It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking false claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. 1-14

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Prove me wrong.



Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by miriam0566 jw's never claimed to be prophets. people make speculation all the time, and ALL the dates presented by the JW org have been presented as speculation.


• In 1877 they said, "THE END OF THIS WORLD... is nearer than most men suppose.…"5

• In 1886 they said, "The time is come for Messiah to take the dominion of the earth…."6

• In 1889 they said, "... we present proofs that the setting up of the kingdom of God has already begun ... and that ‘the battle of the great day of God almighty’ (Revelation 16:14), which will end in AD 1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth’s present rulership, is already commenced."7 (In their 1915 edition of this same book they changed "AD 1914" to "AD 1915.")

• On July 15, 1894 they said, "We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates not ours (emphasis added). But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" (p. 1677 of Reprints, see note 4).

• In 1904 they said, "The stress of the great time of trouble will be on us soon, somewhere between 1910 and 1912 culminating with the end of the ‘times of the Gentiles,’ October 1914."8

• On May 1, 1914 they said, "There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this gospel age is now even at the door.... The great crisis... that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near."9
But the year 1914 ended without a single one of these predictions coming true.10
Sources:
5 N. H. Barbour and C. T. Russell, Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (Rochester: Barbour and Russell, 1877), p.17; cited in Edmund Gruss, The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972), p. 82.
6 Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, January, 1886, p. 1 (Reprints, Vol. 2, p. 817. Available from Chicago Bible Students.)
7 C. T. Russell, The Time Is at Hand (Allegheny, PA: WBTS, 1889), p. 101; cited in Gruss, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation, op. cit., p. 83.
8 C. T. Russell, The New Creation (WBTS, 1904), p. 579; cited in Gruss, ibid., p. 84.
9 The Watchtower, May 1, 1914, p. 134 (Reprints p. 5450).
10 Ibid., pp. 23-26.


lol, 1914 can be proven as fulfilled despite your claim. even with simple statistics.

it funny because my statement is still completely true.


Originally posted by Texastig

Originally posted by miriam0566actually they are directed to the bible. nothing "blind" about it.


So if you don't go out and witness like your leaders say to do what will happen to you? What if you do take blood after a wreck, what will your leaders say to you?


you didnt answer my point.

preaching and blood prohibition is in the bible. if i disobeyed any of the bibles commandments, it would make sense that the "leaders" would say something about it.

nothing "blind" about it.



The JW's believe they have to work to get to Heaven.



Originally posted by miriam0566no they dont. id suggest you actually look into this more.


When a person, on the basis of the Scriptural knowledge he has gained, has belief in Christ as the Savior whom God provided and shows that faith by his works, he can consider himself as being on the way to salvation. It would be a mistake for him to think that he is now saved and cannot fall. He must show by his endurance in the Christian faith that he is worthy of salvation. "Let him that thinks he has a firm position beware that he does not fall." 1 Cor. 10:12... Salvation from death is a gift from God to those that obey him, not to those that disobey," (Watchtower, March 1, 1960, p. 134).


yup exactly. now if you understood the subject, you'd would realize that that is not salvation by works. i would explain, but i get the feeling id be wasting my breath.

frankly T, your a troll. your off topic and your information is grossly misinformed




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
lol, 1914 can be proven as fulfilled despite your claim. even with simple statistics.


What is your proof?


Originally posted by miriam0566
you didnt answer my point.
preaching and blood prohibition is in the bible.


So is circumcision. If you all obey Old Testament commands then why don't you all obey all of them?


Originally posted by miriam0566
if i disobeyed any of the bibles commandments, it would make sense that the "leaders" would say something about it.


But the commands that you all believe in are wrong, like the blood thing.


Originally posted by miriam0566
yup exactly. now if you understood the subject, you'd would realize that that is not salvation by works. i would explain, but i get the feeling id be wasting my breath.


But that's not true. You guys said: "shows that faith by his works, he can consider himself as being on the way to salvation".
When a person believes in Jesus Christ that person is saved. He doesn't have to do anything else. As Jesus said, "we have passed from death into life".
If someone leads me to Christ at my house and then I have a heart attack five minutes later and die I'm heading to Heaven. There is no "being on the way to salvation". It's either your saved or your not.


