Biblical Koine Greek has different syntax and sentence construction to modern Greek. Just as the English Language has changed so has Greek. When you compare the Biblical Greek with the modern Greek below:
Textus Receptus
ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Greek NWT as per video.
58 Ο Ιησούς τούς είπε: «Αληθινά, αληθινά σας λέω: Πριν ο Αβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη, εγώ υπάρχω»
"Ego emoun" is the Modern Greek translation of the NWT version of "I have been".
@JAKEV25 No, this root word comes from the greek word "megethos" which means "greatness", so I am calling you 'a great head or mind' when I call you a meathead for not observing such as simple introduction to her video.
@worldhistory2011 "bible can be cross referenced" this of course does not take into account of changing word uses and definitions over time - which of course you recognise in English even in a few decades.
@worldhistory2011 "I have a Strong's Dictionary" - well there is your first problem - start by getting a copy of Thayers to give you word concepts rather than just being based on word usages in the KJV translation. You are going to have to dig deeper than this. 5% of the words used in the OT are of unknown meaning & another 10% are uncertain.
@worldhistory2011 I suggest that you invest in a JPS TANAKH hebrew english study edition - ISBN-10: 0827606974.
This will show you just how many words and phrases CANNOT be translated because the meaning is unknown or uncertain. Forget about any other arguments - I can demonstrate verses that no two translations use the same words or ideas for - because they are ALL just guessing. - SO again the same question - written where?
@worldhistory2011 "607BCE, not 587CE" - this line of argumentation is wasted on me. I trust Matthew 24 to point the way & I know where we are in the stream of time from this. What made the first word war POSSIBLE was the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuel - to quote:-
"The American Civil War was one of the earliest true industrial wars. Railroads, the telegraph, steamships, and mass-produced weapons were employed extensively."
@worldhistory2011 *** w09 10/1 p. 19 The Vatican Codex—Why a Treasure? ***
What kind of text did the Vatican Codex reveal? The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible states that it “shows both consistency of spelling and accuracy of copying, and a quality in the text thus carefully reproduced.” The same reference work continues: “It is thus possible to conclude that this text is the product of a tradition of scholarly copying."
@worldhistory2011 So are the manuscripts of LXX that you have got older than the DSS where the equivalent texts are available???? There is much evidence emerging that the even the the Vulgate may be more accurate than the LXX you have in many ways & based on older lost Greek manuscripts. But the reality is that Hebrew is a concrete language & Greek is abstract ( the same as trying to accurately translate Chinese into English - to translate the concept of a word may take a whole sentence.
@worldhistory2011 Look, you started this - "interpretation does not spring from any private party but God's spirit having directed the writing and harmonious meaning of the entire bible." - I presume you are accusing me of being a "private party" - why do you call me a "horrible" teacher - I am not a teacher at all.
Again I ask the question - "beyond what is written" - written where?
@worldhistory2011 "goes beyond what is written" - written where exactly? If you INTERPRETATION of the scriptures is purely "sola scriptura", then do you use archaeology to back up claims - if so then you are being hypocritical. Much of what I have said here is based on some of the latest concrete understanding of Hebrew terms backed up by the latest archaeology and research.
@worldhistory2011 "ego eimi does not appear in Jo 14:19" - no John 14:9, it is the eimi that is of concern and the KJC translated as "Have I been" - demonstrating the potential for PAST TENSE thus supporting the translation "I HAVE BEEN".
@worldhistory2011 "OMG, now YOU know better than an ancient manuscript" if you know the linguistic differences between Ancient Hebrew & 2nd cent BCE Greek then you will know that it can ONLY be approximate.
@worldhistory2011 And seeing as you CANNOT give me as much as an explanation as to why your brookllyn gods tampered with the Holy word of God gives this born-again Christian a great sense of elation.
I stumped you, it isn't that you don't want to answer me, its because you can't!
@worldhistory2011 Repeatedly stating your own personal beliefs in light of contrary evidence without providing any meaningful argumentation is the clearest definition of loosing a debate.
@worldhistory2011 And you still haven't given me an explanation as to why the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to remove on of the most controversial verses within the JW/Christian debate.
Your silence screams and makes my case against you!!
@worldhistory2011 I have just had my little girl proof read what I sent you, and she fully understands it so even a little girl understands what it is that i'm saying to you. So if you don't understand it, this isn't my fault but seems to be a cognative problem based on your part or is due to something far greater. 2 Cor 4:4.
@worldhistory2011 This is why the Jewish greek speaking scribes who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew into greek took out the word "God" as in, "You are God" from Psalms 90:2 [90:3 in the LXX] and replaced in with just "You Are". as in "from everlasting to everlasting You Are". This is saying that before the mountains were formed God Preexisted. This same language is being used in John 8:58 with "before Abraham was, I AM" This is why the Jews wanted to kill him. he was making divine claim.
God does not have a Past nor does he have a future because God is outside of Time, space and Matter. God predates it, So God is in a state of present tense. He is in a state of
'I am'
or in a state of 'Who is"
or in a state of "being".
This is why you can use all three phrases to convey one of God's attributes, his state of present tense. In Psalms 90:2 in the LXX Moses wrote it so it is "You Are". If God had of said it, it would have read "I AM".
@worldhistory2011 Ho On in Ex 3:14 is not a name of God but is being used in the philosophical sense. Somewhat like we would said, "I think therefore I AM". All three can be used in the grammar just like it is being used in John 1:18 for Jesus; but it also can be used in the philosophical sense just like it is being used in Ex 3:14. "I am the being." The word Ho On does not mean "being" as in a thing, but as in being in the present tense. Example: I am BEING a man. "Or I am who is."
@worldhistory2011 Infact Jesus and the woman at the well. Both On and soo ei are being used in the Greek, "You are (soo ei) a Jew.." I am or who is (On) a Samarian. NiV.
both mean the same thing within the grammar and both apply to the person in the first and second tense.
the difference is Psalms 90:2 in the LXX and Ex3:14 in the LXX are being used in the philosophical sense and not the grammar.
So" You are" and" who is" are just another way of saying the same thing.
@worldhistory2011 Your case seems to hinge on Ho On as being the title of God. Well, Like you keep failing to respond back to me on is, Jesus is ALSO being called Ho On in John 1:18.
ok you'v tried to slag off jw's now pls you support your faith and answer me this if your christ is god almighty and you go to heaven when you die why did christ punish his friend lazarus by bringing him back from so called heavenly glory to this rotten world surely lazarus would of been better of were he was although i know he wasnt in heaven can you explain this pls
@worldhistory2011 You are forgetting that the jehovah's witness greek bible was forced to remove ego eimi from their greek Bible. So who cares about your other 'old' excuses.
