- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
David, I still think that you speak with veiled speech. Can you just say “yes” or “no” or “I don't know”.
I witness myself quite often though I don't do it with watchtower pamphlets.
My point is can a child of God exist outside of the JW? Or is what you are getting at is that a saved individual might be a JW and not realize it. Meaning his theology is in line with the “true” church yet he does not know where his brothers are located.
Hi Semmy,
I pasted your post here because it relates here too
“Uh, Camrezaie,My mom is a JW and I've read their stuff for years. In their literature it refers to anyone who is not a member of their group, (no matter if they also denounce the trinity), as part of Babylon the Great, Christiandom, the Great Harlot. Sound familiar?
They also TEACH that every other pastor outside of the JW's, no matter what that person believes, is serving Satan. This is nothing new. The Mormons preach the same thing. A cult is defined as a group centered around a man or a group of men's teachings. They also claim special revelation from God and to speak exclusively for him. Sound familiar? Now be honest. Does the name Charles Taze Russell ring a bell also? What about Franz and Rutherford? What about the Bethel 10 over there is Brooklyn whose word is LAW to you guys? So what, you have 10 priests or popes.
I've been there my friend and had I known about the losers that started that group, I wouldn't have wasted my time. You'd do better defending the Gospel than trying to stick up for a man-made organization. I don't care what they say about themselves. “Faithful and discreet slave…blah blah”.
Yeah, Jesus said if you lie you are showing who your father is…that's Satan. JW's try to excuse telling lies as “Theocratic Warfare”. Is that why Peter repented for lying that he didn't know our Lord?
Hey, those people “weren't entitled to know the truth”! Uh huh.Now, don't get me wrong. Not EVERYTHING you guys believe is in error but you have to understand that C.T. Russell is quoted as saying this was NEVER meant to be a religious denomination. It was and still is a Bible publishing house, nothing more.
So salvation does not come from being a member of God's Visible Organization, placing literature, doing at least 10 hours in field service a month, denouncing holidays, etc. It comes with accepting the free gift of eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord and actually following what HE says, not the Brooklyn 10 my friend. Oh boy…..
Bless you all the same,
Semmy “
“My mom is a JW and I've read their stuff for years. In their literature it refers to anyone who is not a member of their group, (no matter if they also denounce the trinity), as part of Babylon the Great, Christiandom, the Great Harlot. Sound familiar?”
To me, it sounds like you overheard your mom talking and are trying to remember as much as you can, but you are mixed up.
See July 26, page 23 on this thread for a discussion on the above person's not so skillful use of lies and halftruths.
Just as a matter of clarity, it is “Christendom,” not Christiandom, and JW's do not believe that this word is synonymous with Babylon the Great or the Great Harlot. It makes up a part of Babylon the Great. Obviously, JW's don't believe that everyone on the planet who is not one of JW's is a part of Christendom.
Semmy has so many little mistakes like this in his past threads, it makes me wonder if he was asleep for those years where he claims to have fellowshipped with Jehovah's Witnesses.Well David,
Maybe you're a neophite but I was with the JW's for 24 years and attended all meetings and assemblies up to 3 years ago until I found out their policy on pedophiles. Is that long enough for you? I'm not confused at all about what they teach. Go ahead and cite all those little mistakes you claim I made. You're even lying about me misspelling Christiandom!!!
Here's what I wrote, for clarity of course:
“My mom is a JW and I've read their stuff for years. In their literature it refers to anyone who is not a member of their group, (no matter if they also denounce the trinity), as part of Babylon the Great, Christiandom, the Great Harlot. Sound familiar?”
So how have I misspelled Christiandom as you have spelled it THE SAME WAY in your post? Come on! Even if I DID misspell it, you still knew what I was talking about, didn't you? Anyone not part of “God's visible organization is serving Satan”. I was there buddy. More of a smoke screen to avoid discussing weighter issues.
Why not discuss the BIG TICKET items such as lying? JW's “Theocratic Warfare” garbage is just a cover up to make lying acceptable. Well, my Bible says, “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” [1 Tim. 4:2] I believe it says that in your NWT too. Your group leaders were all phoney prophets and liars who first prophesyed falsely and then lied saying they never made those predictions about the end of this “system of things”. Would you like me to post the actual quotes from your literature confirming this? So false teachings such as yours come through hypocritical liars who have a seared conscience and will not even repent of it. You are seriously deceived my friend if you think lying is acceptable.
Nick and anybody else, Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Lying, protecting pedophiles, false prophets, etc. are all rotten fruits no matter what kind of “happy”
face David trys putting on it.
