Posts by herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Paduan,

You're a typical trinitarian. When you're stuck and don't know how to find your way out of a dilemma, you change the subject.

Before moving on to 1 Corinthians 12:3, how do you respond to what I explained about Matthew 16:17?

Did Peter say "You are God"? Or did he say "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"?

Remember, you brought this up. You claimed that God revealed to Peter the truth about Jesus. What is that truth that God revealed? Before you go mocking the claim that Peter was a nontrinitarian, what does the evidence show? Can you be honest with your answer?

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

Hold on! You gave us some texts that you said prove that Jesus is Almighty God. I showed you to be wrong. What is your explanation?

Now you're presenting even more texts that you've misread. How about clearing up what you started before moving on?

What is your response to what I wrote about 1 Timothy 3:16?

How about 1 John 5:7? Revelation 1:8? Genesis 1:26? Matthew 28:19? The use of elohim?

You've got unfinished business here. Don't try to run away from it. If the Trinity is true, it should be quite easy for you to show that I'm in error. I'm interested in seeing how you finish what you started.

You wrote:

I just love how every JW is a Hebrew and Greek expert!

I'm not a JW, but I know many who are. Among those who live and work outside of their headquarters establishments, I never met a single one during several decades who claimed to be either a Hebrew or Greek expert. I'm quite certain you can't name even one yourself. If you can, it certainly doesn't prove by a long stretch that every last one of them claims to be "a Hebrew and Greek expert."

There's plenty wrong with JWs and their religion, so I don't see why you feel a need to make up false stories about them.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Paduan,

Thanks for mentioning Matthew 16:17. That verse clearly shows that the Trinity teaching is not from God. Instead, it comes from "flesh and blood."

Peter was commended, not for being a trinitarian and identifying Jesus as God or as God the Son. Instead, he answered Jesus' question by saying, "You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God." It was that nontrinitarian statement that won Jesus' commendation. Jesus said to Peter the nontrinitarian: "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (vs 16) Trinitarians ought to bear that in mind. God revealed to Peter that Jesus was God's Messiah and Son, not God himself.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

JH,

You wrote:

Why can't the bible be easy to understrand. Why is it that so many people searching for the truth can't find it?

God doesn't want just anybody to understand the Bible. For example, he caused it to be written in such a way that haughty persons would be unable to understand it. Jesus said "To do thus came to be the way approved by him" since he intended to reveal his purposes only to humble persons. (Mt 11:25-27; 13:10-15; 1 Co 2:6-16; Jas 4:6)

What has complicated things are all the wrong interpretations that have filled our minds since we were children. We know the Bible was written by and for Jews, for example, but we rarely are taught to think like a biblical Jew whose entire hope for the future rested with the promises given to Abraham. Jesus himself was Jewish in his thinking and teaching, as were the apostles and other New Testament writers. Many people tend to focus on the New Testament as the only part of the Bible that is necessary for knowing how God thinks and feels. But the New Testament is less than a fourth of the entire Bible.

Another factor is the way the Jews themselves have messed up everything. They still prefer human tradition over the inspired accounts. Many, if not most, Christians are also like that.

To understand the Bible requires effort and concentration since Gods ways and thoughts are higher than ours. (Isa 55:6-11) None of us should expect to really know God well if we are unwilling to make that effort. (Pr 2:1-14; 8:32-36; Mt 7:7, 8) But there is nothing more rewarding in life than letting the Bible teach us how to know God better and also to know his Son.

Of course, worldly-wise persons are always on hand and eager to ridicule those who believe the Bible. We're called foolish and weak. But the passage of time always vindicates the Bible's superior wisdom and strength compared to the theories, philosophies and thinking of its enemies. (1 Co 1:22-25; 1 Pe 1:24, 25)

I hope this is helpful.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

It's more than a bit pompous to claim that people will see the Trinity if they "actually read the Bible for what it says." I read the Bible every day because I want to know what it actually says. Contrary to your claim, I have never seen evidence of the Trinity anywhere within its pages. The only way it will be seen there is when a person is looking for it and then reads the teaching into the passages. I think you know that deep down in your heart of hearts. It's more than an exaggeration to say that "countless" passages prove that Jesus is Almighty God. Making such a claim is hardly honest.

