Jehovah's Witnesses Knocked on My Door

[Muffled]

Please quote what parts of scripture you believe have been deleted in the NWT. What was there in the first place that did not require adding an article for clarification?

I believe the "a" God in John 1 is an addition that does not clarify but deceives since the context doesn't agree with it.

 

[Muffled]

Blu 2,
You are a wise man!!!
Many people do not know that translation involves more than just translating words. If a translator does not understand what the purpose of God is, it is very easy to translate a word wrong. Just like in English, some words have many meanings, so, if you do not know what God’s purpose, or true message is, you can mistranslated a Scripture, even though the translation might be technically correct. There is also the problem of many versions, different manuscripts, that say something a little different, but when put together give the same truth. There are many variant Scriptures, some Bibles even mention in a foot note, about these, and list them, between chapters in the Bible, such as the Byington Version, The Bible in Living English.
There have been many Bible Scholars who have rated The New World Translation, highly. I myself do not like it!

I believe that explains a lot because any JW I have known doesn't know what God's purpose is.

 

[Muffled]

On the one hand I agree that the precise range, denotative and connotative, of an ancient word (in any language) can sometimes be hard to pin down, but just as with other words, we have to rely on the best opinions of the most objective scholarship (and not whatever suits our personal politics).

On the other, I disagree about 'understanding what the purpose of God is'. The central thing we're concerned with when we translate ancient texts is what they actually say.

When we nail that, others may have views on the correctness of the theology, but that's not important. Only the words of the document are relevant to the document.

[/QUOTE]

I believe it is well known that many languages determine the meaning of words from the context.

I believe a great study as a case in point is the word paracletos (Greek). That is sometimes translated Holy Spirit and sometimes counselor and sometimes comforter but the real meaning is possessor. However that word has a bad connotation as in demons doing it so it probably will never be used.

 

[Deeje]

I believe the "a" God in John 1 is an addition that does not clarify but deceives since the context doesn't agree with it.

That wouldn't be because you are a trinitarian by any chance?

18 verses later we read...."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:18 NASB)

Jesus cannot be God because "no one has seen God at any time".....he is described as "the only begotten God" in this verse. Is God "begotten"? If so, who begat him?

The KJV tries to dodge this problem by translating "theos" in this verse as "Son". But if you translate "theos" as "Son" in verse 18, then you have to translate "Son" in verse 1 as well. It would then read "In the beginning was the word....and the Word was the Son".

Someone is fiddling with scripture but I don't see that its the NWT.

 

[blü 2]

I believe a great study as a case in point is the word paracletos (Greek). That is sometimes translated Holy Spirit and sometimes counselor and sometimes comforter but the real meaning is possessor. However that word has a bad connotation as in demons doing it so it probably will never be used.

καλέω is 'I call', παρακαλέω is 'I call out to', 'summon', and can have the sense 'call for help to', and παράκλητος (parakletos, whence 'paraclete') is someone summoned, with the sense, called to help, which closely paralleled into Latin becomes 'advocatus' (someone called to you, again in the sense 'called to help') and in English 'advocate'.

παράκλητος, translated as 'advocate' in KJV and RSV, is used as a title of Jesus in I John 2:1.

Said of the Holy Ghost in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:7, KJV translates it as 'Comforter', RSV as 'counselor'.

I can't find any basis for translating παράκλητος as 'possessor'.

 

[Muffled]

That wouldn't be because you are a trinitarian by any chance?

18 verses later we read...."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:18 NASB)

Jesus cannot be God because "no one has seen God at any time".....he is described as "the only begotten God" in this verse. Is God "begotten"? If so, who begat him?

The KJV tries to dodge this problem by translating "theos" in this verse as "Son". But if you translate "theos" as "Son" in verse 18, then you have to translate "Son" in verse 1 as well. It would then read "In the beginning was the word....and the Word was the Son".

Someone is fiddling with scripture but I don't see that its the NWT.

I believe I am not a Trinitarian by chance but by evidence and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The interpretation is valid because it is supported by context. The "a" interpretation is not supported by context.

I believe this is a non-sequitur. One does not determine if Jesus is God by looking at Jesus. You have made a false assumption that you can.