You'll also notice David never responds to me, he just speaks around me as an obvious attempt to try to do damage control on the information being released about JW's. Too late bro!However, you don't even have to go to the official white-washed JW website or the others by ex-JW's. There is a lot of accurate information about them to be found in court documents, their old literature and the secular media. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” JW's constantly say that but are in fact afraid of it.
Thanks Nick for re-submitting my post! If you have a barf-bag available, your might wish to stop by http://www.silentlambs.org as I think they may still have a clip of the JW's official spokes-liar up there so you can judge for yourselves what kind of organization it is.
Blezzings!
Semmy
Quote Maybe you're a neophite but I was with the JW's for 24 years and attended all meetings and assemblies up to 3 years ago until I found out their policy on pedophiles. Oh, so they have a “policy on pedophiles” they you have suddenly been informed of. Just for the record, I would like Sem to state Jehovah's Witnesses “policy” on this subject. And I would like him to please include the reference he has taken their policy from.
Or did you get this information from the tabloids?Quote So how have I misspelled Christiandom as you have spelled it THE SAME WAY in your post? Come on!
Is he kidding? Is this a joke? I don't know. Maybe in some places, it is actually spelled “Christiandom.” My computer seems to think no such spelling exists.
Of course when I quoted you I included your wrong spelling. The only place I spelt it as “Christiandom” was when I pointed out that this was wrong, here:Quote Just as a matter of clarity, it is “Christendom,” not Christiandom, and JW's do not believe that this word is synonymous with Babylon the Great or the Great Harlot.
And you accuse me of spelling it wrong like you, saying: “Come on!” Are you for real?Quote Even if I DID misspell it, you still knew what I was talking about, didn't you?
Yes, I knew what you were trying to say. It wasn't only the spelling that was wrong, but also the fact that you said it was synonymous with Babylon the Great. Read my post again. It wasn't a big thing. Really, I'm just tired of correcting your false information. You claim to know it all, yet you keep stating obvious falsehoods.Quote Why not discuss the BIG TICKET items such as lying? JW's “Theocratic Warfare” garbage is just a cover up to make lying acceptable.
Semm has repeated this general statement about 4 times now. He makes it seem like JW's have said that lying is OK when done for “Theocratic Warfare.” I assure everyone they have obviously never made any such statement.
Yes, they are imperfect and have had wrong expectations. (See my post a couple pages back) They have also at one time celebrated Christmas, easter, used the cross, etc. They shed these wrong things.
As for lying, you might want to check out what Semm has said in regard to JW's and what the truth is. He gets a lot of his information not from encyclopedia's or reference works, but from tabloid web sites that are anti-JW and have little regard for truth.C.T. Russel is a “Free Mason,” states Semm.
The following is quoted from a couple pages back:
“I consider the “truth” about this and every other JW-related issue to be EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, because OBVIOUS HORSE[….] like “Russell was a Mason” only serves the WTS's objective of painting XJWs as NUTS and LIARS.”
This quote was taken from someone called “madapostate,” someone who isn't a JW and who understands that using such lies only serves to paint people like Semm, people who freely quote such things without having a clue where it comes from as…what they are.
Lying is wrong Semm.Quote Nick and anybody else, Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Lying, protecting pedophiles, false prophets, etc. are all rotten fruits no matter what kind of “happy” face David trys putting on it.
I have never put a happy face on any of these things. And nor have I (unlike some) used such tactics to slander others.Quote (seekingtruth @ July 29 2006,04:53) Quote (david @ July 29 2006,06:49)
But I say that they aren't really true Christians until they do come out of Babylon.
David,
Is the verse “come out and be my people” or “come out of her my people”?
David,
I assume you missed my question as your usually very good at responding. I don't want to argue over words but I believe there is a big difference between the two interpretations.H scriptureseeker,
I saw your question. I thought it was one of those questions that was more of a statment. (I've spent that last couple minutes trying to remember what those questions are called. Any help?)ROMANS 9:22-25
“If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]? It is as he says also in Ho·se′a: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’;” (compare Hosea 2:23)In light of the scripture above, is it possible that people who were not His people can come to be called and known as His people?
“Get out of her my people.”
What if someone who apparently is one of God's people decides not to get out of false religion? Would they still be considered one of God's people? If they accepted false teachings, paganisms, traditions of men, etc? Basically, they would be disobeying God's instructions to get out of Babylon. Would that person really be one of God's people? It would seem logical, to me at least, that if one continues embracing false religious doctrine, then they haven't really fled from Babylon the Great and haven't really listened to God's command to “Get out of her my people.” And if they are not listening to that command, then in what sense would the words “my people” apply to them?