Originally posted by miriam0566
frankly T, your a troll. your off topic and your information is grossly misinformed.


I'm not trolling. I seen the topic and felt that I should tell everyone the truth and counter the JW's false cult religion. I'm not off topic, what is wrong with questioning the topic? Is it against the rules to not question topics?
You all believe your the only ones going to Heaven which is wrong. You all don't have the exclusive truth. Jesus died for everyone not just for JW's.
My information comes from your own books, magazines, etc...
This is very serious stuff because if you don't believe in the "real Jesus" you guys won't be saved.

Thanks,
TT

[edit on 6/15/2009 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
What is your proof?


oh come now, you mean to tell me your not an "expert" of all things JW? im sure you already know the scriptures. and im sure you already are familiar with the events of 1914.


Originally posted by miriam0566
So is circumcision. If you all obey Old Testament commands then why don't you all obey all of them?


there is actually another thread for that discussion.


Originally posted by miriam0566
But the commands that you all believe in are wrong, like the blood thing.


the "blood thing" was a commandment handed to noah. it was not only part of the mosaic law.

prove me wrong.


Originally posted by miriam0566
But that's not true. You guys said: "shows that faith by his works, he can consider himself as being on the way to salvation".
When a person believes in Jesus Christ that person is saved. He doesn't have to do anything else. As Jesus said, "we have passed from death into life".
If someone leads me to Christ at my house and then I have a heart attack five minutes later and die I'm heading to Heaven. There is no "being on the way to salvation". It's either your saved or your not.


if you receive a free invitation to a party, does it automatically mean you are at the party? no, you have to actually GO to the party.

god's grace is free, IF you accept it. its not something to be mocked


Originally posted by miriam0566
You all believe your the only ones going to Heaven which is wrong. You all don't have the exclusive truth. Jesus died for everyone not just for JW's.
My information comes from your own books, magazines, etc...
This is very serious stuff because if you don't believe in the "real Jesus" you guys won't be saved.


jesus died for those that put faith in him. (john 3:16)
those that put faith in god learn and each the truth (john 4:23,24)
those who put faith in god love one another (john 13:34,35)
those with faith back their faith with works (james 2: 18-20)
those with works follow jesus' command to preach (matt 28:19,20)

so yeah, if you as a christian were doing all these things then logically you would become a JW. no need to get all mad about it.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
so yeah, if you as a christian were doing all these things then logically you would become a JW. no need to get all mad about it.


JW's believe that Jesus isn't God, which is wrong. That doesn't make a JW a Christian because they believe in "another" Jesus that is different from the Bible.
I seen the Premier Greek Scholar Julius Mantey on video that the JW's misquoted. He wrote a letter to tell the JW's that that they were wrong.
Proof positive the WT has once again been busted for misrepresenting one of their "support sources".

Watchtower Misrepresents Julius Mantey


So if someone keeps lying to you like the WTS does how long will it take you all to wake up?

Thanks,
TT



[edit on 6/15/2009 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 



JW's believe that Jesus isn't God


FINALLY texas! a truthful statement at last.

We believe what Jesus said about himself... why don't you believe him?


is Jesus God Almighty?

the Christian trinity (a non JW source)

John 1:1 translated in an ancient Egyptian language

where does the trinity doctrine come from?


So if someone keeps lying to you like the WTS does how long will it take you all to wake up?


So if someone keeps proving to you that your doctrine goes against what the own Bible teaches, WHAT will it take you to wake up? The clock is ticking.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by holywar]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by holywar
FINALLY texas! a truthful statement at last.
We believe what Jesus said about himself... why don't you believe him?


Jesus said He was the "I AM". Even the Jews knew what He was saying and sought to kill him for it.


Originally posted by holywar
So if someone keeps proving to you that your doctrine goes against what the own Bible teaches, WHAT will it take you to wake up? The clock is ticking.

You guys came along and started a new Bible and changed words from the real Bible. The real Bible came first and yours came later and you all expect people to believe your Bible over the real Bible?
Your the people who kept saying Jesus came back when the real Bible said that no man will know the day or hour. I've woken up how about you?

