- This topic is empty.
- Posts
ED J said:
Quote Of a truth there is a bridge, but you are not ready yo cross it yet? There is no “crossing” the bridge by anyone. Each side would have to meet in the middle and that just ain't going to happen dude!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 06 2010,03:31) ED J said: Quote You have not identified which word that is?
Don't you think that should make a difference?
ED,I gave you the Greek text. Here it is again,
4 παρεισέδυσαν1 γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι2 προγεγραμμένοι3 εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα4, ἀσεβεῖς5, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες6 εἰς ἀσέλγειαν7 καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην;8 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι.
παρεισδύ(ν)ω, verb, creep in unawares (1-1)
πάλαι, adverb, long ago, any while, a great while ago, old, in time past, of old (7-1)
προγράφω, verb, write, write aforetime, write afore, evidently set forth, before ordain (4-1)
κρίμα, noun, judgment, damnation, condemnation, be condemned, go to law , avenge (27-1)
ἀσεβής, adjective, ungodly, ungodly men (9-3)
μετατίθημι, verb, translate, carry over, remove, change, turn (6-1)
ἀσέλγεια, noun, lasciviousness, wantonness, filthy (10-1)
δεσπότης, noun, Lord, master (10-1)I underlined the word “despotes” (master) in the text. The lexical meaning of the word is given by the source immediately above (in bold). Click on the link below.
The Critical text is an older manuscript and thought to be more reliable because it would be closer to the original. It is the text used in theological seminaries throughout the world for required courses in New Testament Greek.
The words “Lord God” are not in the Critical Text. And it does not make a theological difference whether “despotes” is present or absent. You have asserted two times now that it makes a difference and have not demonstrated why? So again I ask you why or how does it matter? Jesus Christ is OUR LORD either way.
The debate has to do with which text is more reliable. No one thinks that it makes a theological difference.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Sticking to Biblical text and offering your opinions is what Bible study is all about.
I'm glad you offer more information and decided to be civil about presenting it.But you still have not answered my question: “can you read Greek with comprehension”?
Nor have you answered what specifically I meant by “Not Identifying the word”; highlighting 'a word' in Greek text is useless!
You have also underlined “Our Lord” in your commentary; is there a connection to the textual definition of the Greek word?
Or is that merely your personal 'perception' of 'truth', which may vary considerably over time?
Which specific “Word” in the “The Bible”=63, the word of “YHVH”=63; is the counterpart to 'that word'?
Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
Because: “The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit”!
Why WJ believes this “True statement” is meant as a personal attack against him I have NO idea?Importing critical commentary is something else (other than Bible study)
which Paramount's to hearsay information; not admissable in a court of law.
Acts 21:24: Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them,
that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things,
whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing;
but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded
that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.So the real question hear is:”is what you offer… 'things offered to idols' “?
That is the case you need to make to the non-Trinitarians!
All else to them is considered 'squag'! That is “Truth”!Importing critical commentary is like saying I'm right and if you don't believe me I will bring in Bob,
and if you don't believe me and Bob, I'll have to go get Stan, but he will just tell you
the same thing anyways so just believe me because 'I say so' and I'm right?I don't have a problem with you saying your right.
The problem comes in after saying you are right then trying to make 'others wrong'? (Matt.7:1-5)They have solid “Core Truth's” they hold dear, which you and WJ seem to ignore;
that's why 'you say' (the above colorized statement) 'that is what they are doing to you' (a mirror affect). (Psalm 18:25-27)“I” however, want both views to see the “Big Picture” and in doing so
you will see that the “Core Truth's” that you both hold dear are both correct!
What you need is full color spectral analysis, which I can provide for you.It's then up to both sides on this divide, to remove the 'squag' from their own beliefs.
Because “Bible Truth“=117 remains consistent!
Only perception of “Truth” changes; “Truth” does NOT change!Witnessing to the world in behalf of…
117=יהוה האלהים YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! (Psalm 45:17)
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgED J said:
Quote Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
This is getting too ridiculous now. I did inform you but you failed to make the inference. It is not proper to say that the word “Theos” is missing from the Critical Text because it is an older manuscript.The real question is why was the word “Theos” was ADDED in the Majority Text? If I write a letter and it is copied several times and words begin to appear which were not in my original letter, then that means that those words were ADDED. So Jude wrote a letter which read, “Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” It was copied over and over again and the word “God” appeared.
If you are not going to make an attempt to show half intelligence I will not continue to indulge you.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 06 2010,13:54) ED J said: Quote Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
This is getting too ridiculous now. I did inform you but you failed to make the inference. It is not proper to say that the word “Theos” is missing from the Critical Text because it is an older manuscript.The real question is why was the word “Theos” was ADDED in the Majority Text? If I write a letter and it is copied several times and words begin to appear which were not in my original letter, then that means that those words were ADDED. So Jude wrote a letter which read, “Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” It was copied over and over again and the word “God” appeared.