You can't defend this. They get into a staring contest with the greek speaking people and the WT blinked.
no im not bothered they dont chat about the excistence of hell and all this going to heaven when they die they know the bible now if a minority from the j.w's organisation tamper with the scriptures they will be judged not the whole bible following people i have searched christianity exhaustively and j'w's make the most sence no fantacys
oh yea you american religious fanatics are misleading the entire christian world its funny that god started in israel and now the americans again decide to steal that so god is now the god of america, mormon, born again, hamish loads and i dont know if i said this before but i have read versions of the bible all versions so tell me were the word crusifixion is mentioned or crusify were you lot get your cruisifix or however you spell the word dont fear me and block like born agains
@drugsguru Again, none of these points that you are raising have to do with the subject of the video. What you are doing is called a Red Herring, this is when you are trying to change the subject because you are uncomfortable with the subject. I don't blame you, I would too if I were you. :-)
@pretoshohmoofc haha ok if you cant handle me ripping your beliefs apart then you stop ripping the jw's apart are they harming you have a go at the muslims or pick one theres thousands of them but it seems to me that jw's have replaced the jews for persecution and your contributing to that ok
you cant rely on a modern greek translation as we all know the king james is wrote in old english so how do you know there is no old greek.. By the way do you know that there is question weather or not john 8 v 1 thru 7 was actually written by the apostle john and the new world trans is the only bible i have read that tries to be careful with this particular text by inserting it in small text what dous that tell you it tells me that jw's fear removing or adding which is forbidden
@pretoshohmoofc ok but answer me one thing your in usa right do you christians over there really beleive that mary k baxters story i hope not your supposed to be bible trained she said she saw king solomon david son when acts 20 ?? said david did not go to heaven am i making sence
@drugsguru I don't know what any of this has to do with what I told you? The Jehovah's Witness greek Bible was forced to change the original greek around from the original text in order for them to get around Jesus being God to the greek speaking people.
@pretoshohmoofc its not my concern cos im not a jw i just like to debate the bible with those who arnt afraid of blunt people but i also know that it dousnt matter whta you saying about the i am i know what your aiming at and the tinity is a fantasy dreamed up by pope constantine who must of been satanised as that is what satan wants he wants people to be drawn away from the real meaning of the bible
@drugsguru So you are not a Jehovah's Witness, Ok, then this will be easy for you because you don't feel the need to defend them. I will ask, are you not concerned that the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to change around the original greek text in order for them to keep their theology?
@worldhistory2011 . Ho on with the definate article does not have the meaning that you are trying to imply. 'Ho on' can translate as "who is" or 'the being' or 'the I am' and can be used in the grammar in John 1:18 as being used for Jesus. "who is" in the boosm of the Father. If the definate article takes on a divine role, and is only used for God, then your argument just committed suicide.
@worldhistory2011 the LXX is pretty irrelevant as it is just an approximate translation
2-3rds of the Old Testament quotes in the NT are from the LXX. so you can't go there either.
And it doesn't matter, because the Hebrew version in which the LXX was based read, "you are God" in Pslams 90:2. The Greek speaking scholars removed the word "God" from the verse in the LXX because God's eternal attributes were fully contained within "You are" within the greek.
@worldhistory2011 You still can't get around the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to changed around one of the most contraversal scripture verses within the JW/ Christian debate.
Face it,they got into a staring contest with the greek speaking people and the Watchtower blinked!
@worldhistory2011 Nice try at getting around the fact that Moses uses the second person "You are" to express the eternal nature of God in Psalms 90:2. [90:3 in the LXX]. If God was speaking it would have read "from everlasting to everlasting I AM."
@worldhistory2011 The HEBREW of Ex 3:14 is correctly translated in its incompleted form as "I will be" - the LXX is pretty irrelevant as it is just an approximate translation. pretoshohmoofc does not understand the difference between LXX semitic koine and modern Greek. He does not even get the fact that the KJV translated "ego eimi" as "HAVE I" in John 14:9!
@worldhistory2011 And can you please address this video, why was the Watchtower forced to change the word of God around to fit their doctrine? From what you can see, other JWs on this comment page failed to answer this question but dodged and ducked out the question and played word games. I hope you're better than this.
@worldhistory2011 In Psalms 90:2 [psalms 90:3 in the LXX] in the Septuagint Moses said, ", from everlasting to everlasting "YOU ARE" [soo ie-in the Greek] without the definate article as well.
Seeing that it isn't God speaking but Moses, pslams 90:2 is being addressed in the second person equivalent of, "I am".
And Satan is being called 'THE GOD of this world' in 2 Cor 4:4, not 'a god'. You don't seem to have a problem with Satan being the god, but you refuse to call christ this. Why?
@pretoshohmoofc The evidence shows that Jesus was a Jewish literate who was able to read the temple scrolls in Jerusalem (Hebrew & Aramaic) - so how would he have read Psalms 90:2?
Why do you think that a quotation of Jesus has anything to do with an erroneous LXX translation of the original Hebrew psalms 90:2 "you are mighty" or that he would use it as a mysterious quotation that does not even relate to the Hebrew "I will be"?
I'm a bit confused by your presentation. The Greek NWT is a translation of the English NWT. So your 3 examples are modern Greek renderings of the modern English text as it appears in the English NWT. That explains the differences in the Greek NWT, other modern Greek renderings, and the Wescott and Hort texts. I suppose I don't understand why this is an issue worthy of a video, if it is a matter of simply you not agreeing with the NWT English rendering.
@pretoshohmoofc Not that I agree with the LDS - but you of course realise that your own arguments regarding Deut 6:4 are self contradictory.
Literally "Jehovah our God [is] Jehovah one."
& from the ABP (LXX) "The lord our God [Lord one is]."
Interesting how the LXX uses "heis" which only means the numeral "one" but here's the thing, if the Hebrew did not mean "one" but rather "unity" then. What did it mean when Jehovah took "unity" rib from Adam to make eve? Why did the KJV say "one" rib? -
@dunklaw The LDS guy is saying that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah. I'm saying that The Father the Son and the Holy spirit are and I quote ...the "lord our God is one."
Also the greek word "heis" is being used also in John 10:33. "The Father and I are heis." The amount of plural isn't the point as to the unity that is the point. The Body of Christ is a plural within a singluar as well, but according to Jesus, they are "heis" "...just as we are heis". John 17:11.
@pretoshohmoofc "in order that they may be one >>just as we are<<." - so what kind of "one" is this talking about - compare:-
KJV Job 23:13 But he is in one (H259) mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. (notice how "mind" is inserted into the text for clarity)
One mind - and it is staggeringly obvious that this is talking about ONE common thought or thinking - it is ONE.
@dunklaw The kind of one that is a plural within a singular. The body of Christ is plural within a singular. The relationship within the marriage is also a plural within a singular. And its funny how God in both cases just so happen to line up with these.
@pretoshohmoofc I have just been looking at Calvin's commentary on Deut 6:4:-
4. Hear, O Israel. When Moses proclaims that God is One, the statement is not confined to His sole essence, which is incomprehensible, but must be also understood of His power and glory, which had been manifested to the people; as though he had said, that they would be guilty of rebellion unless they >>abode in the One God,<< (cont.)
@pretoshohmoofc (cont.) then he goes and throws this in as an after thought:-
The orthodox Fathers aptly used this passage against the Arians; because, since Christ is everywhere called God, He is undoubtedly the same Jehovah who declares Himself to be the One God; and this is asserted with the same force respecting the Holy Spirit.
Again - no bias? He is NOT claiming to be the "ONE" god but rather "at one" with his people as Calvin first states.
@pretoshohmoofc But here is the contradiction - the problem -
KJV Gen 27:44 And tarry with him a few (H259) days, until thy brother's fury turn away;
Ephesians 4:26-27 Be wrathful, and yet do not sin; let the sun not set with YOU in a provoked state,
KJV Gen 27:45 Until thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be deprived also of you both in one (H259) day?
