Posts by SharonUT

4

Hebrews 9:28 & "Appear"

by SharonUT in

i am trying to understand upon what basis the jehovah's witnesses equate the word "appear" with "invisible" in hebrews 9:28. in the kjv it says, "so christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.".

looking at the dictionary:.

[middle english aperen, from old french aparoir, aper-, from latin apprre : ad-, ad- + prre, to show.

SharonUT

Larsguy - are you a JW? I'm confused here.

10

El & Yahweh

by SharonUT in

who do jehovah's witnesses say they are?

do they say they are both jehovah?

also, is the new world translation bible on-line to look at?

SharonUT

Thank you. Would you explain to me who El/Eloheim (etc...) is in scripture? Also, do JW's consider Yahweh to be the correct spelling and pronounciation of Jehovah?

22

Baptism in whose name?

by SharonUT in

if this has been answered before, just point me in the right direction.

matthew 28:19 says to be baptized in the "name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.

" what is the justification used in jehovah's witnesses changing this.

SharonUT

Thanks for all information and opinions. I've never run across anything to indicate Matthew 28:19 was altered. Shouldn't we accept the sciprture unless it is proven dubious such as 1 John 5:7? I think this is a very slippery slope. What are the exact words used in a JW baptism nowdays? Also, I do not have a NWT... so would somebody be kind enough to quote Matthew 28:19 from their NWT for me to read.

10

El & Yahweh

by SharonUT in

who do jehovah's witnesses say they are?

do they say they are both jehovah?

also, is the new world translation bible on-line to look at?

SharonUT

Oh my gosh - I just typed a bunch of stuff and it got deleted because I didn't have a field filled in right. Here I go again...

Further proof that variant readings affect important passages comes from Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In the MT, as it is translated in the KJV, the passage reads as follows:

"When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

However, it has long been known from the Septaugint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the phrase "according to the number of the children of Israel" used to read "according to the number of the sons of God."

In the RSV, which takes into account the confirming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the passage reads like this:

"When the Most High [El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

The significance of this variation is that in ancient times the term "sons of God" frequetly referred to members of a divine assembly of gods. The ancient Hebrews believed in a divine council of deities headed by the supreme father-god El (also called Elohim or El Elyon), and they often referred to the members of this council as "the sons of God." There is considerable disagreement among scholars over the council's composition, but there is no serious question that a belief in a divine assembly of heavenly deities was an important doctrine in ancient Hebrew theology (Eissfeldt; Mullen; Hayman; Morgenstern; Hanson 39; Clifford; Ackerman; Ackroyd; Seaich 1983:9-23).

By changing "the sons of God" to "the children of Israel," someone was deliberately trying to eliminate the reference to the divine council.

The LXX and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Deut. 32:8-9 portray Yahweh as separate from El and as a member of the divine assembly subordinate to Him. As Niels Lemche says, "the Greek version apparently ranges Yahweh among the sons of the Most High, that is, treats him as a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon" (pg. 226).

According to Harvard University's Paul Hanson, "This verse no doubt preserves early Israel's view of her place within the family of nations. The high god "Elyon" originally apportioned the nations to the members of the divine assembly ... Israel was allotted to Yahweh."

As the RSV put in, Israel was Yahweh's "alotted inheritance," given (or "allotted") to Him by His Father, El.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Septagint prove that in the original Hebrew of Deut. 32:8-9, Yahweh was portrayed as a member of the divine council under El. Therefore, those who subsequently tampered with the Hebrew text were probably Yahweh-only editors who wanted to erase the original distinction between El and Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God.

22

Baptism in whose name?

by SharonUT in

if this has been answered before, just point me in the right direction.

matthew 28:19 says to be baptized in the "name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.

" what is the justification used in jehovah's witnesses changing this.

SharonUT

Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost... but I don't equate that with the "trinity." Still, I was wondering the JW view on this?

4

Hebrews 9:28 & "Appear"

by SharonUT in

i am trying to understand upon what basis the jehovah's witnesses equate the word "appear" with "invisible" in hebrews 9:28. in the kjv it says, "so christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.".

looking at the dictionary:.

[middle english aperen, from old french aparoir, aper-, from latin apprre : ad-, ad- + prre, to show.

SharonUT

I am trying to understand upon what basis the Jehovah's Witnesses equate the word "appear" with "invisible" in Hebrews 9:28. In the KJV it says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he APPEAR the second time without sin unto salvation."

Looking at the dictionary:
[Middle English aperen, from Old French aparoir, aper-, from Latin apprre : ad-, ad- + prre, TO SHOW.]

Synonyms: appear, emerge, issue, loom, 1materialize, show

These verbs mean to come into view: a ship appearing on the horizon; a star that emerged from behind a cloud; a diver issuing from the water; a peak that loomed through the mist; a job offer that materialized overnight; a shirtsleeve showing at the edge of the
jacket. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
appear \Ap*pear"\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Appeared; p. pr. & vb. n. Appearing.] [OE. apperen, aperen, OF. aparoir, F. apparoir, fr. L. appar?re to appear + par?reto come forth, to be visible; prob. from the same root as par?re to produce. Cf. Apparent, Parent, Peer, v. i.] 1. TO COME OR BE IN SIGHT; TO BE IN VIEW; TO BECOME VISIBLE.