I saw your question. I thought it was one of those questions that was more of a statment. (I've spent that last couple minutes trying to remember what those questions are called. Any help?)
rhetorical, I believe?
Quote (david @ Aug. 18 2006,14:09) H scriptureseeker,
I saw your question. I thought it was one of those questions that was more of a statment. (I've spent that last couple minutes trying to remember what those questions are called. Any help?)ROMANS 9:22-25
“If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]? It is as he says also in Ho·se′a: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’;” (compare Hosea 2:23)In light of the scripture above, is it possible that people who were not His people can come to be called and known as His people?
“Get out of her my people.”
What if someone who apparently is one of God's people decides not to get out of false religion? Would they still be considered one of God's people? If they accepted false teachings, paganisms, traditions of men, etc? Basically, they would be disobeying God's instructions to get out of Babylon. Would that person really be one of God's people? It would seem logical, to me at least, that if one continues embracing false religious doctrine, then they haven't really fled from Babylon the Great and haven't really listened to God's command to “Get out of her my people.” And if they are not listening to that command, then in what sense would the words “my people” apply to them?
H scriptureseeker, (I assumed you meant seekingtruth)“Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’;” (compare Hosea 2:23)
I always took this to refer to including the gentiles in the plan of salvation.
4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
“Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;As I read this, the call to come out is still in the future, until then I can, and should be a witness to those trapped in darkness.
Quote I always took this to refer to including the gentiles in the plan of salvation.
Of course. So do I. That scripture doesn't refer specifically to what we're discussing.Quote As I read this, the call to come out is still in the future, until then I can, and should be a witness to those trapped in darkness. Oh, I see what you're saying now.
But seekingtruth (sorry I called you differently), when we look at the description of Babylon the Great, the harlot and how it is described in the Bible, and when we are told to flee from it, so that we don't partake of her sins, why would you want to embrase or support Babylon?
Yes, preach to her. Give her a warning message. But separate yourself from her. Otherwise…For those who may be interested, there is a major work soon to be released which has its focus on John 1:1.
This can be found at:
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
As for the “New World Translation,” the following website is provided “In Defense of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures” :
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
Agape.
For those who may be interested, http://aomin.org/Witnesses.html has some useful information on Jn 1:1
as to the New World Translation:
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT “a frightful mistranslation,” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said “it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”
“Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation.” (These words were excerpted from the tape, “Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation”, Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT “a shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures…. it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation.” (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Dr. Robert Countess’ published doctoral thesis, The Jehovah’s Witness New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed 1982), is perhaps the most thorough and devastating critique of the New World Translation [NWT]. His overall conclusions are that the NWT:
…has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation…the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern or scholarly. And interwoven throughout its fabric is inconsistent
application of its own principles enunciated in the Foreword and Appendix.1Professor Edmond Gruss, author of a standard historical and theological work, Apostles of Denial, writes:
A sound interpretation of any passage requires a careful grammatical exegesis. Watchtower publications repeatedly present doctrines and interpretations of the Scriptures which completely misunderstand or ignore grammar. Before the Society entered into the field of translation, there were many verses which gave them trouble because of their direct
contradiction of the Witnesses’ doctrines. With the appearance of the New World Translation the difficult passages in many cases were weakened or eliminated by a translation that violated or ignored the rules of grammar.2Dr. Anthony Hoekema, author of The Four Major Cults points out that:
… the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually impose their own theological system upon Scripture and force it to comply with their beliefs.… their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of their peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled
into the text of the Bible itself.3The late Dr. Walter Martin, author of Jehovah of the Watchtower, and a respected authority on cults, observes that of the anonymous seven-member translation committee at least five had no training in Greek:
These books possess a veneer of scholarship unrivaled for its daring and boldness in a field that all informed scholars know Jehovah’s Witnesses are almost totally unprepared to venture into. As a matter of fact, the authors have been able to uncover partially a carefully guarded Watchtower secret: the names of five of the members of the New World
Translation committee. Not one of these five people has any training in Greek…[or Hebrew].4Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary and author of The Text of the New Testament states: “…the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.”5
In light of the above testimony, we must conclude that the scholarly Christian community has rendered its verdict on the NWT: such a translation must not be trusted to accurately convey God’s Word because of its unrelenting biases in
translation. Nor can Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to an alleged “trinitarian bias” on the part of these scholars for the issue is not personal theology but accuracy in translation. Even non-Christian scholars of New Testament Greek would agree that the NWT is not an accurate one, for rules of languages, grammar, and translation are true regardless of personal theological belief. We will now proceed to document several examples of mistranslation in the NWT, as confirmation of the above testimony and our thesis in general.Examples of Mistranslation
The Watchtower Society tells us that “Jehovah is against such clergy prophets whom he did not send forth from his intimate group and who ‘steal’ words from his Bible in order to make a wrong application of them…he will rid himself of this
‘burden’ by abandoning Christendom to calamity…. To such self-opinionated religionists, the Jeremiah class [Jehovah’s Witnesses] say: ‘You have changed the words of the living God…’”7The Witnesses also declare, “God does not deal with persons who ignore his Word and go according to their own independent ideas.”8
But who is it that really “steals” or “ignores” God’s words in order to bolster their own independent ideas?
