@IvanDefendingTruth Then you are not a Monotheist as trinitarians are. Monotheism is the belief in the EXISTENCE of one God. If you believe that other gods EXIST then you are a polytheist.. The bible tells us the only 1 God exists.
@October31st1517 I don't accept Trinitarian monotheism as the monotheism expressly taught in the Bible where God's heavenly and earthly sons are legitimately considered Gods. (Psalm 8:5; 82:8)
@IvanDefendingTruth How can one be a "biblical monostheist" and claim that "that Jesus himself is god" and that "he is an individual unique deity" from the Father who is also deity. Would this not be a plurality of deities?
WHERE in John 1:1 is one called "theos" with the article and one is not? Because, that is NOWHERE in the greek where you can find that. There is a distinction because the word was "with God" but it also says the "Word WAS God." The reason trinitarians view it this way is because it couldn't be worded as "God was the Word", then how would the word be with God? If we are going to carry distinction, the distinction is purely personal.
@polgas733 I am a trinitarian, I believe that within the Being of God there are three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal co-divine persons...I was making the comment because Strafford is being inconsistent with his argument. I was just using what he presented. I also Like Romans 9:5
@johnthreesixteen316 And they keep changing their minds! Will the men of Sodom be resurrected?Yes....Watchtower 7/1879 page 8,No.....Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338,Yes....Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479,No.....Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31,Yes...Live Forever (old Ed.) page 179,No....Live Forever (new Ed.) page 179,Yes...Insight, vol. 2., page 985,No...Revelation book, page 273. These changes are more like flashing lights, on and off again. How can they be trusted?
Failed/Changed prophecies. The Millennium began in 1873. (Thy Kingdom Come, page 305),The Millennium began in 1874. (Finished Mystery, page 386),The resurrection would occur in 1878 (They Kingdom Come, page 234),Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old would return in 1925. (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89),The Book of Ruth is "not prophetical". (Watchtower Reprints IV, p.3110, 12/7/02),The Book of Ruth "is prophetic". (Preservation", p. 169, 175, 176.)
@johnthreesixteen316 The WT Vol XCIII April1,1972 claims "He (God) had a "prophet" to warn them.This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep soilders of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.". My friend, the WT proclaims to be prophets. They are not!
In 1889, the WT said " we present PROOFS that the setting up of the kingdon of God has already begun...and that 'the battle of the great day of God almighty' (Revelation16:14),which will end in AD1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced.". So, the WT presented "proofs". These "proofs" were wrong, so what credibility do they have to "proclaim" anything?
Jesus Christ is God. 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Isaiah 9:6 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
@johnthreesixteen316 Amen! If Jehovah the Father is God (that's one) and now the Son is called God, that’s two isn’t it? If God says there is only one God how can there be two, even if one is called mighty and the other almighty?
@johnthreesixteen316 shame on ur men tradition teachings. Trinity does not even exist in the bible. Stafford have so many great points to prove that the father Jehovah and Jesus are not one persona. Everything was based on the bible itself. What Watchtower does is to help JW's to understand Jesus teachings, to follow his commands. As a follower of Christ, true christian must apply and follow Jesus commands and I see that the only religion that I know of who follows all of that are JW's.
@polgas733 Believe what you want to believe, I believe what's in the bible, not the teachings of men's tradition. If I can't find any proof in the bible that trinity exist then I wouldn't believe it. I think any religion that believes in the Trinity got their mind twisted, they don't mind confusion, cause Trinity do not make sense at all....In John 1:1, I think Stafford made it clear on that one. So, the question is, are there any other texts that proves that trinity existed? NOOOO.
@raqyrose "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19
IN THE NAME(singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
@polgas733 If you want to more about the trinity issues, I have a lot of videos that I favorited in my youtube channel that explained about trinity. You can go there and watch it. You might want to get your bible and read it cause there's many scriptures that supports our (JW) reasonings. I would suggest you to go to ewatchman's channel and defendingyahweh's channel because they can explain it eloquently and also some of my (JW) fellow believer's channel.
@polgas733 I can careless where the bible came from, what matters is the bible is inspired by. God himself made it available to all mankind to study about him (the truth about God) etc... Also, what matters to me is the truth, texts that makes sense that based on the bible itself, not some kind of men tradition teachings.You may have a bible but do they make sense? or does your bible teaches trinity? U need to study where trinity came from and examine the bible and use common sense. Peace!
@polgas733 I am sure he did. Also, the bible I use is the most accurate translation in our modern times to understand, compare to any other bible translations, so dont tell me that I dont understand the bible. It is God's words and when I read a text, I try to make sense out of it. If Jesus said the ONLY the TRUE GOD is the father, Im going to accept that. I do not think you understand your bible. I appreciate if you dont reply back cause I dont want to argue who does not accept the truth.
@kiwichristian2009 Most certainly not! Scripture clearly teaches that there is but only one Mighty ("God") and that it was He "ALONE" Who created the Heavens and the Earth and ALL things in them and that there was no redeemer and no one beside Him in the beginning.
@Frank4YAHWEH If Jehovah the Father is God (that's one) and now the Son is called God, that’s two isn’t it? If God says there is only one God how can there be two, even if one is called mighty and the other almighty?
@kiwichristian2009 Going back to my initial comment that I made and you are responding to, I am giving reference to the doctrine "Jesus IS God!". Nowhere in Scripture is such a foolish statement as this ever made and the Messiah is never recorded as saying "I am God!". This doctrine most certainly did not originate from Scripture from where we are to get our doctrine for reproof and correction and instruction in righteousness.
The words "Jesus IS God!" are most certainly a perversion of what Scripture actually states. The Messiah is referred constantly in translation as the "son OF God".
@polgas733 Amen! You are right. JW's say that John10:30 means "I and the Father are One in intent/purpose", they pervert the gospel and have no credible authority at all.
@polgas733 You misunderstand my comments, i KNOW Jesus Christ is God. He is my Savior and i am promised heaven when i die, thanks to the sacrifice He made for me. Acts4:12. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
@kiwichristian2009 Who are you to say you're going to Heaven? when you have yet to face the Judge in heaven?
Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the ELDERS(priests) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
if you are promised heaven, why not go sin and do whatever you want then.
@polgas733 "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.2:16). Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
@enedraAT Thats a good point. However it is still a heretical position, biblically speaking. "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." Galatians 4:6
@supermanny73 There is only one God. He is three persons......"1 John 5:7..... "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Genesis 1:26....Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
@babystinky It's not making a distinction between 'persons' but between beings. ho theos is a being and theos is another being. Reading you will see that it is not a distinction in persons but in actual beings. To explain different person in the trinity they use terms such as 'greater' , 'lesser' but in here it is not using any of those.
@supermanny73 In Exodus 7, the second book of the bible, God called Moses God(Elohim). In the Psalms God called men gods(same Hebrew word Elohim) so are you saying that God is contradicting himself. The point that he is stressing is that in the bible men were called gods.
