Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Morant61 | 79245 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Do you have one of these 'originals' which includes God's name? If not, the whole argument is pure speculation. Concerning the Jews, read what Paul said: Rom. 11:1 - "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew...." What Scripture can you point to which says that the Jewish nation is no longer God's people? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Truthfinder | 79334 | ||
Hi Tim Most believe that the nation of Israel today is still God’s chosen nation. When Jesus Christ was on earth, it was still God’s nation or channel. Any who wished to serve Jehovah had to do so in association with his chosen nation. (John 4:22) But Moses had shown that the privilege of being stewards of “the things revealed” also carried responsibilities. He said: “The things revealed belong to us and to our sons to time indefinite, that we may carry out all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29) That “time indefinite” came to an end in 33 C.E. Why? Because, as a nation, the Jews failed to ‘carry out all the words of the law.’ Particularly, the Bible, indicates that the Jewish nation lost God’s favor and protection when they rejected his Son, Jesus Christ. (Acts 3:13, 14, 19) Jesus himself plainly told them: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits.”—Matthew 21:43. They failed to welcome the Seed, Jesus Christ, even though the Law had been, in effect, a “tutor leading to Christ.” (Galatians 3:24) Because of this failure, Jehovah chose another channel for “the things revealed.” Paul identified it to the Ephesians when he wrote that “there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord.” (Ephesians 3:10, 11) Yes, it was the Christian congregation, born at Pentecost 33 C.E., that was entrusted with the new “things revealed.” As a group, anointed Christians served as “the faithful and discreet slave” appointed to provide spiritual food at the proper time. (Matthew 24:45) What the Jewish writer of Romans 11:26 called “all Israel” he called “the Israel of God” at Galatians 6:16. But if the natural Jews in the Republic of Israel and around the globe do not make up “all Israel,” who are its members? This question is a vital one, as the natural Jews of today do not know to which of Israel’s 12 tribes they belong. They have rabbis but no priesthood, no high priest on earth, no temple at Jerusalem and no altar there on which to offer sacrifices according to the Law God gave to them through Moses. All of this has been lacking since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. There also is no evidence that the God whose name they refuse to pronounce is with them any longer as a nation. In Romans, the text you quoted, Paul could not have believed that the Israelites as a nation still had a special place with God, for the apostle expressed “great grief and unceasing pain in [his] heart” over their unresponsiveness to God’s goodness. (Romans 9:2-5) At Romans 9:6 Paul adds: “However, it is not as though the word of God [to Abraham] had failed. For not all who spring from [natural] Israel are really ‘Israel.’” Note what Paul is saying: that because the Jews rejected Christ, God no longer considered them to be Israel! The anointed congregation of Jesus Christ’s followers was now the real “Israel,” the instrument through which God would bless all mankind.—1 Peter 2:9; Galatians 3:29; 6:16; Genesis 22:18. God, though, did not reject the Jewish people as individuals, for Paul pointed out: “For I also am an Israelite.” Yes, individuals within the Jewish nation, like Paul, could become part of spiritual Israel if they accepted Christ. Only “a remnant,” a minority, chose to do so.—Romans 11:1, 5. Truthfinder |
||||||
3 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Morant61 | 79338 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Two quick points my friend! 1) Paul definitely expands Israel to include Gentiles, but he also makes it clear that YHWH's covenant with the nation of Israel is still in effect in Rom. 11:25-32. The New Testament refines our understanding of what it means to be part of Israel, but it in no way teaches that Israel is no longer God's people, or that they have been rejected. 2) What about the orginals I asked about? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Truthfinder | 79343 | ||