From Thomas Heinze:
When it became obvious that the prophecies had failed, the dates were revised only to have them fail again. Thomas Heinze elaborates on the many failed predictions including the building of a mansion in 1929 in San Diego, California for "faithful men of old" who were soon to be resurrected to take charge of the earth.
The house eventually became an embarrassing monument to their failed prophecy so it was sold in 1948.
Heinze points out that, since these failed prophecies were based on erroneous interpretations of Bible, how can one trust the Watchtower to rightly divide the Scriptures when it comes to their doctrine?

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
JW's believe that Jesus isn't God, which is wrong....


im not a JW and even i have proven that time and time again in multiple threads

jesus is the son of god. there are scriptures that show...

- jesus praying to God (multiple times)
- god talking to jesus on three different occasions
- jesus saying that god is greater than him
- jesus being call the ¨firstborn¨of all creation
- God having no beginning (in conflict with the point above if they are the same person)
- jesus talking about doing god´s will, not his own
- jesus saying that god sent him
- jesus saying that he didnt not send himself in the same verse
- jesus being called god´s son
- the god of the OT (same as the god of the NT) being only ¨one¨
- jesus being tempted (do you honestly believe God can be tempted?)
- jesus´response to being tempted (to worship himself?)
- satan tempting jesus (why would satan even try)
- the death of jesus (can god die?)
- the resurrection of jesus (if god was dead, how did he resurrect himself?)
- jesus correcting the jews of thinking that he called himself god (why would he correct them if it was true?)
- jesus is depicted in revelation as a lamb before god.
- bible says that no man has seen god ecept the son. (yet men have seen jesus)
- the hebrew temple depicts god in the most holy, while jesus is depicted as the high priest (separate entities)
- jesus offering his blood as a sacrifice for mankinds sins (to god)


So if someone keeps lying to you like the WTS does how long will it take you all to wake up?


how are they lying when they clearly agree with the bible?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Jesus said He was the "I AM". Even the Jews knew what He was saying and sought to kill him for it.


use your head texas, "i am" is the most used phrase in language. any language.

it was the fact that he was claiming to have been alive before abraham that got the jews all angry.

second if you correctly translate the 2 verses, you'll find that "i am" is actually "i have been" and has nothing to do with exodus.


Originally posted by holywar
You guys came along and started a new Bible and changed words from the real Bible. The real Bible came first and yours came later and you all expect people to believe your Bible over the real Bible?


let me guess, you read the bible in the "original" king james?

already discussed

www.belowtopsecret.com...


Your the people who kept saying Jesus came back when the real Bible said that no man will know the day or hour. I've woken up how about you?


christ reigning as king is a little different than his returning.

im not even a JW, and im annoyed by your lack of bible knowledge. your shooting accusations at things and you dont even realize that the bible doesnt back you up. its incredible



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
use your head texas, "i am" is the most used phrase in language. any language.
it was the fact that he was claiming to have been alive before abraham that got the jews all angry.

I am using my head. The "I AM" speaks of Jesus being God. John 1:1 speaks of Jesus being God. Here's a nice commentary:
I Am: The ancient Greek phrase is ego emi, which is the same term used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Jesus’ day to describe the Voice from the burning bush.
In using the phrase I Am (John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19) Jesus used a clear divine title belonging to God alone (Exodus 3:13-14, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 43:10) and was interpreted as such by Jesus’ listeners (John 8:58-59).
"The phrase harbours within itself the most authentic, the most audacious, and the most profound affirmation by Jesus of who He was." (Stauffer)
The best proof what Jesus meant by claiming to be the I Am is found by seeing the response of His listeners: They took up stones to throw at Him. They wanted to stone Him for blasphemy, for claiming to be God.
Also, if you look at the verses, when Jesus said "I AM" they took up stones to kill Him. They didn't take up stones after He said He seen Abraham.


Originally posted by miriam0566
second if you correctly translate the 2 verses, you'll find that "i am" is actually "i have been" and has nothing to do with exodus.