@IvanDefendingTruth "it is not making a "person" distinction but a "THEOS" distinction "
In order to believe this "THEOS distinction" you must first embrace polytheism. If you are a follower of Staford, that is not a giant leap for you. Throughout this debate and the one with White, he is willing to embrace anything, as long as it doesnt deify the Lord. Danger!
Just to add: John clearly calls The Word "The Eternal Life" that was "With" the Father. IF this "Eternal Life" is another God or Deity then you have a strange situation and something closer to having more then one God in one's spiritual life since "The Eternal Life" clearly speaks toward his self existence and sustaining.
These debates are so tired and worn out, one wonders why such smart individuals keep wasting their time and saliva. This is just one of the many reasons I can't stand religion.
Let people believe whatever they want to believe and stop trying to convince others of what you believe is 'truth'; it's not only arrogant, but it's condescending and downright annoying. Believe and let believe.
It is still a work in progress - he has completed genesis and exodus. These are available to purchase from his website as ebooks or from Amazon etc. as printed.
See:- ancient-hebrew . org / 9_home . html
An esword module of Genesis can be downloaded from here.
queruvimwj, how's it going brother? I agree the NWT is a good literal Bible translation. There's also good dynamic Bible translations as well, like the New English Bible. It's a Bible the Society quotes often.
No, it has both Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I think online though, there's only the Greek Scriptures. On Amazon is where I got mine from. It was only 1 dollar used. I checked on the UK Amazon and it's .01 pounds minus shipping of course.
Is there any books you would recommend? Whether it deals with translation, Biblical History, Bible translations, etc. ? A book that would beneficial for a Bible student of course.
A few months ago, a watchtower article discussing the the codex vaticanus referenced a book called 'The Oxford illustrated guide to the bible'. This is out of print at the moment but there are plenty of copies on Amazon etc.
This book is a compilation of many scholars work & builds up a history of the manuscripts (hebrew & greek) & how they became canon. It also discusses the the ones that did not. It is a very comprehensive work. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
My bible arrived yesterday - interesting. But not one mention of Jehovah - not even Psalms 83:18! Like all the illustrative artwork - a nice touch. Many of the verses are translated in a similar style to the JPS Tanakh (2002 ed.). But so far I would have to say that the JPS is technically superior - but being newer that's no surprise.
Yeah, it doesn't use the divine name much. It does render certain texts, though, in a interesting fashion. That is why I am assuming the Society (WT) often quotes this Bible. John 1:1 is interesting. Genesis 1:1-2 is also different than the norm.
It does use "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 3:15; 6:3 and in a few footnotes.
Comparing next weeks bible reading with it. It has some interpolation - Samuel 13:1 compare to NWT. At least one verse from the reading was completely missing from it (can't remember which though, it does not seem to take into account the LXX segments which the NWT does)
@IvanDefendingTruth It is easy to read & get the basic understanding. The literal translation of NWT can be a bit dry. Genesis 1:1 is worded basically the same as the JPS. I haven't looked at the Greek scriptures in detail yet, but the Hebrew only seems to use the MSS, no LXX & no Qumran. The NWT does not take the Qumran in to account but the new JPS does but since its last revision was 1984 that's to be expected. NEB maps and pictures are very useful.
@IvanDefendingTruth JPS must have the edge at the moment as it is the only translation I know of that tells you where the translator is guessing and not actually translating.
If you look this up on Amazon . com you can preview some pages including Genesis 1:1,2 Also take a look at Genesis 3:16
Have not seen the Schoken but any bible is only as good as the sources it is based on & the JPS is the most up to date, using whe widest ranges of sources that I have seen.
I think I may have that Bible in a computer program, but i'll have to check it out.
The Schocken translates Genesis 1:1-2 as the following:
At the beginning of Gods creating of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was wild and waste, darkness over the face of Ocean, rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters
I think both the Schocken and the JPS are pretty similar in some parts. Schocken uses YHWH as the divine name by the way.
When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water
LOL And here I am fretting about how I am going to afford £90 for 'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature' by W Bauer
Just noticed it does use offspring instead of seed. I'd rather have seed though, because that's what Paul uses in Galatians where he identifies Jesus and the anointed as this "seed."
@IvanDefendingTruth 'seed' - this is another one of those translation issues. What does it say and how do we understand it?
Thayers put it this way '2b) family, tribe, posterity' or as I would interpret it - offspring. So which translation is better, should paul text be re-worded? Could seed mean anything else in theses verses? So how litteral do we translate? Many questions to ponder.
Well, I don't know. I'm not a translation expert but "offspring" to me denotes children or descendents without much implication. The term seed, however, conveys, in my opinion, a lineage of a sort.
I think "seed" has that notion of lineage or genealogy which, in my opinion, "offspring" does not. But that's merely my point of view.
True, but it does lead to some confusion with the translating of :-
G4701
σπορά
spora
Thayer Definition:
1) seed
which the NWT prefixes with [reproductive] but many translations do not. See 1 Pet 1:23.
But then, It could get confused with the term used at Mat 3:7 'offspring' BUT at Mat 26:29 this same word it translated 'product'. Which of these two is closest to the original meaning?
@IvanDefendingTruth do you believe it's a good "literal" bible translation in light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of bible scholars render it a poor translation?
On what grounds do you consider it a "good literal translation"?
@queruvimwj Rubbish! It is based on the corrupted catholic bible! Since 1611, only the Scriptural text of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV) has stood the test of time. The same cannot be said for Wycliffe's translation, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva, et al., etc. Moreover, every subsequent attempt at introducing a new English text to supplant the AV has invariably failed as a matter of historical fact.
The thing is that when we say translate, what we are really saying is 'approximate'. Some Hebrew terms would take a whole sentence in English to fully describe. We need Hebrew thought to go with that text. There are verses in the Hebrew text that when compared in various translations we find significantly different meanings. That is why a mechanical translation, like the one being produced by Jeff Benner of 'ancienthebrew . org' is going to be invaluable.
Also, and to me more interestingly is its introduction entitled 'the unbroken chain of uncertainty' which discusses the many still unknown and uncertain ancient Hebrew words and phrases in the Cannon. All these are marked and footnoted through-out the text's. I think you will be surprised at how many there actually are!
I highly recommend that you get a copy of the latest 2002 edition JPS Tanakh Hebrew-English students edition. This is the revised and updated MSS (the 1980's edition was used as the basis for the NWT Hebrew scriptures). Using better etymological understanding of the text new understandings are emerging. Eg.
Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning god created' is now translated as 'When god began creating'
This is because the latest understanding of 'bereshit' does not indicate an absolute beginning.
Yes but again, what did he mean when using the term Angel - a spirit being or a physical messenger/judge etc?
So its not how he wrote it, but rather how WE understand it. This is why I believe literal is always best.
