 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
quote:
They have the same Bible, and have made a translation that they feel better reflects the doctrine of the original texts. They use many translations besides their own. |
that's what I said, but now you formulate it the way they would do. Still no difference though. |
Actually, you said:
quote:
They have another bible, ours is corupted. |
"Corrupted" would imply something is wrong with the foundation, that the heart of the message has been lost or twisted. For example, Muslims believe, among other things, that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who Abraham almost sacrificed, and that the Bible was corrupted to favor the descendants of Isaac by changing this story. OTOH, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society thinks that modern literal translations are eminently usable, and often valuable for presenting verses with alternate translations. The WTBTS uses the KJV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, Douay, and others in its literature, which they would not do if they felt the translations were in some way "corrupt".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
oh well, that's true.
But they say it's corrupted though at some parts. Most of the time essential parts about the devinity of Jesus. |
If by "they" you mean Jehovah's Witnesses, and by "it" you mean the Bible, you could not be more incorrect. The JWs think absolutely no part of the Bible is corrupted. Perhaps you could clarify your pronouns here?
quote:
but you're right that they match most of the time more or less. |
Who/what is supposedly matching whom/what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:23
|
|
One-Brown, are you trying to turn this into a word-game?
I already explained that the JW say our bible is corrupted, we proceeded on that topic, thus in this case I say that the JW think that our version of the bible is corrupted on some parts.
You talk like a JW, you're sure you're not one of them?
quote:
Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible. |
The bible can only be interpreted in one way on the main-issue. On less important issues there are more interpretations possible, as long as you keep in mind that the bible is not a moral-book that teaches morals, and says you should not discuss minor things.
If you disagree that the bible can only be interpreted in one way, you contradict yourself, since you claim in that case that the bible can be interpreted in many ways, which should include my way in that case, so you can't disagree with me.
Conclusion: any "The bible can be interpreted in many ways" opinion is bollocks since it most of the time it means "all interpretations are valid exept yours since yours doesn't agree with mine and is invalid for that reason"
anyway, the authors of the bible had a message,
and people who have a message most of the time want to be clear on it, and they mean something. It's not as if later you can get all kinds of ideas out of it.
but, like I said before, on minor important items there can be a discussion.
anyway, you guys can now trow in the usual funda flame stuff, mostly because you can't read, and you can't look past your own superior and only valid opion. (that accepts all other opinions except opinions that disagree with your opinion which makes your own opinion invalid but you don't understand that)
geeeeez, I'm having a cute end of the day 
writing down all those words
I hope you have fun reading them. There's a message in it though, and it's not supposed to be interpreted in many ways. thought I should share that 
CS
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Then millions have died fighting because they had disagreements on "minor" issues in the Bible. That's even more pathetic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
One-Brown, are you trying to turn this into a word-game?
I already explained that the JW say our bible is corrupted, we proceeded on that topic, thus in this case I say that the JW think that our version of the bible is corrupted on some parts. |
I assume the mistake in my handle was a typo?
No, they think that many English translations are biased, not that the Bible is corrupt. "Corrupt" would mean the current Hebrew/Greek text is unreliable. The WTBTS teaches that the Hebrew/Greek copies are very reliable. They also think that the best understandings of this text do not support Trinitarian doctrine.
BTW, they do not deny Jesus was divine, they just don't say he is (a part of) God.
quote:
You talk like a JW, you're sure you're not one of them? |
Quite sure. I stidied for five years, but was never baptized. I've been discussing them on the Internet for about five years, as well.
quote:
quote:
Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible. |
The bible can only be interpreted in one way on the main-issue. On less important issues there are more interpretations possible, as long as you keep in mind that the bible is not a moral-book that teaches morals, and says you should not discuss minor things. |
I have heard many people say this. Interestingly enough, they often disagreed on what the "main issue" actually is.
Last edited by One_Brow on 06-11-2002 at 18:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Then millions have died fighting because they had disagreements on "minor" issues in the Bible. That's even more pathetic. |
Yes, it is. Of course, people have dies for even more petty reasons.
Here' something you'll like: No JW has ever killed a person in a religious dispute or for a religious reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Not to get off topic, but I'd just like to point out that centuries ago, the Catholic church had a committee that deleted, added, and modified verses in the Bible so that it matched that the Catholic church was teaching at the team.
Thus, the Bible is 'corrupted' in that sense. I don't know if JW considers it corrupted or not, but anywho. |
There were a couple of councils that focussed on books and languages (particularly in the 4th and 15th centuries), but generally not on individual verses. For example, some part of Daniel were rejected in the 4th century council because they were not present in the contemporary Hebrew manuscripts, and the entirety of the Sheprad of Hermeas (?) was rejected.