I believe He is in Jesus.

I believe that would be Mary.

I can see if "theos" can only be translated as God, that it isn't a literal translation but an extrapolation coming from the word begotten which most theologians would not attribute to God since it causes confusion since God has no origen.

 

[Muffled]

καλέω is 'I call', παρακαλέω is 'I call out to', 'summon', and can have the sense 'call for help to', and παράκλητος (parakletos, whence 'paraclete') is someone summoned, with the sense, called to help, which closely paralleled into Latin becomes 'advocatus' (someone called to you, again in the sense 'called to help') and in English 'advocate'.

παράκλητος, translated as 'advocate' in KJV and RSV, is used as a title of Jesus in I John 2:1.

Said of the Holy Ghost in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:7, KJV translates it as 'Comforter', RSV as 'counselor'.

I can't find any basis for translating παράκλητος as 'possessor'.

I believe the fact that I am not a Greek scholar means that i do not know all the possible meanings for the word "paraclete" but I can see how He would be called upon or as we more commonly refer to as accepted.

 

[Deeje]

I believe I am not a Trinitarian by chance but by evidence and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The interpretation is valid because it is supported by context. The "a" interpretation is not supported by context.

Since neither Jesus nor any of his apostles were 'trinitarians', I believe that the whole notion of a triune god was a work of the devil, introduced into an already apostate church long after the death of Christ and his apostles, in an attempt to get "Christians" to unwittingly break the first commandment. This puts them at odds with the Father. (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 6:4) You are putting someone else in the place of the Father, whom Jesus described as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)

I believe this is a non-sequitur. One does not determine if Jesus is God by looking at Jesus. You have made a false assumption that you can.

There is no declaration in all of scripture where Jesus ever calls himself, "God". The only descriptor he uses for himself is the "Son of God". (John 10:31-36) In John 17:3 Jesus said in prayer to his Father..."This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

There is no mention of the supposedly equal third person of the trinity, so do we assume that this one is not worth knowing? Or is it that the holy spirit is not a person but rather an impersonal force activated by the Father to express and manifest his will and power?

If you believe that Jesus was "equally man and equally God" then John 1:18 makes no sense.

I believe He is in Jesus.

Begotten means what? In connection with Jesus "only begotten" is from the Greek "monogenes" and it has the meaning elsewhere in scripture of an "only child". There is nothing special about the term when applied to Jesus. Since there are other "sons of God" spoken of in the Bible, how is Jesus an "only child"? He had a progenitor, a Father who caused his existence. He is in fact the very first of God's creations according to Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:15-17. He was used by his Father to create all other things. He is not God but a creation of God. Being "the firstborn of all creation" Jesus is unique in that he is the only direct creation of the Father....all else came into existence through the Son.

I believe that would be Mary.

Mary had nothing to do with Jesus' conception. Her role was as a human incubator and nurturer of the developing embryo. Jesus' life was transferred to her womb and she 'housed' him until his birth, then she and Joseph raised the boy in a devout Jewish household. As one of the first disciples of her Messianic son, Mary has the privilege of ruling alongside him in his Kingdom with all the others who aided Jesus in his role as Messiah. Hers of course was extra special as she and Joseph were God's choice to raise his precious son as a human.

I can see if "theos" can only be translated as God, that it isn't a literal translation but an extrapolation coming from the word begotten which most theologians would not attribute to God since it causes confusion since God has no origen.

Understanding that in the Greek language there is no word for the only God of Judaism or Christianity.....(as they were polytheists and collectively referred to their deities as "the gods"), unless the god had a name, there was no way to distinguish him. In order to solve that problem, they used the definite article (the) for the "one God" of the Jews.

Before Jesus came to the earth, the Jews had stopped using God's personal name YHWH. So in order to distinguish him they simply used the definite article and called him "the God". But because there was no indefinite article in Greek, ("a" or "an") every other reference without the definite article could be considered to have an "a" or an "an" preceding it. The Bible is full of these because without them, English makes no sense. Translators put them there at their own discretion. So if you read John 1:1 in Greek, the definite article is used only once with reference to the father, but not in reference to the Word. Jesus was the Word who became flesh but he was NOT "The God", although he was divine and he was "with God"....but he was "a god" because he was not the Almighty, YHWH.

