Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 80428 | ||
Truthfinder: I am sure you have heard that many believe the JWs greek text is flawed, and has changes John chapter 1. In your study have you been able to work that through to some solid understanding as to why there appears to be a difference in what some believe in opposition to the JW text? Again I want to express I mean no disrespect ou rudenes, only asking your opinion. I hope to hear from you again. justme |
||||||
2 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80447 | ||
Hi Justme, Before you read this let me warn you that what I say is “strong” language contrary to popular opinion. Allow me to explain how I feel as a result of reading and explaining posts on this forum. I observe that many propagate the idea that the JW translation committee initiated certain verse translation to fit a certain theology, saying bias played a role in its translation. Even some “experts” assert this same idea. Yet, it is shown again and again how grammatically it is just as acceptable to translate verses such as John 1:1 the way they are in the NWT and in the dozens or other translations. Hey, these were experts too and some were even “trinitarians”. Additionally, I have shown that other “experts” in the Greek language support the translation. In fact, I have quoted them from both sides of the argument and you can run a search on this forum and see that. I have also given numerous examples of prior translations that had translated verses such as John 1:1 different from the “mainstream” translations of today. I have also given numerous example of manuscript additions and changes with the sole purpose of supporting the “trinity doctrine”. If the trinity were true why would this atrocity be needed? My unequivocal conviction is theology played a definite role in these “mainstream” translations and thus have mislead many. You know as well as I do that each and every one of those “scholars” of the NABV or the NIV knew what they were doing by taking God’s personal name out of their translations. It remains my unequivocal conviction that the unseen wicked spirit influence of God’s chief adversary Satan has been behind this hoax from its beginning, during our Lord Jesus’ time here on earth. An accurate understanding of the first prophesy of the Bible Ge 3:15 tells us that there would be enmity between Satan and Jesus. The greatest indignity modern translations and schools of theology can possibly render to the author of the Bible is to remove or conceal the personal name and true identity of our God and Father Jehovah. It amazes me how so-called “learned” “Christians” have come to even despise the most holy name in the universe. Truthfinder |
||||||
3 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 80488 | ||
Truthfinder: You bring some points of interest to our dialogue. Please do not be afraid of being "strong" in you language. I found what you had to say is well presented and you have a defence of what you believe. Do you believe Jesus was a son of Jehovah, or the one and Only Son of Jehovah? That is what I have been instructed is the problem of the New World Translation. I would prefer that the NASB and others use Yahweh for The Lord God Almighty, but that's my personal view. Our dialogue is important for me as few with your knowledge are willing to explain these questions without feeling there is a personal attack on then. Again what ever I say or respond will come with respect and kindness and openess. Should you feel anytime that I have said something that is offensive, please feel free to say so. justme |
||||||
4 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80489 | ||
Hi Justme, Your approach and complimentary remarks are refreshing and add that pinch of salt for peaceful dialogue. I believe Jesus is the "Son of God". This is a most honorable position. As the One and Only Son "only begotten" Son or God (either/and), he is differentiated from all other sons since he (Jesus) was the one that made them(all other sons). I believe that for eons of time there was only the Father-Jehovah and His Son-Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Then, other sons (angels) were made by Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Sirit (all three). Then in time Gen. 1:1 came into play and again God is acredited the action of "creating" but Jesus and the Holy Spirit accomplished it. As Solomon built his timeple but he didn't really, but gets the credit. I am merely asserting my beliefs now but would be more that happy to argue them with scripture later. Lastly, I know the NWT and it does present matters this way. I feel it presents matters more accurately than any other translation, but has its flaws. Truthfinder |
||||||
5 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 80899 | ||
Truthfinder: I find it also refreshing that you respond in a kind way that dialogue is easy and there is no undermining with tenseness or desire to demand either of us to change. I womder how you think on the vergin birth of Christ. In your opinion was Jesus Christ fully devine and fully human? I have been suprised at your answers, so with respectfull dialogue, I ask because you do not meet my expected answers as I thought you would. In the NWT what would you consider as an example of a flaw. I appreciate your answers, have a good day. justme |
||||||
6 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80929 | ||
Hi Justme, Both gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus' mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant through the operation of God's holy spirit.-Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35. So, I believe just that. "Fully divine and fully human." you ask? Certainly, as the words "fully divine" mean to me. Jesus is as John 1:1 states in some translations "divine", "god-like", "a god", "God". The last translation though intends to make the Logos the same person as his father and as the self-same verse already tells us that he was "with" God, so the "theos" must be understood "mighty one", as "theos" and "elohim" means in several other places in scripture. This is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures as I see them. Jesus likewise had to have been fully human to fulfull the role as an equal for Adam, a perfect human. What a loving, unselfish "sacrifice" this was on the Father's part to give his "Son", allow his "Son" to suffer on our behalf, for redemption. This to me would not have been the case if it were Almighy God himself who came to the earth and "proved" obedience to "himself". ??? I wonder Justme why you say that I do not meet your expected answers? Please comment. In regards to the NWT having its flaws, one might notice Mat 27:40 and then study the Greek word "stauros". If one were to study lexicons (such as the Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p256, Latin dictionaries, history books, (such as that of Livy on Roman punishishment), a better translation than the NWT might be merely "stake" as opposed to the NWT "torture stake". I believe it was more of an executional stake eventhough torture was endured, it was death that resulted. Sorry, but "cross" does not even come close to being an accurate translation. John 1:1 might even be better translated "divine" instead of "a god", except for the fact that there is a Greek word for divine, even if it is take from "theos". So, more than likely the Greek writer would have used "theios" if we were to understand it as his nature. Both mean the same to me and both translations are as far as I am concerned, acceptable. Have you Justme ever done an in-depth study of the Greek word "stauros"? Just wondering. Truthfinder |
||||||
7 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 80938 | ||
Truthfinder: It is a good thing that you have not given the expected answers. I an pleasently pleased. You are not of typical how any JW's answers. I think, I understood you to say you were a JW. AmI correct on that? I have read nothing to relate to any dialogue I have had in the past with any JW. I say this with caution as I do not mean any disrespect, and yet want to understand more of where your beliefs are and come from. You seem to me to be on a firm foundation. I am taking some mential notes to ask you for clarification on a bit later. No I have not done any study in "stauros". That's always hard to admit when we don't know something. I am sure I should have, this is the first time I have had a reason to. So I will look into it, and Then I can be up to speed as a trutle. Rarely do I come to find a person who is able to explain their doctrine beyond the very basic principles of faith. This is very interesting and I enjoy your input. Thank you. justme |
||||||
8 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80956 | ||
Hi Justme, More about me. Fact is, I "enjoy reading", I enjoy "studying". I have no real hobbies other than reading. My work is that of building fine cabinetry for both the public and home builders. I have three sons that work with me. Basically, a JW is not a JW if he cannot believe and accept "all" the organizational understanding of congregational proceedure. Most JWs I know, do not study non JW publications, manuscript studies, Hebrew and Greek language, etc, as this is very time consuming. I am sometimes dogmatic in my comments but wished I wasn't. One can believe something for years and preach it as gospel, then suddenly come to a totally different understanding and prospective. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest Biblical concepts we humans are faced with according to my understanding. And by the way, I don't want to go there right now, thank you. I just think there are some things our finite minds just aren't capable of grasping. Most anything else suits me though. Gotta go, later. Truthfinder |
||||||