Posts by TerryWalstrom

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

Is that online, TD?

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

TerryWalstrom

Twitch, take it easy, Bro!

Tell us who you're directing the pointy end of the stick toward.

I must say the original topic has engendered some wacky, waving, inflatable, arm-waving tubeman contortions!

http://i.imgur.com/GXsdtkw.jpg?1

11

NWT reasons, excuses, and assertions for inserting the Tetragrammaton (JEHOVAH)

by TerryWalstrom in

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html.

a summary statement of the writers' error.

we believe the writers of the august 1, 2008 watchtower magazine article, should the name jehovah appear in the new testament?

TerryWalstrom

Phizzy says: What I am hoping is that some very early copies of the N.T books are found, much earlier than we have now, and of course they will not contain YHWH in any form, simply Kyrios.

______________________________________

It has been reported that a 1st century copy of Mark has been found and is currently being examined by experts.

On Bart Ehrman's blog he has written:

" I would be downright thrilled, in every way. This would be a great event.

It would NOT be because it would force us to rethink anything. But it would be precisely because it almost certainly would confirm with hard evidence what we already think on the basis of less hard evidence. I’ve already indicated why it’s difficult to believe that a small scrap of a manuscript from around 100 would change anything, or that it would confirm what a group of wide-eyed fundamentalists might think about the Bible, or what a group of hard-nosed atheists might think about the Bible, or what a group of anyone in between might think about the Bible.

But historians who work with texts are passionate about their texts. At least this one (yours truly) is. And any early manuscript of any early text is an absolute treasure, to be cherished above nearly all things textual. If this thing turns up, it will be another piece in the puzzle. One new piece is not going to change the appearance of the puzzle. But who, working a jigsaw puzzle that is missing most of its pieces, is not elated when a new piece is discovered that fits in with everything else? That makes it possible – and conceivable – that more pieces will turn up. And if a LOT of new pieces start turning up, then it is in fact possible that the overall picture that is emerging from the assemblage of those pieces will start to change.

You cannot have LOTS of pieces – our ultimate desire as textual historians – until you get the FIRST piece. Of course, this piece – if it shows up – will not be the first piece of our puzzle or the first newly discovered piece. We already have over 115 (fragmentary) papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament, dating, roughly from the second to the seventh centuries, almost all of them discovered over the course of the past century. But this, if living up to the hype, would be one of the two earliest, if not the earliest. So it would be a significant piece, and, arguably, the first to be dated this early (P52 is usually dated to 125 CE, plus or minus 25 years – although recent reexaminations suggest that this date may be too early, possibly by a 80-100 years!). And about that, every textual scholar on the planet, of whatever persuasion, would be thrilled."

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

Compare the Mounce (Bible gateway) and the online version sourced Textus Receptus

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

The subject "God" is in the arse end of the new translations because of the source texts of Westcott and Hort.

By using the Textus Receptus instead, God is the subject rather than the predicate nominative, which leaves Jehovah's Witnesses with nothing to hide behind in rendering "a" god.

I find that very simple and elegant.

14

BBC news--terrorist was raised a JW

by stan livedeath in

i just caught bbc news--arrested terrorist was previously a jw before converting to islam

TerryWalstrom

Both groups are comfortable with absolutist beliefs.

Both groups are okay with the destruction of everybody but themselves,

Both groups subjugate women.

Both groups see themselves as peaceful.

Inside these groups, the majority of the believers manage to cope with 'normal' life by simply ignoring the fringe elements through dismissing the evil as non-representative of the whole.

Loyalty to the governing leaders displaces individual responsibility to humanity.

Other than the above, I see no connection whatsoever.

51

EXPERTS ONLY! A Pop Quiz on (current) Watchtower teaching

by TerryWalstrom in

pop quiz on jw (current) teaching.

1. was jesus 2nd coming in 1914?.

2. is jesus 2nd (parousia) presence the same thing as his coming?.

TerryWalstrom

So Terry when are you going to post the answers?

I cant wait!

_______________________

I must confess it is enjoyable to survey just how disconnected we all have become from 'firm' knowledge of official Watchtower Doctrine. And, who could blame anybody for wanting to wash their hands of all the nonsense?

I think we all agree, when the Internet was born (thanks, Al Gore:) the Watchtower was jerked out of their safe waters onto the deck of the Good Ship Disclosure. For at least the last 15 years, this desperate fish has flipped and flopped like crazy, gasping for relief from the endless parade of devastating revelations about Governing Body confusion as to exactly what they are teaching and why!

I'm equally curious as to the assault Science has made on Mormon claims of 'restored Truth.' Genetic research and archeology have delivered blow after blow--often by Mormon scholars--but, the Internet has been especially cruel.

The official statement of the Mormon Apostolic leadership is that scholars should stick a cork in it because: "it is not faith-building" to tell the truth. Ha ha ha ha ha.

________________________

Anyway, I'll post the answers after a couple of more days. There have been some excellent posts herein. I continue to watch and read with fascination!

11

NWT reasons, excuses, and assertions for inserting the Tetragrammaton (JEHOVAH)

by TerryWalstrom in

http://tetragrammaton.org/wtarticle.html.

a summary statement of the writers' error.

we believe the writers of the august 1, 2008 watchtower magazine article, should the name jehovah appear in the new testament?

TerryWalstrom

I should maybe have said, "A fun and mental error."

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

In the above lesson, the Professor is contrasting the Westcott and Hort text against the Textus Receptus.

He establishes how many modern Bibles use Westcott and Hort INSTEAD of the Textus Receptus.

He points out the reason given and what it is bogus.

Those using Westcott and Hort say the manuscript evidence is earlier than the Textus Receptus and THEREFORE, more reliable.

But wait---

The Professor demonstrates by using quotations of Early Church Fathers who lived in EARLIER centuries (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) how flawed this premise is.

Texts omitted in Westcott and Hort can easily BE FOUND hundreds of years earlier.

Are these 'found' texts in the Textus Receptus? YES.

The difference in readings leads to all sorts of problems in modern translations such as the New World Translation.

The order of the words (Subject instead of predicate nominative) in John 1:1 makes all the difference in the world for Jehovah's Witnesses' bogus rendering of "a god."

So, the problem disappears when you get rid of Westcott and Hort and stick to Textus Receptus.

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

TerryWalstrom

Call me crazy, but I love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.

In the following video, the teacher really nails Jehovah's Witnesses on John 1:1 with utter simplicity.

Begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.

I've never seen or heard of this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5QKJ7tmbg