If you are not going to make an attempt to show half intelligence I will not continue to indulge you.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Why didn't you just explain it the first time, for those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
There is no reason you to insult those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
Based on your current jumbled word structure, could what you are now saying also be worded this way?….
The Greek word Θεός Thēŏs does not appear in earlier Greek manuscripts, instead the Greek word δεσπότην is present.
Would this word structure be an accurate representation of the intent of your original post referencing {δεσπότην}?You still have not answered my “other” question…
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?
Should I consider the answer to be 'NO'; based your newly formulated sarcastic remarks?Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 06 2010,16:15) Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 06 2010,13:54) ED J said: Quote Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
This is getting too ridiculous now. I did inform you but you failed to make the inference. It is not proper to say that the word “Theos” is missing from the Critical Text because it is an older manuscript.The real question is why was the word “Theos” was ADDED in the Majority Text? If I write a letter and it is copied several times and words begin to appear which were not in my original letter, then that means that those words were ADDED. So Jude wrote a letter which read, “Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” It was copied over and over again and the word “God” appeared.
If you are not going to make an attempt to show half intelligence I will not continue to indulge you.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Why didn't you just explain it the first time, for those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
There is no reason you to insult those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
Based on your current jumbled word structure, could what you are now saying also be worded this way?….
The Greek word Θεός Thēŏs does not appear in earlier Greek manuscripts, instead the Greek word δεσπότην is present.
Would this word structure be an accurate representation of the intent of your original post referencing {δεσπότην}?You still have not answered my “other” question…
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?
Should I consider the answer to be 'NO'; based your newly formulated sarcastic remarks?Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 09 2010,06:11) On another thread ED J said: Quote Hi Thinker, I do appreciate you going into depth explaining your reasoning for your belief.
These last two responses of yours to me are what Bible Study are all about.Perhaps as new issues present themselves you will be inclined to indulge(engage) them as well.
On this thread ED J said:
Quote It seems every time I engage you in conversation, you seem to drop all involvement in the thread?
Why is that, no signs of weakness on my part perhaps?
thinker
Hi Thinker,How about this thread?
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?ED J
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 08 2010,18:58) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 06 2010,16:15) Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 06 2010,13:54) ED J said: Quote Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
This is getting too ridiculous now. I did inform you but you failed to make the inference. It is not proper to say that the word “Theos” is missing from the Critical Text because it is an older manuscript.The real question is why was the word “Theos” was ADDED in the Majority Text? If I write a letter and it is copied several times and words begin to appear which were not in my original letter, then that means that those words were ADDED. So Jude wrote a letter which read, “Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” It was copied over and over again and the word “God” appeared.
If you are not going to make an attempt to show half intelligence I will not continue to indulge you.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Why didn't you just explain it the first time, for those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
There is no reason you to insult those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
Based on your current jumbled word structure, could what you are now saying also be worded this way?….
The Greek word Θεός Thēŏs does not appear in earlier Greek manuscripts, instead the Greek word δεσπότην is present.
Would this word structure be an accurate representation of the intent of your original post referencing {δεσπότην}?You still have not answered my “other” question…
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?
Should I consider the answer to be 'NO'; based your newly formulated sarcastic remarks?Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 09 2010,06:11) On another thread ED J said: Quote Hi Thinker, I do appreciate you going into depth explaining your reasoning for your belief.
These last two responses of yours to me are what Bible Study are all about.Perhaps as new issues present themselves you will be inclined to indulge(engage) them as well.
On this thread ED J said:
Quote It seems every time I engage you in conversation, you seem to drop all involvement in the thread?
Why is that, no signs of weakness on my part perhaps?thinker
Hi Thinker,How about this thread?
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?ED J
EdIt seems that he doesn't want to engage you. So why do you keep taunting him?
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 09 2010,10:58) Hi Thinker, “Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?
ED J
Hi Thinker,The thread is about the N.W.T. and their ability to translate Greek texts.
You had posted Greek texts with little to no explanation of how you derived at their meanings.When I asked you “Can you read Greek texts with comprehension”,
you still have not answered? Should I assume by your evasiveness the answer is a definite NO?I cannot read Greek texts with comprehension; I must define each word separately.
I seek “Truth”, but it seems to me and others here at the forum, this may not be your goal?Whenever you present a perceived yes/no, I ask merely for clarification on your position.
There is no motive on my part to try and prove you wrong; for I want to agree with you. (Job 32:32-33)You believes that I hold a position that is 'anti-Trinitarian'?
Here is a post by Georg on this very issue, who has read at least part of the free e-book…Quote (banana @ Dec. 17 2009,23:52) Ed From your early posts I can tell, you believe in the trinity; is that what your numbers are telling you?
What about Jesus creation by God, is that wrong according to your numbers?