As for 'Paul's inspired acceptance' - you could look at it that way or you could just accept that this was the general translation to hand at the time & he was just quoting from it. Be careful not to fall into the trap of KJV onlyists - that ANY bible translation is 100% correct.
Talking about Psalms 8:5 there's a good book by Edgar Foster on Amazon entitled "Angelomorphic Christology and the Exegesis of Psalm 8:5 in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean: An Examination of Tertullian's Reluctance to Attribute Angelic Properties to the Son of God"
It's only 2 dollars. It will give you some valuable insight in this verse. The book is a scholarly work so it's not the easiest thing to read(The author is one of Jehovah's Witnesses by the way)
I will try to obtain it, but living in the UK, I think it is going to cost somewhat more than $2.
I will have to add it to my ever expanding list of books. I am currently reading all the latest research on Israel's associated nations for insight - just completed the Babylonians (comprising of sumer / akadia / babylon) , there is some mind blowing stuff in this alone.
I am now researching the Phoenicians & will then be moving on to the Hittites.
Here's an example of what I have found - try searching the web for Innana the summerian forerunner and the the Akkadian Ishtar. In both instances there are cuneiform tablets from 2300BCE onwards that directly call here the 'divine/holy harlot'. Now compare that to the Ishatar gate and its lions. Search google for - ishtar chariot seven lions. A harlot riding a beast with seven heads? I think you will start to get the picture & this is just one of many.
(cont.) so in conclusion Psalms 8:5 could mean a spirit being or a prophet/priest or Jehovah. It could mean a little lower than God & his representative. But the point is if we insert any of these other words or meanings then it is an interpretation & NOT a translation, because the text's structure is clear - masculine singular - God.
Hebrew thought and Greco-English thought are so different that some phases cannot be accurately translated (in meaning) even if we use or closest words.
(cont.) So, now look at 1 Sam 15:24-29. Who would you say had more authority over Israel - Saul or Gods MESSENGER Samuel?
So now who appointed David as a ruler 'to put all things under his feet? Again the messenger of god - 1 Sam 16:11-13 - in verse 11 it says Samuel but in verse 12 it is Jehovah that speaks. There are many examples like this, where his messenger and Jehovah are combined. In Hebrew thought the two are not divided like we try to today.(cont.)
(cont.) was this men in general or is it David speaking of himself? The NWT translates this as 'godlike ones' but again this is interpretation not translation - the exact same thing that the Septuagint translators are guilty of by using 'aggelos' the Hebrew of which being 'Malak'.
As you know when we see the word Angel we generally assume a spirit being, but in the ancient tongue this just meant a messenger man or spirit.
Good, the NWT is a very good literal translation. Yes it could well be figurative (being brought before god and or his representatives, judges etc.), but does that give the translator an excuse to use another word with his own theological interpretation that may or may not be the original meaning.
Ps 8:4 states that it is man that 8:5 is talking about. How could man be a little lower 'than the true god'? but remember that this is poetic language. (cont.)
'Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler (SINGULAR) of thy people.'
Completely masculine singular.
Ex 21:6
then his master (singular) shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master (singular) shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he (masculine singular) shall serve him for ever.
I think our discussion is not moving forward - If you do not understand the original Canaanite (Hebrew) sentence structure you are not going to grasp where it should be translated God & where it can be translated gods (meaning people with authority). I am really not trying to be argumentative - just grammatically accurate =P
It must certainly be a contamination to replace God or Gods with Judges or Angels IF the sentence structure is SPECIFICALLY masculine singular, which EX 21:6 IS.
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God
So if the sentence structure is MASCULINE & singular & the context does not demand otherwise then the translation IS god. So I still stand by my original statement for Ex22:28.
I think you are missing the point I am trying to convey. John 10:34 again is quoting (Psalm 82:6) I myself have said, YOU are gods, And ALL of YOU are sons of the Most High.
Again this is not a masculine singular sentence structure.
Lit:-
YOU are mighty ones, And ALL (plural) of YOU are sons of the Most High.
Again it is the sentence structure NOT the fact that THE word is plural.
But in this case it can be translated as gods (plural) but since it is quoting psalms 8:5 in the ancient sense it means 'a little lower than mighty ones' - the problem is which mighty ones?
Also keep in mind that much of the KJV was based on the Geneva which was in turn based on the Great Bible & the Geneva say 'For thou hast made him a little lower then God' at Psalms 8:5
Also the copies of the Septuagint that we have are dated around 250 to 350CE. By this time this translation had fallen out of favour with Jews because they claimed that it had gradually been tampered with to support a Christian theology. The also claimed that it had only been the work of five translators & not seventy (but this may have been to discredit it). In any case we only have tiny fragment of early copies.
I do not consider my self more proficient, but I do consider the shear amount archaeological text found in recent years (ones that these translators did not have) to be significant in our understanding of the etymology of words.
Here is an example :-
Mark 4:26 "the kingdom of god"(a letter to Gentiles)
Matt 13:24 "the kingdom of the heavens"(a letter to Jews)
The Septuagint translators were already at the mercy of Babylonian / Persian / Greek second temple theological contamination & this has just been carried forward - Even Jewish & Catholic encyclopaedias acknowledge this fact.
By at least 300BCE the understanding of the word 'El' had changed somewhat into a more modern understanding, as most understand 'god' today (only the creator). By this time YHWH and even Elohim were not normally uttered (like modern Jews typing g-d).
Ps8:5
(Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God (direct translation)
(JPS) Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels (jewish tradition)
This is why Heb 2:7 would render it angels not god - a letter to Hebrews.
The main problem is that in ancient text's - summerian / akadian / phonecian / cannanite use 'En' & 'El' - these translate as 'mighty' or 'powerful' and can be applied to might people (Judges etc.) or mighty gods & differentiation between the two can be difficult.
The rule I am using is fixed in Gen 1:1 where the El is plural BUT the sentence structure is masculine singular. And it is the sentence structure that dictates the plurality or otherwise in the Canaanite tongue.
The sentence construction is not quite the same. The rendering 'God of the gods' is qualified by the following 'wa Adhoneh ha adhonim′ (lord of lords) which does not use the plural intensive rule.
Well, if it makes you feel warm inside then all the more power to you. I am a bit confused are you a JW or are you now part of Stafford's group called Christian Witnesses of Jah?
There is a differentiation in Hebrew thought between 'a god' & 'the true god'.
(Isaiah 43:10)Before me there was no El (God) formed, and after me there came [or, will come] to be none.
El (or En in the Summerian) is a term used in respect to many gods (or mighty beings) & Isaiah statement is telling us that there is no other El with his highest position (El (god) of El's (gods)).
So there is more than 1 God? That destroys monotheism.
October31st1517 3 months ago
@October31st1517 Yes. There are many Gods.