@dunklaw As to your cherry picking. What?... Am I going to wait until I can't find a original quote to varify so that You then can claim victory? Give me a break duncan. You ALREADY PROVED you're a snake. :-)
@dunklaw One can mean singluar as well, I am not disputing this. But as I already demonstraited to you duncan, one can also mean unity. Or do you think that the Father and the Son are the same person? John 10:30.
@pretoshohmoofc As a side point your reference to "god over all" (blocked discussion) from the ANF this term is never used for the father but it is uses for the son.
"But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God(shinning one), as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."
@dunklaw The NWT's version of Rom 9:5 doesn't even like up with any other translation and does not follow the greek.
Lit Greek.
who is over all, God blessed forever." The NWT was foced to place theos from being the 5th word in the sentence to being the first. "ho On epi panton **theos** eulogetos eis tous aionas auen" to
"**theos** ho On epi panton..."
They changed the phrasing around to avoid calling Jesus God.
this same phrase is applied to God Rom 1:25 NWT, 2 Cor 11:31NWT
@pretoshohmoofc "NWT version of Rom 9:5" - so what, is that the ONLY bible that JW's use. At the end of the day there is a certain amount of interpretation in ALL translations - so it is certainly not a case of one being completely right or wrong.
@dunklaw View for yourself. Compare the Koine Greek to both the Vamvas and the Greek NWT. Where does the NWT place **theos** in the verse, and how does this effect the translation OF the verse?
@dunklaw OK, dunklaw, I read it and it doesn't change anything because they don't introduce my argument that I made regarding the Greek NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology.
Like I've repeated many times before, the WT insists that their translation of the greek is correct UNTIL it gets to the doorstep of the Greek speaking people THEN THEY BAIL ON YOU!!!!!
@pretoshohmoofc "NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology." - again missing the point & the point is that the Greek does not fit your theology - when examined in detail. And I already know that the semantics and phrasing of many verses of the Greek are not understood in the same way today as the Semitic Koine was in the first cent. As I already pointed out to msm the second occurrence of "I AM" was subtly changed in the Vamvas - so again that was their opinion.
@dunklaw "NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology." - again missing the point
No dunklaw it ISN'T missing the point! It's RIGHT ON POINT! You can't defend them changing around the original greek in God's word to fit your theology and you know it!
In each of these cases within the Greek sentence structure, within Paul's writings, the subject comes before the phrase. In Rom 9:5, Theos is included into the phrase.
@pretoshohmoofc KJV Zec 14:9 And the LORD **shall be** king over all the earth: in that day **shall there be one LORD(YHWH)**, and his name (character) one.
How can this be if YHWH is already united - co eternal - co equal?
No one word can cover ehhad but "first" fits many instances very well.
@dunklaw Zec 14:9 is referring to a future event which has not happened yet. The LORD is not king over all the earth yet. The Bride of Christ is also used in Rev as one character. "She" and "Her", but is she? I thought she was plural within a singular?
Rev 19:7-8
"...His bride has made HERSELF (character) ready."
Rev 21:2,9
"...a bride adorned for HER (character) husband."
@pretoshohmoofc That pretty much ends this discussion then. If you cannot be bothered to read the web pages that can conclusively prove your arguments incorrect, you are obviously not bothered about any kind of TRUTH. What the WT says or does not say IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that with or without there literature - I can still prove that YOU ARE WRONG.
@pretoshohmoofc Yes but as the article I linked you too, that you did not want to read, points out that the Jewish usage of this argument only kicked in in about the 4th cent CE as a response to trinitarianism (all the supporting evidence is in the article). "John 10:30" - well that does not really work. As already established this is a oneness of thought & purpose - a unity as per YHWH & Israel in Deut 6:4-7.
@pretoshohmoofc No "yes but..." - surely the vamvas should have just said "I AM" in the second occurrence. So is the first occurrence correct & the second wrong - or is it the other way around.
@pretoshohmoofc So tell me - is the JW's Greek bible called the New World TRANSLATION or not?!?!?! according to the TRANSLATION of semitic koine in to modern Greek there is considerable evidence to show that this rendering is correct & that "I AM" is gibberish.
@dunklaw Which "translation" is closer to the original dunklaw? The vamvas or the MNK? Of coarse you agree with their translation, you are soooo blind (2cor4:4) that you think just like the person in bethel who justified typing this out into their new version.
You're not doing well against me dunklaw. Not at all! I hold the moral high ground.
@pretoshohmoofc "I hold the moral high ground" - Oh, the person who calls his opponent a snake, someone who is going to burn in hell (even though there is no such thing), who also uses mis-information as a tactic.
I am doing just fine even though you refuse to see it.
@dunklaw Infact, I can't think of a better way to walk away from you than this. this will be my last time that I talk to you. I'll leave you blind. 2 cor 4:4.
Deuteronomy emphasizes Jehovah’s position as the unique God (De 6:4), Israel’s position as his unique people (4:7, 8), and the establishment of one central place of worship (12:4-7). It foretells the one who would be raised up as a prophet like Moses and who would speak in Jehovah’s name, one to whom all must be subject.—18:18, 19.
"the unique God" - or as the latest JPS translation puts it - "God alone".
@dunklaw Again, it is almost never a Trinitarian who brings up Deut6:4as a proof text. So what you are telling me is, that it is YOUR group who needs to adjust their way of thinking.
@pretoshohmoofc And they aren't "individuals" dunklaw, they are your cult LEADERS. Your inspired/uninspired double minded two story two step LEADERS. You can't (and I won't let you) blame some poor sod down at the WT making all these decisions all by himself without the GB knowing about any of these. Your cult leaders have >>a very firm grip<< on all who work in the writting department.
@pretoshohmoofc Yes but since it is NOT in the writings (unless you can point me in the right direction to prove it ?) - you are the one giving out misinformation.
@dunklaw Go back are re-read what you yourself typed out dunklaw. "...but must be **also** understood" Meaning that both interpretations can be understood within the very same verse.
@pretoshohmoofc The first part says that we cannot comprehend YHWH - and that I agree with. It is you that is assuming a trinity in to this initial statement.
@dunklaw The first part says that we cannot comprehend YHWH - and that I agree with
In your Resoning book on under "The Trinity". The WT argues that seeing as the Trinity cannot be comprehended this shows the doctrine of the Trinity to be a false teaching. So are you disagreeing with the WT on this dunklaw?
@pretoshohmoofc I suggest you read from Job 38 onwards - this is the YHWH that we cannot comprehend. But you claim the trinity CAN be comprehended because you have many doctrines (as you have already mentioned) that define it to the last detail. So surely Calvin's intro cannot be talking about trinity can it? but rather the god who's power and works are beyond our thought capability.
@pretoshohmoofc But since the trrinity is nowhere in the bible - it is no good reason to accept either - just like any other theory about the nature of YHWH.
@pretoshohmoofc BTW associating the trinity doctrine to something "incomprehensible" is on shaky ground since this statement comes from a creed of unknown and suspect origin. It is not "incomprehensible" - it's just plain illogical.
@dunklaw In your Reasoning book under 'the Trinity' your cult leaders state that sinse the Trinity is incomprehensible it must be just plain illogical. THEN... in your same book under "God" they argue that since God has no beginning and is incomprehensible, is NOT a good reason for rejecting it.
So dunklaw, which is true and which statement is false?
