Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78207 | ||
--1) First of all, you would have to establish that Jesus was in --fact a created being. There isn't any Scripture which establishes --this point. 'Firstborn' here is not a reference to 'created'. For --instance, the same word is used of Christ in v. 18 where it speaks --of Him as being the 'firstborn from the dead'. Does it mean --'created' here? Was He the first one to be raised from the dead? --No! So, 'firstborn' is clearly being used in the sense of --preeminence - Christ is supreme over creation. Well it is your assumption, due to theology that it means preeminence. I personally would take a slightly more reliable approach and compare the uses of firstborn throughout the Bible. To do this we must consider PROTOTOKOS very carefuly. The first thing we note is that PROTOTOKOS in both the LXX and NT, when followed by a genitive is never used in reference t preeminence. That is of considerable interest to us, because it is always firstborn, with the one being part of and belonging to the group, as the one born first! Should we suddenly stop and change our use of this at Colossians 1:15 because it does not fit our theology? Of course not. We must be consistent with the scriptures. This again ties back in with my statement on the partitive genitive. Because, again, going by the other examples we should be consistent. We should not issolate one example of a set pattern and try and do a total reverse because of our predetermined theology. Here are some examples of PROTOTOKOS in the LXX. All are in reference to the one born first, often followed by the genitive: [[unable to post these here because of size limit.. will post in the next mssg]] --2) Secondly, the contexts of your examples do not match what you --claim for Col. 1:15-16. Well of course the situations are different, but this has established that other translators agree that the use of the word "other" with PAS/PANTA is a grammatically acceptable thing. The NWT actually takes it a step further than these other translations, but adding brackets to indicate such. Considering the other uses of PROTOTOKOS with the genitive, unless we choose to be theologically biased in our reading, I do not see how we can possibly remove Jesus out of the group of creation here. --a) Neither Luke 13:2, nor Mt. 26:35 uses a partitive genitive --construction at all. That was not my purpose in demonstrating with these scriptures. I was simply showing that other translators use "other" when rendering PANTA. To attack the NWT and say "Well it isn't in the Greek so it shouldn't be there." is an attack based on ones personal theology and is inconsistent with what ther translators have demonstrated. --b) It is not certain that Col. 1:15 is a partitive genitive --either. If 'firstborn' is taken as a title for Christ, then this --could be an example of a genitive of possession or a genitive of --relationship. And this is again where we must look back to determine if it is a title or a place in order. Based on every other example of the use of firstborn, I see no way one can possibly justify this being something other than the one born first, and by such, a partitive genitive. --c) Your examples also clearly identify that individuals from --within a larger group are being discussed, which is why 'other' is --added. -- --Luke 13:2 says, 'Do you think that THESE Galileans sinners besides --the Galileans who were'. -- --Mt. 26:25 says, 'likewise also all the disciples said'. Peter was --speaking and we know that he was one of the disciples, so it must --have been the rest of the disciples who spoke at the end of the --verse. -- --Personally, I would not add the word 'other' even to your two --examples. But, at least in these two examples, it can be --demonstrated that a part was being contrasted with the whole. -- --Yet, no such thing can be shown in Col. 1:16. The entire context --of the Col. passage shows that Christ is not part of the creation, --but above it. Reply: Well again, I would certainly argue, based on EVERY other example of PROTOTOKOS in a similar situation, that Jesus is demonstrated as part of the group. THerefore, just as these translators used "other", the NWT does it in the same way. The point is this. While your theology might not agree, just as these other translators have added "other", it can be argued in the NWT's defense that "other" is also justified. |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78230 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! Two quick points my friend! 1) You would still have to establish that Jesus was created. Where is it said in Scripture that Jesus was created? 2) You left out a couple of verses from the LXX where 'firstborn' is clearly used as a title. a) Ex. 4:22 - "Then say to Pharaoh, ?This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son," b) Ps. 89:27 - "I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." c) Jer. 31:9 - "They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel?s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." So, while it is clear that 'firstborn' is usually used in reference to 'order of birth', it is also true that it is used in the sense of a title. David was not the firstborn of his family, nor of God, but he was appointed firstborn. Ephraim was not the firstborn of Joseph, but was considered the firstborn of Israel. Israel wasn't born at all, but was the firstborn of God. So, there are two choices for 'firstborn' - first to be born or a title of position. To apply the first meaning to Christ, you would have to establish that He was in fact created. Yet, no Scripture supports this position. Col. 1 says that He created all things. John 1:1-3 says that He created all things. In fact, John 1:3 says that 'apart from Him not one thing which was made'. Notice that John 1:3 doesn't say that not one thing, except for Jesus! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78234 | ||