In the following section we have utilized the Watchtower Society’s New World Translation and Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969). It gives the Greek text, a word for word English translation below the Greek text, and has a column containing the New World Translation to the right. In the following examples we have provided the New World Translation and the New American Standard translation so the reader may make a quick comparison
prior to a brief discussion. The NWT mistranslation is supplied in capital letters for emphasis.1. Matthew 25:46 [“Punishment” is translated “cutting off” to support their theology of annihilation of the wicked (or conditional immortality)]. “And these will depart into everlasting CUTTING-OFF but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” NWT “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” NAS The Greek kolasin is translated “cutting-off” in order to escape the text’s teaching of eternal punishment. How do standard Greek lexicons define kolasin?
• J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 352) give an illustration of the meaning of kolasin as “punishment and much torment.”
• H. K. Moulton in The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978, p. 235) defines it as “chastisement, punishment.”
• New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon (Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1974, 1977, p. 353) defines it as “correction, pu
nishment, penalty.”
• The Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, p. 441) states “1. punishment… 2. of divine retribution… go away into eternal punishment, Matt. 25:45.”
• Gerhard Kittle (ed) in the Theological Dictionary of New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 816) defines it as “punishment.”Over hundreds of years, words may evolve in meaning, hence kolasin at one time could be translated “cutting-off,” meaning the removal of that which is evil. It could also have the meaning of punishment for the purposes of correction.9
However, that this was not its intended meaning in biblical times is evident from the two quotations by Greek scholars, Mantey and Trench, given below (Greek words are transliterated by this author):
In Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation and Kingdom Interlinear Translation (Matt. 25:46), the Greek word kolasin, which is regularly defined as “punishment” in Greek lexicons, is translated “cuttingoff,” in spite of the fact that there isn’t a shred of lexical evidence anywhere for such a translation. We have found this word in first-century Greek writings in 107 different contexts and in every one of them, it has the meaning of “punishment,” and never “cutting-off.” But since their premise is that there can be no eternal punishment, they have translated the Scripture to make it somewhat compatible with their theology….Kolasin is also mistranslated “restraint” in 1 John 4:18.10 [quote] The kolasis aionios of Matt. xxv.46, as it is plain, is not merely corrective, and therefore temporary, discipline;…for in proof that kolasis with kolazesthai had acquired in Hellenistic Greek this severer sense, and was used simply as “punishment” or “torment,” with no necessary underthought of the bettering through it of him who endured it, we have only to refer to such passages as the following: Josephus, Antt.xv. 2.2; Phil, De Agric. 9; Mart. Polycarp. 2; 2 Macc iv 38; Wisd. xix.4; and indeed the words of St. Peter himself (2 Ep. II.9).11
Notes
1 Robert Countess, The Jehovah’s Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1983), pp. 91, 93.
2 Edmond Gruss, Apostles of Denial (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), pp. 236-37.
3 Anthony Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), pp. 238-39.
4 Walter Martin, Jehovah of the Watchtower (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974), pp. 129, 175-78, cf.,
Gruss, p. 198.
5 Bruce Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” rpt. of April 1953, Theology Today
(Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1953), p. 74.
6 Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press, 1980), pp. 136-37.
7 “The Royal Shepherd of Bible Prophecy,” The Watchtower, Vol. 100, no. 17, Sept. 1, 1979
(Brooklyn, NY: WBTS), p. 30.
8 The Watchtower, March 15, 1972, p. 189.
9 Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1973), Vol. 3, “Punishment”; R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 24-25.
10 Mantey, Depth Exploration, p. 142.
11 Trench, pp. 25-26.
4TDStaff0705 New World Translation Part 2Thank you for that informative reply, much to consider there.
When examining the materials presented at: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm it should be quickly observed that many (if not most) of the points of contention just mentioned above are, indeed, fully addressed.