Occasional verses were added over the years as marginal notes or or other individual copyist interpolations, but generally not by the decree of some council.
JWs feel the scholarly texts (in particular, the Nestle-Aland Greek text) are extrememly highly reliable.
quote:
On the other hand, let me just tell you how impressed I am with the respect you give to someone else's religion. Must be nice to hide behind a keyboard. |
This is only the desreved wrath that traditional theocracies must pour upon new groups that dare disagree with their traditions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
I assume the mistake in my handle was a typo? |
It was. I'm sorry.
quote:
No, they think that many English translations are biased, not that the Bible is corrupt. "Corrupt" would mean the current Hebrew/Greek text is unreliable. The WTBTS teaches that the Hebrew/Greek copies are very reliable. |
ok. I agree on that. BTW, not only the english version is biased, so is the dutch one. (according to the dutch JW's)
quote:
They also think that the best understandings of this text do not support Trinitarian doctrine. |
quote:
BTW, they do not deny Jesus was divine, they just don't say he is (a part of) God. |
The Trinitarian dogma can't be found in the bible.
It can be found that Jesus = God though.
And they claim that everybody is divine, in the same way as Jesus. And that Jesus didn't raise from the death. And, but I'm not sure about that, there's according to the JW's salvation without Jesus.
quote:
I have heard many people say this. Interestingly enough, they often disagreed on what the "main issue" actually is. |
Yes, but the bible is clear on it.
Few examples:
- baptising is not. (according to Paul we shouldn't waste our time debating over it)
- Jesus is risen from the death is. (Paul states that if Jesus was not risen from death our faith is a waste of time)
- If you can eat meat is not.
- if you keep sacret days is not.
- if you believe Jesus is the son of God, our salvator is. (according to the letters of John)
if you disagree with these things, you do either not take the bible literal, or you don't know the bible.
Of course you're still allowed to disagree, but then don't claim you base your opinion on the bible. Or at least not on the literal interpretation of the bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] quote:
They also think that the best understandings of this text do not support Trinitarian doctrine. BTW, they do not deny Jesus was divine, they just don't say he is (a part of) God. |
The Trinitarian dogma can't be found in the bible. |
Some would disagree, but not JWs.
quote:
It can be found that Jesus = God though. |
It can certainly be found that Jesus was called a god, which is also true of angels and men. He is never called the God.
quote:
And they claim that everybody is divine, in the same way as Jesus. |
You must be thinking of another group (Mormon?). JWs accept that Jesus is the only being directly created by God, and that Jesus created all other things himself. That definately makes Jesus more divine than other humans.
quote:
And that Jesus didn't raise from the death. |
They teach that Jesus' raising was to the same form as his pre-earthly existence. His physical body was not raised, but Jesus was.
quote:
And, but I'm not sure about that, there's according to the JW's salvation without Jesus. |
Yes and no. JWs are semi-universalists, in that they believe anyone who died without an accurate klnowledge of the truth will be resurected (technically, in the second, earthly resurrection). Those who rejected the truth will not be resurrected.
quote:
quote:
I have heard many people say this. Interestingly enough, they often disagreed on what the "main issue" actually is. |
Yes, but the bible is clear on it.
Few examples:
- baptising is not. (according to Paul we shouldn't waste our time debating over it)
- Jesus is risen from the death is. (Paul states that if Jesus was not risen from death our faith is a waste of time)
- If you can eat meat is not.
- if you keep sacret days is not.
- if you believe Jesus is the son of God, our salvator is. (according to the letters of John)
if you disagree with these things, you do either not take the bible literal, or you don't know the bible.
Of course you're still allowed to disagree, but then don't claim you base your opinion on the bible. Or at least not on the literal interpretation of the bible. |
I think you and the JWs would agree on all of these.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plan Austral
This confuses me, can you explain this a little bit more, or provide me with a link to a site explaining this? |
You didn't specify what, in particular, confused you. If you can be more specific, I'll be gald to help.
The WTBTS has a website, www.watchtower.org. You might also find the answers you wnat there.
Of course, there is alt.religion.jehovahs-witn in UseNet. There are more anti-JWs there than JWs, but you can still get some questions answered, usually.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
Plan Austral,
I'm not inclined to describe the central concept of the Trinity (beyond the "three beings in one God", there is little that all Trinitarians believe about it anyhow), but I'll help understand why the JWs don't se proof for it
The term "god" in the Bible is used of many beings that have positions of power and importance, including Moses (Ex. 7:1), the angels (Ps. 8:5, see reference in Heb 1), and some men as a group (Ps. 82:6, see reference in John 10:33). So, Scripture calling Jesus a "god" is simply referring to Jesus as a being of power and authority. This concept often eludes people who have been raised with the notion that all gods are either the One True God or false gods, a notion absent from the Bible.
