A serious questions for the Jehovah's Witnesses on these threads.

[Wrangler]

Part 2 or 2

Can anything insipid be eaten without salt? Is there flavor in the white of an egg?
NASB
Can something tasteless be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the juice of an alkanet plant?
NASB1995
“Can something tasteless be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
NCB
Can tasteless food be eaten without salt? Is there any flavor in the whites of eggs?
NCV
Tasteless food is not eaten without salt, and there is no flavor in the white of an egg.
NET
Can food that is tasteless be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
NIRV
Is food that doesn’t have any taste eaten without salt? Is there any flavor in the sap of a mallow plant?
NIV
Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there flavor in the sap of the mallow?
NIVUK
Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there flavour in the sap of the mallow?
NKJV
Can flavorless food be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
NLV
Can something that has no taste be eaten without salt? Is there any taste in the white of an egg?
NLT
Don’t people complain about unsalted food? Does anyone want the tasteless white of an egg?
NRSVA
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any flavour in the juice of mallows?
NRSVACE
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any flavour in the juice of mallows?
NRSVCE
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any flavor in the juice of mallows?
NRSVUE
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any flavor in the juice of mallows?
OJB
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without melach? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
RSV
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?
RSVCE
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?
TLV
Is something bland eaten without salt, is there taste in the white of an egg?
VOICE
If I were served a tasteless mush, how could I eat it without at least adding salt? Or is there even any sense of taste in the slime of a plant?
WEB
Can that which has no flavor be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

 

[RLT63]

Part 1 or 2

Most translations use the word egg. I guess you just proved another instance of KJ being inaccurate.

KJ21
Can that which is unsavory be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
ASV
Can that which hath no savor be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
AMP
“Can something that has no taste to it be eaten without salt? Or is there any flavor in the white of an egg?
AMPC
Can that which has no taste to it be eaten without salt? Or is there any flavor in the white of an egg?
BRG
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
CSB
Is bland food eaten without salt? Is there flavor in an egg white?
CEB
Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or does egg white have taste?
CJB
Can food without flavor be eaten without salt? Do egg whites have any taste?
CEV
What is food without salt? What is more tasteless than the white of an egg?
DARBY
Shall that which is insipid be eaten without salt? Is there any taste in the white of an egg?
DRA
Or can an unsavoury thing be eaten, that is not seasoned with salt? or can a man taste that which when tasted bringeth death?
ERV
Food without salt does not taste good, and the white of an egg has no taste.
EHV
Is tasteless food eaten without salt? Is there flavor in the white of an egg?
ESV
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow?
ESVUK
Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow?
EXB
·Tasteless food is not [L Would tasteless food be…?] eaten without salt, and ·there is no [L is there…?] flavor in the ·white of an egg [orjuice of a weed; C Job’s “food” (his lot in life) is inedible].
GNV
That which is unsavory, shall it be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
GW
Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there any flavor in the white of an egg?
GNT
But who can eat flat, unsalted food? What taste is there in the white of an egg?
HCSB
Is bland food eaten without salt? Is there flavor in an egg white?
ICB
Tasteless food is not eaten without salt. There is no flavor in the white part of an egg.
ISV
Tasteless food isn’t eaten without salt, is it? Is there any taste in an egg white?
JUB
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
KJV
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
AKJV
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
LSB
Can something tasteless be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the slime of a yolk?
LEB
Can tasteless food be eaten without salt, or is there taste in the white of a marshmallow plant?
TLB
When wild donkeys bray, it is because their grass is gone; oxen do not low when they have food; a man complains when there is no salt in his food. And how tasteless is the uncooked white of an egg—my appetite is gone when I look at it; I gag at the thought of eating it!
MSG
Job answered: “If my misery could be weighed, if you could pile the whole bitter load on the scales, It would be heavier than all the sand of the sea! Is it any wonder that I’m howling like a caged cat? The arrows of God Almighty are in me, poison arrows—and I’m poisoned all through! God has dumped the whole works on me. Donkeys bray and cows moo when they run out of pasture— so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this. Do you see what God has dished out for me? It’s enough to turn anyone’s stomach! Everything in me is repulsed by it— it makes me sick.
MEV
Is tasteless food eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
NOG
Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there any flavor in the white of an egg?
NABRE

I don’t follow you. Most versions say the same thing. This just shows how much liberty The Message takes.

 

[Wrangler]

I don’t follow you. Most versions say the same thing. This just shows how much liberty The Message takes.

Right, most versions say egg - not mallow.

Yes, the MSG is an extreme thought translation. It was read at a funeral service yesterday.

 

[Aunty Jane]

It was you who said the thief was told he would be in paradise not heaven.

Actually it was Jesus who said that.
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43 KJV)

2Co 12:2 - I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
Tools

2Co 12:3 - And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—
Tools

2Co 12:4 - how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter////// they are used interchangeably here. And the Bible doesn’t say Jesus was raised as a spirit but that he was made alive by the Spirit——1Pe 3:18 - For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

If Paul had no idea what he was experiencing, how can you assume to know what he didn’t?