See pg 425 Regarding the Trinity,...its members are "incomprehensible," ...such a Trinitarian god is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said:"we worshop what we know,"
NOW Look on page 148 under "did God have a beginning?"
"Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it, But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it."
@pretoshohmoofc This is talking about THE FACT that humans CANNOT comprehend anything that has had NO beginning. - why are you not getting this. I think you are just becoming a mis-information practiser.
@pretoshohmoofc Perhaps you should read your own comments & mine more thoroughly as our previous discussion regarding Adams rib is NOT dealing with the same subject.
"and he took one(H259 - unit) of his ribs (side),"
Here it is referring to a unit (physical quantity) not a unity.
If you take Deut 6:4 in context it is more likely referring to the fact that YHWH was united with his people "Isreal" & that his people should be united with him in return - Deut 6:5,6.
@dunklaw Historically Jews have always interpreted Deut 6:4 to mean that there is only on God. The NT gives "new light" on this matter. The Greek word heis if you like it or not can mean singular or collective. Plural within a singular.
@dunklaw Like I first demonstraited to you, Let us (plural) create man (singular) our likeness (according to our image-plural).let them (plural) rule over..."
So who was made in the image of Adam? His Son.
Gen 5:3
"he became the father of a son in HIS OWN LIKENESS, according to his image, and named him Seth.
There is the third person. The Son (Seth) is in the image of his Father. Both are 100% human.
The only difference is, man has a beginning, God doesn't.
@dunklaw I am 100% convinced that I'm dealing with a 2cor 4:4 case. So there is no point to talking to you anymore. Anyone who defends that greek translation has a veil over his eyes.
I will walk away from you with a big smile on my face.
P.S dunklaw, your greek NWT would have brought me out of the WT.
The Koine Greek was a dialect inferior to the Attic Greek. In the 1st century CE, it was used mainly by non-Greeks. Being a secondary language to them, they compromised several of its grammatical rules. One of the compromises was the lack of perfect tense for the verb “to be” (“I have been”).
@pretoshohmoofc Evidence that the KJV translators manipulated the translation of the Greek words “ego eimi” is the fact that in the following passage they translated the same words (“ego eimi”) as “I have been”: “Jesus said to him, I have been {Gr. ego eimi} so long time with you, and yet you have not known me, Philip?” (John 14:9 KJV) In this case they translated correctly the meaning intended by the author because it does not affect the Trinity doctrine.
@dunklaw You don't get it. We're done. I don't care about your ego eimi arguments. Your greek NWT changes everything. And seeing as you are so blind not to get this. I'm waisting my time with you.
Dunklaw, from my dialog with you, I am 100% convinced that you are incapable of understanding truth. When you justified the changing of God's word, I turned you off. There is no point to continue with you. 2cor44.
@pretoshohmoofc Joh 14:9 Λέγει προς αυτόν ο Ιησούς· Τόσον καιρόν είμαι μεθ' υμών, και δεν με εγνώρισας, Φίλιππε; όστις είδεν εμέ είδε τον Πατέρα· και πως συ λέγεις, Δείξον εις ημάς τον Πατέρα;
Vamvas & KJV prove the point.
Joh 14:9 Iesus saith vnto him, Haue **I bin** so long time with you, and yet hast thou not knowen me, Philip? he that hath seene me, hath seene the father, and how sayest thou then, Shew vs the father?
So you keep harping on about the NWT being a biased translation.
@pretoshohmoofc (Matthew 26:63)“By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ (messiah) the Son of God!”
(Matthew 26:65-68) See! Now YOU have heard the blasphemy. What is YOUR opinion?” They returned answer: “He is liable to death.” Then they spit into his face and hit him with their fists. Others slapped him in the face, saying: “Prophesy to us, you Christ (messiah). Who is it that struck you?”
This has been flagged as spam show
Biblical Koine Greek has different syntax and sentence construction to modern Greek. Just as the English Language has changed so has Greek. When you compare the Biblical Greek with the modern Greek below:
Textus Receptus
ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Greek NWT as per video.
58 Ο Ιησούς τούς είπε: «Αληθινά, αληθινά σας λέω: Πριν ο Αβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη, εγώ υπάρχω»
"Ego emoun" is the Modern Greek translation of the NWT version of "I have been".
TheDirtyBurd 2 months ago
Can't find this chick or her videos on youtube anymore...Perhaps she became a Jehovah Witness.
JAKEV25 2 months ago
@JAKEV25 1Peter3fifteen IS JCdied4all meathead.
pretoshohmoofc 2 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc "meathead"????? NICE Christian you are.
JAKEV25 2 months ago
@JAKEV25 No, this root word comes from the greek word "megethos" which means "greatness", so I am calling you 'a great head or mind' when I call you a meathead for not observing such as simple introduction to her video.
pretoshohmoofc 2 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "bible can be cross referenced" this of course does not take into account of changing word uses and definitions over time - which of course you recognise in English even in a few decades.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "an already biased opinion" - what is the basis for your accusation - Is my opinion any more or less biased then anyone else's ?
Here's one to ponder:-
watch?v=SHKSzvsa6Xg
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "I have a Strong's Dictionary" - well there is your first problem - start by getting a copy of Thayers to give you word concepts rather than just being based on word usages in the KJV translation. You are going to have to dig deeper than this. 5% of the words used in the OT are of unknown meaning & another 10% are uncertain.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 I suggest that you invest in a JPS TANAKH hebrew english study edition - ISBN-10: 0827606974.
This will show you just how many words and phrases CANNOT be translated because the meaning is unknown or uncertain. Forget about any other arguments - I can demonstrate verses that no two translations use the same words or ideas for - because they are ALL just guessing. - SO again the same question - written where?
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "607BCE, not 587CE" - this line of argumentation is wasted on me. I trust Matthew 24 to point the way & I know where we are in the stream of time from this. What made the first word war POSSIBLE was the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuel - to quote:-
"The American Civil War was one of the earliest true industrial wars. Railroads, the telegraph, steamships, and mass-produced weapons were employed extensively."
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 *** w09 10/1 p. 19 The Vatican Codex—Why a Treasure? ***
What kind of text did the Vatican Codex reveal? The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible states that it “shows both consistency of spelling and accuracy of copying, and a quality in the text thus carefully reproduced.” The same reference work continues: “It is thus possible to conclude that this text is the product of a tradition of scholarly copying."
I suggest you read ALL of the book here quoted.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 So are the manuscripts of LXX that you have got older than the DSS where the equivalent texts are available???? There is much evidence emerging that the even the the Vulgate may be more accurate than the LXX you have in many ways & based on older lost Greek manuscripts. But the reality is that Hebrew is a concrete language & Greek is abstract ( the same as trying to accurately translate Chinese into English - to translate the concept of a word may take a whole sentence.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldhistory2011 Look, you started this - "interpretation does not spring from any private party but God's spirit having directed the writing and harmonious meaning of the entire bible." - I presume you are accusing me of being a "private party" - why do you call me a "horrible" teacher - I am not a teacher at all.
Again I ask the question - "beyond what is written" - written where?
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldhistory2011 "i already gave you a detailed explanation of the subject and it went over your tiny head." - I did try to warn you.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Are you sure you even correctly understand "God's spirit" from a Hebraic perspective.
