A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[marks]

It's better than Jesus repenting of his (own) nonexistent sin.

I don't see how that answered my question.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Are you aware of why most modern Bible's omit "Lord" from 1 Corinthians 15:47 and replace it with "man?"

Trinitarian commentary Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says this:

"The second man is the Lord from heaven.—Better, the second man is from heaven. The words “the Lord,” which occur in the English version, are not in the best Greek MSS. The word which is twice rendered “of” in this verse has the force of “from,” “originating from,” in the Greek. The first representative man was from the earth, the second representative man was from heaven; and as was the first earthly Adam, so are we in our merely physical condition; and as is the second heavenly Adam, so shall we be in our heavenly state."

Best MSS? You mean the one found in the trash? The 3 that share only about 75% agreement? Manuscripts which were not even available for 1000 years? Is this become a manuscript discussion? And you prefer the modern Alexandrian versions.

Got it.

Will you have the same reply to my next passage?

Because I came here to see your reply there, and you've totally skirted the question. Did you even think about it? What about the rest? He's from heaven. Adam was made from dirt, and Jesus came from heaven. You can dispute over the word "Lord", what about the rest??

Here's the next.

John 6:38 KJV
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Where is Jesus from? What will you answer??

Much love!

 

[marks]

I am Spirit anointed but do not believe I am part of the 144,000.

I’m only a 2nd class Christian. But I thank God for choosing me, warts and all.

So does this mean that you are in fact JW?

Much love!

 

[Runningman]

Best MSS? You mean the one found in the trash? The 3 that share only about 75% agreement? Manuscripts which were not even available for 1000 years? Is this become a manuscript discussion? And you prefer the modern Alexandrian versions.

Got it.

Will you have the same reply to my next passage?

Because I came here to see your reply there, and you've totally skirted the question. Did you even think about it? What about the rest? He's from heaven. Adam was made from dirt, and Jesus came from heaven. You can dispute over the word "Lord", what about the rest??

Here's the next.

John 6:38 KJV
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

When we read the Bible we want to read things within their appropriate context based on the most accurate information. The Bible has been fiddled with a lot over the years and there are a lot of issues with getting to the bottom of what the truth is. Jesus is a heavenly man just like Jesus said when he is the "Son of Man" that descended from heaven.

Where is Jesus from? What will you answer??

Much love!

He is the Son of God who God sent, but he's a human who was born in Israel.

 

[marks]

He is the Son of God who God sent, but he's a human who was born in Israel.

What does that mean?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

So does this mean that you are in fact JW?

Much love!

No. I am not JW but have disdain for those who violate Romans 14:1 in relentlessly bashing this denomination who holds to ideals not common in Christendom.

This persecution of brothers in the faith shows how short of the glory of God those who claim to submit to the lordship of Christ in loving each other. The constant vitriol against the JW is nothing short of hate.

Much love, you say? Not by a long shot.

 

[marks]

The constant vitriol against the JW is nothing short of hate.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

Much love!

 

[marks]

who holds to ideals not common in Christendom.

I think the biggest division is created over who we believe Jesus is.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

I think the biggest division is created over who we believe Jesus is.

Yup. Your IDOL is the cause of the biggest division. The good news is that Jesus is YHWH’s anointed, a selected man to reconcile humanity to YHWH. The JW’s believe this as far as I can tell.

Scripture says nothing about relentlessly attacking those who don’t believe Jesus is who you believe him to be. See Jam 4:11-12.

 

[marks]

relentlessly attacking

Yes, I think you've become confused. There is certainly no need to continue.

Much love!

 

[tigger 2]

It can be "a god" I admit, but "theos" can also be used in a qualitative sense (the quality, attributes, or characteristics of someone or something.) The language in John 1 doesn't require the Word be a literal pre-existent being as a result.

For example, 2 Corinthians 1:12 refers to godly sorrow. 2 Corinthians 7:11 refers to a godly sort. 1 Tim 1:4 refers to godly edification. Each of these describe qualities of someone or something, even though they use the same exact word for the Word is theos in John 1:1.

This is the challenge with translating something. So even though I don't disagree with your translation, I say it's at least subjective if there are no examples of the Word pre-existing as a god. Are there any? Perhaps not. I can't find anything clear or explicit though I have a suspicion you could be right.

We can just as easily say that John 1:1 applies personification to the Word and there is ample evidence for that, too, where the Word (logos) and Jesus are in the same context they are not the same person or thing. 1 John 1:1-3 also refers to the "Word of Life" as an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man.