An “out of body experience” is a vision in which a person is transported to another place, but not bodily. It is the mind that is taken to another place in the same way that John received his Revelation......like a dream that we see ourselves in but we have not gone anywhere......this was apparently Paul’s own experience and he was transported to a place he had never been, and heard things he had never heard, and if other prophets in times past were given visions of heavenly scenes which they also found hard to describe in human terms, heaven appeared to be like nothing they had ever seen before.....so what does the word “paradise” mean?

Strongs defines “paradise” as....

1. among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters
2. a garden, pleasure ground
   
   1. grove, park”

Is this how most people envision heaven? This description is entirely earthly, unless you think heaven is a well watered garden with animals....?
The prophet Ezekiel was given visions of heavenly things and was hardly able to describe what he saw in human language. Same with the apostle John. Same with the transfiguration, which seemed so real to the apostles collectively that they wanted to erect tents for the participants.....but they were never there in person. Jesus said it was a "vision".

Humans were not designed to live in heaven.....that is why the elect have to be “born again” in a spirit body because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Cor 15:50).....and if exposed to the Supreme Being, it would end their life. (Ex 33:17-23)

Was Jesus Raised Bodily from the Dead?

From your link.....
“There are some who believe that Jesus did not have a resurrected body, but was only a spirit.”

Let’s start with that statement.....”only a spirit”?
At 1 Cor 15:44-45...Paul spoke of two kinds of bodies...a physical one and a spiritual one.....
“It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

Since angels are "spirits" and the Bible speaks of them appearing in bodily form to God’s earthly servants as they did to Abraham (read Genesis 18) it is very apparent that spirit beings can materialize human bodies. As Jesus was raised as a spirit, he too possessed the ability to materialise in human form. You can believe that based on what the Bible says or you can deny it.....its your choice.

“However, the Scripture is very clear on the issue - the resurrection of Jesus was in bodily form. Early in His ministry, Jesus predicted that He would come back from the dead in a body. He said.

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then the Jews said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking of the temple of his body. Therefore, when he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them (John 2:19-22).

The Scripture is clear that it was the body of Jesus that was to be resurrected. Jesus refuted the idea that He was some disembodied spirit when He appeared to His disciples after His death.”

Firstly, Jesus was not talking about his physical body in that statement, but of his "body" as the temple of God. (1 Cor 3:16-17) The "body of Christ" are his elect. In three days he would be resurrected in spirit form, and ready to re-enter heaven, opening the way for his "body" to follow.

And now reading that statement, with the view that Jesus was raised in a spirit body, but with the ability to materialize a body of flesh, capable of eating and drinking as the angels in times past had done, this man's assumption is not well founded.

The evidence is in the scriptures that Jesus “appeared“ to his disciples after his resurrection, which accords with him being raised as as spirit, but in order not to break God’s law about communicating with spirits, God’s representatives always “appeared” in physical form.

Only spirit beings can exist in heaven in the presence of God....God is a spirit....angels are spirits.....the pre-human son of God was a spirit, whose life was transferred to the womb of a Jewish virgin. He was born of flesh and blood, but offered that flesh and blood in sacrifice for the redemption of the human race. He was not raised in the body he sacrificed.....the tomb was empty because of a prophesy that was restated by the apostle Peter.
Acts 2:29-32....
29 “Men, brothers, it is permissible to speak with freeness of speech to you about the family head David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.”

The physical body of Christ was not left in a tomb to decay, but was disposed of by God in some way, probably to prevent the relic worship that became common in Roman Catholicism.....like the fraudulent “Shroud of Turin”....false because Christ was not buried in a shroud.....no scripture supports that.......relic worship is a form of idolatry.

God also buried the body of Moses in an unknown place, possibly for the same reason.
Jude’s letter contains some information not found elsewhere in the Bible. It alone mentions the archangel Michael’s dispute with the Devil over Moses’ body. (Jude 9)

It amazes me how arrogant some people can be and at the same time be so wrong.

Me too.....

 

[Aunty Jane]

Right, most versions say egg - not mallow.

Is this a "majority rules" thing? Who cares what the majority say? What does the original text say?

NASB...
"Can something tasteless be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the juice of an alkanet plant?"

ESV
"Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow?"

NIRV
"Is food that doesn’t have any taste eaten without salt? Is there any flavor in the sap of a mallow plant?"

RSV
"Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?"

The "alkanet" plant mentioned is "ḥallāmûṯ" of which Strongs gives the following definition......
"purslane, a tasteless plant with thick slimy juice"......so, nothing to do with eggs.

The Hebrew term "ḥallāmûṯ", (found only at Job 6:6) has been variously rendered “egg” (AS, AV), “purslain” (AT) and, as defined in a recent Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon by Koehler and Baumgartner, “marsh mallow” (as translated by the NWT, ESV, NIRV)....

The sole Scriptural reference to the “marsh mallow” alludes to its tastelessness....which is after all, the whole point of the statement.....

 

[RLT63]

Actually it was Jesus who said that.
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43 KJV)

If Paul had no idea what he was experiencing, how can you assume to know what he didn’t?