Spirit = Ruach = wind (following a prescribed path) = directed action
of
God = EL(ohim) = mighty one(s)
Job 33:4 God's own spirit (ruach) made me, And the Almighty's own breath (closely related in meaning to ruach) proceeded to bring me to life.
The same thing said in to different poetic forms.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "goes beyond what is written" - written where exactly? If you INTERPRETATION of the scriptures is purely "sola scriptura", then do you use archaeology to back up claims - if so then you are being hypocritical. Much of what I have said here is based on some of the latest concrete understanding of Hebrew terms backed up by the latest archaeology and research.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "ego eimi does not appear in Jo 14:19" - no John 14:9, it is the eimi that is of concern and the KJC translated as "Have I been" - demonstrating the potential for PAST TENSE thus supporting the translation "I HAVE BEEN".
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "300 CE" - yes, too new.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 "OMG, now YOU know better than an ancient manuscript" if you know the linguistic differences between Ancient Hebrew & 2nd cent BCE Greek then you will know that it can ONLY be approximate.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldhistory2011 Change the subject? That was the FIRST QUESTION that I asked you! LOL!
recap:" And can you please address this video, why was the Watchtower forced to change the word of God around to fit their doctrine?"
I asked you this 6 days ago and never got an answer. Why? Because you are incapable of answering it. LOL!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011
Can you please circle where you dealt with the Greek New World Translation? I can't seem to find it. Refresh my tiny head.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 If you DID have an answer to this video, you would have revealed it by now.
So you try to change the subject.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011
BTW
. insult is the sign of a failed argument. :-)
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 LOL! can you circle it and send it back to me, cuz I can't seem to find it.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And seeing as you CANNOT give me as much as an explanation as to why your brookllyn gods tampered with the Holy word of God gives this born-again Christian a great sense of elation.
I stumped you, it isn't that you don't want to answer me, its because you can't!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Repeatedly stating your own personal beliefs in light of contrary evidence without providing any meaningful argumentation is the clearest definition of loosing a debate.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 You haven't DISPROVED what I am saying to you, infact you are showing me that you aren't even reading my posts.
I win
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And you still haven't explained if Ho On is a divine claim then why is it being applied to Jesus in John 1:18.
You keep failing to respond back to me on this, and yet insist on your claim anyways. This is the sign of a failed argument.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And you still haven't given me an explanation as to why the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to remove on of the most controversial verses within the JW/Christian debate.
Your silence screams and makes my case against you!!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 I have just had my little girl proof read what I sent you, and she fully understands it so even a little girl understands what it is that i'm saying to you. So if you don't understand it, this isn't my fault but seems to be a cognative problem based on your part or is due to something far greater. 2 Cor 4:4.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 This is why the Jewish greek speaking scribes who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew into greek took out the word "God" as in, "You are God" from Psalms 90:2 [90:3 in the LXX] and replaced in with just "You Are". as in "from everlasting to everlasting You Are". This is saying that before the mountains were formed God Preexisted. This same language is being used in John 8:58 with "before Abraham was, I AM" This is why the Jews wanted to kill him. he was making divine claim.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Part II
God does not have a Past nor does he have a future because God is outside of Time, space and Matter. God predates it, So God is in a state of present tense. He is in a state of
'I am'
or in a state of 'Who is"
or in a state of "being".
This is why you can use all three phrases to convey one of God's attributes, his state of present tense. In Psalms 90:2 in the LXX Moses wrote it so it is "You Are". If God had of said it, it would have read "I AM".
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Ho On in Ex 3:14 is not a name of God but is being used in the philosophical sense. Somewhat like we would said, "I think therefore I AM". All three can be used in the grammar just like it is being used in John 1:18 for Jesus; but it also can be used in the philosophical sense just like it is being used in Ex 3:14. "I am the being." The word Ho On does not mean "being" as in a thing, but as in being in the present tense. Example: I am BEING a man. "Or I am who is."
contin..
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Infact Jesus and the woman at the well. Both On and soo ei are being used in the Greek, "You are (soo ei) a Jew.." I am or who is (On) a Samarian. NiV.
both mean the same thing within the grammar and both apply to the person in the first and second tense.
the difference is Psalms 90:2 in the LXX and Ex3:14 in the LXX are being used in the philosophical sense and not the grammar.
So" You are" and" who is" are just another way of saying the same thing.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Your case seems to hinge on Ho On as being the title of God. Well, Like you keep failing to respond back to me on is, Jesus is ALSO being called Ho On in John 1:18.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 There IS ego eimi in Ex 3:14 LXX you appear to be retarded
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
ok you'v tried to slag off jw's now pls you support your faith and answer me this if your christ is god almighty and you go to heaven when you die why did christ punish his friend lazarus by bringing him back from so called heavenly glory to this rotten world surely lazarus would of been better of were he was although i know he wasnt in heaven can you explain this pls
drugsguru 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And Jesus is being called ho On in John 1:18, so does this then mean that he can be God then?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And like I said before, there is no definite article in "you are" in theLXX pslams 90:2.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 What are you talking about? Can't you read?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 You are forgetting that the jehovah's witness greek bible was forced to remove ego eimi from their greek Bible. So who cares about your other 'old' excuses.
You can't defend this. They get into a staring contest with the greek speaking people and the WT blinked.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh well i know you must be over run with comments so i will let you continue with your ministering bye
drugsguru 6 months ago
no im not bothered they dont chat about the excistence of hell and all this going to heaven when they die they know the bible now if a minority from the j.w's organisation tamper with the scriptures they will be judged not the whole bible following people i have searched christianity exhaustively and j'w's make the most sence no fantacys
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru How can changing the word of God around not bother you?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
by the way i didnt say john 8 58 i said john 8 1:7
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru I don't know what john 8:1-7 has to do with any of the subject of this video?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
oh yea you american religious fanatics are misleading the entire christian world its funny that god started in israel and now the americans again decide to steal that so god is now the god of america, mormon, born again, hamish loads and i dont know if i said this before but i have read versions of the bible all versions so tell me were the word crusifixion is mentioned or crusify were you lot get your cruisifix or however you spell the word dont fear me and block like born agains
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru Again, none of these points that you are raising have to do with the subject of the video. What you are doing is called a Red Herring, this is when you are trying to change the subject because you are uncomfortable with the subject. I don't blame you, I would too if I were you. :-)
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc haha ok if you cant handle me ripping your beliefs apart then you stop ripping the jw's apart are they harming you have a go at the muslims or pick one theres thousands of them but it seems to me that jw's have replaced the jews for persecution and your contributing to that ok
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru You're drifting off topic again...
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc thats the point haha
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru I've already given you way too much attention.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
you cant rely on a modern greek translation as we all know the king james is wrote in old english so how do you know there is no old greek.. By the way do you know that there is question weather or not john 8 v 1 thru 7 was actually written by the apostle john and the new world trans is the only bible i have read that tries to be careful with this particular text by inserting it in small text what dous that tell you it tells me that jw's fear removing or adding which is forbidden
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru It doesn't matter if you except John 8:58 as from the apostle John or not, the Jehovah's Witnesses fully believe that it is from John.
Secondly, They do understand old greek. It was called koine greek.
Thirdly, if the jehovah's witnesses had a fear of removing or adding which according to you is forbidden, then why did they remove and add to this?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc ok but answer me one thing your in usa right do you christians over there really beleive that mary k baxters story i hope not your supposed to be bible trained she said she saw king solomon david son when acts 20 ?? said david did not go to heaven am i making sence
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru I don't know what any of this has to do with what I told you? The Jehovah's Witness greek Bible was forced to change the original greek around from the original text in order for them to get around Jesus being God to the greek speaking people.
