Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | sisterkath | 75174 | ||
Rapture is not meantioned in the Bible. I use a number of Bibles, but for my personal use, I use The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. |
||||||
2 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 75184 | ||
Why do you use the New World Translation for your "personal use" if you are not a "baptized Jehovah's Witness", since this translation differs markedly from other English translations? Do you agree with the NWT rendering of John 1:1, for example? --Hank | ||||||
3 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | sisterkath | 75281 | ||
Hi Hank, I use the New World Translation because I believe in what it says. Since I believe in what the Jehovah Wisnesses teach, I also believe in their Bible. I also believe in other Bible's. Please don't misunderstand me. I believe in all Bibles, but some of the words are different, that's all. jjjjj Yes, I agree with the NWT rendering of John 1:1. |
||||||
4 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75286 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Pardon my jumping in here, but I am curious about one thing. As far as I know, the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is unique. Why choose to accept the translation found in that lone version over all others? Put another way, why do you believe that the Word was "a god" (NWT) and not God (every other reputable translation)? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
5 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | sisterkath | 75292 | ||
Steve, Why do I believe that the Word was "a god" and not God? Because, there is only one "Almighty GOD" Jehovah, and one "Son of GOD", Jesus Christ. According to the New English Translation: And the Word was God. John's thrology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in John's use of the verb "worship" (proskunevw, praskunew) with Jesus as object in John 9:38, a word that elsewhere in John (4:21, 23,24) has only God the Father as its object. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God; rather it equates the essence of the Word with that of GOD. The Word was "a god". Or "divine," (theos en ho logos). As a divine being Jesus is not only Jehovah's companion but he is also his "master worker" a statement found in Proverbs 8:30. The first two clauses of John 1:1 state Jesus' relation to GOD, but part c states his position. Evidence that John wants to distance the Word with any identification with God is evidenced not only in the omission of the article in John 1:1c, but also the following verse. Jesus was "a god," but not the Almighty Heavenly GOD, Jehovah. |
||||||
6 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75297 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind a little persistence, I still don't understand why someone would accept this teaching. There must have been some authority for it before the original 1950 NWT was published; do you know what it was? The following chain of events is very suggestive to me: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses proclaim a novel theology that they say is Biblical. 2) Theologians and Bible teachers show that the theology is inconsistent with translations of the Bible produced by hundreds of scholars whose names and credentials are made public. This includes Bibles that are not associated with any particular denomination. 3) The New World Translation is produced in secret by a group of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses. This translation brings the Bible into conformance with their theology. If their theology could not be derived from Bibles extant before 1950, it could not have come from God's word. So the question remains. Why believe that this one recent translation - which proclamins a "truth" significantly different from all others - correctly reveals God's word? I just can't imagine that God would allow this "error" to persist for nearly 2000 years.... Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||