An “out of body experience” is a vision in which a person is transported to another place, but not bodily. It is the mind that is taken to another place in the same way that John received his Revelation......like a dream that we see ourselves in but we have not gone anywhere......this was apparently Paul’s own experience and he was transported to a place he had never been, and heard things he had never heard, and if other prophets in times past were given visions of heavenly scenes which they also found hard to describe in human terms, heaven appeared to be like nothing they had ever seen before.....so what does the word “paradise” mean?

Strongs defines “paradise” as....

1. among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters
2. a garden, pleasure ground
   
   1. grove, park”

Is this how most people envision heaven? This description is entirely earthly, unless you think heaven is a well watered garden with animals....?
The prophet Ezekiel was given visions of heavenly things and was hardly able to describe what he saw in human language. Same with the apostle John. Same with the transfiguration, which seemed so real to the apostles collectively that they wanted to erect tents for the participants.....but they were never there in person. Jesus said it was a "vision".

Humans were not designed to live in heaven.....that is why the elect have to be “born again” in a spirit body because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Cor 15:50).....and if exposed to the Supreme Being, it would end their life. (Ex 33:17-23)


From your link.....
“There are some who believe that Jesus did not have a resurrected body, but was only a spirit.”

Let’s start with that statement.....”only a spirit”?
At 1 Cor 15:44-45...Paul spoke of two kinds of bodies...a physical one and a spiritual one.....
“It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

Since angels are "spirits" and the Bible speaks of them appearing in bodily form to God’s earthly servants as they did to Abraham (read Genesis 18) it is very apparent that spirit beings can materialize human bodies. As Jesus was raised as a spirit, he too possessed the ability to materialise in human form. You can believe that based on what the Bible says or you can deny it.....its your choice.

“However, the Scripture is very clear on the issue - the resurrection of Jesus was in bodily form. Early in His ministry, Jesus predicted that He would come back from the dead in a body. He said.


The Scripture is clear that it was the body of Jesus that was to be resurrected. Jesus refuted the idea that He was some disembodied spirit when He appeared to His disciples after His death.”

Firstly, Jesus was not talking about his physical body in that statement, but of his "body" as the temple of God. The "body of Christ are his elect. In three days he would be resurrected in spirit form, and ready to re-enter heaven, opening the way for his "body" to follow.

And now reading that statement, with the view that Jesus was raised in a spirit body, but with the ability to materialize a body of flesh, capable of eating and drinking as the angels in times past had done, this man's assumption is not well founded.

The evidence is in the scriptures that Jesus “appeared“ to his disciples after his resurrection, which accords with him being raised as as spirit, but in order not to break God’s law about communicating with spirits, God’s representatives always “appeared” in physical form.

Only spirit beings can exist in heaven in the presence of God....God is a spirit....angels are spirits.....the pre-human son of God was a spirit, whose life was transferred to the womb of a Jewish virgin. He was born of flesh and blood, but offered that flesh and blood in sacrifice for the redemption of the human race. He was not raised in the body he sacrificed.....the tomb was empty because of a prophesy that was restated by the apostle Peter.
Acts 2:29-32....
29 “Men, brothers, it is permissible to speak with freeness of speech to you about the family head David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.”

The body of Christ was not left in a tomb to decay, but was disposed of by God in some way, probably to prevent the relic worship that became common in Roman Catholicism.....like the fraudulent “Shroud of Turin”....false because Christ was not buried in a shroud.....no scripture supports that.......relic worship is a form of idolatry.

God also buried the body of Moses in an unknown place, possibly for the same reason.
Jude’s letter contains some information not found elsewhere in the Bible. It alone mentions the archangel Michael’s dispute with the Devil over Moses’ body. (Jude 9)

Me too.....

If Paul didn’t know if he was in his body or not then neither do you. If Jesus was only raised as a spirit that’s not much of a miracle. I don’t know of any other denominations that teach only 144.000 are going to Heaven. What do the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about the 144,000 and a heavenly/earthly hope? | GotQuestions.org. /////. Who are the 144,000? | GotQuestions.org

 

[RLT63]

Actually it was Jesus who said that.
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43 KJV)

If Paul had no idea what he was experiencing, how can you assume to know what he didn’t?

An “out of body experience” is a vision in which a person is transported to another place, but not bodily. It is the mind that is taken to another place in the same way that John received his Revelation......like a dream that we see ourselves in but we have not gone anywhere......this was apparently Paul’s own experience and he was transported to a place he had never been, and heard things he had never heard, and if other prophets in times past were given visions of heavenly scenes which they also found hard to describe in human terms, heaven appeared to be like nothing they had ever seen before.....so what does the word “paradise” mean?

Strongs defines “paradise” as....

1. among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters
2. a garden, pleasure ground
   
   1. grove, park”

Is this how most people envision heaven? This description is entirely earthly, unless you think heaven is a well watered garden with animals....?
The prophet Ezekiel was given visions of heavenly things and was hardly able to describe what he saw in human language. Same with the apostle John. Same with the transfiguration, which seemed so real to the apostles collectively that they wanted to erect tents for the participants.....but they were never there in person. Jesus said it was a "vision".