I don't won't to fill up a whole page with questions
You see, I go by what the Bible says, I don't need numbers to confirm that.
My idea of truth is, GOD'S WORD IS TRUTH.Georg
I told you their is a bridge!
But I refuse to offer support to your faulty position, because in doing so you
will then believe that I consider the “non-Trinitarian” view of God to be (falsely) wrong.
Because their View of God is correct! (Isaiah 33:17) Your view of God is partially correct,
but the problem with your view of God is… it puts God out of reach. (Prob. 7:19-20)Jer.23:23-24 I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself
in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.God bless you Thinker,
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 09 2010,11:20) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 08 2010,18:58) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 06 2010,16:15) Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 06 2010,13:54) ED J said: Quote Plus you have not explained why “Theos” is missing from the critical text that 'as you say' is more accurate?
When the systems of religion and traditions of men say something is true: BUYER BEWARE!
This is getting too ridiculous now. I did inform you but you failed to make the inference. It is not proper to say that the word “Theos” is missing from the Critical Text because it is an older manuscript.The real question is why was the word “Theos” was ADDED in the Majority Text? If I write a letter and it is copied several times and words begin to appear which were not in my original letter, then that means that those words were ADDED. So Jude wrote a letter which read, “Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” It was copied over and over again and the word “God” appeared.
If you are not going to make an attempt to show half intelligence I will not continue to indulge you.
thinker
Hi Thinker,Why didn't you just explain it the first time, for those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
There is no reason you to insult those of us who do NOT know how to read Greek?
Based on your current jumbled word structure, could what you are now saying also be worded this way?….
The Greek word Θεός Thēŏs does not appear in earlier Greek manuscripts, instead the Greek word δεσπότην is present.
Would this word structure be an accurate representation of the intent of your original post referencing {δεσπότην}?You still have not answered my “other” question…
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?
Should I consider the answer to be 'NO'; based your newly formulated sarcastic remarks?Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 09 2010,06:11) On another thread ED J said: Quote Hi Thinker, I do appreciate you going into depth explaining your reasoning for your belief.
These last two responses of yours to me are what Bible Study are all about.Perhaps as new issues present themselves you will be inclined to indulge(engage) them as well.
On this thread ED J said:
Quote It seems every time I engage you in conversation, you seem to drop all involvement in the thread?
Why is that, no signs of weakness on my part perhaps?thinker
Hi Thinker,How about this thread?
“Do you know how to read Greek texts with comprehension”?ED J
EdIt seems that he doesn't want to engage you. So why do you keep taunting him?
WJ
Hi WJ,When does engaging someone with questions for the sake of clarity regarding “Truth” become 'taunting'?
Ed J
Did you have a question for me Ed?
You know Ed, there's like 6 or 7 topics started on the NWT. It does indeed seem to be a popular Bible, given that other than the NWT, I think only the KJV has it's own threads. I'm sure whatever answers you want could be found in one or more of those threads. But if you have an actual question (why not start with “one”) please do ask.
(Ok, I just checked. There are 5 threads on the New World Translation, one of them being specifically on the NWT and John 1:1c.)
Quote (david @ Feb. 01 2010,17:11) Did you have a question for me Ed? You know Ed, there's like 6 or 7 topics started on the NWT. It does indeed seem to be a popular Bible, given that other than the NWT, I think only the KJV has it's own threads. I'm sure whatever answers you want could be found in one or more of those threads. But if you have an actual question (why not start with “one”) please do ask.
(Ok, I just checked. There are 5 threads on the New World Translation, one of them being specifically on the NWT and John 1:1c.)
Hi David,OK; TT asserts that the N.W.T. translators betray themselves at the start of this thread,
what is your take on this assertion?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMy Husband thinks that the N.W.T. has errors in it, more then any other. The Rye Bible Study of the K.J. is the closest to the Original Script. I also like it, because it has God's Month's in it. That way you can figure out when Christ was really Born. Not on Dec. 25.
IreneQuote My Husband thinks that the N.W.T. has errors in it, more then any other. Unfortunately, Elizabeth, your husband did not come to that conclusion based on a comparitive study.
My guess is, he doesn't believe what JW's believe and so rejects what he must assume causes their beliefs.
Also, a lot of trinitarians reject the NWT only because of John 1:1c.Ed, I already responded to his first post. Please check the first page. I personally find the “i am” argument about as ridiculous as they come.
Quote (david @ Feb. 03 2010,18:15) Ed, I already responded to his first post. Please check the first page.
I personally find the “i am” argument about as ridiculous as they come.
Hi David,Thanks for your response! I agree it is nonsenseical.
In case you didn't read the whole thread I was the
only one defending your Organization in your absence.
Frivolous malicious attacks I find offensive, and I CANNOT
sit idly by even though they are not against me directly.