"Theos" simply means "a divine mighty one" and there is no doubt that Jesus fits that description.

If you understand what the Bible teaches about both the Father and the Son, there can be no confusion. The truth does not cause confusion...it clarifies and simplifies everything.

 

[Muffled]

Since neither Jesus nor any of his apostles were 'trinitarians', I believe that the whole notion of a triune god was a work of the devil, introduced into an already apostate church long after the death of Christ and his apostles, in an attempt to get "Christians" to unwittingly break the first commandment. This puts them at odds with the Father. (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 6:4) You are putting someone else in the place of the Father, whom Jesus described as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)



There is no declaration in all of scripture where Jesus ever calls himself, "God". The only descriptor he uses for himself is the "Son of God". (John 10:31-36) In John 17:3 Jesus said in prayer to his Father..."This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

There is no mention of the supposedly equal third person of the trinity, so do we assume that this one is not worth knowing? Or is it that the holy spirit is not a person but rather an impersonal force activated by the Father to express and manifest his will and power?

If you believe that Jesus was "equally man and equally God" then John 1:18 makes no sense.



Begotten means what? In connection with Jesus "only begotten" is from the Greek "monogenes" and it has the meaning elsewhere in scripture of an "only child". There is nothing special about the term when applied to Jesus. Since there are other "sons of God" spoken of in the Bible, how is Jesus an "only child"? He had a progenitor, a Father who caused his existence. He is in fact the very first of God's creations according to Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:15-17. He was used by his Father to create all other things. He is not God but a creation of God. Being "the firstborn of all creation" Jesus is unique in that he is the only direct creation of the Father....all else came into existence through the Son.



Mary had nothing to do with Jesus' conception. Her role was as a human incubator and nurturer of the developing embryo. Jesus' life was transferred to her womb and she 'housed' him until his birth, then she and Joseph raised the boy in a devout Jewish household. As one of the first disciples of her Messianic son, Mary has the privilege of ruling alongside him in his Kingdom with all the others who aided Jesus in his role as Messiah. Hers of course was extra special as she and Joseph were God's choice to raise his precious son as a human.



Understanding that in the Greek language there is no word for the only God of Judaism or Christianity.....(as they were polytheists and collectively referred to their deities as "the gods"), unless the god had a name, there was no way to distinguish him. In order to solve that problem, they used the definite article (the) for the "one God" of the Jews.

Before Jesus came to the earth, the Jews had stopped using God's personal name YHWH. So in order to distinguish him they simply used the definite article and called him "the God". But because there was no indefinite article in Greek, ("a" or "an") every other reference without the definite article could be considered to have an "a" or an "an" preceding it. The Bible is full of these because without them, English makes no sense. Translators put them there at their own discretion. So if you read John 1:1 in Greek, the definite article is used only once with reference to the father, but not in reference to the Word. Jesus was the Word who became flesh but he was NOT "The God", although he was divine and he was "with God"....but he was "a god" because he was not the Almighty, YHWH.

"Theos" simply means "a divine mighty one" and there is no doubt that Jesus fits that description.

If you understand what the Bible teaches about both the Father and the Son, there can be no confusion. The truth does not cause confusion...it clarifies and simplifies everything.

I believe that statement lacks evidence to support it.

I believe that concept is an anti-Christ concept and comes from the devil.

I believe you can't prove that and I have no doubt that it isn't true.

I believe that is a meaningless statement. It is the null hypothesis which you won't be able to prove.

I believe you are incorrect and it means nothing since in this case to be the son of God, Jesus must be God.

I believe this is non-evidential speculation.

I believe it makes perfect sense which shows you don't have any reasons to think so but are just parroting what others say.

 

[Deeje]

I believe that statement lacks evidence to support it.

The scriptures were not written to support a trinity for the simple reason that a triune god does not exist in any part of the Bible. Triune gods saturate pagan religious beliefs but God's people were warned NOT to adopt their beliefs and practices.

The trinity doctrine was introduced by Catholicism over 300 years after Jesus died. The concept was already alive and well in the pagan world. Its origins date back to Nimrod.