IvanDefendingTruth 3 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Then you are not a Monotheist as trinitarians are. Monotheism is the belief in the EXISTENCE of one God. If you believe that other gods EXIST then you are a polytheist.. The bible tells us the only 1 God exists.
October31st1517 3 months ago
@October31st1517 I don't accept Trinitarian monotheism as the monotheism expressly taught in the Bible where God's heavenly and earthly sons are legitimately considered Gods. (Psalm 8:5; 82:8)
IvanDefendingTruth 3 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Are the gods (or Judges) mentioned in Ps 8:5; 82:8 gods BY NATURE?(Gal 4:8)
October31st1517 3 months ago
@October31st1517 The judges aren't but the angels in 8:5 are. Otherwise, how else are they Gods?
IvanDefendingTruth 3 months ago
So Stafford is a henotheist?
Proverbs1533 4 months ago
@Proverbs1533 Biblical Monotheist.
IvanDefendingTruth 4 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth How can one be a "biblical monostheist" and claim that "that Jesus himself is god" and that "he is an individual unique deity" from the Father who is also deity. Would this not be a plurality of deities?
Proverbs1533 3 months ago
Is this guy a JW? or just a sympathizer? Interesting to note that he says Jesus is a separate deity. So the JWs
edpanu1960 4 months ago
@edpanu1960 So the JWs believe in more than one God.
edpanu1960 4 months ago
@SpiritualParadise YES PREACH NOT WRITE! HAHAHA WHERE IS THE VERSE THAT THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO WRITE?
HOW CAN JESUS BE THE ARCHANGLE MICHAEL? WHEN IN HEBREWS 1 GOD THE FATHER SAYS
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.
EVEN MICHAEL WOULD HAVE TO WORSHIP JESUS!
hEBREWS 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
polgas733 5 months ago
Can someone please explain to me about "Beth Sarim".?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 we can
say that at this moment I am saved (cf. Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:5, 8; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5), but because of the gift
of free will, I can in the future deny Christ and lose the salvation that was gifted to me (cf. Phil. 2:12; 1 Pet.
1:9; Mt. 19:22; 24:13; Mk. 8:3-5 Acts 15:11; Rom. 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; Heb. 9:28).
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If salvation is assured, why do we need to “persevere” (Mt. 24:13; 2
Tim. 2:12)? If salvation is assured, why would we need to do penance (Mt. 3:8; Acts 2:38; 8:22; 2 Cor.
7:10)? If salvation is assured why would we need to be judged by the Lord (1 Cor. 4:4-5; 2 Cor. 5:10)?
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If
salvation is assured why would we be concerned about being paid “according to our works” (Rom. 2:6) or
being paid according to our “conduct” (Mt. 16:27)?
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If salvation is assured, why would we need to “remain
in his kindness” for fear of being “cut off” (Rom. 11:22)? If salvation is assured, how can one be in the
process of “being saved,” or “perishing” (2 Cor. 2:15)? If salvation is assured, why are we called to “test
ourselves” and fear the failing “of the test” (2 Cor. 13:5)? If salvation is assured, why must we “work out
our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)?
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If one is assured of salvation, why bother with
religious duties and moral obligations (cf. 1 Tim. 3:8)? If salvation is assured, why bother follow in Jesus’
footsteps (1 Pet. 2:21)? If salvation is assured, why acknowledge our sinfulness (1 Jn. 5-10).
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If salvation is
assured, why bother to follow the commandments (1 Jn. 2:1-11; Jn. 14:21; Mt. 19:17)? If salvation is
assured, why is crying “Lord, Lord” insufficient for entering the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7:21)?
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If
salvation is assured how do we explain these words from Jesus: “If anyone wishes to come after me, he
must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose
it and whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Lk. 9:23-24).
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 If one was assured of salvation, then faith would not have a future goal? Yet Peter reminds the faithful
to persevere during times of trial for they are achieving in this process “faith’s goal, salvation” (cf. 1 Pet.
1:6-9).
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Or as Paul states: “I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of [salvation]” (Phil. 3:14).
One must avoid the sin of presumption, the sin that boasts in a false sense of assured salvation (Jms.
4:13-16). One must remember the words of Paul who reminds us to “work with anxious concern to achieve
one’s salvation” (Phil. 2:12), and to let no one “think he is standing upright…lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 and yet you still think you will go to heaven? amazing cult you have there, even the bible disagrees with you
polgas733 1 year ago
Christ returned in 1914. (The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p.87).
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 The gates are open, but one must choose to enter through
those gates (Rom. 2:3-8; 5:9-10; 3:1-13; 3:19-31; 11:22; 13:2; 1 Cor. 1:8; 3: 12-15; 4:3-5; 6: 9-11; 9:27;
10:11-12; 13:1-3; 15:1-2; 2 Cor. 2:15; 5:10; 13:5; Gal. 5:13-21; 6:8-9; Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:12; 3:7-16; Heb.
10:26-29;
polgas733 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Tim. 5:3-8; 2 Pet. 1:1-11; 2:20-21; 1 Jn. 1:5-10; 2:1-11; 3:7; 3:10-17; 3:21-24; 4:20-21; 5:1-5;
Mt. 7:21; 19:16-21; 25:31-46; Rev. 2:23; 22:12-15).
If salvation is assured why would we have to be careful and pray for strength against temptations (Mt.
26:41; Mk. 14:38; Lk. 22:46; Gal. 6:1)?
polgas733 1 year ago
WHERE in John 1:1 is one called "theos" with the article and one is not? Because, that is NOWHERE in the greek where you can find that. There is a distinction because the word was "with God" but it also says the "Word WAS God." The reason trinitarians view it this way is because it couldn't be worded as "God was the Word", then how would the word be with God? If we are going to carry distinction, the distinction is purely personal.
Follower172 1 year ago
@Follower172 WHY MUST WE ONLY LOOK AT JOHN 1:1 TO DETERMINE THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST?
HEBREWS 1:1-10
COL 1:15-17
EPH 2:10 WHAT ARE WE IN GODS WORK- THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ALL THINGS WERE MADE AND NOTHING CAME TO BE WITHOUT HIM
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6
ALPHA AND OMEGA?
BOTH JESUS AND THE FATHER ARE THE FIRST AND THE LAST
READ REVELATION 1:8
REVELATION 22:13
polgas733 1 year ago
@polgas733 I am a trinitarian, I believe that within the Being of God there are three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal co-divine persons...I was making the comment because Strafford is being inconsistent with his argument. I was just using what he presented. I also Like Romans 9:5
Follower172 1 year ago
@Follower172 BECAUSE THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
DID JESUS NOT SAY "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM"
COLOSSIANS 1:17
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
polgas733 10 months ago
WHERE in John 1:1 is one called "theos" with the article and one is not? Because, that is NOWHERE in the greek where you can find that.
Follower172 1 year ago
did I just hear this guy, in his first 30 seconds refer to Jesus as God? albeit a different "God" than the father, but still God?
