Posts by Blotty

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Smiddy..
not too be rude but sometimes its worth taking a look from someone else's perspective, now granted I'm not sure either how you would come to that conclusion, but then again I don't know how some people come to the conclusion raised in my second question either..
My running theory would be either a misunderstanding OR Kaleb has only seen "pro" (or neutral, which can come off "pro") JW posts on this website (somehow)

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Kaleb said" I failed to note that this was a pro-Jehovah's Witness, pro-New World Translation site/thread."
some like the NWT, others on this site don't... This website is not pro JW in the least.. some are some aren't.. its a matter of opinion really

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Welcome Kaleb!

Slimboy said "Does modern Hebrew even have an agreed pronunciation for the divine name?"

I suppose another question is does Hebrew still omit vowels?

I just realised how messy and convoluted this post is.. I do apologise

Kaleb said "The oldest copies of the LXX don't have the Divine Name."
Interesting (again from my very limited research, I'm in no position to debate this topic, hence the question)
- I have seen online in multiple places that the name does appear in some versions of the LXX dated to the 2nd (or 3rd century)
The rest I cannot debate you on as I haven't done enough research, someone more equipped can do that..
tbh I am inclined to accept the JW evidence based on the name, but BOTH sides make good points - The most common reason, (thats not said, but quite obvious) is that if the divine name in not in the NT, it would make it far easier to establish the trinity..
(Im neutral on this subject, even though that may come off as leaning towards the JW)

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

I am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, I do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (This information is as far as I am aware and may be incorrect in places)

As most know the NWT is known for placing a form of the divine name in the NT (New Testament) - While I agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the NT, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)
Rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)
early copies of the LXX contain the divine name (likely the versions that the NT writers copied? Stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)
It was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) Forever - if this is true, Why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?

Some also claim the NWT is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "Lord" as the divine name - common ones I notice are: Phil 2:10-11, 1Pe 3:14-15, Heb 1:10
yet these all use "Lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most often

Scholar qualifications:
Why does a scholars qualification's matter? sounds dumb I know. But shouldn't there work be judged based on fact and quality not on their qualification specifically? The Catholics tried this one ages ago and made everyone think you needed 5000 different qualifications to translate the bible.. that didn't end too well.
yet from my experience a certain area of Christendom seems to place more emphasis on whether a scholar has something in the specific language or they are "quoted" by others.. just seems odd too me and very closed minded

28

An interesting Observation of some Bibles

by Blotty in

first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

Blotty

Slimboy

"As you mention, some argue that the word archē here doesn’t mean “beginning”, but “ruler”, and others “origin”. Yet the go-to scholarly Greek lexicon (known by the initials BDAG) in the latest edition says that it means “beginning” in this verse."

Not only that but nowhere does John use Arkhe to mean "ruler" (or "origin") for that he always uses the object noun "Arkhon".. Luke only proves arkhe can mean "ruler" but the difference is ALL Luke's occurrence's are evident from the context used (similar to plural unity).. so the argument used about Rev 3:14 (and the others ) is erroneous purely based on that fact alone..

Jhine:

"I see no evidence for this in the Bible so where does this come from?"

On Jesus being Michael the archangel.. the similarities between the two are amazing.. just as Jesus and Wisdom are described very similarly.. The evidence on him being the archangel is even more likely based 1 thes 4:16 - Why come with a lesser authority than what you already have? Stafford I believe has a really indepth video on this subject

(I may go into more detail on this at another time, this is all I will say for now)

Hooberus:

"So when attacking the personhood of the Spirit, they appeal to wisdom in proverbs “not” being actually a person."

I don't think attacking is the right word..

secondly many things are personified in the bible.. as was the holy spirit (Slimboy and Wonderment are ones who have made several comments on this subject)

The gender of nouns really doesn't matter for personification.. There are many other gender conflicting examples in the bible of "personification" - one need not search too far..

28

An interesting Observation of some Bibles

by Blotty in

first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

Blotty

Earnest, Thank you very much for this information
& everyone else

28

An interesting Observation of some Bibles

by Blotty in

first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

Blotty

Slimboy said: "Alexander and Athanasius didn’t disagree that Proverbs 8:22ff applied to Jesus but rather disputed the meaning of wisdom being “created” in this passage."

Tell me if I'm wrong or not getting the point here, but the fact that these bibles make the correlation between Prov 8:22 and Rev 3:14 where John uses arkhe (Not arkhon, Which he EXCLUSIVELY uses for "Ruler") + the word used in the Septuagint literally mean "created" or "brought forth" would indicate its creation.

As far as im aware even the bibles that render it "begotten" also submit too this as to be "begotten" do you not have to be born (or created in other words)?

28

An interesting Observation of some Bibles

by Blotty in

first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

Blotty

First of all, Hi, I go by Blotty on this website :) I am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as I can from the trinitarian and the JW (or unitarian) side - even though I come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, In my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..

If this is in the wrong section I apologise - This is just something I found interesting.
Iv seen online a lot that say the Watchtower and Tract society "invented" the link between Proverbs 8:22 - 30 and Jesus (The Word). Yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:

source:https://www.biblegateway.com

Prov 8:22 CR Rev 3:14
NIV, GNT,ESV, NASB, NASB1995, NASBRE, CEV

Prov 8:30 CR John 1:1,2
ESV NASB

Prov 8:30 CR John 1:3
ESV
NASB1995
NASB

(This list is by no means complete)

if this is simply wisdom, Why is it referenced with Jesus (or The Word)?

31

How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1

by Vanderhoven7 in

something does not compute.

you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.

isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.

Blotty

"You guys would make great Watchtower apologists." - Vanderhoven

Doesn't take being a watchtower apologist to say these things it takes reading the bible in its context.

"But we know that God created the universe and man by Himself without the help of another god. Yet as He creates man, he says, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness...."
- without the help of a foreign God yes.. But The word is the agent whom God created the world through - The statements in Isaiah SHOULD be taken as comparisons between Jehovah and False Gods worshipped by Israel.. NOT as hyper literal statements as trinitarians would like to have you take them

31

How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1

by Vanderhoven7 in

something does not compute.

you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.

isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.

Blotty

@hooberus

you have left one thing out, Jesus was referred to as "The last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) - was Adam also Divine?
The hebrew idoim "Son of" denotes membership to a guild - sons of men are mankind The son of man, either denotes messiahship or his human "flesh" nature/form ("son of" & "flesh" can also mean direct descendent, but that's context dependant)

The Word (prehuman Jesus) was said to have become flesh (John 1:14) been murdered then been raised up as a spirit creature (1 Corinthians 15:45 (B))

Jesus only ever claimed to be a man while on earth. what's more other fleshly beings could not ascend to heaven (John 8:21)

When he was placed at teg right hand of God for suffering his death he was a spirit, not Flesh (Phil 2)

Wonderment never said Jesus was not divine - he just said Jesus is not God