Humans were not designed to live in heaven.....that is why the elect have to be “born again” in a spirit body because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Cor 15:50).....and if exposed to the Supreme Being, it would end their life. (Ex 33:17-23)


From your link.....
“There are some who believe that Jesus did not have a resurrected body, but was only a spirit.”

Let’s start with that statement.....”only a spirit”?
At 1 Cor 15:44-45...Paul spoke of two kinds of bodies...a physical one and a spiritual one.....
“It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

Since angels are "spirits" and the Bible speaks of them appearing in bodily form to God’s earthly servants as they did to Abraham (read Genesis 18) it is very apparent that spirit beings can materialize human bodies. As Jesus was raised as a spirit, he too possessed the ability to materialise in human form. You can believe that based on what the Bible says or you can deny it.....its your choice.

“However, the Scripture is very clear on the issue - the resurrection of Jesus was in bodily form. Early in His ministry, Jesus predicted that He would come back from the dead in a body. He said.


The Scripture is clear that it was the body of Jesus that was to be resurrected. Jesus refuted the idea that He was some disembodied spirit when He appeared to His disciples after His death.”

Firstly, Jesus was not talking about his physical body in that statement, but of his "body" as the temple of God. (1 Cor 3:16-17) The "body of Christ" are his elect. In three days he would be resurrected in spirit form, and ready to re-enter heaven, opening the way for his "body" to follow.

And now reading that statement, with the view that Jesus was raised in a spirit body, but with the ability to materialize a body of flesh, capable of eating and drinking as the angels in times past had done, this man's assumption is not well founded.

The evidence is in the scriptures that Jesus “appeared“ to his disciples after his resurrection, which accords with him being raised as as spirit, but in order not to break God’s law about communicating with spirits, God’s representatives always “appeared” in physical form.

Only spirit beings can exist in heaven in the presence of God....God is a spirit....angels are spirits.....the pre-human son of God was a spirit, whose life was transferred to the womb of a Jewish virgin. He was born of flesh and blood, but offered that flesh and blood in sacrifice for the redemption of the human race. He was not raised in the body he sacrificed.....the tomb was empty because of a prophesy that was restated by the apostle Peter.
Acts 2:29-32....
29 “Men, brothers, it is permissible to speak with freeness of speech to you about the family head David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.”

The body of Christ was not left in a tomb to decay, but was disposed of by God in some way, probably to prevent the relic worship that became common in Roman Catholicism.....like the fraudulent “Shroud of Turin”....false because Christ was not buried in a shroud.....no scripture supports that.......relic worship is a form of idolatry.

God also buried the body of Moses in an unknown place, possibly for the same reason.
Jude’s letter contains some information not found elsewhere in the Bible. It alone mentions the archangel Michael’s dispute with the Devil over Moses’ body. (Jude 9)

Me too.....

What did Jesus mean when He said, “Today you will be with me in paradise”? | GotQuestions.org

What did Jesus mean when He said, “Today you will be with me in paradise”? Where does the comma belong in Luke 23:43?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Wrangler]

Is this a "majority rules" thing? Who cares what the majority say? What does the original text say?

I care what the majority say and could NOT care less what the original word is in a foreign language.

Honestly, this retreating into foreign languages is annoying to me. I rely on translators. I take it as a given that if many translations make it egg and others use another word like mallow that the original word could reasonably be taken either way.

Therefore, the claim that this supports NWT being a corrupt translation is bunk.

EDIT in red.

 

[RLT63]

If Paul didn’t know if he was in his body or not then neither do you. If Jesus was only raised as a spirit that’s not much of a miracle. I don’t know of any other denominations that teach only 144.000 are going to Heaven. What do the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about the 144,000 and a heavenly/earthly hope? | GotQuestions.org. /////. Who are the 144,000? | GotQuestions.org

Who Are the 144,000 in the Book of Revelation?

Like much of Revelation, mystery surrounds the 144,000 Tribulation witnesses. Who are they? What will be their objective? Will they be protected? Will they have any effect on the lost people of the Last Days? Although we do not know everything about the events that will take place and those...

davidjeremiah.blog

 

[Aunty Jane]

1- Setting aside one day of the week to chill and recharge our spiritual batteries is so important that it's one of the 10 Commandments, and Jesus said he never came to overthrow the Law..

I never said you couldn't "chill and recharge your spiritual batteries" on any day you like.....it was just never commanded for Christians to be done on a certain day.

2- Which of christendom's core beliefs were not taught by Jesus?

The ones they all accept as the very foundations of their belief system.....some of which I am not permitted to speak about here....even in this forum I am told....you already know what foundational beliefs your faith rests on......I would reject all of them based entirely on scripture.

3- I don't know any Christian who shares pagan beliefs..

