go to newadvent.org write down your basic beliefs and try to find them there. The early Church Fathers were taught by the Apostles. If you can not find what you believe there, then you do not hold to Historiacl Christianity and thus you are lost in your sins --- likely because you have a false Jesus.
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We do not believe in three gods 1+1+1. We believe in one G_d with 3 persons. Correct math is 1^3=1 or 1x1x1=1 It is very dishondest to misrepresent what we really believe.
25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.
27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
More nuanced?
I can say I will get my wife another cup of coffee. That's different than somone else actually did. See the difference?
It was Scoutland Yard, NWT was/ is a poor translation and Watchtower false prophecy.
PUSUERS PROOF OF DOUGLAS WALSH VS. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JAMES. LATHAM
Mr. Franz, under oath in a trial in Scotland, was asked: (Walsh Trial, P. 7).
Scottish Court of Sessions in November, 1954.
(Q): I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew ....
(A). Yes.
The next day, he was put to the test. Could he really follow the Bible in Hebrew? Franz was asked to translate a simple Bible text at Genesis 2:4:6
(Q): I think we come to the name Jehovah in the forth verse, don't we, of the second chapter of Genesis ... [page 34]
(A). Yes.
(Q): You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
(Remember, Franz had admitted to this the previous day)
(A): I do not speak Hebrew.
(The examiner was surprised to hear this)
(Q): You do not!
(A). No.
Q): Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
(A): Which?
(Q): That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?
(A): You mean here?
(Q). Yes?
(A): No, I won't attempt to do that.
What Franz "wouldn't attempt" to translate into Hebrew is what many have said as a simple exercise an average first or second-year Hebrew student in seminary would be able to do. Franz could neither speak Hebrew nor translate the English to Hebrew. The President of the Watchtower allowed Jehovah's Witnesses to believe he is a Bible scholar having an education in Biblical languages. The facts show otherwise. He is not a scholar. In fact, there is not one Bible scholar among the Watchtower leaders. There couldn’t be one in good conscience because of their theology and what they have done in their translation.
The text in question, I learned in first grade to translate it.
The 1954 Douglas Walsh Transcript--PDF!
the douglas walsh trial 1954. the watchtower under oath. exposing the watchtower dictatorship over jehovah's witnesses. most of the researchers here need no introduction as to the "exposing" testimony recorded within this 762 page court transcript.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Sure you do. And you don't get math. The identity is 3 x 1, which does not equal 1. Fortunately, Scripture is explicit on the matter. There is only "God the Father" and this is unmistakenly in every Epistle. The reason there is no other God (such as, "God the HS" or "God The Son) is because there is no other God.
This is what Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies, says: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God except me.
Is 44:6 (REV)
just follow the links to learn what Scholars really wrote or said. Many were misquoted by the Watchtower in support of the NWT.
The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar (An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here) |
July 11, 1974 Dear Sirs: I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar. (1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris. (2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering. (3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." (4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them. (5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10) The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule." On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences. Regretfully yours, Julius R. Mantey |
Dr. Julius R. Mantey Q & A
On the NWT and John 1:1
(an excerpt from The Scholarly Dishonesty of the Watchtower ©1976 by Michael Van Buskirk)
On the NWT and John 1:1
(an excerpt from The Scholarly Dishonesty of the Watchtower ©1976 by Michael Van Buskirk)
Question: Are you accurately quoted and in context on what you were giving grammar rules and examples on?
Answer: No. I am not accurately quoted, and in the context I am quoted only in part. Where they quote me, I was writing about the subject of the sentence which happens to be "the Word." I was bringing out the fact that if there are two nouns in a copulative sentence - a copulative sentence is one what is joined together by the verb "to be" in some form or other. I was writing on the use of the article to showing which noun was the subject of the sentence and since there was an article in from of "Word," it naturally, according to grammatical rules, was the subject. "The Word was deity." One reason I put "deity" instead of "God" was due to the fact that Jesus was also God in the sense that He was one of the Trinity and especially in view of the fact that quality or nature is expressed by the absence of the article, providing the predicate noun precedes the verb of the sentence (and it does in this case) because Theos in that sentence is before the word en (was). They took the sentence that I had given and the example that I had given of how the article indicated which the subject was of a sentence from Xenophon and they jumped on the predicate. I wasn't writing about the predicate. They quoted the predicate "the placed was a market." The article went before "the place," and there was no article before "market." It could be, in that case, "a market" instead of "the market." So I translated it that way. But to bring out the fact that the idea of nature or essence was implied in this sentence, I translated it "deity." "The Word was deity." That was a development beyond what some grammarians had arrived at at the time. They didn't seem to be very clear on how an anarthrous noun, or noun without the article in front of it, could be used to express the idea of nature or essence, characteristics, etc. I was aware of it and of the teachings of Robertson, by the way; so I interpreted it that way, and, I think, that is one reason they quoted me. I wasn't saying that God and Jesus were one and the same person; I was saying that they were both of the divine family, namely God.