Further, there aren't any verses that say Jesus is equal to/superior to the Father in nature or rank, and many that say he is inferior. For example, Jesus' nature is called a representaion of God's nature. Jesus' will is subordinate tot he Father's will.
Basically, the JWs see no indications of an equality between Jesus and the Father, so they posit there is none.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm not going to focus on the things I agree with.
If I don't react on someone you said, that means I agree on it. |
OK
quote:
quote:
It can certainly be found that Jesus was called a god, which is also true of angels and men. He is never called the God. |
He is called God by Thomas. |
Thomas says, "the lord of me and the god of me". This means Thomas accepts Jesus as Thomas' ruler (lord), and that Thomas acknowldges Jesus legitimate authority and power (god). There is no identification with the One True God here.
quote:
Eventhough there are more bibletexts in which He is called God (or indirectly called God, by naming Him a name that's only given to (the) God in the Old Testament)
but this one is the most clear one. |
Simply calling Jesus a god, or assigning him characteristics of a divine being, is not proof that Jesus is the God, any more than it is proof for Moses, the angels, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Thomas says, "the lord of me and the god of me". This means Thomas accepts Jesus as Thomas' ruler (lord), and that Thomas acknowldges Jesus legitimate authority and power (god). There is no identification with the One True God here. |
Thomas uses the same word for 'God' as used for 'God the creator' (or in their case, 'God the creator of Jesus')
Thus not the word as used for angels and all that.
quote:
Simply calling Jesus a god, or assigning him characteristics of a divine being, is not proof that Jesus is the God, any more than it is proof for Moses, the angels, etc. |
same here, these characteristics are applied to 'God the creator' in the old testament, and ONLY to Him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
quote:
Thomas says, "the lord of me and the god of me". This means Thomas accepts Jesus as Thomas' ruler (lord), and that Thomas acknowldges Jesus legitimate authority and power (god). There is no identification with the One True God here. |
Thomas uses the same word for 'God' as used for 'God the creator' (or in their case, 'God the creator of Jesus')
Thus not the word as used for angels and all that. |
Thomas used the word "theos", which does not specifically refer to angels, nor specifically to the One True God. It is a word that can be used of any being of relative authority or might to the speaker. The One True God is the pinnacle of godliness, but not the only god around (in the biblical usage of the term).
quote:
quote:
Simply calling Jesus a god, or assigning him characteristics of a divine being, is not proof that Jesus is the God, any more than it is proof for Moses, the angels, etc. |
same here, these characteristics are applied to 'God the creator' in the old testament, and ONLY to Him. |
You mean, the characteristics of a divine being? They are assigned to many creature, such as angels, in addition to God.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E
You sure have fallen for some of the JW teachings one_brow...  |
I fugure if your going to fall for superstitious nonsense, you at least ought to adapt what you believe to the Scruipture, rather than the other way around. The JWs adapt what they believe to Scripture.
quote:
He calls himself JAHVE. Are you gonna make me give you scriptures?? If you had read threads on this here at Apolyton I wouldn't have to. Whenever new ppl comes in this has to be done again and again....  |
[I'll take a look.]
I just finished that look, using a search on "Jehovah's" in both the Off-topic and Off-topic archive. Nothing discussing doctrine besides this thread. Perhaps yoyu can make a recommendation?
Meanwhile, I find it fascinating that you think 1) you have some obvious Scripture that I missed in five years of discussion on this topic, and 2) that you seem to feel you can find the name "Yehowah", or some equivalent, in the NT.
Bored? Sure, the arguments don't change much, but people always bring their own special form of arrogance into these discussions, which alleviates boredom for me.
quote:
I studied with JW too, for a much shorter while than you - with a deacon and an elder. They wanted me to go thru a certain book with them - I knew to stop then. Being a spiritual person I sensed something was wrong... Ppl with no spiritual/christian background can easily be duped, one-brow... |
People with a spiritual/christian background seem to be as easily duped, if not more so.
However, your second-to-last sentence sounds an awful lot like "they weren't spiritual in a manner that I found comfortable".
Last edited by One_Brow on 08-11-2002 at 00:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by One_Brow
I fugure if your going to fall for superstitious nonsense, you at least ought to adapt what you believe to the Scruipture, rather than the other way around. The JWs adapt what they believe to Scripture. |
The JWs imho use logic and human understanding to understand the bible. They don't let the Holy Spirit guide them and help them interpret imho.
quote:
[I'll take a look.]