Probably because you don't know that they are pagan beliefs, and even if you did, it doesn't seem to worry you that you are promoting what Christ never taught. Its mainstream, and non-denominationals just believe whatever they wish within the framework of what is considered "orthodox Christianity" and the details don't seem to matter....you just don't fight over them. It is the lazy person's "Christianity" IMO. No real decisions about what is truth, are needed to wear the label.

4- Me childish? Thanks for the compliment..

Jesus said- "Become as little children" (Matt 18:3)
Jesus said:- "I thank you Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned,and for revealing them to little children"(Matt 11:25-27)
Paul said-"Be childlike against evil but adult in your thinking" (1 Cor 14:20)

I don't think that was the kind of "childishness" he meant.....that last scripture there hits the nail on the head....."adult thinking" is what we need, not childishness in the form of spiritual immaturity.
Paul put it this way....
"When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. . . . ." (2 Cor 13: 11) it requires us to "grow up" and think like an adult.

5- The pagan goddess Oestre doesn't exist as far as I know and hasn't come knocking my door, but if she does I might ask her in for a cup of tea and we can watch a Star Trek video together..

Thank you for making my point.....she knocks on your door and you answer every time you engage in her celebrations. Every false god is the devil in disguise.....all the worship that goes to false deities, goes to satan by default. The true God will never accept it, just as he rejected lame and sick animals for sacrifice....lame and sick excuses will never alter his truth.

PS- A witch in a chatroom once told me she was summoning up the egyptian goddess Sekhmet to come and deal with me; I put the kettle on but she never turned up. Hey guys don't you just hate getting stood up by goddesses?

What is a Christian doing in a chatroom talking to witches? (1 Cor 15:33)

 

[Aunty Jane]

If Paul didn’t know if he was in his body or not then neither do you.

That's right, but based on what the rest of what scripture says, neither do you...and neither do all those who promote the notion that you can consciously exist outside of your body when you die. There is nothing to exist outside of anyone's body......unless the person undergoes a spiritual resurrection, which is not the same as an immortal soul that immediately departs from the body at death. There is no such teaching in the Bible.

If Jesus was only raised as a spirit that’s not much of a miracle. I don’t know of any other denominations that teach only 144.000 are going to Heaven.

"Only raised as a spirit"? "Not much of a miracle"? He is the first human who was put to death in the flesh, and raised to life as a spirit....it's why he is called "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).....nothing special, you say?

Your assumption is based on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul...something Christ never taught. He was a spirit before he came to earth, and he returned to the spirit realm after he was resurrected. What do you mean "only raised as a spirit"? He was never going to be raised as anything else if he was to sit at his Father's right hand in heaven to wait for certain events to take place on earth. (Psalm 110:1-2)

The reason why you won't see any doctrine of Christendom taught or supported by JW's is because we are no part of Christendom, and do not accept her doctrines as truth....they all came from Roman Catholicism, which deviated entirely from what Jesus and his apostles taught. She is the 'mother' of many daughters.....

The 'separation of the sheep and the goats' is based on the fact that the two are nothing alike.....its not what is held in common, but what differentiates the two that counts.

'Vive la difference' I say....

 

[RLT63]

I never said you couldn't "chill and recharge your spiritual batteries" on any day you like.....it was just never commanded for Christians to be done on a certain day.

The ones they all accept as the very foundations of their belief system.....some of which I am not permitted to speak about here....even in this forum I am told....you already know what foundational beliefs your faith rests on......I would reject all of them based entirely on scripture.

Probably because you don't know that they are pagan beliefs, and even if you did, it doesn't seem to worry you that you are promoting what Christ never taught. Its mainstream, and non-denominationals just believe whatever they wish within the framework of what is considered "orthodox Christianity" and the details don't seem to matter....you just don't fight over them. It is the lazy person's "Christianity" IMO. No real decisions about what is truth, are needed to wear the label.


I don't think that was the kind of "childishness" he meant.....that last scripture there hits the nail on the head....."adult thinking" is what we need, not childishness in the form of spiritual immaturity.
Paul put it this way....
"When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. . . . ." (2 Cor 13: 11) it requires us to "grow up" and think like an adult.

Thank you for making my point.....she knocks on your door and you answer every time you engage in her celebrations. Every false god is the devil in disguise.....all the worship that goes to false deities, goes to satan by default. The true God will never accept it, just as he rejected lame and sick animals for sacrifice....lame and sick excuses will never alter his truth.

What is a Christian doing in a chatroom talking to witches? (1 Cor 15:33)

Exo 20:9 - Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

Exo 20:10 - but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In ityou shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

Exo 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it

 

[RLT63]

That's right, but based on what the rest of what scripture says, neither do you...and neither do all those who promote the notion that you can consciously exist outside of your body when you die. There is nothing to exist outside of anyone's body......unless the person undergoes a spiritual resurrection, which is not the same as an immortal soul that immediately departs from the body at death. There is no such teaching in the Bible.

"Only raised as a spirit"? "Not much of a miracle"? He is the first human who was put to death in the flesh, and raised to life as a spirit....it's why he is called "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).....nothing special, you say?