Let's read the Greek Interlinear Bible together. Here's the link for the PDF:
www.scripture4all.org...
In John 8:58 it says "I AM"


Originally posted by miriam0566
let me guess, you read the bible in the "original" king james?
already discussed
www.belowtopsecret.com...


You are assuming. Please don't assume without knowing first.


Originally posted by miriam0566
christ reigning as king is a little different than his returning.


"An absolutely critical date for the Jehovah's Witnesses is 1914 AD. It is the date when, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the time of the Gentiles ended (Watchtower, 5/1/93, page 11) and "Jesus-the heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom," (Watchtower 11/1/93, page 23)."
That's the furthest thing from the truth.


Originally posted by miriam0566
im not even a JW, and im annoyed by your lack of bible knowledge. your shooting accusations at things and you dont even realize that the bible doesnt back you up. its incredible.


Lack of Bible knowledge. I've been a Christian for over 21 years. I'm not shooting accusations. I'm pulling stuff from their own works and they don't match the Bible. John 1:1 says that Jesus was God. Can you outdo greek scholars on that?

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
I am using my head. The "I AM" speaks of Jesus being God. John 1:1 speaks of Jesus being God. Here's a nice commentary:


keep your commentary.

koine greek 101 - present simple tense is used for an event that started in the past and was completed in the past. however if something started in the past and continues until today, they would use present indicative.

jesus existed before abraham and his existence continued past the point he made his statement. present indicative tense. "i have been"

even IF jesus was claiming to be god. the correct way to translate this passage is "I have been"

even the strong's greek dictionary agrees.


Originally posted by miriam0566
Let's read the Greek Interlinear Bible together. Here's the link for the PDF:
www.scripture4all.org...
In John 8:58 it says "I AM"


ειμι  verb - present indicative - first person singular
eimi  i-mee':  a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) -- am, have been, it is I, was.

the reason this passage was translated "I AM" as opposed to "I have been" is because scholars were trying to MAKE a connection between jesus and I AM mentioned in exodus. they were MAKING a connection to help support a trinity that was never mentioned in the bible.

its ironic that you accuse the JWs of the very thing you practice. you accept what you hear instead of actually seeing it for yourself


Originally posted by miriam0566
You are assuming. Please don't assume without knowing first.


ill stop assuming when you do.


Originally posted by miriam0566
"An absolutely critical date for the Jehovah's Witnesses is 1914 AD. It is the date when, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the time of the Gentiles ended (Watchtower, 5/1/93, page 11) and "Jesus-the heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom," (Watchtower 11/1/93, page 23)."
That's the furthest thing from the truth.


why? because jesus isnt physically sitting in jerusalem on a throne?

matt 24:3 ...when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming...

thy coming = παρουσιας (parousia) which means "presence"

2 corinthians 10:10 For, "His letters," they say, "are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech is despised."

phil 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

so if jesus' coming was to be physical and obvious, why would his disciples need a sign?


Originally posted by miriam0566
Lack of Bible knowledge. I've been a Christian for over 21 years. I'm not shooting accusations. I'm pulling stuff from their own works and they don't match the Bible. John 1:1 says that Jesus was God. Can you outdo greek scholars on that?


oh im sorry, i didnt realize that you were so versed.

the thing is john 1:1's "jesus is god" is not universally supported by scholars.

did you know that greek orthodox christians (who are trinitarians) will NOT use this scripture to support their doctrine? its because anyone who speaks greek fluently realizes how stupid it sounds to make that claim.

this has been flogged to death in the trinity threads



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566keep your commentary.
koine greek 101 - present simple tense is used for an event that started in the past and was completed in the past. however if something started in the past and continues until today, they would use present indicative.
jesus existed before abraham and his existence continued past the point he made his statement. present indicative tense. "i have been"
even IF jesus was claiming to be god. the correct way to translate this passage is "I have been" even the strong's greek dictionary agrees.


The Interlinear Greek says "I AM".
The Greek reads literally translated:
"Said to-them Jesus Amen amen I-am-saying to you Before Abraham to become I AM".
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (John 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in John 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? It would destroy their false doctrine that Jesus isn't God.
On grammatical grounds alone, the rendering cannot be justified, since the tense of eimi is present...To express the meaning "I have been," John would have used the imperfect en.