I just finished that look, using a search on "Jehovah's" in both the Off-topic and Off-topic archive. Nothing discussing doctrine besides this thread. Perhaps yoyu can make a recommendation? |
I wrote Jahve and you searched for Jehova... Don't bother searching - we'll repreat here.
quote:
Meanwhile, I find it fascinating that you think 1) you have some obvious Scripture that I missed in five years of discussion on this topic, and 2) that you seem to feel you can find the name "Yehowah", or some equivalent, in the NT. |
YHWH.
Fascinating that you conclude before I have given the scripture?
And you talk about arrogance? You're the most self-pompous, arrogant person I've discussed with on Apolyton. And that says a lot since I haven't seen you around before.
Just look at the way you handled Cybershy's typo. Talk about self-conscious and touchy. Full of it.
quote:
Bored? Sure, the arguments don't change much, but people always bring their own special form of arrogance into these discussions, which alleviates boredom for me. |
Arrogance?? Already answered that Mr. Touchy.
quote:
People with a spiritual/christian background seem to be as easily duped, if not more so. |
I'm sure you wanna believe that.
quote:
However, your second-to-last sentence sounds an awful lot like "they weren't spiritual in a manner that I found comfortable". |
That's not what I meant. I was very comfortable with them. Even pointed out a mistake in their own translation - NT Greek. It was dismissed as "a minor detail" by the elder.
John 8: 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E
The JWs imho use logic and human understanding to understand the bible. They don't let the Holy Spirit guide them and help them interpret imho. |
In their opinion, they are being guided by Holy Spirit.
quote:
I wrote Jahve and you searched for Jehova... Don't bother searching - we'll repreat here. |
Just for thoroughness, I check the Off-Topic and Off-Topic archive for "Jahve". Outside of this thread, no hits.
So, I look forward to your example of Yahoweh in the NT, when you have the time. That is, assuming you didn't think this was actually the first time I had seen John 8:58 in five years, and that is what you meant.
quote:
quote:
Meanwhile, I find it fascinating that you think 1) you have some obvious Scripture that I missed in five years of discussion on this topic, and 2) that you seem to feel you can find the name "Yehowah", or some equivalent, in the NT. |
YHWH. |
Tomaito, tomahto.
quote:
Fascinating that you conclude before I have given the scripture?
And you talk about arrogance? You're the most self-pompous, arrogant person I've discussed with on Apolyton. And that says a lot since I haven't seen you around before. |
Quite possibly guilty of arrogance as charaged. Yes, after five years discussion on the web, plus reading quite a few JW and anti-Jw books before that, I think I've seen pretty much every argument the Trinitarians use to bolster their doctrine
quote:
Just look at the way you handled Cybershy's typo. Talk about self-conscious and touchy. Full of it. |
Yes, I do get touchy about that. Since I have been called Anus Brown more times and by more people than I care to count, that particular typo did indeed rasie a hackle, in a way that, for example, Browy would not. I am not ashamed of my sensitivity, since I have been One Brow to some people for over half of my life.
quote:
Arrogance?? Already answered that Mr. Touchy. |
that I am arrogant does not make me incorrect.
quote:
[q]People with a spiritual/christian background seem to be as easily duped, if not more so.[q]
I'm sure you wanna believe that. |
Actually, I don't *want* to believe it, and never did *want* to believe it.
quote:
That's not what I meant. I was very comfortable with them. Even pointed out a mistake in their own translation - NT Greek. It was dismissed as "a minor detail" by the elder.
John 8: 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." |
For those not in the know, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society uses the phrase "I have been" instead of "I am".
Is this supposed to be the mistake? If so, then you were wrong. If this suppose to be the existence of the Divine Name? You are wrong again.
I can approach this any number of ways. We can discuss the context of the passage, in which Jesus is comparing his age to Abraham's age. We can discuss the passage in Exodus 3:14, which no Jew of that era would take to mean "I am", not too mention that the Divine name does not even appear in 3:14. We can discuss a variety of Trinitarian translations (a partial list includes Goodspeed and the Living Bible) that do not use "I am." We can discuss how the general use of the "I am" phrases is to show Jesus is the Messiah, not God. Any of of the above is enough to show that John 8:58 offers no support for Trinitarian dogma.
Well, I'll be gone all weekend, so take your time in getting your research together and gathering up your arguments. If you take this to a new thread, please email me so I'll see it on Monday. Have a great weekend.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2002 02:58
Perhaps they have been warned 
They apparently liked it very much when I answered "God's government" when they asked what God's rule is... They were shocked when I turned them down...
|
|