On that note, I would like to touch upon just one of the ones above, “Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar,” wherein you quoted him as saying, “it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
A bit more of the quote in context might be of interest:
“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect [Jehovah’s Witnesses] is seen in their New Testament translation. J[oh]n i1 is translated: 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible….It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.” – “The Expository Times.” (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, v. 1-, Oct. 1889-), vol. 65, October, 1953. BS410 .E8 / 54-43327 r82.
And yet, whereas, within the above he states quite emphatically, “'and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible,” some years later, in a letter written to a Mr. David Burnett, Australia, dated May 20, 1974, apparently Barclay had changed his mind by stating: “You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God.'” – Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow. “Ever Yours; A Selection From the Letters of William Barclay.” Rawlins, Clive L. (b.1940-d.?), Editor. (Dunbar: Labarum Publications, 1985).
In explaining this a bit further, Barclay had offered this example in another of his works:
“An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, 'The preacher is the man,' I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, 'The preacher is man,' I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.” – Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow. “Jesus as They Knew Him.” (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 21, 22.
And yet, if we were to put in place of ”preacher” and “man” the words “Word/Jesus” and “god,” with a few other adjustments as well, consider how this very point might have otherwise read:
“An illustration from English [about the Greek] will make this clear. If I say, 'The Word/Jesus is the god,' I use the definite article before both Word/Jesus and god, and I thereby identify the word/Jesus with some quite definite individual god whom I have in mind [in this case, Almighty God]. But, if I say, 'The Word/Jesus is god,' I have omitted the definite article before god, and what I mean is that the word/Jesus must be classified as a god, he is in the sphere of godhood, he is a godlike being.”
Perhaps this is in some part the reason why, little known to some, Barclay had later admitted:
“It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God….Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.” – “William Barclay – A Spiritual Autobiography.” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 49, 50. BS2351 .B28 A37 1975 / 73-76528.
Interestingly, although unknown (or ignored) by some, with respect to the Greek, a number of other Greek scholars have admitted the same as Barclay had some years later:
“…, from the point of view of grammar alone, κα θες ν λγος [from John 1:1c] could be rendered ‘the Word was a god’…” – Harris, Murray J. (b.?-d.?). “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 60. BT216 .H37 1992 / 92-30780.
“[John 1:1c] could also be translated: ‘the Word was a god’ or ‘the Word was divine.’ Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations [including the common, “and the Word was God”] can be defended on grammatical grounds.” – Loader, William R. G. (b.1944-d.?). “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues.” vol. xxiii of: “Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie.” (Frankfurt am Main; New York; Paris: Verlag P. Lang, c1989), p. 156. BT198 .L57 1989 / 89-12453. 2nd Revised Edition (Frankfurt am Main, Germany; New York, New York: P. Lang, c1992), p. 155. BT198 .L57 1992 / 92-19502.
“Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse [John 1:1c] should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’” – “The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.” (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, vol. 1-, Jan. 1939-), vol. XIII [13], no. 4, October 1951. BS410 .C3 / a40-000163.
So again, instead of being “grammatically impossible,” Christendom's Trinitarian scholars agree, it is possible to render John 1:1c as, “and the Word was a god”; and thus, this rendering is not “intellectually dishonest.”
Another useful site which also addresses many of these very same issues, as well as others which some have raised, is: http://www.jehovah.to/
Agape.
[John 17:3; 1 Tim. 2:5]ps,
If you go to the last few pages on the biblical threads there are some locked threads there on Jesus and Michael.A man came knocking at my door,
Take this pamphlet he did emplore,
I took one look and I could see,
A Jehovah's witness stood before me.His doctrine he started to tell by rote,
As I listened I made a mental note,
He spoke of the Word but not understand
That he really needed to be born againI challenged this man, the Spirit strong
I said to him, to whom do you belong,
Would you be prepared if God asked of you
To leave the JW's and start over anew.He said that's something I will not do,
I won't leave the JW's for Him or for you
I shook my head sadly as I turned away
You have made your choice upon this day.Should any of us wonder how Jesus would have responded, that is, if he were asked the same:
“Would you [Jesus] be prepared if God asked of you to leave [off being His Witness] and start over anew.”
In view of the fact that Jesus, himself, had also been a 'faithful and true witness' of his own God (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), I'm quite sure he would have clearly understood that such a proposal could only have come from Satan himself, for Jesus would have known full well that God would have never asked this of His own, dearly beloved Son.
Agape, Alan.
Good grief Alan, are you a JW by any chance?
This poem obviously isn't aimed at Jesus, but was aimed at a man who was perhaps like the pharisees in that his religion meant more to him than a relationship with God.
Jesus had/has that relationship as shown in Scripture, so let's not be silly about this.. k?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