Question: Please give any and all recommendations as both a Greek scholar and theologian on the two translations under consideration [NWT Hebrew Scriptures and NWT Christian Greek Scriptures]:
Answer: Well, there are many things that are good in their translations. I would say that since there is such a big field and the Scriptures cover so many things, that they have no objection to, they accept those passages of Scripture. When Scripture runs counter to their particular beliefs, they try to change the Scripture so they will appear to have divine authority for their viewpoint. This is the most disturbing thing about it all.
Signed by Julius R. Mantey, dated and notarized August 2, 1974
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Every translation with a god was done by a Greek scholar. One who doesn't know Greek couldn't possibly translate from Greek except the JW bible. Gods holy spirit directed those.
In 1822 Abner Kneeland( Greek scholar) translated the NT with a god at John 1:1, not only that, he compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is 100% correct at John 1:1.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
These believe-Matt 7:21-23--Yet Jesus will condemn them at judgement with those words.--So certain bible teachings are partial truths.
I just showed you fact. Gods name belongs in verse 13 at Romans and Acts 2:21 not lord. Its why those are mislead and will lose--they do not know God.
I could say the same about every translation that renders John 1:1 as "God" without the "a." Which is far and away the majority of them.
Kneland hasn't proven it to my satisfaction. (Take a look at my posts 1,100 and 1,102 to see why.)
In case he is somehow your go-to guy on matters theological, I'll close with a quote from Kneeland, from the attached article:
"1. Universalists believe in a god which I do not; but believe that their god ... is nothing more than a chimera of their own imagination.
2. Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not; but believe that the whole story concerning him is as much a fable and fiction as that of the god Prometheus....
3. Universalists believe in miracles, which I do not; but believe that every pretension to them is to be attributed to mere trick and imposture.
4. Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead, immortality, and eternal life, which I do not; but believe that all life is material, that death is an eternal extinction of life."
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
This is good Learner!...why are you not applying it with our discussions?
14 Principles for Studying the Bible
How can you dig deeper into God’s Word? Understand it better? Apply it well? Keep these fourteen foundational Bible study principles in mind when you read.www.crossway.org
F2F
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Appeal to Majority.
In criminal cases, you only have to prove beyond "reasonable" doubt." No system of justice requires proof beyond ALL doubt, including unreasonable Redfan doubt.
Let me ask you this. How can anything be X and with X at the same time? What are the possible list of answers?
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Fair question.
No physical X could ever satisfy these two descriptions simultaneously. Fortunately, John 1:1 is describing a state of affairs "In the beginning," i.e., before anything physical had been created. So we are dealing with a purely spiritual scenario, where "with" doesn't connote physical presence or proximity. With that preamble:
The Logos -- think "knowledge" or "reason" rather than a verbalized utterance here -- can be "with" God in the sense of a distinct spiritual aspect of God that is inseparable from what God is. The "Love" of God, likewise inseparable from what God is, can be thought of in the same way, a distinct spiritual aspect of the Deity that we can identify as such and being "with" God without denying that God is Love. (I could try this with "Light" too, but that's a bit too physical, so I will leave that one aside)
I followed your link, I alread posted the Greek Schoolars which disproves the unitarian mistransaltion of John 1:1c. Concentrate on the "Predicate Nominative" which NWT so-called translators do not understand. I also, posted the court case where the lead translator was unable or unwilling to handle a verse, I learned how to handle in first grade. A lot of the quotes are misquotes in "Should you believe in the Trinity" which is full of dishonestly and misquotes way out of context. Do I really need to post the EArly Church Fathers who believed in the Trinity again? They were taught by the Apostles themselves. Your statements are laughable...
THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS. The first task of the translator faced with this clause is to determine the subject. In most sentences or clauses (such as John 1:1b), the noun in the nominative case is the subject. The noun in the accusative case is the direct object. However, in Greek, "copulative" verbs (generally a form of "to be" or "to become") take the nominative case, not the accusative. Technically, a copulative verb does not ascribe an action, but predicates something about the subject. The "object" of a copulative verb, therefore, is called the "Predicate Nominative (PN)," not the direct object. As we have seen, ÊN is a form of the verb "to be." Therefore, both THEOS and LOGOS are in the nominative case - one is the subject and the other the PN. In such cases, if one noun has the article and the other does not, the noun with the article is the subject (see Dana and Mantey, p. 148; McGaughy, p. 50; etc.). Thus, hO LOGOS is the subject of the sentence; THEOS is the PN. "The Word was God," not "God was the Word." While the latter is not impossible from the standpoint of pure grammar, McGaughy's study makes it highly unlikely.
So, John is telling us something about the LOGOS - that He is THEOS. The $64,000 question, then, is what does John mean by this? Since THEOS is anarthrous, does he mean that the Word was "a god" (indefinite)? Or does he mean that the Word is God (definite)? Or does he mean that the Word has all the qualities and attributes of God (qualitative)? To answer this essential question, we will need to review how several prominent grammarians have viewed this issue.
It is worse than that. They interfere with families, support the United Nations, and discourage college education. I would like to discuss greek grammar, but the trinity dogma is off limits. Is it?
I am not sure. Here is where it is in the https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical Basis Trinity Bowman.pdf
I think the problem may have been name calling and poorly treating others.
Similar threads