Most translations do not agree with the KJV at 1 Timothy 3:16. The original Greek does not say "God was manifest in the flesh." Just as a trinitarian scribe went beyond what is written by inserting 1 John 5:7, someone inserted the word for "God" in place of the original word that means "he who." But not all manuscripts contain this error. So, you chose a poor example.

Your other examples are also poor. As I stated above,

In Revelation 1:8 the Father is both the Alpha and Omega and the Lord God Almighty. The latter title is nowhere given to Jesus, despite the attempts of some red-letter Bibles to apply this verse to Jesus.

The Jews have long held that God was speaking to "all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left" when he said "Let us make man in our image," "The man has become like one of us," and "Let us go down."Ge 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 1 Ki 22:19-22; Job 38:7.

Matthew 28:19 says nothing about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being equal persons within the Godhead. Peter, James and John were often mentioned together, but that didn't make them one individual human composed of three persons.

Only someone who is not a genuine Bible student would be unaware of the truth about 1 John 5:7 that I mentioned above in connection with 1 Timothy 3:16.

Everyone familiar with Hebrew is familiar with the fact that elohim is plural in majesty, not plural in number. If it referred to more than one person, it would be accompanied by plural verbs, adjectives and pronouns, but it is not. God never calls himself "we." It is always "I" or "I myself." Others never spoke of him as "they," but always as "he."

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

OldHippie,

Thanks for the reminder about Amazon. I was amazed at the list when I searched for books on "Trinity." On the other hand, I was a bit disappointed at first not to find the book you mentioned called "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound." It was buried several pages down the list. Happily I did find it right away when I searched for "Buzzard," the name you gave as one of the authors.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Meadow77,

Aren't you being a bit touchy? You opened this thread with both barrels blazing. You have only yourself to blame if you're receiving criticism. Rather than be offended by it, take the opportunity to benefit from it. You will never win others to your point of view by open confrontation. Your arguments have been dealt with for centuries, so you've offered nothing profound that ought to make your readers sit up and take notice.

The JW translation of John 1:1 isn't really inferior to most other translations. Obviously you don't know Bible Greek. Therefore you are no authority on whether a rendering is a farce or not. While the JW translation might not be the most accurate, even trinitarian scholars have acknowledged that there is no translation in English that truly captures the full flavour of what John was saying in that verse.

Saying that the Holy Spirit is a person because of "person like traits" is a weak argument. A similar personification of wisdom is given in Proverbs 8:22, 30 and Luke 11:49, but that does not mean that "she" is a person. If the JWs are right, and the Holy Spirit is God's active force, then there is no problem with your argument based on Acts 5:3, 4. Lying to God or to His Spirit would amount to the same thing, since his Spirit would simply be an extension or quality of Himself.

In Revelation 1:8 the Father is both the Alpha and Omega and the Lord God Almighty. The latter title is nowhere given to Jesus, despite the attempts of some red-letter Bibles to apply this verse to Jesus.

Jesus accepted worship, but surely you must know that others did also. Consider Revelation 3:9. Jesus said to the members of the Philadelphian church: "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

It is only in your imagination that Jesus was killed because of blasphemy. During his trial and execution absolutely nothing was said by anyone that would indicate that.

As I said, your arguments are weak. Humility should cause you to be less forward and more cautious when accusing others of being liars just because they don't agree with your rash judgments. I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I wouldn't blame them if they just walked away as you tried to bombard them with such wild and unprovable statements.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Meadow77,

We make more converts with honey than with vinegar. Persons who are struggling with questions about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are quickly turned off by statements like the following:

Their translation ... is ... a complete farce.
The insertion ... is just a clear misinterpretation.
Then there is the blatant strangeness of this interpretation.
They can quote verses about Jehovah being the only God from sun up until sun down.
Whens the last time you lied to your socks?

