Posts by Blotty

77

Disfellowshipped for Fornication

by TxNVSue2023 in

hi i want to tell my story and get advice.

i'm a single sister ( in usa) that has been baptized for 20 years.

i came from the world, so did not grow up in the truth and i have no family in the truth -- i am alone.. last year i met a brother & we did have premarital sex while we were dating.

Blotty

@Vandihoven

To my knowledge it is looked down upon, but is not bad enough to be disfellowshipped - take this with a grain of salt if you like, I know witnesses who do celebrate birthdays (for reasons I'm not aware of.) and are still in good standing and active in "the work"

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

Blotty

PetrW

(nicest way possible)

I would advise taking a look at Goodspeed and Moffatt's translations - before commenting further and commentaries
I'm going to address these quickly with not alot of detail.

If I am thinking of the correct passages they are technically correct, there is more than one way to render a passage

"My argument is that we don't know exactly what was going on with the resurrected "bodies"(!) for 3 days," - if they were in the tombs it would imply they are dead, as every other occurrence has someone in the tomb when they are dead - not alive.

While it is not explicitly stated you are 100% correct - I would take it as this. (^ above)

you also forget tho Jesus is Firstborn of the dead (temporal) it is in a different sense t the ones he resurrected as they all died again

John 11:26 - COULD be taken in the present -> future perspective as in the statement you cite may be the point of view of ones who are resurrected on the last day. rather than in the present.

in a similar fashion Wallace states about John 1:1 [paraphrase] "John was speaking from his own perspective."

I agree it is not the best way to render the text, but it certainly is not a distortion of it IMO. Far from it.

Rev 20:5 - I'm not sure how to comment

point:
if a phrase has implications of a future time, the present tense, it is most likely to be taken in the perspective of the future rather than the present, due to the time implication

(Just incase you didn't see my other comment to you, would love to see your research)

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

Blotty

TD

"especially when we're talking about a far less common usage of the word."

you have a point however I can think of atleast 3 examples where the context would dictate that meaning, grammatical rules or the meanings implying similar

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

Blotty

Boogerman

I'm afraid you are wrong as pointed out not only by the dictionary's cited but also commentaries

Deep respect and "fear" go hand in hand do they not we "fear" our parents but also have deep respect for them (see Biblehub)

thus "deep respect" does fall in the range of meaning for the word "phobo"

longshot: if by some chance you mean they used 2 words in English for one Greek word, this is common translation practise

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

Blotty

I was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from Dr Beduhn - I can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked)

But this got me thinking I don't think there is anything in any Bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the Greek" could have. I know Beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.
("theologically motivated words" don't count - there is no dictionary where the meanings are significantly different enough to say "they def mean something totally different" - if there is I would love to see them, I know of one which turns out to be a most likely a synonym for the other)

"For [that] characterization to be correct, [people] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the [Time period before this written], no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). " (emphasis added)

(https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/10361/prof-jason-beduhn-letter-on-nwt-kit-part-1#/124000)

Opinions?

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.

i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.

ending), and she (fem.

Blotty

let me know when you post it, and Ill def take a look :)

19

Why are aqwsed12345 post`s so long ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

there is no way i will even try to read such long posts and i`m sure many others here would agree with me.. smiddy3.

Blotty

troll or theologically motivated imo

if you CR his language with similar ones, most if not all are one of the two - neither can be reasoned with on a logical level

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.

i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.

ending), and she (fem.

Blotty

PetrW

very interesting - your observations are wonderful

However I will point out (I may be wrong) but In Rev 12:5, admittedly we have disputed examples but its safe to use the neuter as we know the child's gender based on the use of uion and hos so the neuter would make little difference as the hos naturally refers back to uion rather than the neuter. - most bibles interpret the neuter as emphasis (see biblehub) and its root word seems to imply "strong" so could function as an adjective - though thats doubtful as adjectives must match the word being modified in gender

(I am ommiting arsen for easier typing)

91

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

Blotty

Seabreeze:
" He is not someone that would mislead people, he is the TRUTH." - actually like this, may steal it one day.

No he wouldn't mislead anyone, However he (from our point of view is cryptic) + we are missing many ancient texts which would help us make sense of those times.
People can jump to conclusions however - in essence they mislead themselves

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

Blotty

aqwsed12345

What you deem as "leftist" (or whatever other term) is common behaviour and is logically required - why?, because people lie all the time (especially on the internet) I could make a claim right now, I guarantee at least five people would ask me for a source..

Why do trinitarians in their written books provide sources?

you failing to provide [scholarly] sources makes your claims not only suspicious at best (since it isn't articulated in the text, no thats not hypocritical - you can stop being misleading now) but also with no "expert backing" they fall flat.
debating theology is useless, theology is merely what one believes - but what does the text say? the text will win every time.
I could believe the angels to be God if I wanted too, or Joseph to be Jesus (they have 10+ things in common)

Now I know what you'll say about the Witnesses, however whether you accept it or not - most of their beliefs are hinted at in the text.

The only one which isn't, which you are also very misleading on, is what they call "the gentile times" - HOWEVER notice what other religions have done?
The name is in the Hebrew text - you yourself admit this, yet most religions DO NOT put the name in their OT scriptures why? you cant say it had no relevance in that time. Edwin Palmer wrote a letter (that is public) on why the NIV didn't include the name - and what is the reason you may ask? money..

your meme about 2+2 =4 is off point as when has anyone ever denied that? if they have they are stupid.

On top of all of that, you are so obviously theologically motivated its not even funny..
else explain

- the long posts (which people have asked you stop)
- the use of terms (or concepts) that the bible doesn't even define

- the citing of publications that are not reflective of what the society believes at all

- unwilling to have "scholarly" discussions

Your either a troll or theologically motivated, simple as that