Your assumption is based on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul...something Christ never taught. He was a spirit before he came to earth, and he returned to the spirit realm after he was resurrected. What do you mean "only raised as a spirit"? He was never going to be raised as anything else if he was to sit at his Father's right hand in heaven to wait for certain events to take place on earth. (Psalm 110:1-2)

The reason why you won't see any doctrine of Christendom taught or supported by JW's is because we are no part of Christendom, and do not accept her doctrines as truth....they all came from Roman Catholicism, which deviated entirely from what Jesus and his apostles taught. She is the 'mother' of many daughters.....

The 'separation of the sheep and the goats' is based on the fact that the two are nothing alike.....its not what is held in common, but what differentiates the two that counts.

'Vive la difference' I say....

Was Jesus Raised Bodily from the Dead?

There are some who believe that Jesus did not have a resurrected body, but was only a spirit. However, the Scripture is very clear on the issue - the

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[Aunty Jane]

I care what the majority say and could NOT care less what the original word is in a foreign language.

Honestly, this retreating into foreign languages is annoying to me.

Wow.....just wow!.....its not retreating into "foreign languages"...its the languages in which the original texts were written.....I can't believe you said that.

I rely on translators. I take it as a given that if many translations make it egg and others use another word like mallow that the original word could reasonably be taken either way.

You can rely on any translators you like.......as I do, but not if their translations are inaccurate. Research will reveal the correct answer.
Can the word for an egg be mistaken for a plant? The Greek word for "egg" is "ōon" and according to Strongs, it occurs one time in the Greek scriptures.....that is at Luke 11:11-12....so not an "egg" anywhere else.

Strongs is not a JW source, but it is accurate for the most part....
I can see that any kind of disagreement irks you Wrangler.....and its not hard to see that you hate entertaining anything that proves you wrong, even by something that isn't JW sourced.
If the original languages confound you, try doing a little research. Its quite rewarding.

Therefore, the claim that this supports NWT is bunk.

How can it be bunk? Just because it disagrees with what you want to believe?
Can you categorically say that Strongs got this wrong? Or could it be that your research is non-existent?
I can't change what the original words say, just to make you happy....it is what it is....

 

[Aunty Jane]

Exo 20:9 - Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

Exo 20:10 - but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In ityou shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

Exo 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it

I said there was no command for "Christians" to observe a Sabbath.....that was the Law for Israel....under the old covenant.
Gentiles were not bound by the old covenant.

Was Jesus Raised Bodily from the Dead?

There are some who believe that Jesus did not have a resurrected body, but was only a spirit. However, the Scripture is very clear on the issue - the

www.blueletterbible.org

Jesus did have a body where people could see and recognize him...and even touch him....but not always. He was a spirit who materialized a body of flesh to communicate with his disciples.

Who dwells in heaven? Are they not all spirits? The Bible says that God is an invisible spirit....it says that angels are spirits, and yet they materialized as humans to convey their messages to God's earthly servants.
Gabriel appeared to Daniel as an "able bodied man" and also to Mary when bringing God's message concerning Jesus' birth.

Are you another one who shirks research? What have you got to lose except the mistranslations and misinformation that you accept as truth?

 

[Adventageous]

Is this a "majority rules" thing? Who cares what the majority say? What does the original text say?

[1] the NASB, the ESV, the NIRV, and the RSV are by no means "the original text", and are based in corrupted texts.

[2] The Hebrew words in Job 6:6 are:

בריר חלמות׃

This word "חלמון" (chelmon) means "yolk of an egg". Some think it comes from "חלמות" (a juicy plant), which has a certain merit, if it weren't for the historical evidence, from the ancient Hebrew Commentators, Targums, Aramaic roots, and the chain of translation from the best translators the world has ever known, all the way into the Reformation, unto the present day. Even the primary commentators, generally give 'yolk of an egg' as the first choice, and place doubt upon the others. There are exceptions of course as there always is in such things. The problem with using modern commentators, and modern dictionaries, based in corrupt texts from Egypt, etc, without a chain of translation is that it is historically invalidated.

This word "חלמית" (chelmit) means "malva, mallow". This cannot be the word, as the form is entirely different.

This historic Reformation Bibles, & etc:

Targums:

"... The Targums render it substantially as it is in our version. ..." (ie. white of an egg; the idea that it means juice of a plant, comes from the Syriac) "... But the more common and more probable explanation is that of our common version, denoting the white of an egg. ...", "... Rosenmuller supposes that he refers to his afflictions as being as unpleasant to bear as the white of an egg was to the taste. ...", "... That which is insipid is unpleasant, and the white of an egg is loathsome. ..." (Albert Barnes)

"... What is without salt one does not relish, and there is no flavour in the slime of the yolk of an egg, i.e., the white of an egg (Targ.), ...", "... (Note: Saadia [Gaon; AD 882/892 – 942] compares b. Aboda zara, 40, a, where it is given as a mark of the purity of the eggs in the roe of fish: מבפנים וחלמון מב מבחוץ חלבון, when the white is outside and the yellow within.) ..." (Keil & Delitzsch)

"... The Jewish interpreters and the Targums make חַלָּמוּת to be the same as חֶלְמוֹן and חֶלְבּוֹן the yolk of an egg (from the root חָלַס = חָלַב No. 1), and the slime of the yolk of an egg they interpret to be the white of an egg, as being unsavory food ..." (Gesenius)

"... “egg” (via Aramaic cognate) ..."