Follower172 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262). FALSE PROPHESY!
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Why would one have to train oneself like an athlete for fear of
losing one’s salvation (1 Cor. 9:27)?
polgas733 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 And they keep changing their minds! Will the men of Sodom be resurrected?Yes....Watchtower 7/1879 page 8,No.....Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338,Yes....Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479,No.....Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31,Yes...Live Forever (old Ed.) page 179,No....Live Forever (new Ed.) page 179,Yes...Insight, vol. 2., page 985,No...Revelation book, page 273. These changes are more like flashing lights, on and off again. How can they be trusted?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Failed/Changed prophecies. The Millennium began in 1873. (Thy Kingdom Come, page 305),The Millennium began in 1874. (Finished Mystery, page 386),The resurrection would occur in 1878 (They Kingdom Come, page 234),Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old would return in 1925. (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89),The Book of Ruth is "not prophetical". (Watchtower Reprints IV, p.3110, 12/7/02),The Book of Ruth "is prophetic". (Preservation", p. 169, 175, 176.)
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 The WT Vol XCIII April1,1972 claims "He (God) had a "prophet" to warn them.This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep soilders of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.". My friend, the WT proclaims to be prophets. They are not!
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Why is it only your translation and the translations of 2 spiritists, Johannas Greber & John Thompson that change John 1:1 to read, "a god"?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
In 1889, the WT said " we present PROOFS that the setting up of the kingdon of God has already begun...and that 'the battle of the great day of God almighty' (Revelation16:14),which will end in AD1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced.". So, the WT presented "proofs". These "proofs" were wrong, so what credibility do they have to "proclaim" anything?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Jesus Christ is God. 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Isaiah 9:6 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Amen! If Jehovah the Father is God (that's one) and now the Son is called God, that’s two isn’t it? If God says there is only one God how can there be two, even if one is called mighty and the other almighty?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 shame on ur men tradition teachings. Trinity does not even exist in the bible. Stafford have so many great points to prove that the father Jehovah and Jesus are not one persona. Everything was based on the bible itself. What Watchtower does is to help JW's to understand Jesus teachings, to follow his commands. As a follower of Christ, true christian must apply and follow Jesus commands and I see that the only religion that I know of who follows all of that are JW's.
raqyrose 1 year ago
@raqyrose ASK HIM WHERE THE BIBLE CAME FROM BOOM!
CERTAINLY NOT FROM A JW, BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
MATTHEW 28:19
THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARE ONE NAME!
ONE NAME SINGULAR
polgas733 1 year ago
@polgas733 Believe what you want to believe, I believe what's in the bible, not the teachings of men's tradition. If I can't find any proof in the bible that trinity exist then I wouldn't believe it. I think any religion that believes in the Trinity got their mind twisted, they don't mind confusion, cause Trinity do not make sense at all....In John 1:1, I think Stafford made it clear on that one. So, the question is, are there any other texts that proves that trinity existed? NOOOO.
raqyrose 1 year ago
@raqyrose "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19
IN THE NAME(singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Genesis 1:26
"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR(PLURAL) IMAGE AND LIKENESS"
Gensis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
SO GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE(SINGULAR)
polgas733 10 months ago
@polgas733 If you want to more about the trinity issues, I have a lot of videos that I favorited in my youtube channel that explained about trinity. You can go there and watch it. You might want to get your bible and read it cause there's many scriptures that supports our (JW) reasonings. I would suggest you to go to ewatchman's channel and defendingyahweh's channel because they can explain it eloquently and also some of my (JW) fellow believer's channel.
raqyrose 10 months ago
@polgas733 I can careless where the bible came from, what matters is the bible is inspired by. God himself made it available to all mankind to study about him (the truth about God) etc... Also, what matters to me is the truth, texts that makes sense that based on the bible itself, not some kind of men tradition teachings.You may have a bible but do they make sense? or does your bible teaches trinity? U need to study where trinity came from and examine the bible and use common sense. Peace!
raqyrose 1 year ago
@raqyrose I'M USING COMMON SENSE, ARE YOU? YOU MAY HAVE A BIBLE, BUT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
TELL ME, DID JESUS EVER INSTRUCTED THE APOSTLES TO WRITE? OR TAUGHT THEM THROUGH ORAL TRADITIONS?
polgas733 10 months ago
@polgas733 I am sure he did. Also, the bible I use is the most accurate translation in our modern times to understand, compare to any other bible translations, so dont tell me that I dont understand the bible. It is God's words and when I read a text, I try to make sense out of it. If Jesus said the ONLY the TRUE GOD is the father, Im going to accept that. I do not think you understand your bible. I appreciate if you dont reply back cause I dont want to argue who does not accept the truth.
raqyrose 10 months ago
@raqyrose WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT JESUS INSTRUCTED THE APOSTLES TO WRITE? WHERE?
WHAT IF THE FATHER SAID THAT JESUS IS GOD WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT?
HEBREWS 1:8
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
THE FATHER CALLED THE SON "GOD" LOL YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THAT TOO JESUS IS GOD!
polgas733 10 months ago
@polgas733 posted a poor translation of Hebrews 1:8.
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ / σου·
Transliteration:
unto however the son the throne of you the God is the age of the age and the septer of righteous the staff of staightness of the kingdom of you
But with reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. (NWT)
IMJW1000 1 week ago
@IMJW1000 SAME THING
proV de ton uion o qronoV sou o qeoV eiV ton aiwna tou aiwnoV kai h rabdos ths euquthtos rabdoV thV basileiaV sou
1:8 ad Filium autem thronus tuus Deus in saeculum saeculi et virga aequitatis virga regni tui
1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.[KJV]
1:8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.[Douauy Rheims]
polgas733 1 week ago
"Jesus IS God!" is one of the most foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrines taught among many Christian religions.
Frank4YAHWEH 1 year ago
@Frank4YAHWEH Does this mean that you have two "gods," a big God and a little one? So, has there always been 2 Gods?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Most certainly not! Scripture clearly teaches that there is but only one Mighty ("God") and that it was He "ALONE" Who created the Heavens and the Earth and ALL things in them and that there was no redeemer and no one beside Him in the beginning.
Frank4YAHWEH 1 year ago
@Frank4YAHWEH If Jehovah the Father is God (that's one) and now the Son is called God, that’s two isn’t it? If God says there is only one God how can there be two, even if one is called mighty and the other almighty?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Going back to my initial comment that I made and you are responding to, I am giving reference to the doctrine "Jesus IS God!". Nowhere in Scripture is such a foolish statement as this ever made and the Messiah is never recorded as saying "I am God!". This doctrine most certainly did not originate from Scripture from where we are to get our doctrine for reproof and correction and instruction in righteousness.
Continued ...
Frank4YAHWEH 1 year ago
The words "Jesus IS God!" are most certainly a perversion of what Scripture actually states. The Messiah is referred constantly in translation as the "son OF God".