Why is that NOT your concern?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc its not my concern cos im not a jw i just like to debate the bible with those who arnt afraid of blunt people but i also know that it dousnt matter whta you saying about the i am i know what your aiming at and the tinity is a fantasy dreamed up by pope constantine who must of been satanised as that is what satan wants he wants people to be drawn away from the real meaning of the bible
drugsguru 6 months ago
@drugsguru So you are not a Jehovah's Witness, Ok, then this will be easy for you because you don't feel the need to defend them. I will ask, are you not concerned that the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to change around the original greek text in order for them to keep their theology?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 . Ho on with the definate article does not have the meaning that you are trying to imply. 'Ho on' can translate as "who is" or 'the being' or 'the I am' and can be used in the grammar in John 1:18 as being used for Jesus. "who is" in the boosm of the Father. If the definate article takes on a divine role, and is only used for God, then your argument just committed suicide.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 No one said that ego eimi WAS in John 14:19.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldhistory2011 the LXX is pretty irrelevant as it is just an approximate translation
2-3rds of the Old Testament quotes in the NT are from the LXX. so you can't go there either.
And it doesn't matter, because the Hebrew version in which the LXX was based read, "you are God" in Pslams 90:2. The Greek speaking scholars removed the word "God" from the verse in the LXX because God's eternal attributes were fully contained within "You are" within the greek.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Jesus is being called "Ho on" in John 1:18 with the definate article, does this now mean that he IS God?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Jesus was Jehovah's Firstborn creation
Nice attempt at changing the subject.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 You still can't get around the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to changed around one of the most contraversal scripture verses within the JW/ Christian debate.
Face it,they got into a staring contest with the greek speaking people and the Watchtower blinked!
You can't defend this!!!!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Nice try at getting around the fact that Moses uses the second person "You are" to express the eternal nature of God in Psalms 90:2. [90:3 in the LXX]. If God was speaking it would have read "from everlasting to everlasting I AM."
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldhistory2011 they never did what you suggest. therefore you really don't even deserve a response
Or in other words, I can't answer that one Sir,.
No, they claim that ego eimi does not mean I AM until they got to the door step of the greek speaking people then they bailed on you.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 The HEBREW of Ex 3:14 is correctly translated in its incompleted form as "I will be" - the LXX is pretty irrelevant as it is just an approximate translation. pretoshohmoofc does not understand the difference between LXX semitic koine and modern Greek. He does not even get the fact that the KJV translated "ego eimi" as "HAVE I" in John 14:9!
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 And can you please address this video, why was the Watchtower forced to change the word of God around to fit their doctrine? From what you can see, other JWs on this comment page failed to answer this question but dodged and ducked out the question and played word games. I hope you're better than this.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Isaiah 44:18
dunklaw 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 In Psalms 90:2 [psalms 90:3 in the LXX] in the Septuagint Moses said, ", from everlasting to everlasting "YOU ARE" [soo ie-in the Greek] without the definate article as well.
Seeing that it isn't God speaking but Moses, pslams 90:2 is being addressed in the second person equivalent of, "I am".
And Satan is being called 'THE GOD of this world' in 2 Cor 4:4, not 'a god'. You don't seem to have a problem with Satan being the god, but you refuse to call christ this. Why?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc The evidence shows that Jesus was a Jewish literate who was able to read the temple scrolls in Jerusalem (Hebrew & Aramaic) - so how would he have read Psalms 90:2?
godward. org/Hebrew%20Roots/which_language_did_jesus_speak.htm
Why do you think that a quotation of Jesus has anything to do with an erroneous LXX translation of the original Hebrew psalms 90:2 "you are mighty" or that he would use it as a mysterious quotation that does not even relate to the Hebrew "I will be"?
dunklaw 6 months ago
1Peter3Fifteen:
I'm a bit confused by your presentation. The Greek NWT is a translation of the English NWT. So your 3 examples are modern Greek renderings of the modern English text as it appears in the English NWT. That explains the differences in the Greek NWT, other modern Greek renderings, and the Wescott and Hort texts. I suppose I don't understand why this is an issue worthy of a video, if it is a matter of simply you not agreeing with the NWT English rendering.
FredTorres1000 6 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Deut 6:4 Hear O Israel: The Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah?
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Not that I agree with the LDS - but you of course realise that your own arguments regarding Deut 6:4 are self contradictory.
Literally "Jehovah our God [is] Jehovah one."
& from the ABP (LXX) "The lord our God [Lord one is]."
Interesting how the LXX uses "heis" which only means the numeral "one" but here's the thing, if the Hebrew did not mean "one" but rather "unity" then. What did it mean when Jehovah took "unity" rib from Adam to make eve? Why did the KJV say "one" rib? -
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw The LDS guy is saying that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah. I'm saying that The Father the Son and the Holy spirit are and I quote ...the "lord our God is one."
Also the greek word "heis" is being used also in John 10:33. "The Father and I are heis." The amount of plural isn't the point as to the unity that is the point. The Body of Christ is a plural within a singluar as well, but according to Jesus, they are "heis" "...just as we are heis". John 17:11.
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc "in order that they may be one >>just as we are<<." - so what kind of "one" is this talking about - compare:-
KJV Job 23:13 But he is in one (H259) mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. (notice how "mind" is inserted into the text for clarity)
One mind - and it is staggeringly obvious that this is talking about ONE common thought or thinking - it is ONE.
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw The kind of one that is a plural within a singular. The body of Christ is plural within a singular. The relationship within the marriage is also a plural within a singular. And its funny how God in both cases just so happen to line up with these.
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc I have just been looking at Calvin's commentary on Deut 6:4:-
4. Hear, O Israel. When Moses proclaims that God is One, the statement is not confined to His sole essence, which is incomprehensible, but must be also understood of His power and glory, which had been manifested to the people; as though he had said, that they would be guilty of rebellion unless they >>abode in the One God,<< (cont.)
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc (cont.) then he goes and throws this in as an after thought:-
The orthodox Fathers aptly used this passage against the Arians; because, since Christ is everywhere called God, He is undoubtedly the same Jehovah who declares Himself to be the One God; and this is asserted with the same force respecting the Holy Spirit.
Again - no bias? He is NOT claiming to be the "ONE" god but rather "at one" with his people as Calvin first states.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc But here is the contradiction - the problem -
KJV Gen 27:44 And tarry with him a few (H259) days, until thy brother's fury turn away;
Ephesians 4:26-27 Be wrathful, and yet do not sin; let the sun not set with YOU in a provoked state,
KJV Gen 27:45 Until thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be deprived also of you both in one (H259) day?
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw As to your cherry picking. What?... Am I going to wait until I can't find a original quote to varify so that You then can claim victory? Give me a break duncan. You ALREADY PROVED you're a snake. :-)
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc You have not explained Adams rib?
dunklaw 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc I put the quotes forward - you give no substantial reply - that makes me a snake ? LOL
dunklaw 7 months ago
@dunklaw One can mean singluar as well, I am not disputing this. But as I already demonstraited to you duncan, one can also mean unity. Or do you think that the Father and the Son are the same person? John 10:30.