This is just creepy to me.

I believe that concept is an anti-Christ concept and comes from the devil.

Why do you believe the trinity? Was it not indoctrinated in the members of all the churches of Christendom?
Catholicism introduced all manner of false teachings and "traditions of men"....the very thing Jesus said that the Pharisees did. (Mark 7:13) Doing so 'invalidated' the word of God, which does NOT teach a trinity at all.

The Jews to this day have NO belief in a triune god.....because that concept was in direct opposition to their monotheism. (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus was Jewish and it was completely missing from his teachings.

I believe you can't prove that and I have no doubt that it isn't true.

When trinitarians pray to God, aren't they praying to Jesus? "The LORD" in Christendom's concept of God is not the Father but a three headed god who somehow has the ability to carry on with a split personality and be in three places at once....with different thoughts and different activities that in some instances, the others do not know. The three, it is claimed, are equal parts of God, but I cannot find a single reference to any of them as being a single entity with three different personalities...there is no "godhead".

There are references to the Father and son that leave the holy spirit out altogether, like John 17:3. Is it not necessary to "know" the holy spirit if 'he' is an equal part of God? When Stephen was being stoned to death, he saw a vision of heaven but only the Father and son were in it. (Acts 7:55-56) Where was the holy spirit at God's left hand? Where will I find any reference to the holy spirit at God's left hand? Acts says that Stephen was "filled with holy spirit", so was it missing in his vision because it can only be in one place at a time? What about Pentecost when all 120 of Jesus disciples were filled with holy spirit? Please explain.....

Scripturally, you have no reference that directly states that Jesus is Almighty God. John 1:1 is simply stating that he is divine.....from God, but not God incarnate. John 1:1 says that the Word was "with God" and that he was "divine" (a god-like one) This is the meaning of "theos" (god) in Greek.
Christendom's main proof text is a lie based on misinterpretation.

I believe that is a meaningless statement. It is the null hypothesis which you won't be able to prove.

Can you show me any scripture where there is a direct statement from Jesus saying that he is God and that we must worship him and pray to him? I can assure you that he directed all prayer and worship only to his Father.

I believe you are incorrect and it means nothing since in this case to be the son of God, Jesus must be God.

If a man is the son of his father, can he be his father? He can be generated by his father, but he can only be 'like him'. (Colossians 1:15) and he can never be as old as his father is. What is the point of calling their relationship "father and son" if that was not what God meant? He was an "only begotten son" before his time on earth. And if John 1:18 clearly states that "no man has ever seen God"...how many people saw Jesus?

In calling himself "the Son of God" Jesus was confirming what he taught all along....that he was 'sent by the Father' to do the will of the Father. He did not teach from his own originality, but only what the Father told him to teach. (John 7:14-16) He was an "apostle" in that sense. (Hebrews 3:1) He was a "servant" of his Father (Acts 3:13) Can God be his own servant?

I believe this is non-evidential speculation.

The holy spirit is nameless. Both the Father and Son have personal names. The holy spirit "fills people" and can give them supernatural powers. It has no gender but the Father and son are always male. The "he" in Greek is about grammar in the words used to describe the role of the spirit.....not actual gender which does not really exist in heaven.

I believe it makes perfect sense which shows you don't have any reasons to think so but are just parroting what others say.

Who are you parroting then? I was raised with the trinity too. I accepted it even thought it made no sense, because I was led to believe that it was a vital Christian teaching. Only when I studied the Bible rather than to listen to the church did I see for myself that the trinity doctrine is a blasphemy. A horrible hoax designed to lead people away from God, rather than to him....its right up there with hellfire IMO.

Jesus and the apostles foretold that an apostasy was going to occur after they left the earthly scene. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1-3) That is what happened....and Christendom, with all her false teachings is a product of that apostasy. (2 Timothy 3:13) Most people have no idea how misled they really are.

This is what I believe...but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. No one will be able to claim ignorance at the time of judgment. In fact "many" of those who claim Jesus as their "Lord" will be stung by his rejection and the fact that he says he "never knew" those who fail to "do the will of the Father", the one who hates falsehood and hypocrisy. (Matthew 7:21-23; Proverbs 6:16-19)