Originals, As you know Tim, of course there are no "originals" of either the Hebrew nor Greek texts. The following is what I said in a previous post: The text located in the U.S.S.R.,not the original but namely, the Codex Leningrad B 19A, used for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), vowel-points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah´, Yehwih´ and a number of times Yeho·wah´, as in Ge 3:14. The edition of the Hebrew text by Ginsburg (Gins.) vowel-points YHWH to read Yeho·wah´. While many translators favor the pronunciation "Yahweh," the New World Translation continues to use the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the divine name, YHWH or JHVH. The practice of substituting titles for the divine name that developed among the Jews was applied in later copies of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and many other translations, ancient and modern. Therefore, A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott (LS), p. 1013, states: "ho kyrios,Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. 11.5, al." Also, the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, by E. A. Sophocles, Cambridge, U.S.A., and Leipzig, 1914, p. 699, says under (Ky´ri·os): "Lord, the representative of YHVH. Sept. passim (scattered throughout)." Moreover, Dictionnaire de la Bible, by F. Vigouroux, Paris, 1926, col. 223, says that "the Septuagint and the Vulgate contain KURIOS and Dominus, "Lord," where the original contains Jehovah." Regarding the divine name, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1979 reprint, p. 298, says that Mar·ya´ "in the (Syriac) Peshita Version of the O. T. represents the Tetragrammaton." Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, YHVH (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate KS [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself." For these reasons and others, the long list of Bible translations also "restored" the Divine Name in what is believed to be only what was in the original. Truthfinder |
||||||
5 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Morant61 | 79362 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! In other words my friend, the text that we actually have has been changed by the NWT without any evidence whatsoever. :-( Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 79368 | ||
Tim: You're right. There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever. I see a lot of speculation and conjecture, but no evidence. The Watchtower organization claims that Jehovah "must" have been and "should" have been in the original Greek texts of the NT. But MUST be and SHOULD be do not equal IS. The NWT translates on the basis of what the JWs think "should" have been there. The KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, etc. translate on the basis of what IS there. "One need only look at the word-by-word English that appears under the Greek text in the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation to see that the name JEHOVAH is not there in the Greek.'" (http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm) |
||||||
7 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Hank | 79375 | ||
Radioman, the procedure the JW's and kindred cults use to lend a semblance of credence to many of their false and far-fetched claims, in addition to being unconvincing, is neither new nor clever. In the annals of human history and thought, it has always been possible to exhume some sort of pseudo-authoritarian "proof" to support virtually any position on any conceivable topic. It is easy enough to dig into dusty tomes of the past and come up with evidence of sorts that would overwhelmingly support a thesis that the earth is flat. The problem from a theological perspective issues from taking individual preconceptions of truth to scripture with demands that scripture itself conform to them. This practice, of course, entails the substitution of exegesis for eisegesis; or, in extreme cases such as one sees in portions of the New World Translation, a surgical treatment of scriptural text in which passages are blatantly mistranslated or excised completely from the text. While the numbers of persons who hold on to the flat-earth position have dwindled dramatically, the numbers who are deceived by the false doctrines of the cults are legion still and continue to rise. --Hank | ||||||
8 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | flinkywood | 79379 | ||
Hank, did you know the JW's don't believe in hell? It's a handy disbelief when you also believe Jesus is the archangel Michael. That's right, the JW's preach that Jesus is really Michael. Isn't that something? So by this, not only is a savior unnecessary, any savior at all, our putative Savior is a liar. On a sliding scale, one being Jesus and ten being Mohammed, I'd give these guys a six. I like the heat this cult generates in this forum. |
||||||
9 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 79381 | ||
How would I rate the NWT as far as accuracy, honesty, and trustworthiness? On a scale of 1 to 10, with the KJV, NASB, Amplified being 1 and the Koran being 10, I would give the New World Translation a rating of 11. | ||||||
10 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | EdB | 79386 | ||
Radioman2 I think by rating it you give it a degree of creditability. To me the NWT would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact so many are being deceived by it. EdB |
||||||
11 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 79434 | ||
Yes, perhaps by rating the NWT I do give it a degree of credibility -- right under the Koran! :-) | ||||||