1. And God . . . said, Let . . . the dry land APPEAR. --Gen. i. 9.

2. To stand in presence of some authority, tribunal, or superior person, to answer a charge, plead a cause, or the like; to present one's self as a party or advocate before a court, or as a person to be tried.

3. We must all APPEAR before the judgment seat. --[hand] Cor. v. 10.

One ruffian escaped because no prosecutor dared to appear. --Macaulay.

4. To become visible to the apprehension of the mind; to be known as a subject of observation or comprehension, or as a thing proved; to be obvious or manifest.

It doth not yet appear what we shall be. --1 John iii. 2.

Of their vain contest appeared no end. --Milton.

5. To seem; to have a certain semblance; to look.

They disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. --Matt. vi. 16.

Syn: To seem; look. See Seem.

appear v 1: give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect; "She seems to be sleeping"; "This appears to
be a very difficult problem"; "This project looks fishy"; "They appeared like people who had not eaten or slept for a
long time" [syn: look, seem] 2: come into sight or view; "He suddenly appeared at the wedding"; "A new star
appeared on the horizon" [ant: disappear] 3: be issued or published, as of news in a paper, a book, or a movie; "Did
your latest book appear yet?" "The new Woody Allen film hasn't come out yet" [syn: come out] 4: seem to be true,
probable, or apparent; "It seems that he is very gifted"; "It appears that the weather in California is very bad" [syn:
seem] 5: come into being or existence, or appear on the scene: "Then the computer came along and changed our
lives"; "Homo sapiens appeared millions of years ago" [syn: come along] [ant: vanish] 6: appear as a character on
stage or appear in a play, etc.; "Gielgud appears briefly in this movie"; "She appeared in `Hamlet' on the London
stage" 7: present oneself formally, as before a (judicial) authority; "He had to appear in court last month"; "She
appeared on several charges of theft"

I don't get it. If they insist that it is an "invisible appearance" - then how can Revelations 1:7 be true saying that "Behold he cometh with clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM: AND ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM...." How can we "SEE" an invisible appearance? How can those who "pierced him" "SEE" Him if they are in "soul sleep?" Thanks.

22

Baptism in whose name?

by SharonUT in

if this has been answered before, just point me in the right direction.

matthew 28:19 says to be baptized in the "name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.

" what is the justification used in jehovah's witnesses changing this.

SharonUT

If this has been answered before, just point me in the right direction.

Matthew 28:19 says to be baptized in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." What is the justification used in Jehovah's Witnesses changing this. Is there scriptural reasoning? Thanks.

4

Coming vs. Presence

by SharonUT in

as i have studied the kjv, matthew 24:3 uses the word "coming" in the same way matthew 21:5 does.

matthew 24:3: "and as he sat upon the mount of olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, tell us, when shall these things be?

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

SharonUT

As I have studied the KJV, Matthew 24:3 uses the word "coming" in the same way Matthew 21:5 does.

Matthew 24:3: "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy COMING, and of the end of the world?"

Matthew 21:5 "Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King COMETH unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass."

Both times in these scriptures - the word used here means "an official royal visit" and not "presence". Is this incorrect? Thanks.

10

El & Yahweh

by SharonUT in

who do jehovah's witnesses say they are?

do they say they are both jehovah?

also, is the new world translation bible on-line to look at?

SharonUT

Who do Jehovah's Witnesses say they are? Do they say they are both Jehovah? Also, is the New World Translation Bible on-line to look at? Also, in the LXX and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9... Yahweh is portrayed as separate from El and as a member of the divine assembly subordinante to Him. The variation between the original and altered text is significant because by the changes made, someone was deliberately trying to eliminate the reference to the divine council and also erase the original distinction between El & Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God. What is made of this all? Thanks.

10

Accepted 66 books of Canon

by SharonUT in

considering an apostacy that was well into swing by 100ad, and worse yet by the time the nicene council was held in 325ad... how are jehovah's witnesses sure about the basically protestant canon they initially accepted which was canonized about 376ad at earlist and still even then, many christians didn't agree upon that and still don't today!

i could go into more detail if desired... but upon what basis to jw's accept this canon from an apostate generation?

how do they know that other books such as the book of enoch originally held to be scripture and quoted frequently in mark or the shepherd of hermes should not be included as inspired?

SharonUT

Considering an apostacy that was well into swing by 100AD, and worse yet by the time the Nicene Council was held in 325AD... how are Jehovah's Witnesses sure about the basically Protestant canon they initially accepted which was canonized about 376AD at earlist and still even then, many Christians didn't agree upon that and still don't today! I could go into more detail if desired... but upon what basis to JW's accept this canon from an apostate generation? How do they know that other books such as the Book of Enoch originally held to be scripture and quoted frequently in Mark or the Shepherd of Hermes should not be included as inspired? There are many works that the apostles considered scripture as well as the early church fathers that aren't in the 66 books. I just don't get it. Did Charles Taze Russell have some sort of revelation about these 66 books only? Thanks.