- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Dear kenrch,
I would have no problem with dealing with doctrine. Yet, I don't know what he stands on other then the doctrine of Nick. As for dueling, lol, my sword is the word of God and it is a double edged sword.
I don't want Nick as an enemy. I don't want Nick to hate me, God forbid. Yet, he is at every corner I turn. I am a threat to him because the Lord has used me to disrupt his unsound doctrine. His verom in his words are of no benefit to the faith and I only pray that this would somehow be resolved. Yet, this is a matter the Lord will handle. I pray that the love of the Lord prevail. For he died for all, and it is his love I have for all on this group. I have no ill feeling towards any. For to hate your brother and to claim to love God is to be a liar.
TheHi H,
I have no problems with you personally, just your current weak and inaccurate teaching on some matters, and your claim to infallibility.And just some evidence that you can learn from others would be of value.
Nick, it isn't me that is infallible. I am just a man. I believe it is the word of God that is infallible. There is no good in me, but what comes from the Lord.
As for my teachings, they are not mine. For if they were mine, I could be a bragger or boaster. They are weak only in your mind because of your lack of understanding. Your heart is hardened and because of this, you cannot see.
As for learning, I go to the source, the Holy Spirit. I trust no man. Yet, the Holy Spirit reveals things to other brothers and sisters in the Lord and oft times when we congregate, much learning comes from this place called church.
Quote David, is Jesus God or the Son of God? Are all references in the OT referring to God the Father or the Son of God who was given all authority of the Godhead, thus making him God over all of creation? Or do you not believe that Jesus should be referred to as God? Hi H. I don't understand what any of this has to do with my question. Yes, Jesus is the son of God and the references in the Hebrew scriptures are to His Father and the Father is God over all creation. Sure. But what does any of that have to do with this question I have asked you:
“My point is a simple one:
–If it is wrong to have Jehovah's name, then why is it there?
–And if it is right to have Jehovah's name, then why did they exclude it several thousand times?
Both cannot be right, can they? Either God's name which God himself inspired to be there should be in modern translations, or, it shouldn't.”Dear David,
Have you ever seen the Dead Sea Scrolls? Have you seen with your own eyes the ancient Holy Writs in which every word says Jehovah or God or Lord? What are you making your assertions on? Today's translations? You are assumming. You are making assumptions.
And who is making the claim on what is right and what is wrong? On who's authority does this come from?
You have to ask yourself, how much the materials that the KJ translator has changed since the time the translators used them. What I am referring to is the OT materials. You must remember that the translators were the best in the world at that time and their job was to copy, not change any meaning. So in their eyes, they did the right thing according to translation.
David, what is the big deal. Debate the doctrine. If you can see the truth in the doctrine, which I believe if you examine with an earnest heart grounded in the love of Christ, you will know his words to be true. David, I am just a man. I put my pants on just like you. It is the Holy Spirit that gives me truth through faith in Jesus. I can not make claims to anything. Other then the fact that I am a sinner who needs daily covering over the saviors blood for the forgiveness of sin.
Everyone here thinks that it is me, this man who thinks he is this infallible person who does not make mistakes or is unwilling to learn. That is furthest from the truth. I am a man who is confined in flesh. And if I do not put my truth in Jesus, I have not hope.
Quote Have you ever seen the Dead Sea Scrolls?
You're right. I haven't seen the dead sea scrolls. I did see a couple documentaries on them. You know, when they first found the dead sea scrolls, one of the very first words they deciphered was not the word “GOD” or “LORD” but was God's name. It was a scripture from Isaiah, I believe. Yet, in your Bible, your Isaiah only has “GOD” or “LORD” in Isaiah, I believe. So, no, I haven't “seen” the dead sea scrolls. But I have seen pictures of them, with God's name in Hebrew. Yes, it is there. So, if God inspired his name to be there, then is it “right” or “wrong” to replace it? You ask on whos authority I make the claim that it is right or wrong. Simple–God's. He ispired his name to be there. Men substituted titles. It is on that authority that I question the KJV.Quote So in their eyes, they did the right thing according to translation.
I'm not saying they didn't do what they felt was right. They may have felt inserting extra words at 1 John 5:7 was right. That's not what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether they tried their best. I'm saying they removed God's name thousands of times, only including it in a few places, which had become tradition to do for a while.Quote David, what is the big deal. Debate the doctrine.
You haven't really mentioned any doctrine. You only keep saying: The KJ is infallible. I find that an odd remark considering it has removed the authors name almost 7000 times. Would not removing the name that occurs the most in this book change the feel of it? Would it not give a somewhat skewed representation of who God is? And isn't this God's book, a book about God? This is no little thing. I mean, if a man writes a book and you republish that book, but remove the authors name even a few times, how would the author feel? But God's name? Thousands of times?Quote David, I am just a man. I put my pants on just like you.
Do you? Right leg first, or left? You know, sometimes I do both legs at the same time.david
Hey Isaiah, I finally found that question you asked me about. I knew you asked me a question, but didn't know where it was.
Quote Speaking of versions, which is the more accurate IYHO – the KJV or the NWT? Let me quote Jason BeDuhn.
(He is a Greek scholar and Associate Professor of Religious Studies Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the “Best First Book” prize from the American Academy of Religion.)“”Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] 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 last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”
One example of this that you can relate to is the word proskyneo. (I have just read through the trinity thread and see on page 61 if I remember that one of the 7 or 8 main reasons you believe in the trinity is that you believe Jesus is “worshipped.” Well, the truth is, the word that is often translated “worship” in many Bibles has a wide variety of meanings. That word is used with reference to humans sometimes. It is also used incorrectly with reference to Jesus in the KJV saying that those who were spitting on Jesus and slapping him were also “worshipping” him. The word proskyneo basically means to do obeisance to and conveys the thought of bowing down. In this instance, they clearly were not worshipping Jesus, but bowing down in a mocking sort of way.