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc As a side point your reference to "god over all" (blocked discussion) from the ANF this term is never used for the father but it is uses for the son.
"But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God(shinning one), as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."
Compare Rom 9:5 & Phil 2:9-11
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw The NWT's version of Rom 9:5 doesn't even like up with any other translation and does not follow the greek.
Lit Greek.
who is over all, God blessed forever." The NWT was foced to place theos from being the 5th word in the sentence to being the first. "ho On epi panton **theos** eulogetos eis tous aionas auen" to
"**theos** ho On epi panton..."
They changed the phrasing around to avoid calling Jesus God.
this same phrase is applied to God Rom 1:25 NWT, 2 Cor 11:31NWT
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Read this carefully - then get back to me:-
jehovah. to/exe/translation/romans95.htm
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw No, I already proved your NWT version of Rom 9:5 wrong.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc "NWT version of Rom 9:5" - so what, is that the ONLY bible that JW's use. At the end of the day there is a certain amount of interpretation in ALL translations - so it is certainly not a case of one being completely right or wrong.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw View for yourself. Compare the Koine Greek to both the Vamvas and the Greek NWT. Where does the NWT place **theos** in the verse, and how does this effect the translation OF the verse?
Romans 9:5
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων **θεὸς** εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν (NT Greek)
ο ων επι παντων **Θεος** ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας· αμην.(Modern Greek Bible)
ο **Θεός** που ειναι πανω σε όλα ας ειναι ευλογημένος για πάντα Αμήν (Greek NWT)
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc if you cannot be bothered to read:-
jehovah. to/exe/translation/romans95.htm
Then stop bothering me with this - if you were to read it then all would become clear - that the Greek text DOES NOT support your interpretation.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Your own Greek NWT embarassed you again dunklaw.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@dunklaw OK, dunklaw, I read it and it doesn't change anything because they don't introduce my argument that I made regarding the Greek NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology.
Like I've repeated many times before, the WT insists that their translation of the greek is correct UNTIL it gets to the doorstep of the Greek speaking people THEN THEY BAIL ON YOU!!!!!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc "NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology." - again missing the point & the point is that the Greek does not fit your theology - when examined in detail. And I already know that the semantics and phrasing of many verses of the Greek are not understood in the same way today as the Semitic Koine was in the first cent. As I already pointed out to msm the second occurrence of "I AM" was subtly changed in the Vamvas - so again that was their opinion.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dunklaw "NWT's changing of the greek around to fit into WT theology." - again missing the point
No dunklaw it ISN'T missing the point! It's RIGHT ON POINT! You can't defend them changing around the original greek in God's word to fit your theology and you know it!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@dunklaw Part II
Rom 1:25 and 2 Cor 11:31.
In each of these cases within the Greek sentence structure, within Paul's writings, the subject comes before the phrase. In Rom 9:5, Theos is included into the phrase.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@dunklaw as for Adam's rib, I already answered this 2 months ago. Go back and re-read my answer. Its not my fault that you are a lousy listener.
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc But if it has the implications that you give it then how do you explain -
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc KJV Zec 14:9 And the LORD **shall be** king over all the earth: in that day **shall there be one LORD(YHWH)**, and his name (character) one.
How can this be if YHWH is already united - co eternal - co equal?
No one word can cover ehhad but "first" fits many instances very well.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Zec 14:9 is referring to a future event which has not happened yet. The LORD is not king over all the earth yet. The Bride of Christ is also used in Rev as one character. "She" and "Her", but is she? I thought she was plural within a singular?
Rev 19:7-8
"...His bride has made HERSELF (character) ready."
Rev 21:2,9
"...a bride adorned for HER (character) husband."
"...the bride, (character) the wife of the Lamb."
The bride of Christ is plural within a singular.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pretoshohmoofc Please read this article very carefully & check out the sources if you like:-
franknelte. net/Nelte_HTML/DEUT6-4.htm
"Historically Jews have always interpreted Deut 6:4 to mean that there is only on God." - WRONG!!!!!
That was a later understanding.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw No, I don't bother to read these webpages dunklaw. I never have. Never will.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc That pretty much ends this discussion then. If you cannot be bothered to read the web pages that can conclusively prove your arguments incorrect, you are obviously not bothered about any kind of TRUTH. What the WT says or does not say IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that with or without there literature - I can still prove that YOU ARE WRONG.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw It is always an arian/Jew or Muslim who brings up Deut 6:4 dunklaw. We only respond back with John 10:30 as a response TO THEIR reasoning.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Yes but as the article I linked you too, that you did not want to read, points out that the Jewish usage of this argument only kicked in in about the 4th cent CE as a response to trinitarianism (all the supporting evidence is in the article). "John 10:30" - well that does not really work. As already established this is a oneness of thought & purpose - a unity as per YHWH & Israel in Deut 6:4-7.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw No "yes but..." there is no defense for this, your WT Bible was forced to change the greek around to keep their doctrine.
dunklaw, there are just some things that you can't defend. This is an open and closed case.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc No "yes but..." - surely the vamvas should have just said "I AM" in the second occurrence. So is the first occurrence correct & the second wrong - or is it the other way around.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Show me dunklaw, don't tell me. You can tell me all you want that you are right, but YOUR NWT GREEK BIBLE IS SHOWING ME DIFFERENT!
There is NO excuse you can give me. none.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc So tell me - is the JW's Greek bible called the New World TRANSLATION or not?!?!?! according to the TRANSLATION of semitic koine in to modern Greek there is considerable evidence to show that this rendering is correct & that "I AM" is gibberish.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Show me dunklaw, don't tell me. You TELL ME you are right, but your Greek NWT is SHOWING ME you are wrong.
Face it dunklaw. they embarrassed you again.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc How can they embarrass me when I agree with their TRANSLATION. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?!?!
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw How can they embarrass me when I agree with their TRANSLATION
LOL! Why didn't the vamvas "need" to change their version dunklaw?
Show me don't tell me.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc So why DID the change at the second occurrence ? this is a circular argument and you know it - you are wasting my time.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Which "translation" is closer to the original dunklaw? The vamvas or the MNK? Of coarse you agree with their translation, you are soooo blind (2cor4:4) that you think just like the person in bethel who justified typing this out into their new version.
You're not doing well against me dunklaw. Not at all! I hold the moral high ground.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pretoshohmoofc "I hold the moral high ground" - Oh, the person who calls his opponent a snake, someone who is going to burn in hell (even though there is no such thing), who also uses mis-information as a tactic.
I am doing just fine even though you refuse to see it.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Infact, I can't think of a better way to walk away from you than this. this will be my last time that I talk to you. I'll leave you blind. 2 cor 4:4.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Watch:-
watch?v=gyJt63aAd38
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc watch?v=iCyM7sbgFlk
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw I already read it dunklaw. and the evidence that I have shown you overwhelms thier case.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc only in your imagination.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw So are you then saying, that the WT is wrong when it uses Deut 6:4 in their publications to argue that Jehovah is one person then?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc "Deut 6:4 in their publications" - Which publication are you referring too?
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Which publication are you referring too?