Just something to think about.

..................................................

It must be 'a god' in John 1:1c. My personal studies on my blog:

Examining the Trinity

Logos (The 'Word')

 

[Wrangler]

I think you've become confused.

850th post in an attack thread on this denomination! You’re in denial.

 

[marks]

850th post in an attack thread on this denomination! You’re in denial.

I'm just responding to posts. I guess you are responding to me based on other people's posts. So there ya go!

Much love!

 

[Keiw]

Everybody concedes that "god" is ascribed in Scripture to non-deity beings and even mortal beings dozens of times. I thought we were discussing whether John 1:1 was such a time. And my point was simply that with all capitals in the original, your claim in Post #816 ("Like capitol G God to the word at John 1:1, it is not that way in the Greek lexicons. Its why throughout history Greek scholars translated a god into many translations.") cannot be right.

Now, if you want to advance a different argument for "why throughout history Greek scholars translated a god into many translations" -- and can sneak it past the moderators -- have at it.

I showed you the difference in the Greek lexicons, they are different for the single purpose of God and god. Trinity translation has it correct at 2 Cor 4:4, translating works the same at both spots.

 

[Keiw]

It can be "a god" I admit, but "theos" can also be used in a qualitative sense (the quality, attributes, or characteristics of someone or something.) The language in John 1 doesn't require the Word be a literal pre-existent being as a result.

For example, 2 Corinthians 1:12 refers to godly sorrow. 2 Corinthians 7:11 refers to a godly sort. 1 Tim 1:4 refers to godly edification. Each of these describe qualities of someone or something, even though they use the same exact word for the Word is theos in John 1:1.

This is the challenge with translating something. So even though I don't disagree with your translation, I say it's at least subjective if there are no examples of the Word pre-existing as a god. Are there any? Perhaps not. I can't find anything clear or explicit though I have a suspicion you could be right.

We can just as easily say that John 1:1 applies personification to the Word and there is ample evidence for that, too, where the Word (logos) and Jesus are in the same context they are not the same person or thing. 1 John 1:1-3 also refers to the "Word of Life" as an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man.

Just something to think about.

If the word was God( capitol G) then in plain English your second line in trinity translations says-And God was with God= impossible.

 

[Wrangler]

I showed you the difference in the Greek lexicons, they are different for the single purpose of God and god.

I find it funny that trinitarians cannot consider a linguistic explanation to explain how a thing can be another thing AND with that other thing at the same time.

The analogy I use is dinner with a friend. The bill is a bill and was with (my friend) Bill. No metaphysical anomaly that is inherently contradictory necessary. LOL

The reliance on abusing capital letters and denying the appropriateness of the indefinite article ‘a’ before god causing apoplectic responses is better than any comedy show.

The mental gymnastics is amazing. If their take was correct it would be included in the narrative. John wrote the purpose for writing his account. 20:31 says nothing like what the trinitarians allege.

 

[TheHC]

How well do you know Koine Greek? Are you educated in it? Self studied?

I've never agreed with the Kingdom Hall version of John 1:1. It's polytheistic at best, and that's in complete disagreement with the Scriptures, so I know immediately without being a Greek scholar that their version is false. From my Greek schooling and studies since, I see their version is false.

Did you want to look at this together?

Much love!

Have you ever read what Catholic priest and highly acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., wrote RE: John 1:1?

Keep in mind, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest...and highly acclaimed as a scholar; yet he wrote regarding John 1:1 in his 'Dictionary of the Bible'...."Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (1965, NY), p. 317.

I’d say he was honest.

Which rendering agrees with the context?
I think you know that answer.

 

[marks]

Have you ever read what Catholic priest and highly acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., wrote RE: John 1:1?

Keep in mind, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest...and highly acclaimed as a scholar; yet he wrote regarding John 1:1 in his 'Dictionary of the Bible'...."Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (1965, NY), p. 317.

I’d say he was honest.

Which rendering agrees with the context?
I think you know that answer.

You must know in the "war of the scholars" we all have reams and reams of ammunition, right? This is about the lack of an article, is that right?

Why wouldn't he argue for translating, and the word was with the divine being, and the word was a divine being?

I've found that truth is much more simplistic than many seem to think.

When you say "divine being" what do you mean? Define "theos" for me. Tell me how many true Gods there are. Gods many and lords many? True Gods? Is that the idea?

Much love!

 

[Jack]

They fear truth.

The ChristianityBoard staff fears the truth?

 

[Jack]

A or B.

A is Biblical answers, B is JW answers?