Posts by scholar

164

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

by slimboyfat in

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:.

scholar

aqwswed12345

Your objection rests on the claim that the anarthrous "theos" (without a definite article) in John 1:1c is qualitative, and you emphasize that the New World Translation (NWT) reflects this understanding correctly by rendering it as "a god." You also argue that calling the Word "divine" is merely describing a quality of the Word rather than identifying Him as God.

-----

Note what one notable Catholic commentary by an Australian Catholic theologian says regarding the translation and commentary of John1:1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was turned toward God, and what God was the Word also was"

'This verse concludes with a description of the consequences of the intense intimacy between the Word and God. Although the traditional translation is "and the Word was God", there is a danger that this might lead the contemporary reader of the English text to collapse the Word and God into one: they are both God. The author has gone to considerable trouble to indicate that an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided. The Greek sentence (kai theos en ho logos) places the complement (theos:God) before 'to be' and does not give it an article. It is extremely difficult to catch this nuance in English , but the author avoids saying that the Word and God were one and the same thing. The translation 'what God was the Word also was' indicates that the Word and God retain their uniqueness, despite their oneness that flows from their inimacy' - Sacra Pagina, The Gospel of John , Francis J. Moloney, SDB,1998, pp.33,35, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota,

Such difficulty is nicely resolved by the NWT's rendering for the Anarthrous Nominative predicative noun-theos in John 1:1 as the indefinite, qualitative ' a god' or 'divine'.

-----

You accuse Catholic theologians of being influenced by Neo-Platonism, suggesting that this influence is what drives their theological conclusions. However, this is a misrepresentation of Church doctrine. The affirmation of the Word's full divinity in John 1:1c is rooted in the biblical and historical understanding of the Christian faith, long predating Neo-Platonism. While some philosophical terms were later adopted to clarify the nature of the Trinity, the core belief that the Word is fully divine (not "a god") comes from the apostolic teaching itself.

Absolutely not! Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism which predates Nicea and was the current philosophical doctrine at that time which influenced some of the Church Fathers. You acknowledge this by the fact that there was an adoption of many Greek and Latin terms from Greek philosophy later incorporated in Church doctrine or theology prior to and after Nicea.

scholar JW

University of Sydney

Department of Religion

164

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

by slimboyfat in

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:.

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

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:.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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