Originally posted by miriam0566
the reason this passage was translated "I AM" as opposed to "I have been" is because scholars were trying to MAKE a connection between jesus and I AM mentioned in exodus. they were MAKING a connection to help support a trinity that was never mentioned in the bible.
its ironic that you accuse the JWs of the very thing you practice. you accept what you hear instead of actually seeing it for yourself


The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (John 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in John 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been".


Originally posted by miriam0566
ill stop assuming when you do.


You accused me of the KJV without me saying anything about it. You assumed.


Originally posted by miriam0566
why? because jesus isnt physically sitting in jerusalem on a throne?
so if jesus' coming was to be physical and obvious, why would his disciples need a sign?


The Bible says that every eye shall see Him.
Jesus isn't Michael.
The time of the Gentiles hasn't ended.


Originally posted by miriam0566
the thing is john 1:1's "jesus is god" is not universally supported by scholars.


See my continuation that it is accepted universally by scholars in my next post because I ran out of room.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566 the thing is john 1:1's "jesus is god" is not universally supported by scholars.


WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566 the thing is john 1:1's "jesus is god" is not universally supported by scholars.


Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson:"So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566 the thing is john 1:1's "jesus is god" is not universally supported by scholars.


Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the

[edit on 6/17/2009 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Texas, could you please try to reason... just a little bit????

Please read the whole book of John.

How does your INTERPRETATION of John 1:1 fit with the rest of the book of John?

No other book (well, maybe Revelation too) reveals CLEARLY Jesus relationship with HIS FATHER.

Jesus states over and over that he does NOTHING of his own, that he speaks just as the Father TELLS him, that he depended on his Father to perform miracles, Jesus fervently prayed to his Father. The God he prayed to.... he called him "THE ONLY TRUE GOD".

Can you please explain John 17:3

Why would GREEK SPEAKING Egyptians translate John 1:1 to their native language the way they did. Please keep in mind these are Egyptians living and translating the text around the 2nd and 3rd century.

Have you even bothered to view the videos I posted?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
The Greek reads literally translated:
"Said to-them Jesus Amen amen I-am-saying to you Before Abraham to become I AM".
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (John 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in John 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? It would destroy their false doctrine that Jesus isn't God.
On grammatical grounds alone, the rendering cannot be justified, since the tense of eimi is present...To express the meaning "I have been," John would have used the imperfect en.


John 3:28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον ἐγὼ / ὅτι· οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. 
You yourselves testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before him.'

John 14:9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τοσοῦτον / τοσούτῳ χρόνον / χρόνῳ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· πῶς σὺ λέγεις· δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; 
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, 'Show us the Father?'

so these are bad translations?


The Bible says that every eye shall see Him.
Jesus isn't Michael.
The time of the Gentiles hasn't ended.


you still didnt answer my question, why would the disciples need a sign of his presence?


Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."


in my last post i stated, "scholars were trying to MAKE a connection between jesus and I AM mentioned in exodus. they were MAKING a connection to help support a trinity that was never mentioned in the bible."

my statement still stands. dr. griesback is a classic example of someone who makes the scripture fit what he wants to believe. he says "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ," and yet i provided a list of occurrences that blows that logic out of the water, including jesus himself stating that god is greater than he!

dr. nida - "the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek", ignoring basic syntax in favor of maintaining the deity of jesus.

dr. barclay - "a translation which is grammatically impossible", which is literally the most idiotic of all these statements.

dr. westcott believed darwin was on to something. sometimes his personal beliefs didnt even agree with the transcripts he was writing.

etc etc etc....

their argument is based mostly on colwell, he says (thank you for quoting btw) "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

but even colwell is admitting something in this statement, he is admitting that he is basing his interpretation on his beliefs.

in other words, the passage literally renders "a god" and colwell is saying "thats not right" so he pushes some obscure grammatical rule (that he made up, that's why it bears his name) to fit his personal beliefs.

let me show how this works.

"the president went off to a far country where a president said "hi" to him."

is "the president" and "a president" the same president? no. because in english we use "the" to define a noun that is generally understood to all, and "a" to denote a class, not a definite object.