The examples I provided were to demonstrate the majority of uses, not every single use. I also let out a couple that are used for the one born first. However, the fact remains, as I said earlier, every single time PROTOTOKOS is followed by a genitive it always means the one born first. The same would hold true for Colossians 1:15. It is an example of extremely poor scholarship to try and isolate a few examples of PROTOTOKOS to prove something, when the grammar is consistent in one use: one born first, NOT preeminence. The bible does not say he was creator, it says things were created THROUGH him. This is why the preposition DIA is used. Further, textural evidence clearly demonstrates that John 1:3 has taken o gegonen from verse 4. Further, the context is a definite parallel to Genesis 1:1, and so it is showing creation not of every single thing, but all things within the context of it (i.e. the physical universe). Hebrews 1:2 says that it was God who through Jesus made the worlds, or ages: "through whom He indeed made the ages". So this has no conflict with Jesus being created at all. |
||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78235 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! Let's assume that your point is valid for the moment. Where is there a clear statement in Scripture that Jesus was ever created? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78236 | ||
Proverbs 8:22 | ||||||
6 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78241 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! ???? Prov. 8:22 says that wisdom was the first of God's works. There isn't any mention of Jesus! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78243 | ||
1 Corinthians 1:22 Jesus is "the wisdom of God." Further, most 2 and 3rd century Christian writers make this connection, as do MANY others. | ||||||
8 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78247 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! That is a major stretch my friend. So, are you going to say that every mention of the word 'wisdom' in the Bible is a reference to Jesus? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78248 | ||
No, simply the personification of such. Consider these commentaries on Proverbs 8: John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: "And then Wisdom, or Christ, is commended and recommended by his consummate prudence and knowledge, by his hatred of evil, and by his influence on the political affairs of kings and princes..." Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible: " just as Apostles afterward applied Wisd. 7:22-30 to Christ (compare Col_1:15; Heb_1:3)." I believe that is a type actually. Should read 8:22-30. Geneva Bible Translation Notes: "Jesus Christ our Saviour, whom John calls the Word that was in the beginning (Joh_1:1)." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Hole Bible: "for Wisdom here has personal properties and actions; and that intelligent divine person can be no other than the Son of God himself" Scofield Reference Notes: "...can refer to nothing less than the Eternal Son of God. " There are a few examples.. I could go on, and into the church fathers, but I think its apparent. |
||||||
10 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78251 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! I don't buy it! Prov. 8 contrasts and compares wisdom and folly. Wisdom does what is right, obeys a father's instructions, and avoids harlots. Folly leads to death and destruction. There is no reference to Jesus here. Of course, we could play dualing quotes! :-) You argue against say that 'prototokos' is a title in Col. 1:15 simply because it can be used as a title in other places. Yet, you would use a poetic passage concerning wisdom and folly as evidence that Jesus was created! ;-) Well, I have to go run some errands my friend! As much as I would like, I can't stay in front of the computer all day. :-) Even if my wife does accuse me of doing so sometimes! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78254 | ||
The difference is, I have the majority on my side in both cases: Most commentators and early church fathers agree with me on Proverbs 8:22-30. Also, simply as a bit of evidence that here in 8 its not talking about literal wisdom, but the personification of such: Pro 8:14 Counsel and sound wisdom are mine; I am understanding; I have strength. The one talking, said to be Wisdom, has wisdom. Clearly it this is a somebody, not a something. Now, the VAST majority of uses of prototokos, especially all with the genitive agree with me. There are a few issolated examples of preeminence, but none with the same construction. You can disagree with me of course, and that is based on your theology, but the evidence is HEAVILY stacked against you. Take care, Tony |
||||||
12 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 78258 | ||
Tony ... When you say "MOST commentators and early church fathers" ... do you have evidence? That is specific numbers. Nonetheless, I for one, do not care if you are correct. When tradition and trends are not the truth, they go in the trash. "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it" (Matt 7:13). Many follow the crowd and do not check Scripture (Acts 17:11). I carefully study Scripture and found that what many believe is not correct. Tony, forget what you have been told ... study more deeply ... see the truth for yourself. See if Tim is correct. More later, Searcher |
||||||
13 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78259 | ||
Trust me Tim, I have studied. I was baptized Catholic as a Child, became Lutheran, went to a baptist church for some time and a pentacostal church once. I have studied the scripture considerably. Now somebody will say, "The WT brainwashed you." The odd thing about that statement is that no JW ever had an actual bible study with me. I more or less came to these things on my own. |
||||||