Whether we're trinitarian or unitarian in our beliefs, it's always best to show respect for the other person and his or her point of view, at least at the outset of any discussion. I'm not a trinitarian. I've heard every one of your arguments before and found them extremely weak upon cross-examination. However, they would invite discussion if you hadn't hammered away from the beginning that you are right and persons who disagree are liars.

Herk

53

To Ros, Re. "Ouija Please"

by IslandWoman in

jw
friends

hi ros, .

i was just wondering what the phrase "ouija please" means and what is it's significance?.

iw

herk

IslandWoman,

Your post illustrates that people will see anything they really want to see. Please look at the Britannica definition again. It nowhere states that casting lots is "a form of divination." Instead, it states that "other methods" of divination "involve or have involved . . . casting lots."

Birthday celebrations "involve or have involved" a cake, but a cake is not necessarily a birthday cake. Some hospital treatments "involve or have involved" the use of herbal medicines, but the use of herbs is never a representation of hospital treatments. The pagan practice of divination can employ the use of lots. It can also involve the use of drugs, fire, water, chemicals, snakes and other animals, music, dancing, etc., but none of those things in themselves are a form of divination.

Similarly, the Encarta does not state that casting lots was "a form of divination," as you claim. It explains that ancient divination required "interpretation by a medium." The medium studied or pretended to study "the behavior of animals and natural phenomena, which might convey messages from the supernatural." That study or pretense at study utilized "casting lots" and other "means." Though the Encarta doesn't explain how the medium used lots, other sources do. They show that it was simply to determine which animal or corpse should be studied and which could be discarded. In other words, it was as simple a matter as our tossing of a coin or pulling straws to help us make a choice between two alternatives. Just as coins and straws are hardly to be viewed as instruments of divination, neither are lots.

Just as lots were studied, so were crack patterns in shells, the flight of birds, the flow of water and water patterns. In themselves, none of those things were "forms of divination." People today study the flight of birds because of their fascination with the animal kingdom, but that does not identify them as diviners.

Divination requires a diviner, medium or oracle. On the other hand, anyone could engage in the casting of lots. We don't need a priest on hand when we roll dice or toss coins or pick straws, and we wouldn't need the presence of any such person if we lived in ancient times and cast lots to help us make up our minds on some matters. Of course, some priests and other religious and national leaders did cast lots. Nevertheless, the casting of lots has never in history been on a par with forms of divination such as the study of the entrails of sacrificial animals (haruspication), the inspection of animals shoulder blades (scapulimancy), crystal gazing, palmistry, fortune-telling and astrology.

I'm not expecting to change your mind, IslandWoman. You've already committed yourself, and I really doubt you will back down from your position. That's okay. Your challenge added to my enlightenment, and I hope it did the same for others.

You wrote:

I am also not a Christian in the accepted use of the term.

I took you at your word. You didn't say "I am not a Christian." You added "in the accepted use of the term." That left the impression that you claim to be a Christian but not the ordinary kind. I think you should be able to understand that your sentence could be misleading. Since then, of course, your near anathema against Christians has convinced me that you indeed are not a Christian in any sense of the word.

Despite the strong words we've exchanged with each other, I hope we're still friends. Knowing the type of person you've shown yourself to be in other threads, I tend to think that your feeling is probably the same toward me. Thanks.

Herk

29

NWT

by shera in

(douglas walsh v. the right honorable james latham clyde, m.p., p.c., etc., scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.).

under oath at a trial in scotland.

(a): i do not speak hebrew.. .

herk

Scholar,

If you won't accept the testimony of eyewitnesses, what more can I say? If you choose to reject the well-known fact that the translators' names have often been published, that is your privilege.

During my life I have yet to find a way to convince someone of something to which his or her mind is totally and unequivocally closed.

If you really are a scholar, your posts speak loudly as to why there is so much ignorance about the Bible in these times. If even the minds of scholars are so biased and unyielding to new and better information, what can we expect of their students?

Herk