Frank4YAHWEH 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Jehovah's Witnesses likes to pretend they know everything
John 10:30 I and the Father are One
matthew 28:19 IN THE NAME, of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit.
NOTICE "NAME" SINGULAR
meaning
THESE THREE ARE ONE
if the father is God so is the son and the holy spirit
polgas733 1 year ago
@polgas733 Amen! You are right. JW's say that John10:30 means "I and the Father are One in intent/purpose", they pervert the gospel and have no credible authority at all.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 START READING HEBREWS 1:1-10
THEN COMEBACK AND TELL ME IF HE IS STILL NOT GOD
polgas733 1 year ago
@polgas733 You misunderstand my comments, i KNOW Jesus Christ is God. He is my Savior and i am promised heaven when i die, thanks to the sacrifice He made for me. Acts4:12. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Who are you to say you're going to Heaven? when you have yet to face the Judge in heaven?
Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the ELDERS(priests) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
if you are promised heaven, why not go sin and do whatever you want then.
polgas733 1 year ago
@polgas733 "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.2:16). Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Luke 15:7
7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
polgas733 1 year ago
@enedraAT Thats a good point. However it is still a heretical position, biblically speaking. "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." Galatians 4:6
October31st1517 1 year ago
so in other words Mr.Stafford embraces polytheism.
October31st1517 1 year ago
So he support The watchtower?
fearswhithin 1 year ago
so theres two " gods" the word of God clearly say that there is only one God.
ISHBON 1 year ago
@supermanny73 There is only one God. He is three persons......"1 John 5:7..... "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Genesis 1:26....Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@babystinky It's not making a distinction between 'persons' but between beings. ho theos is a being and theos is another being. Reading you will see that it is not a distinction in persons but in actual beings. To explain different person in the trinity they use terms such as 'greater' , 'lesser' but in here it is not using any of those.
SuperHuevoRevuelto 1 year ago
@supermanny73 In Exodus 7, the second book of the bible, God called Moses God(Elohim). In the Psalms God called men gods(same Hebrew word Elohim) so are you saying that God is contradicting himself. The point that he is stressing is that in the bible men were called gods.
SuperHuevoRevuelto 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "There are probably even other Gods that haven't even been formed or made yet."
WOW!
"See now that I myself am He! There is no God besides Me." Dt. 32:39
supermanny73 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "it is not making a "person" distinction but a "THEOS" distinction "
In order to believe this "THEOS distinction" you must first embrace polytheism. If you are a follower of Staford, that is not a giant leap for you. Throughout this debate and the one with White, he is willing to embrace anything, as long as it doesnt deify the Lord. Danger!
supermanny73 1 year ago
Just to add: John clearly calls The Word "The Eternal Life" that was "With" the Father. IF this "Eternal Life" is another God or Deity then you have a strange situation and something closer to having more then one God in one's spiritual life since "The Eternal Life" clearly speaks toward his self existence and sustaining.
babystinky 1 year ago
These debates are so tired and worn out, one wonders why such smart individuals keep wasting their time and saliva. This is just one of the many reasons I can't stand religion.
Let people believe whatever they want to believe and stop trying to convince others of what you believe is 'truth'; it's not only arrogant, but it's condescending and downright annoying. Believe and let believe.
OuttaEgypt 1 year ago
Mat.16:23 refers to 'adversary' which is not the same designation as 'the adversary'. But I do agree with you opinion of John 1:1.
dunklaw 2 years ago
It is still a work in progress - he has completed genesis and exodus. These are available to purchase from his website as ebooks or from Amazon etc. as printed.
See:- ancient-hebrew . org / 9_home . html
An esword module of Genesis can be downloaded from here.
dunklaw 2 years ago
The NWT is the best Bible translation here in Brazil. Most translations are changing and becoming similar to it.After several revisions of course!
queruvimwj 2 years ago
queruvimwj, how's it going brother? I agree the NWT is a good literal Bible translation. There's also good dynamic Bible translations as well, like the New English Bible. It's a Bible the Society quotes often.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
Is 'the New English Bible' Greek text only?
dunklaw 2 years ago
No, it has both Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I think online though, there's only the Greek Scriptures. On Amazon is where I got mine from. It was only 1 dollar used. I checked on the UK Amazon and it's .01 pounds minus shipping of course.
So it is extremely cheap
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
Just ordered one - Thanks.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Is there any books you would recommend? Whether it deals with translation, Biblical History, Bible translations, etc. ? A book that would beneficial for a Bible student of course.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
A few months ago, a watchtower article discussing the the codex vaticanus referenced a book called 'The Oxford illustrated guide to the bible'. This is out of print at the moment but there are plenty of copies on Amazon etc.
This book is a compilation of many scholars work & builds up a history of the manuscripts (hebrew & greek) & how they became canon. It also discusses the the ones that did not. It is a very comprehensive work. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Sorry - Should have said ''The Oxford illustrated HISTORY OF the bible'
ISBN-10: 0198601182
dunklaw 2 years ago
My bible arrived yesterday - interesting. But not one mention of Jehovah - not even Psalms 83:18! Like all the illustrative artwork - a nice touch. Many of the verses are translated in a similar style to the JPS Tanakh (2002 ed.). But so far I would have to say that the JPS is technically superior - but being newer that's no surprise.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Yeah, it doesn't use the divine name much. It does render certain texts, though, in a interesting fashion. That is why I am assuming the Society (WT) often quotes this Bible. John 1:1 is interesting. Genesis 1:1-2 is also different than the norm.
It does use "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 3:15; 6:3 and in a few footnotes.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@dunklaw Also in Exodus 3:16 they use "JEHOVAH".. I'm not sure it if it used anywhere else.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
Comparing next weeks bible reading with it. It has some interpolation - Samuel 13:1 compare to NWT. At least one verse from the reading was completely missing from it (can't remember which though, it does not seem to take into account the LXX segments which the NWT does)
dunklaw 2 years ago
1 Samuel 13:1 is drastically different from the NWT.
What's your overall take on the NEB in comparison to other Bibles and just as a translation on its own?
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth It is easy to read & get the basic understanding. The literal translation of NWT can be a bit dry. Genesis 1:1 is worded basically the same as the JPS. I haven't looked at the Greek scriptures in detail yet, but the Hebrew only seems to use the MSS, no LXX & no Qumran. The NWT does not take the Qumran in to account but the new JPS does but since its last revision was 1984 that's to be expected. NEB maps and pictures are very useful.
dunklaw 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth JPS must have the edge at the moment as it is the only translation I know of that tells you where the translator is guessing and not actually translating.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Is that the JPS Tankah you're talking about?
Have you looked at the "Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1)" ?