"... Dhorme says the phrase refers to “the glair which surrounds the yolk of an egg,” drawing support from the Targum and Saadia (E. Dhorme, Job 79) ..."

"... חלמון‎ ‎(הל׳) ‎m. ‎(v. ‎preced.) ‎yolk, ‎yellow ‎ofan ‎egg. ‎Ab. ‎Zar. ‎40a; ‎Hull. ‎64a ‎(corr. ‎as ‎in ‎Ab. ‎Zar. ‎l. ‎c.). ‎Y. ‎Ter. ‎X, ‎47b ‎bot. ‎חלמין ‎בלובן ‎(read; ‎בחלמון, ‎v. ‎Tosaf. ‎to ‎Hull. ‎64b, ‎s. ‎v. ‎והוא); ‎v. ‎חלבון. ‎[Ar. ‎reads ‎הלמון.] ..."

"... חֶלְמוֹנָא
חֶלְמוֹנָאch. sam(חל׳) חלמון yolk, yellow of an egg). Targ. Job 6:6 ed. Wil. (v. חֶלְמָא). ..." (Academic Dictionary of Jewish Literature)

Luther German:

Job 6:6 Kann man auch essen, was ungesalzen ist? Oder wer mag kosten das Weiße um den Dotter?

Ostervald French:

Job 6:6 Mange-t-on sans sel ce qui est fade? Trouve-t-on du goût dans un blanc d'œuf?

Giovanni Diodati Italian:

Job 6:6 Una cosa insipida si mangia ella senza sale? Evvi sapore nella chiara ch'è intorno al torlo dell'uovo?

Reina Valera Spanish:

Job 6:6 ¿Comeráse lo desabrido sin sal? ¿ó habrá gusto en la clara del huevo?

Miles Coverdale:

Job 6:6 (1535) Maye a thynge be eaten vnseasoned, or without salt? What taist hath ye whyte within the yoke an egg? -- Job 6 (OldeBible) Coverdale Bible

Matthews:

Job 6:6 (1537) That which is vnsauery, shall it be eaten wythoute salte, or is there any taste in the whyte of an egge: -- Job 6 (OldeBible) Matthew Bible

Great Bible:

Job 6:6 (1539) That which is vnsauery, shalt it be eaten without salte, or is there any taste in the whyte of an egge? -- Job 6 (OldeBible) Great Bible

Geneva Bible:

Job 6:6 (1539) That which is vnsauerie, shall it be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egge? -- Job 6 (OldeBible) Geneva Bible

Bishop's Bible:

Job 6:6 (1568) That which is vnsauerie, shall it be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the whyte of an egge? -- Job 6 (OldeBible) Bishops' Bible

Samoan Bible:

Job 6:6 Pe 'aina ea le mea ua le namumea pe a le inā le masima? Pe ai ea se manogi i le niu o le fuāmoa?

Chelkat Mechokek on Job 6:6:1

".. .חלבון הביצה החיצוני ולא יאכל החלמון שהוא פנימי ומוטעם ממנו וזהו אם יש טעם בריר חלמות ולא תקל בדעת רעך לבלתי חפש לו טעם פנימי: ..."

Most Commentators:

"... Mr. Good renders this verse as follows: Doth insipid food without a mixture of salt, yea, doth the white of the egg give forth pungency? ..." (Adam Clarke)

"... or is there any taste in the white of an egg? ..." (Smith's)

"... or is there [any] taste in the white of an egg? none at all. The same things are designed by this as the former. Mr. Broughton renders it, "the white of the yolk"; and Kimchi says d it signifies, in the language of the Rabbins, the red part of the yolk, the innermost part ..." (John Gill)

"... 6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg? ...", "... nor to give a little taste to the white of an egg, which was now the choicest dish he had at his table, Job 6:6; ..." (Matthew Henry)

"... the white — literally, “spittle” (1Sa_21:13), which the white of an egg resembles." (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown)

"... there any taste in the white of an egg? So our Revisers; and so Dillmann and Canon Cook. ..." (Pulpit)

Now, there are other variations such as in the Peschito but Keil & Delitzsch say, "... or in the slime of purslain (according to Chalmetho in the Peschito, Arab. ḥamqâ), fatua = purslain), which is less probable on account of רִיר (slime, not: broth): ...", and most other older and more reliable commentators state similar things, and such are generally given as secondary, and not primary, as the "white of an egg", because it comes from a translation of a translation.

 

[Adventageous]

Is this a "majority rules" thing? Who cares what the majority say? What does the original text say?