I know you can appreciate this thought. I also find JW's
are taught pretty well in general. God bless you David.Witnessing to the world in behalf of…
יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! (Psalm 45:17)
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgNO, trinitarians dont reject the N.W.T. just because of John 1;1; and yes, I have read alot from that bible, while I was helping out a girl who was studying with them, and it really saddened my heart. They have added and took out a lot! And EVERYWHERE where Jesus is called Lord God they added Jehovah, Where He is called Lord they add Jehovah. No focus is on Jesus. They are denied communion too and that is part of your Salvaiton!! They say Jesus is Micheal the archangel and scripture tells us God never said to any angel, you are my Son, or I am your Father, there is no scripts that even come close to meaning Jesus is Micheal. There faith IS NOT in Jesus and you CANNOT have the HOLY SPIRIT without HIM!!
YOU DONT EXCEPT HIM, HE DONT EXCEPT YOU!!katjo
Quote And EVERYWHERE where Jesus is called Lord God they added Jehovah, Where He is called Lord they add Jehovah. In most Bibles, God's name has been REMOVED and replaced with “Lord” or “God” about …… 7000 times!
Check the Hebrew!
Compare it to the English!Your Bible might make note of this by capitalizing GOD and LORD where they make this superstitious substitution.
We KNOW for a fact that God's name was in the Hebrew about 7000 times, and most Bibles remove it about 7000 times. But in the “new testament” where they surely also removed it, there is no concrete proof of this because we only have copies of copies. (There is other proof, such as quotes, which surely where not changed by the original Bible writers.)So, we RESTORE God's name a couple HUNDRED TIMES.
And every other Bible REMOVES God's name 7000 TIMES.Which Bible conveys the more accurate thought?
Quote There faith IS NOT in Jesus
More knowledgeable people know that almost everything JW's do, is because of Jesus. They go preaching because of Jesus words for example. (Mat 28:19,20)Quote (david @ Feb. 17 2010,16:50) Quote And EVERYWHERE where Jesus is called Lord God they added Jehovah, Where He is called Lord they add Jehovah. In most Bibles, God's name has been REMOVED and replaced with “Lord” or “God” about …… 7000 times!
Check the Hebrew!
Compare it to the English!Your Bible might make note of this by capitalizing GOD and LORD where they make this superstitious substitution.
We KNOW for a fact that God's name was in the Hebrew about 7000 times, and most Bibles remove it about 7000 times. But in the “new testament” where they surely also removed it, there is no concrete proof of this because we only have copies of copies. (There is other proof, such as quotes, which surely where not changed by the original Bible writers.)So, we RESTORE God's name a couple HUNDRED TIMES.
And every other Bible REMOVES God's name 7000 TIMES.Which Bible conveys the more accurate thought?
Quote There faith IS NOT in Jesus
More knowledgeable people know that almost everything JW's do, is because of Jesus. They go preaching because of Jesus words for example. (Mat 28:19,20)
The exact number of times God's Name is used in the Hebrew Masoretic Texts is 6,823 times.This Number is very significant Click Here to find out why Sixth Post Down
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ Feb. 03 2010,18:14) Quote My Husband thinks that the N.W.T. has errors in it, more then any other. Unfortunately, Elizabeth, your husband did not come to that conclusion based on a comparative study.
My guess is, he doesn't believe what JW's believe and so rejects what he must assume causes their beliefs.
Also, a lot of trinitarians reject the NWT only because of John 1:1c.
Sorry but that is not so. Making a statement that my Husband has not studied comparative is wrong, because He has both the NWT and the Rye Study Bible of King James. And He has studied like 4hrs. in a row day after day since He retired, 7 years ago. So before you judge get your facts straight. Also when the J.W. came to our door, He let them in. It was also one of your people that first made us aware of the preexisting of Jesus.I have a King James Bible and I like it. I never use the NWT.
Lets see the quote that was made in Jude 1:4
In the King James it says …LORD God and our Lord Jesus Christ. If one does not watch it, that one LORD is in Capital letters and one is not, they fall over it There is the difference. I don't fall over John 1:1 either like so many do. God is a title and used in Ancient times for many. And we know that Satan is called the God of this world. And he is holding many captive…..Jesus is also called God in John 1:1 and in Hebrew 1:8. And we do not believe in a trinity. That is what took us out of the Catholic Church, and I thank God for it. My Husband must have seen an error in the NWT. He likes the Rye Bible study of King James Bible, and someone said it is the closest to the Original Hebrew and Greek transcripts. I don't know.
And my name is Irene and not Elizabeth, that is our users name and my Mothers name. I want to make you aware of that we have had several users name starting with IAM4Truth, Irene, banana and now Elizabeth. We had a lot of trouble with our old Computer and then getting a New Computer set up. Hopefully we will be known now by Elizabeth for a long, long time. But I have used the same Aviator for awhile now.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