I heard it is a great translation, but I haven't checked it out.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth YES. ISBN-10: 0827606974
If you look this up on Amazon . com you can preview some pages including Genesis 1:1,2 Also take a look at Genesis 3:16
Have not seen the Schoken but any bible is only as good as the sources it is based on & the JPS is the most up to date, using whe widest ranges of sources that I have seen.
dunklaw 2 years ago
I think I may have that Bible in a computer program, but i'll have to check it out.
The Schocken translates Genesis 1:1-2 as the following:
At the beginning of Gods creating of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was wild and waste, darkness over the face of Ocean, rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters
I think both the Schocken and the JPS are pretty similar in some parts. Schocken uses YHWH as the divine name by the way.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth On Esword etc. it is the old 70's version
dunklaw 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth NEW JPS Genesis 1:1,2
When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water
dunklaw 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth NEW JPS Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel.
Isn't it easy to read!
dunklaw 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth The JPS being a very Jewish bible does not use the divine name, but the Hebrew column does.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Yeah I just noticed that. The JPS Tankah doesn't use the Divine Name. I noticed that it uses "Hashem" a few times as well.
Have you heard of Logos Software?
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Logos - Yes but its expensive.
If I am going too buy a book I make sure its on paper ;)
dunklaw 2 years ago
Yup, it's definitely expensive, but I think in the long run it's worth it. (That is, if you're on the computer often)
I've only boughten books that Logos doesn't offer.. So that way, I know I won't lose any or damage any books I have.. lol
I've been trying to get the Anchor Bible Commentary Books (84 Vols) but NO way am I going to spend nearly 2000 dollars on that.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
LOL And here I am fretting about how I am going to afford £90 for 'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature' by W Bauer
dunklaw 2 years ago
BDAG is the Best NT Lexicon there is, in my opinion. It's worth the 90 pounds.
I don't know if the ABC is worth 2000 dollars though! lol
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth will you allow me to post my vid responce to this? i delited the other and made my self clear,
jhweh2007 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Meant Genesis 3:15
dunklaw 2 years ago
I've got a different computer program, it's got the 85 version. I don't know how up to date that is?
I don't follow on Genesis 3:15. What's different in Gen 3:15 from other Bibles?
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth its the use of 'offspring' & the use of 'they shall'
Other bibles use 'seed' & 'it' or 'he'
dunklaw 2 years ago
Just noticed it does use offspring instead of seed. I'd rather have seed though, because that's what Paul uses in Galatians where he identifies Jesus and the anointed as this "seed."
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth 'seed' - this is another one of those translation issues. What does it say and how do we understand it?
Thayers put it this way '2b) family, tribe, posterity' or as I would interpret it - offspring. So which translation is better, should paul text be re-worded? Could seed mean anything else in theses verses? So how litteral do we translate? Many questions to ponder.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Well, I don't know. I'm not a translation expert but "offspring" to me denotes children or descendents without much implication. The term seed, however, conveys, in my opinion, a lineage of a sort.
I think "seed" has that notion of lineage or genealogy which, in my opinion, "offspring" does not. But that's merely my point of view.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
True, but it does lead to some confusion with the translating of :-
G4701
σπορά
spora
Thayer Definition:
1) seed
which the NWT prefixes with [reproductive] but many translations do not. See 1 Pet 1:23.
But then, It could get confused with the term used at Mat 3:7 'offspring' BUT at Mat 26:29 this same word it translated 'product'. Which of these two is closest to the original meaning?
This is why translation is tricky.
dunklaw 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth allow me to post a vid responce,don't block
jhweh2007 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth i just posted a vid with a question on this vid.
jhweh2007 1 year ago
@jhweh2007 Send it
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth
jhweh2007 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth do you believe it's a good "literal" bible translation in light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of bible scholars render it a poor translation?
On what grounds do you consider it a "good literal translation"?
supermanny73 1 year ago
@queruvimwj Rubbish! It is based on the corrupted catholic bible! Since 1611, only the Scriptural text of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV) has stood the test of time. The same cannot be said for Wycliffe's translation, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva, et al., etc. Moreover, every subsequent attempt at introducing a new English text to supplant the AV has invariably failed as a matter of historical fact.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
The thing is that when we say translate, what we are really saying is 'approximate'. Some Hebrew terms would take a whole sentence in English to fully describe. We need Hebrew thought to go with that text. There are verses in the Hebrew text that when compared in various translations we find significantly different meanings. That is why a mechanical translation, like the one being produced by Jeff Benner of 'ancienthebrew . org' is going to be invaluable.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Also, and to me more interestingly is its introduction entitled 'the unbroken chain of uncertainty' which discusses the many still unknown and uncertain ancient Hebrew words and phrases in the Cannon. All these are marked and footnoted through-out the text's. I think you will be surprised at how many there actually are!
dunklaw 2 years ago
I highly recommend that you get a copy of the latest 2002 edition JPS Tanakh Hebrew-English students edition. This is the revised and updated MSS (the 1980's edition was used as the basis for the NWT Hebrew scriptures). Using better etymological understanding of the text new understandings are emerging. Eg.
Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning god created' is now translated as 'When god began creating'
This is because the latest understanding of 'bereshit' does not indicate an absolute beginning.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Yes but again, what did he mean when using the term Angel - a spirit being or a physical messenger/judge etc?
So its not how he wrote it, but rather how WE understand it. This is why I believe literal is always best.
As for 'Paul's inspired acceptance' - you could look at it that way or you could just accept that this was the general translation to hand at the time & he was just quoting from it. Be careful not to fall into the trap of KJV onlyists - that ANY bible translation is 100% correct.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Talking about Psalms 8:5 there's a good book by Edgar Foster on Amazon entitled "Angelomorphic Christology and the Exegesis of Psalm 8:5 in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean: An Examination of Tertullian's Reluctance to Attribute Angelic Properties to the Son of God"
It's only 2 dollars. It will give you some valuable insight in this verse. The book is a scholarly work so it's not the easiest thing to read(The author is one of Jehovah's Witnesses by the way)
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
I will try to obtain it, but living in the UK, I think it is going to cost somewhat more than $2.
I will have to add it to my ever expanding list of books. I am currently reading all the latest research on Israel's associated nations for insight - just completed the Babylonians (comprising of sumer / akadia / babylon) , there is some mind blowing stuff in this alone.
I am now researching the Phoenicians & will then be moving on to the Hittites.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Here's an example of what I have found - try searching the web for Innana the summerian forerunner and the the Akkadian Ishtar. In both instances there are cuneiform tablets from 2300BCE onwards that directly call here the 'divine/holy harlot'. Now compare that to the Ishatar gate and its lions. Search google for - ishtar chariot seven lions. A harlot riding a beast with seven heads? I think you will start to get the picture & this is just one of many.
dunklaw 2 years ago
(cont.) so in conclusion Psalms 8:5 could mean a spirit being or a prophet/priest or Jehovah. It could mean a little lower than God & his representative. But the point is if we insert any of these other words or meanings then it is an interpretation & NOT a translation, because the text's structure is clear - masculine singular - God.
