towerwatchman

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 263 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by towerwatchman

• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To cofty

  It is flatly contradicted.

  Where?
  
  
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Doug Mason

  I think the quotation from Epicurus is most apt, which starts with (check Google Images): "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? ...."

  The answer has to take into account several things, love, free will and omniscience. God created mankind for a love relationship, to give love or to receive love, it has to be a free will choice. For it to be genuine love there has to be the opportunity to reject. If God was to intervene in our choices it will not be genuine love.

  If God were to create a universe where all the possibilities would lead to salvation, that would be a violation of free will. One cannot grant free will and then violate it.
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To. Doug Mason

  We have no idea what the original writers of "Scripture" wrote. There has been no God to protect it from corruption, distortion or deliberate manipulation. The WTS is only one of myriads who have done this.

  What is considered credible ancient text?

  Caesar written 1 century BC, earliest copy 900 AD, number of copies 10

  Tacitus written 1 century AD, earliest copy 1100 AD, number of copies 20

  Thucydides written 5 century BC, earliest copy 900AD, number of copies 8

  Demosthenes written 4 century BC, earliest copy 1100 AD, number of copies 200

  Homer written 9 century BC, 643 copies 95% accurate.

  All considered credible by scholars.

  New Testament 1 century AD [50-100], earliest copy 2 century AD [100-130] number of copies from antiquity 5000, accuracy 99%, partial manuscripts 19000, quotations by the early church fathers 86000.

  What is the probability they got it all wrong?

  And you believe it is not trustworthy?
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To smiddy.

  
  

  If after 2000 years christians are still debating what John 1:1 means about God, jesus , their relationship etc,etc,
  And we still havent heard anything from God.
  It doesnt inspire confidence that their is a God.does it ?

  On the contrary God had been very explicit through scripture who Jesus is. It is certain worldviews that do not agree with scripture, and therefore these worldviews interpret scripture according to their beliefs vs. adjusting their beliefs what to what God communicates through scripture.

  There is an interesting thing about life, it is that it does not start with reason and ends with faith. A child’s mind is very limited and does not inform the child for the reason of her trust, but as she runs into her father’s arms she does so because of an unspoken trust that those arms will hold her. A child begins with faith that is then proven by reason. Over time that trust will be tested, and it is the character of the parent that will establish that trust to be wise. One starts life believing in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Zeus, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster but overtime reason proves them wrong. My faith has substance, it is rational, based on the confirmed knowledge that Jesus has proven who He claims to be, God incarnate. Some accept by faith, I by reason. My faith is not orphaned by reason.
  
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Doug Manson

  The prologue can also be considered the thesis. John basically outlines his book in the first eighteen verses. John prologue also addresses the problems that were being experienced by the churches in his bishopric. Gnosticism, Hellenistic thinking, and Judaism.

  Note the opening to 1 John, John is addressing both Gnostic beliefs as it concerns the being of Christ.
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Doug Manson

  Care to diagram the chiasm? Or should I google that?
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Bungi Bill

  Agree
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To bungi bill

  It does not take 50 pages to understand that when the noun lacks the definite article it is up to the translator to translate definite or indefinite depending on the context. Again, i find it rather strange that the only location where Theos lacks the definite article [minus the context fifteen times translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly] the only one in question is John 1:1C

  Should Jn 1:6 read 'And there was a man sent from a God?'

  Jn 1:12 but as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of 'a god'.

  Jn 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of 'a god'.

  Why is there no consistency in the NTW?
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To crazy guy.

  What is the point?

  The "word" is Logos and that goes back to Egypt and the god Ptah or Thoth
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To John Mann

  Sometimes you have to do your own homework. Hope the following helps.

  Monotheism = there is only one true God.

  There are three divine persons called “God” in the Bible.

  Within the one being that is God there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

  “Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire.

  “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what he is, holy, omnipresent, omniscient, immutable, all-powerful.

  “Co-equal” fully shared the being that is God never one third.

  “ Coeternal” all three exist within eternity, one did not exist before the other.

  God is a spirit thus not limited to the physical, eternally exists outside of time and space. He is not limited to time, space, and matter as we are.

  God= what. Three persons= who.

  Not Modalism one person with three personalities.

  Not Polytheism three separate beings.

  One very common but mistaken analogy of the Trinity is water in a glass that can exist either as water, steam or ice. This is Modalism, which states that God is a single person, who reveals Himself in different forms or modes. This view states that that Father , Son, and HS never all exist at the same time, but rather it is the same being manifesting Himself as either of the three throughout history. Thus the idea of one glass, and within that glass the same measurement of H2O appearing in different forms.

  At the other end of the spectrum is Polytheism which teaches three separate beings, each with their own personalities which are gods. Here we have three glasses of water, first holding water, second holding steam, third holding ice.

  Trinitarians teach three persons sharing the one Godhead. Therefore, we have one glass and within that one glass steam, water, and ice at the same time.