GREEK HAS NO "A" OR "AN" ARTICLE! did you get that?

translating the above sentence into greek creates "the president went off to a far country where president said "hi" to him."

in english this makes no sense because we use "a" to note the difference. but without the "a", it sounds like the president is saying hi to himself.

john 1:1 -
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
in beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word.

how does this make sense?
- if the word was god, then why would john say he was with god?
- why would john put "the" in front of the first god and not in front of the second if they are both the same thing?

the president is saying hi to himself. jesus cant be god and then be WITH god. the statement is nonsensical. it is pointless. john would not be adding any information with a statement like that, he would only be making confusion.

this is why the most literal, simple, translation is "a god". it explains the "the" before the first god, and it actually makes the statement make sense.

of course this mean that john 1:1 is not saying what certain people want it to say. so people like colwell searched. he found the "definite predicate nominative"

what is the definite predicate nominative? it is the "noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and refers to the same person or thing as the subject of the verb."

at john 1:1 the anarthrous predicate noun the·os′ does precede the verb, the greek word order being literally: “god [predicate] was [verb] the word [subject].” concerning this verse colwell concluded: “the opening verse of johns gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun.” thus some scholars claim that the only really correct way to translate this clause is: “and the word was god.”

does this prove that “a god” is a mistranslation at John 1:1? notice colwell's wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite “if the context suggests” that. further along colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position “only when the context demands it.” nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in greek are definite nouns. in other words, its not an unbreakable rule of grammar, but the context must guide the translator.

even a grammar expert Rodney Decker had to admit:


The relevance of Colwell's rule to John 1:1 would be worth pursuing in greater detail. Note that the rule does not help by determining definiteness! It has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.

www.areopage.net...

in other words, colwell's rule doesnt help prove that jesus is god! and yet so many of the scholars you quoted swear by it.

so does the "context" apply?

i repeat...

- jesus praying to God (multiple times)
- god talking to jesus on three different occasions
- jesus saying that god is greater than him
- jesus being call the ¨firstborn¨of all creation
- God having no beginning (in conflict with the point above if they are the same person)
- jesus talking about doing god´s will, not his own
- jesus saying that god sent him
- jesus saying that he didnt not send himself in the same verse
- jesus being called god´s son
- the god of the OT (same as the god of the NT) being only ¨one¨
- jesus being tempted (do you honestly believe God can be tempted?)
- jesus´response to being tempted (to worship himself?)
- satan tempting jesus (why would satan even try)
- the death of jesus (can god die?)
- the resurrection of jesus (if god was dead, how did he resurrect himself?)
- jesus correcting the jews of thinking that he called himself god (why would he correct them if it was true?)
- jesus is depicted in revelation as a lamb before god.
- bible says that no man has seen god ecept the son. (yet men have seen jesus)
- the hebrew temple depicts god in the most holy, while jesus is depicted as the high priest (separate entities)
- jesus offering his blood as a sacrifice for mankinds sins (to god)

go ahead, go through them one by one and tell me jesus is still god.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
texastig

Many other Christians no longer believe in the trinity, this is not exclusive to JW's.

To continue this line of thought and debate I suggest you go here.
www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 

The Bible says that every eye shall see Him.
Jesus isn't Michael.
The time of the Gentiles hasn't ended.
Your arguments seem to fall aprt when you are not just quoting someone else.
What is this "time of the Gentiles " and what does it have to do with Jesus returning or Michael?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Jehovah's Witness is a dangerous cult and not Christianity. Cult Expert Dr Walter Martin of Christian Research Institute destroys JW with the Bible and historical truth. It's just Russell's watchtower occultism - don't confuse it with Jesus Christ's true church.





" Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Co 15:12-14)


Part 2




[edit on 6/19/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 
OK, I was able to get to 3:50 on the first video.
This is ridiculous and this man needs to pray for his own salvation.
He is a lost soul, as far as I can see. To base your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had after he was raised from the dead is very hollow and he will not be raised his own self if he puts his trust in a mandatory physical body. The Bible says that the physical body does not enter heaven. If he expects to go to heaven in his physical body he is sorely mistaken.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join