christ's deity rather than a "fresh" or "innocent" reading of the text. Similar issues arise with their translation of Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted to suggest that Christ is a created/made being (while according to the NT the Son is born/begotten), despite the absence of the term in the Greek text.

  ---

  Utter nonsense! The NWT's rendering of John1:1 does not violate any rules of Greek grammar.A careful study of any published greek grammars right up to the present would confirm that the rendering 'a god' or 'divine' is accurate and theologically acceptable. there have many articles published in academic journals on this subject and again there is no real problem with this particular rendering in this instance of theos.

  I studied NT Greek under the tutelage of Dr. John A Lee at the University of Sydney for the sole purpose of understanding this subject and was letter from Dr. Lee was given to the class which contained his opinion of the translation of this verse which stated that grammar alone cannot settle this issue but comes down to interpretation.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.

  --

  What is odd is that you are unable to recognize the difference between an opinion and dogmatism. The fact is that as with your contrivance as with Young's discussion, both are based on some assumptions hence an opinion.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.

  --

  The matter is further complicated by debate about the length of the siege of Jerusalem. Further, I have just accessed the book by Robb Andrew Young who supports 587 BCE rather than 586. In his study on page 21 he states "The correct date of 587 BCE for the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is substantiated by examination of the exile of Jehoiachin".Then in the very next paragraph, he begins "It is thus preferable, in my opinion, to date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE".

  Methinks rather an odd comment considering he discusses the subject at some length of som 4 pages with extensive footnotes.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.

  ---

  On the other hand for a beginning date for the siege against Jerusalem we see this:

  Jeffro -27 January 589 BCE

  Thiele- 15 January 588 BCE

  Lipschits - early January 587 BCE

  Finegan - 15 Jan 588 BCE

  Steinmann - 27 January 589 BCE - Tuesday

  Jones - 588 BCE 3416 AM

  Jonsson -, January 589 BCE

  scholar JW
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??

  --

  The said scholar teaches the subject with great gusto in the field ministry.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism.

  --

  You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  See how ‘scholar’ continues to bleat with empty words but fails to demonstrate either an understanding of the material or any refutation of any premises (fallacy: poisoning the well). He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).

  --

  The said scholar does not deal in empty words or speech for he simply observes that your contrivance is just one of so many attempting to prove either 586 or 587 BCE ending up proving no such thing. The fact is that despite the numerous charts, books on chronology, and academic journal articles no scholar today knows the precise date for the fall except Jehovah's Witnesses by means of those 'celebrated' WT scholars.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  See, ‘scholar’ admits that it is impossible to refute my proof of 587 BCE. Unless he supposes that a subsequent statement of his places that statement in a particular context. But that would make him a dishonest hypocrite. 🦆

  --

  It is impossible to refute your 'proof' of 587 as it is your contrivance based on your assumptions and methodology. The only way by which your contrivance can be disproved is by having no assumptions but knowing for certain the calendrical system and regnal dating system used by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. However, Biblical chronology based on events rather than regnal dates as part of a calendar is much simpler and falsifies 586 and 587 BCE dates for the Fall.is the far superior methodology.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Indeed, rather than tedious debate based on conjecture, I provide logical premises based on data in the source material to reach logical conclusions. Complain all you like, but if you want to say the conclusions are incorrect, you need to identify errors in the logic.

  --

  But all that you have posted on your blog concerning 587 is simply conjecture and assumptions no matter how logical it may appear to you, do not make it so. A contrivance composed pf pretty coloured charts unlike the stark black and white of Thiele is what it is.

  scholar JW