Don't you have a WT CD-Rom?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Yes I have the CD. I just can't find the articles that support your accusation.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dunklaw Yes I have the CD. I just can't find the articles that support your accusation.
just type in deut 6:4.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc *** it-1 p. 621 Deuteronomy ***
Deuteronomy emphasizes Jehovah’s position as the unique God (De 6:4), Israel’s position as his unique people (4:7, 8), and the establishment of one central place of worship (12:4-7). It foretells the one who would be raised up as a prophet like Moses and who would speak in Jehovah’s name, one to whom all must be subject.—18:18, 19.
"the unique God" - or as the latest JPS translation puts it - "God alone".
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Again, it is almost never a Trinitarian who brings up Deut6:4as a proof text. So what you are telling me is, that it is YOUR group who needs to adjust their way of thinking.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Perhaps individuals do need to double check the articles - as per the Insight book reference that I have already posted.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dunklaw Perhaps individuals do need to double check the articles - as per the Insight book reference that I have already posted.
What a cult!
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc And they aren't "individuals" dunklaw, they are your cult LEADERS. Your inspired/uninspired double minded two story two step LEADERS. You can't (and I won't let you) blame some poor sod down at the WT making all these decisions all by himself without the GB knowing about any of these. Your cult leaders have >>a very firm grip<< on all who work in the writting department.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Yes but since it is NOT in the writings (unless you can point me in the right direction to prove it ?) - you are the one giving out misinformation.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Also are you saying the MAJORITY of John Calvin's commentary is mistaken?
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Go back are re-read what you yourself typed out dunklaw. "...but must be **also** understood" Meaning that both interpretations can be understood within the very same verse.
P.S I'm not a Calvinist.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc The first part says that we cannot comprehend YHWH - and that I agree with. It is you that is assuming a trinity in to this initial statement.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw The first part says that we cannot comprehend YHWH - and that I agree with
In your Resoning book on under "The Trinity". The WT argues that seeing as the Trinity cannot be comprehended this shows the doctrine of the Trinity to be a false teaching. So are you disagreeing with the WT on this dunklaw?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc I suggest you read from Job 38 onwards - this is the YHWH that we cannot comprehend. But you claim the trinity CAN be comprehended because you have many doctrines (as you have already mentioned) that define it to the last detail. So surely Calvin's intro cannot be talking about trinity can it? but rather the god who's power and works are beyond our thought capability.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw What I was presenting was the even if you think that the Trinity is incomprehencible is NOT a good reason to reject it. That was my point.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc But since the trrinity is nowhere in the bible - it is no good reason to accept either - just like any other theory about the nature of YHWH.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dunklaw trrinity is nowhere in the bible
yawn...
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc BTW associating the trinity doctrine to something "incomprehensible" is on shaky ground since this statement comes from a creed of unknown and suspect origin. It is not "incomprehensible" - it's just plain illogical.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw In your Reasoning book under 'the Trinity' your cult leaders state that sinse the Trinity is incomprehensible it must be just plain illogical. THEN... in your same book under "God" they argue that since God has no beginning and is incomprehensible, is NOT a good reason for rejecting it.
So dunklaw, which is true and which statement is false?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc First tell me where the second statement is in the Reasoning book because I cannot find it?
The word "incomprehensible" only appears under Trinity.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw
See pg 425 Regarding the Trinity,...its members are "incomprehensible," ...such a Trinitarian god is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said:"we worshop what we know,"
NOW Look on page 148 under "did God have a beginning?"
"Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it, But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it."
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc This is talking about THE FACT that humans CANNOT comprehend anything that has had NO beginning. - why are you not getting this. I think you are just becoming a mis-information practiser.
dunklaw 6 months ago
This is talking about THE FACT that humans CANNOT comprehend >>**anything**<< that has had NO beginning
anything? didn't you mean God? They cannot cmprehend the nature of God?
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Do you disagree with physicists and the "Laws of thermodynamics" - "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed"
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Perhaps you should read your own comments & mine more thoroughly as our previous discussion regarding Adams rib is NOT dealing with the same subject.
"and he took one(H259 - unit) of his ribs (side),"
Here it is referring to a unit (physical quantity) not a unity.
If you take Deut 6:4 in context it is more likely referring to the fact that YHWH was united with his people "Isreal" & that his people should be united with him in return - Deut 6:5,6.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw Historically Jews have always interpreted Deut 6:4 to mean that there is only on God. The NT gives "new light" on this matter. The Greek word heis if you like it or not can mean singular or collective. Plural within a singular.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@dunklaw Like I first demonstraited to you, Let us (plural) create man (singular) our likeness (according to our image-plural).let them (plural) rule over..."
So who was made in the image of Adam? His Son.
Gen 5:3
"he became the father of a son in HIS OWN LIKENESS, according to his image, and named him Seth.
There is the third person. The Son (Seth) is in the image of his Father. Both are 100% human.
The only difference is, man has a beginning, God doesn't.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Also see:-
franknelte. net/Mistranslated_Scriptures/GEN1-26.htm
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw I am 100% convinced that I'm dealing with a 2cor 4:4 case. So there is no point to talking to you anymore. Anyone who defends that greek translation has a veil over his eyes.
I will walk away from you with a big smile on my face.
P.S dunklaw, your greek NWT would have brought me out of the WT.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Yes you probably would have been on who walked away also - John 6:52 to end.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Further research shows:-
The Koine Greek was a dialect inferior to the Attic Greek. In the 1st century CE, it was used mainly by non-Greeks. Being a secondary language to them, they compromised several of its grammatical rules. One of the compromises was the lack of perfect tense for the verb “to be” (“I have been”).
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Evidence that the KJV translators manipulated the translation of the Greek words “ego eimi” is the fact that in the following passage they translated the same words (“ego eimi”) as “I have been”: “Jesus said to him, I have been {Gr. ego eimi} so long time with you, and yet you have not known me, Philip?” (John 14:9 KJV) In this case they translated correctly the meaning intended by the author because it does not affect the Trinity doctrine.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc see:-
jehovah. to/xlation/mi.html
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw You don't get it. We're done. I don't care about your ego eimi arguments. Your greek NWT changes everything. And seeing as you are so blind not to get this. I'm waisting my time with you.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc watch?v=cTumhCT2N80
Keep ignoring the obvious!
dunklaw 6 months ago
Dunklaw, from my dialog with you, I am 100% convinced that you are incapable of understanding truth. When you justified the changing of God's word, I turned you off. There is no point to continue with you. 2cor44.
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc Joh 14:9 Λέγει προς αυτόν ο Ιησούς· Τόσον καιρόν είμαι μεθ' υμών, και δεν με εγνώρισας, Φίλιππε; όστις είδεν εμέ είδε τον Πατέρα· και πως συ λέγεις, Δείξον εις ημάς τον Πατέρα;
Vamvas & KJV prove the point.
Joh 14:9 Iesus saith vnto him, Haue **I bin** so long time with you, and yet hast thou not knowen me, Philip? he that hath seene me, hath seene the father, and how sayest thou then, Shew vs the father?
So you keep harping on about the NWT being a biased translation.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@dunklaw 2cor44
pretoshohmoofc 6 months ago
@pretoshohmoofc (Matthew 26:63)“By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ (messiah) the Son of God!”
(Matthew 26:65-68) See! Now YOU have heard the blasphemy. What is YOUR opinion?” They returned answer: “He is liable to death.” Then they spit into his face and hit him with their fists. Others slapped him in the face, saying: “Prophesy to us, you Christ (messiah). Who is it that struck you?”
Why did they want to kill him?
dunklaw 6 months ago