Hebrew thought and Greco-English thought are so different that some phases cannot be accurately translated (in meaning) even if we use or closest words.
dunklaw 2 years ago
(cont.) So, now look at 1 Sam 15:24-29. Who would you say had more authority over Israel - Saul or Gods MESSENGER Samuel?
So now who appointed David as a ruler 'to put all things under his feet? Again the messenger of god - 1 Sam 16:11-13 - in verse 11 it says Samuel but in verse 12 it is Jehovah that speaks. There are many examples like this, where his messenger and Jehovah are combined. In Hebrew thought the two are not divided like we try to today.(cont.)
dunklaw 2 years ago
(cont.) was this men in general or is it David speaking of himself? The NWT translates this as 'godlike ones' but again this is interpretation not translation - the exact same thing that the Septuagint translators are guilty of by using 'aggelos' the Hebrew of which being 'Malak'.
As you know when we see the word Angel we generally assume a spirit being, but in the ancient tongue this just meant a messenger man or spirit.
(cont.)
dunklaw 2 years ago
Good, the NWT is a very good literal translation. Yes it could well be figurative (being brought before god and or his representatives, judges etc.), but does that give the translator an excuse to use another word with his own theological interpretation that may or may not be the original meaning.
Ps 8:4 states that it is man that 8:5 is talking about. How could man be a little lower 'than the true god'? but remember that this is poetic language. (cont.)
dunklaw 2 years ago
Sorry I was quoting BDB not Thayer.
But where would you say the context of the sentence demands it?
Ex 22:28
'Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler (SINGULAR) of thy people.'
Completely masculine singular.
Ex 21:6
then his master (singular) shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master (singular) shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he (masculine singular) shall serve him for ever.
And again.
dunklaw 2 years ago
I think our discussion is not moving forward - If you do not understand the original Canaanite (Hebrew) sentence structure you are not going to grasp where it should be translated God & where it can be translated gods (meaning people with authority). I am really not trying to be argumentative - just grammatically accurate =P
dunklaw 2 years ago
It must certainly be a contamination to replace God or Gods with Judges or Angels IF the sentence structure is SPECIFICALLY masculine singular, which EX 21:6 IS.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Not quite, here is an extract from Thayer:-
H430
'ĕlôhı̂ym
BDB Definition: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God
So if the sentence structure is MASCULINE & singular & the context does not demand otherwise then the translation IS god. So I still stand by my original statement for Ex22:28.
dunklaw 2 years ago
I agree!
dunklaw 2 years ago
I think you are missing the point I am trying to convey. John 10:34 again is quoting (Psalm 82:6) I myself have said, YOU are gods, And ALL of YOU are sons of the Most High.
Again this is not a masculine singular sentence structure.
Lit:-
YOU are mighty ones, And ALL (plural) of YOU are sons of the Most High.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Again it is the sentence structure NOT the fact that THE word is plural.
But in this case it can be translated as gods (plural) but since it is quoting psalms 8:5 in the ancient sense it means 'a little lower than mighty ones' - the problem is which mighty ones?
dunklaw 2 years ago
Yes John is quoting (Psalm 82:6) I myself have said, YOU are gods (mighty ones), And ALL of YOU are sons of the Most High.
This sentence structure is obviously not masculine singular & therefore the plural intensive rule does not apply.
dunklaw 2 years ago
(cont.)
Also keep in mind that much of the KJV was based on the Geneva which was in turn based on the Great Bible & the Geneva say 'For thou hast made him a little lower then God' at Psalms 8:5
dunklaw 2 years ago
Also the copies of the Septuagint that we have are dated around 250 to 350CE. By this time this translation had fallen out of favour with Jews because they claimed that it had gradually been tampered with to support a Christian theology. The also claimed that it had only been the work of five translators & not seventy (but this may have been to discredit it). In any case we only have tiny fragment of early copies.
(cont.)
dunklaw 2 years ago
I do not consider my self more proficient, but I do consider the shear amount archaeological text found in recent years (ones that these translators did not have) to be significant in our understanding of the etymology of words.
Here is an example :-
Mark 4:26 "the kingdom of god"(a letter to Gentiles)
Matt 13:24 "the kingdom of the heavens"(a letter to Jews)
dunklaw 2 years ago
The Septuagint translators were already at the mercy of Babylonian / Persian / Greek second temple theological contamination & this has just been carried forward - Even Jewish & Catholic encyclopaedias acknowledge this fact.
dunklaw 2 years ago
By at least 300BCE the understanding of the word 'El' had changed somewhat into a more modern understanding, as most understand 'god' today (only the creator). By this time YHWH and even Elohim were not normally uttered (like modern Jews typing g-d).
Ps8:5
(Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God (direct translation)
(JPS) Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels (jewish tradition)
This is why Heb 2:7 would render it angels not god - a letter to Hebrews.
dunklaw 2 years ago
The main problem is that in ancient text's - summerian / akadian / phonecian / cannanite use 'En' & 'El' - these translate as 'mighty' or 'powerful' and can be applied to might people (Judges etc.) or mighty gods & differentiation between the two can be difficult.
The rule I am using is fixed in Gen 1:1 where the El is plural BUT the sentence structure is masculine singular. And it is the sentence structure that dictates the plurality or otherwise in the Canaanite tongue.
dunklaw 2 years ago
The predecessor to the KJV put it this way :-
(Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God.
but it does also says:-
(Geneva) Then his master shall bring him vnto the Iudges,
but the JPS Tanakh says:-
then his master shall bring him unto God,
The examples you are using are theological NOT accurate grammatical translations.
dunklaw 2 years ago
The sentence construction is not quite the same. The rendering 'God of the gods' is qualified by the following 'wa Adhoneh ha adhonim′ (lord of lords) which does not use the plural intensive rule.
dunklaw 2 years ago
This is actually 'plural intensive - singular meaning' so it normally means 'the (true) God' & to translate it as 'gods' is in error.
dunklaw 2 years ago
Polytheism
dhamamy 2 years ago
Exactly. That's what these Arian heretics are.
shamounian 2 years ago
I love that word 'heretic.' I get a fuzzy feeling inside when I hear it. It's got a ring to it doesn't it?
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
Well, if it makes you feel warm inside then all the more power to you. I am a bit confused are you a JW or are you now part of Stafford's group called Christian Witnesses of Jah?
shamounian 2 years ago
There is a differentiation in Hebrew thought between 'a god' & 'the true god'.
(Isaiah 43:10)Before me there was no El (God) formed, and after me there came [or, will come] to be none.
El (or En in the Summerian) is a term used in respect to many gods (or mighty beings) & Isaiah statement is telling us that there is no other El with his highest position (El (god) of El's (gods)).
dunklaw 2 years ago
@dunklaw
Keep reading
dhamamy 2 years ago