Let’s talk about the Bible

[savagewind]

@kjw47 @Vee

Proverbs 3:5

NWT 5 Trust in Jehovah+ with all your heart, And do not rely* on your own understanding.+

998 [e] bî-nā-ṯə-ḵā, בִּֽ֝ינָתְךָ֗ on your own understanding Noun

binah: an understanding
Original Word: בִּינָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: binah
Phonetic Spelling: (bee-naw')
Short Definition: understanding
Definition
an understanding
NASB Translation
clearly (1), consideration (1), discernment (3), truth (1), understand (1), understanding (29), understands (1), understood (1).

knowledge, meaning, perfectly, understanding, wisdom

From biyn; understanding -- knowledge, meaning, X perfectly, understanding, wisdom.

see HEBREW biyn 38 Occurrences

Proverbs 9:10
HEB: וְדַ֖עַת קְדֹשִׁ֣ים בִּינָֽה׃
NAS: of the Holy One is understanding.
KJV: of the holy [is] understanding.
INT: and the knowledge of the Holy is understanding

Job 28:28
HEB: וְס֖וּר מֵרָ֣ע בִּינָֽה׃ ס
NAS: from evil is understanding.'
KJV: from evil [is] understanding.
INT: depart evil understanding

Do you want to play a game? No?

Take Job 28:28 and insert YOUR meaning of בִּינָה into it. What do you get?

 

[savagewind]

Let's try "on your own understanding" at Job 28:28
And he said to the human race, "The fear of the Lord--that is wisdom, and to shun evil is on your own understanding."

Let's try it with Proverbs 9:10
10 The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom,+And knowledge of the Most Holy One+ is your own understanding.

 

[savagewind]

Why would the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses keep "own" there at Proverbs 3:5?

 

[savagewind]

I actually know why Proverbs 3:5 warns about leaning on understanding. It actually doesn't matter whose understanding you lean on. It is the leaning that is being warned about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Think of the New World Translation as a simplified upgrade: a translation based on the original text, embodying the latest scholarly findings from newly discovered Bible manuscripts, and using language easily understood by today’s readers.

The content is accurate and faithful to the oldest manuscripts ever found.

How would you know? So, for example, I would argue that it stumbles at the opening gate and fails to properly translate the first few verses of Genesis. And what justifies the future tense ("will become pregnant") in Isaiah 7?

On a somewhat different but related note, why does your translation of Deuteronomy offer "sons of Israel" when there is strong evidence from the DSS and LXX -- i.e., some of "the oldest manuscripts ever found" -- suggesting that "sons of 'elohim" may have been in the earliest text. More seriously, I see nothing in the online NWT advising the reader that other important variants exist.

(Full disclosure: I rather like the NWT, but it is far from beyond reproach.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hi! Welcome back. I agree with you.

Thank you! It's nice to be back!

 

[Vee]

(Full disclosure: I rather like the NWT, but it is far from beyond reproach.)

I suppose the translators did the best job possible with the information available. I won't say it's perfect but I like it and it's great to read a bible that I can understand.

 

[savagewind]

I suppose the translators did the best job possible with the information available. I won't say it's perfect but I like it and it's great to read a bible that I can understand.

Oh please! Is not Jesus your HEAD? Are you not governing by GOD? Is it not The Holy Spirit which directs the "food at the proper time"?

 

[savagewind]

I actually do want to talk about the Bible. I have wanted to for years and years and years and years.
I am still hoping that somebody will.

I know, I know. Not with rhetoric and no propaganda, please. I am beginning to think that it isn't possible.

 

[Ingledsva]

So were the prophets "one" like what you say, but none of the prophets were ever elevated like we see Jesus being as such as found in John3:16, for just one example. With the prophets, it's what they taught that came from God that was paramount, but with John3:16 and many other verses it's the belief alone in this one prophet, Jesus, that can "save".

Since I'm not a Christian (see my faith statement at the bottom of this post), I don't believe this, but what I'm doing is reflecting what is really quite visible in the Christian scriptures, especially as compared to the Tanakh.

Since you are talking Tanakh, - then you know they have ONE God and totally reject the trinity idea.

They await a Messiah, - however that Messiah is a special human chosen and sent by YHVH.

They can ALL be ONE with God - in the agreement sense, and still have a leader called Jesus - whom is given power to "save."

John 3:16 doesn't say Jesus is God. And I think they fudged that one, as Tanakh tells us differently concerning "ONLY" - see Psa 2:7.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

King David is a begotten Son.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: YHVH hath said unto me (King David), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

These are just special begotten HUMAN sons, with special jobs to do.

*

 

[metis]

Since you are talking Tanakh, - then you know they have ONE God and totally reject the trinity idea.

With the trinitarian concept as used by the Catholic Church, for example, it is typically referred to as "the mystery of the Trinity", thus not being three gods but being one god with three "manifestations", if I can use an eastern-religious word for it. Notice the word "mystery", whereas the teaching of the church is that the exact relationship cannot be determined because it's beyond earthly comprehension.

In that teaching, certainly there are differences between the three "manifestations", and yet they are believed to be in some manner so "joined at the hip" to the point of being inseparable.

Do I personally believe this? No, but neither can I say it's wrong.