Now as to the qualifications of the KJB translators, as opposed to the [mysterious] NWT translators:

The specific translators of Job for the KJB (also checked by each other company, and a final check also):

B. The first Cambridge Company: 1st Chronicles - Ecclesiastes

1. Edward Lively, 1545 - 1605: Dr. Lively was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, 1575; prebendary at Peterborough, 1602 and rector of Purleigh in 1604.

a. It is said that no man living exceeded his knowledge of the oriental languages. In fact, it was said of him, “one of the best linguists in the world...Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages.”43

b. Dr. Lively died in the beginning of May 1605, and it is said that his death was hastened by the great effort he put into the infant translation. In 1588 he published a work entitled, Annotationes in quinque priores ex Minoribus Prophetis, cum Latina eorum interpretatione ad normam Hebraica veritatis; and in 1597, True Chronologie of the Times of the Persian Monarchie, &c.

2. John Richardson, 15?? - 1625: Dr. Richardson was; fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge,1585; Regius Professor of Divinity, 1607; Master of Peterhouse, 1609 and then Master of Trinity College.

3. Lawrence Chaderton, 1537 - 1640: Dr. Chaderton was; fellow of Christ’s College, 1568; and afterwards first Master of Emmanuel College from 1584 to 1622.

a. Dr. Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and encouraged by his family to become a lawyer. He traveled to London, where he was converted to Christ and joined the Puritan Congregation there.44 He was disinherited due to his conversion to Christ. It is said that,

b. “He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Moreover he had diligently investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as they seemed to promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures.”45

c. Like his fellow translators, Dr. Chaderton’s contribution to the cause of Christ was not restricted to the intellectual realm. He was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. Congregations never tired of hearing the scriptural offerings of this great soldier. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows:

1) “Having addressed his audience for two full hours by the glass, he paused and said, ‘I will no longer trespass on your patience.’ And now comes the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with one consent, ‘For God’s sake, go on!’ He accordingly proceeded much longer, to their great satisfaction and delight.”46

4. Francis Dillingham, 15?? - 16??: Dr. Dillingham was fellow of Christ College; parson of Dean and also of Wilden in Bedfordshire and author of several theological treatises. Dr. Dillingham was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debate in Greek.47

a. “He collected out of Cardinal Bellarmine’s writings, all the concessions made by the acute author in favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of Christian Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety of treatises on different points belonging to the Romish controversy.”48

5. Thomas Harrison, 1555 - 1631: Dr. Harrison was the Vice-Master of Trinity College. He was a fervent Puritan. Dr. Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the King James translation due to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact, his ability served him well in his duties as Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge.

a. “On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought to be public professors of these languages.”49

6. Roger Andrews, 15?? - 16??: Dr. Andrews was the brother of Bishop Lancelot Andrews. He was fellow of Pembroke Hall; prebendary, archdeacon and chancellor of Chichester and Southwell, 1606-07; prebendary of Ely and afterwards Doctor of Divinity, and then Master of Jesus College, 1618.

7. Robert Spalding, 15?? - 16??: Dr. Spaulding was fellow of St. John’s College and Regius Professor of Hebrew, in Cambridge, 1605.

8. Andrew Byng, 1574 - 1652: Dr. Byng was fellow of Peterhouse and then Regius Professor of Hebrew, in Cambridge in 1608, after Dr. Spalding. He was also Archdeacon of Norwich.

 

[RLT63]

I said there was no command for "Christians" to observe a Sabbath.....that was the Law for Israel....under the old covenant.
Gentiles were not bound by the old covenant.

Jesus did have a body where people could see and recognize him...and even touch him....but not always. He was a spirit who materialized a body of flesh to communicate with his disciples.

Who dwells in heaven? Are they not all spirits? The Bible says that God is an invisible spirit....it says that angels are spirits, and yet they materialized as humans to convey their messages to God's earthly servants.
Gabriel appeared to Daniel as an "able bodied man" and also to Mary when bringing God's message concerning Jesus' birth.

Are you another one who shirks research? What have you got to lose except the mistranslations and misinformation that you accept as truth?

Luk 24:39 - “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” ///// Jesus himself said he wasn’t a spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Wow.....just wow!.....its not retreating into "foreign languages"...its the languages in which the original texts were written.....I can't believe you said that.

Believe it. I cannot believe there are so many people who hold their knowledge of foreign languages as superior to translators.

How can it be bunk? Just because it disagrees with what you want to believe?

What I wrote was wrong. I meant to support the NWT along the lines I presented. And I corrected my mistake in the post.

The claim was because NWT uses egg but the KJB uses mallow is evidence the NWT is corrupt. I showed that many translations use egg, proving this verse does NOT support the claim that the NWT is corrupt. I called the claim that the NWT is corrupt is bunk.

 

[RLT63]

Believe it. I cannot believe there are so many people who hold their knowledge of foreign languages as superior to translators.


What I wrote was wrong. I meant to support the NWT along the lines I presented. And I corrected my mistake in the post.

The claim was because NWT uses egg but the KJB uses mallow is evidence the NWT is corrupt. I showed that many translations use egg, proving this verse does NOT support the claim that the NWT is corrupt. I called the claim that the NWT is corrupt is bunk.

But the KJV uses egg. Job 6:6 - Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?