The KJV also likes to render hades as “the pit,” “hell,” or “the grave” if I remember and sometimes renders gehenna as “hell.” So is gehenna the same as hades? No. Because hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Hence, they are not the same.
The NWT simply has the word “hades” where hades is found. It transliterates it and thereby doesn't force confused thinking in this matter.
As well, I know you may say Jehovah is the wrong pronunciation of God's name, but this name occurs in both the KJV and the NWT.
Yet, one of these versions has removed that name thousands of times and replaces God's name with titles: GOD and LORD. You may argue that “Jehovah” is the wrong pronunciation, but your question is which translation do I feel is the more accurate. Well, in this respect, it is an easy answer.
As well, the KJV uses several old words that have changed in meaning. In fact, sometimes those old words mean the exact opposite of how we use them today. English has changed. The meaning of words in the KJV has changed.(Just for Isaiah 1:18)
And, without question, the ultimate proof that the NWT is more accurate than the KJV, what answers the question so clearly and loudly, is the way it translates John 1:1. This translation of that scripture is based on:
(1)An anarticular theos(a theos without the article)which is sandwiched between two articular occurences.
(2)Context. The Word was “with” ho theos, the God.
(3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.Isaiah 1:18, you speak Greek, don't you? Do you need anyone to tell you which is the more accurate version?
Do you? Right leg first, or left? You know, sometimes I do both legs at the same time.
david
What! Do you stand on your head !
Just joking I know you are sitting down, just a joke The first word from the scroll was God's name. Which name? Jehovah or Yahweh? When the JWs baptize do the baptize in the name of Jehovah, Yahweh, or GOD?
As for Jason BeDuhn and his stand that Jesus shouldn't be worshiped, if I interpreted his words correctly, is that he is wrong. For Jesus most certainly should be worshiped. And the reason Jason cannot see this is because he does not understand the Word of God.
For God in his infinite wisdom, begat the Son, and made him God over all creation. The Son has all the authority of the Godhead from the time he was begotten of the Father, thus making him God and will remain so until he relinquished that authority back unto the Father so that the Father will be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.:
For even before the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Father begat the Son and the Father created all things by the Son and through the Son by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Son was the firstborn of all creatures.
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
H, I really don't know what Jason has said on the word proskyneo. But I have done quite a bit of research on it and you can find this in the “worship” thread.
I do know that the KJV mistranslates proskyneo sometimes.H, if someone is spitting on Jesus and slapping him and we find the word “proskyneo” in reference to what they are also doing to him, are they:
a) “worshipping” him.
b) bowing down to him (of couse, in a mocking sort of way, the same way they mockingly said: ““Good day, you King of the Jews!”)Let us reason on this. Those who were hitting him and spitting on him were not worshipping him, were they?
The word proskyneo (and it's hebrew equivalent) is sometimes used with reference to human kings, etc. One meaning is worship. But the basic, most broad meaning, is to bow down, do obeisance. Sometimes this can imply worship. Somtimes, not.
But for translators to simply see that word and translate it every time as “worship” is a fallacy.Quote 1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.: For even before the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Father begat the Son and the Father created all things by the Son and through the Son by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Son was the firstborn of all creatures.
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
Neither of these scriptures tell us to worship Jesus. If you check your KJV, you will find in it Jesus saying to “worship God.”
When God the Father asks you why you did not refer to his God as God, you might start thinking of excuses now.
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ July 30 2006,22:17) As for Jason BeDuhn and his stand that Jesus shouldn't be worshiped, if I interpreted his words correctly, is that he is wrong. For Jesus most certainly should be worshiped. And the reason Jason cannot see this is because he does not understand the Word of God. For God in his infinite wisdom, begat the Son, and made him God over all creation. The Son has all the authority of the Godhead from the time he was begotten of the Father, thus making him God and will remain so until he relinquished that authority back unto the Father so that the Father will be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.:
For even before the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Father begat the Son and the Father created all things by the Son and through the Son by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Son was the firstborn of all creatures.
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
Hi H,
Are you in the body of Christ?
Are you a branch to his vine?
Will you be forever that branch in him?
Does the branch worship
or obey and respect the vine
which serves the Gardener?Nick, once must be saved to be in the body of Christ. And I am unsure if that is true of you. You have yet to prove your validity according to his Word. You claim you have the Holy Spirit in you, yet you do not recognize the things of Christ. I have asked you, begged you to ask Jesus into your heart and be saved. That heaviness in your heart will go away. Jesus will take it away. All you have to do is believe in him with all of your heart. Open the door of your heart and let him in and you will be saved.
Hi H,
You are unsure about others because you judge according to your own experiences and your own fruit.
Take off the mirror sunglasses and see the light around you coming from others in Christ.
Then you will realise that you, like all of us, are yet incomplete and inadequate and in need of more grace.Quote When God the Father asks you why you did not refer to his God as God, you might start thinking of excuses now. In this you are wrong.
While there are a few instances where we are told that the Father is the God of Jesus, we are never told in scripture that Jesus is Jehovah's God.H, I guess you can just ignore all that stuff I said about your Bible and the way it sometimes mistranslates proskyneo. I know you don't have a defence for it, so your only approach, and the one you have chosen is to ignore it. That's fine.
As I said David, it is best settle with doctrine. For no matter what I would tell you reguarding the KJ, you have already made up your mind. This is nothing I can show you or teach you that you would not claim to be wrong. It is best the game be settled on the playing field, where you will be left with your pants down. Don't get mad, just thought I would try to make you laugh as you do with me. And I appreciate you wonderful sense of humor.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