 

[DavidFirth]

With the trinitarian concept as used by the Catholic Church, for example, it is typically referred to as "the mystery of the Trinity", thus not being three gods but being one god with three "manifestations", if I can use an eastern-religious word for it. Notice the word "mystery", whereas the teaching of the church is that the exact relationship cannot be determined because it's beyond earthly comprehension.

In that teaching, certainly there are differences between the three "manifestations", and yet they are believed to be in some manner so "joined at the hip" to the point of being inseparable.

Do I personally believe this? No, but neither can I say it's wrong.

Never mind arguing with her, man. Ingledsva has her mind made up and it isn't going to change no matter how many factual things you say to her.

You're wasting your time arguing with her because her mind is quite closed concerning Christianity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since you are talking Tanakh, - then you know they have ONE God and totally reject the trinity idea.

I really wish that you would stop posing as a Tanakh expert. It's unseemly.

As for the Christian Trinity, see, for example, Wikipedia: ****uf ...

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The content is accurate and faithful to the oldest manuscripts ever found.

Really? What about this verse,

Colossians 1:16 (NWT) 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.. . .

Do you see a problem with that verse? They left something out, and in my opinion, it is to purposely align with your teachers doctrine and to deceive.

Notice the word "other", it doesn't appear in the original on the left, and it's in brackets on the right, as it should be, since it doesn't appear in the original. So why did they remove the brackets in their Bible? They are deceiving people by removing the brackets, because they want people to believe the word "other" is in the original writings.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Every trinity translation was done from Catholicism translating--that means all who live by the errors in their teachings place their eternal lives on those teachings, because God requires one to know truth( John 4:22-24) he will accept no less. And there will be no excuse because God promised that only here in these last days that truth would become abundant.( Dan 12:4) It has by certain teachers that have Jesus, and by making corrections.

So what happens to the rank and file witness if Jesus comes back tomorrow, and your "real teachers" didn't examine, discern or consider the last "new light" in time?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I actually know why Proverbs 3:5 warns about leaning on understanding. It actually doesn't matter whose understanding you lean on. It is the leaning that is being warned about.

Then you definitely shouldn't be "leaning" on YOUR understanding! You work real hard at making the Bible confusing.

Proverbs 3:5 (ESV Strong's) 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Look at Abram, God made a covenant with him and told him He was going to make his descendants as the stars in the sky and the dust of the earth, and God gave him a son, Issac that it was to be fulfilled thru. Then God told Abram to kill his only son, that the covenant was to be fulfilled thru. What if Abram "leaned on his own understanding" and thought, 'this can't be right, Issac is my only son and God promised to make me the father of many nations, if I kill my only son that won't happen.' So Abram decides not to kill Issac. Who's understanding would he be leaning on?

Abram trusted God with all his heart, and didn't lean on his own understanding. When I meditate on what Abram had to do, that's how I see it. Myself, I would have thought, 'that can't be God telling me to kill my only son, because He gave him to me and told me I would be the father of many nations, and if I kill him that won't happen.'

What I think Abram thought was, God gave me Issac to be the fulfillment of the covenant, and if God wants me to kill him, He will have to raise him up again, so I will trust Him and take Him at His word.

 

[savagewind]

Then you definitely shouldn't be "leaning" on YOUR understanding! You work real hard at making the Bible confusing.

Proverbs 3:5 (ESV Strong's) 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Look at Abram, God made a covenant with him and told him He was going to make his descendants as the stars in the sky and the dust of the earth, and God gave him a son, Issac that it was to be fulfilled thru. Then God told Abram to kill his only son, that the covenant was to be fulfilled thru. What if Abram "leaned on his own understanding" and thought, 'this can't be right, Issac is my only son and God promised to make me the father of many nations, if I kill my only son that won't happen.' So Abram decides not to kill Issac. Who's understanding would he be leaning on?

Abram trusted God with all his heart, and didn't lean on his own understanding. When I meditate on what Abram had to do, that's how I see it. Myself, I would have thought, 'that can't be God telling me to kill my only son, because He gave him to me and told me I would be the father of many nations, and if I kill him that won't happen.'

What I think Abram thought was, God gave me Issac to be the fulfillment of the covenant, and if God wants me to kill him, He will have to raise him up again, so I will trust Him and take Him at His word.

Maybe you do not know what leaning means. Leaning isn't doing. It is resting.
If Abram had rested on the understanding that God wanted his son sacrificed, he would have finished it.

Lean on: rely on or derive support from.

Lean: to rest against or on something for support

There is God to lean on which I believe Abraham does or there is understanding to lean on which I believe you do.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Lean on: rely on or derive support from.

Proverbs 3:5 (ESV Strong's) 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not "rely on or derive support from" your own understanding.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why must you make the Bible out to be wrong, but you are right?

 

[pearl]

The concept of the Trinity is in the Bible. Before Jesus God was judge and savior. God does not change. Correct? Who now is judge and savior?

Yes, the 'concept' of the Trinity is biblical. Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. But in no NT passage, not even MT 28:19 is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature.
The precise Trinitarian dogma is not detectable in the literal sense of the NT, was not observably understood by 1st cent writers nor their audiences. But it was reflection on NT texts that led the Church to the dogma of three divine Persons and one divine Nature. Not a new revelation since God sent Jesus Christ and when the risen Christ communicated his Spirit.

 

[kjw47]

I am waiting for them to change some things. I shall not hold my breath.

It has been done. The New world translation corrected the translating errors.