Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

[Desert Snake]

Then maybe you don't understand it and how and why it got formulated. Here: Trinity - Wikipedia

Also, it's best to look up what "essence" means as that is heavily used within that concept, and you can get information on that here: Essence - Wikipedia

Then perhaps also consider that John is just saying,
JHVH is God, God manifested as Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Also, it's best to look up what "essence" means as that is heavily used within that concept, and you can get information on that here: Essence - Wikipedia

That however does not refute what I wrote. Essence would be how one might describe the incarnation.

 

[metis]

When Jesus isn't 'God', He is therefore the Tetragrammaton , Yahweh, and the pater is a different God.

When Jesus is God, He is a Manifestation of Yahweh.

Those are the 'only options' that traditionally make sense, and don't contradict Scripture. Though clearly Jesus not being God is an interpretation, which though can be argued, is problematic.

Jesus simply is not God the Father, who is the only God, but the scriptures have it that he is of God in some way. Therefore, my position, as is the Trinitarian position, is not at all inconsistent with the Gospel. The "essence" of Jesus is that of God, but they are not exactly one and the same because the gospels differentiate between them.

 

[metis]

Then perhaps also consider that John is just saying,
JHVH is God, God manifested as Jesus.

That would largely depend on how one defines the word "manifested". If it pits Jesus as actually being God the Father, that rather clearly cannot be correct according to the gospels themselves.

 

[Spartan]

How does the above supposedly go against what I posted? What do you think I meant when I said the earliest beliefs appear to be that Jesus was of God?

Jesus is not God the Father, therefore his relationship with the Father cannot be one of being identical with the Father.

Also, he was not omniscient as he stated that he did not know when the end-of-times was as only the Father did. He also asked questions, and I don't mean rhetorical questions.

Jesus was, and is, God. He's not just "of God." Philippians 2 clearly says that when Jesus incarnated, he "emptied himself" (of his divinity) and made himself as a servant. So, if Jesus didn't know certain facts concerning an end-time event, it doesn't mean he wasn't God. It only means he was temporarily the suffering servant (of Isaiah chapter 53).

Who is Jesus? Jesus is Jehovah (see article below - numerous scriptural examples). So also is the father Jehovah, even though he is a separate being from Jesus. Consider Jehovah a family name.

Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[Desert Snake]

Basically, Trinitarianism requires Jesus being a manifestation of Yahweh, whether one considers Yahweh 'the pater', or God.

 

[Desert Snake]

That would largely depend on how one defines the word "manifested". If it pits Jesus as actually being God the Father, that rather clearly cannot be correct according to the gospels themselves.

Agree with that, however note difference
Pater
Lord
Spirit

From

Jehovah
Jesus [Lord
Spirit

What is occuring there is that, the words and names used in these trinity concepts are different, and they make a 'mix n match', of the names and titles, incongruent with the texts. So, churches that began calling the Pater JHVH after they had formulated their trinity concept, can present contradictory ideas.

 

[metis]

Jesus was, and is, God. He's not just "of God." Philippians 2 clearly says that when Jesus incarnated, he "emptied himself" (of his divinity) and made himself as a servant. So, if Jesus didn't know certain facts concerning an end-time event, it doesn't mean he wasn't God.

IMO, that makes no sense-- unless one uses "essence" within that formulation.

Literalist interpretations all too often miss the mark since the ancient Jews used symbolism a great deal, which one can clearly read in books like the Psalms and Revelation.

It only means he was temporarily the suffering servant (of Isaiah chapter 53).

The "Suffering Servant" was not Jesus but within Christian circles it sorta "prefigures" Jesus as both Jews and the early Christians well understood the circular and on-going revelations. Jesus is like the "new Adam", the "new Moses", etc.

Who is Jesus? Jesus is Jehovah (see article below - numerous scriptural examples). So also is the father Jehovah, even though he is a separate being from Jesus. Consider Jehovah a family name.

But then that would pit Jesus as somehow being another deity. My sister and I were from the same family but we are not the same people.

Again, the concept of "essence" applied here makes much more sense, imo.

BTW, I'm going to be gone for a few days, so this is likely to be my last post. Usually with a break like I'm taking I typically don't resume the same discussions when I get back.

Take care.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is the correct Trinity concept as I understand it
Jehovah=God
Jesus=God
Holy Spirit=God

These are all manifestations of God.

 

[metis]

Agree with that, however note difference
Pater
Lord
Spirit

From

Jehovah
Jesus [Lord
Spirit

What is occuring there is that, the words and names used in these trinity concepts are different, and they make a 'mix n match', of the names and titles, incongruent with the texts. So, churches that began calling the Pater JHVH after they had formulated their trinity concept, can present contradictory ideas.

Words like "YHWY" and "Jehovah" are interpretations as they are not found in Hebrew that same way. "God" is from the German language but means the same as both "YHWY" and "Jehovah", although the latter is grammatically not correct as there's no "J" sound in Hebrew. IOW, words are not the same as what they represent.

 

[metis]

This is the correct Trinity concept as I understand it
Jehovah=God
Jesus=God
Holy Spirit=God

These are all manifestations of God.

Again, please look up the word "essence", and then reapply that to the above.

Anyhow, I'm outta here for a while, so take care.

 

[Desert Snake]

Words like "YHWY" and "Jehovah" are interpretations as they are not found in Hebrew that same way. "God" is from the German language but means the same as both "YHWY" and "Jehovah", although the latter is grammatically not correct as there's no "J" sound in Hebrew. IOW, words are not the same as what they represent.

It is correct, the J is a variant of a Y. So you've never heard it said with a 'y', ok.

 

[metis]

It is correct, the J is a variant of a Y. So you've never heard it said with a 'y', ok.

In English, it is not a variant of Y.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is more than variant of J_H_V_H,
These are not incorrect, they are called language variants, and occur with many names.

 

[Desert Snake]

In English, it is not a variant of Y.

If your argument is that Jews never say the 'j' when reading the Tetragrammaton, you are wrong. In formal reading, since they know the different versions of the name, as written, I have heard a scholar Jew pronounce the 'j' , not a problem.

Your argument is obscure.

 

[TiggerII]

Dr. Walter Martin complains that the NWT falsely renders Philippians 1:21-23.

"The rendering, `but what I do desire is the releasing ...,' particularly the last word, is a gross imposition upon the principles of Greek exegesis because the untutored [Jehovah's Witnesses] have rendered the first aorist active infinitive of the verb analuo (analusai) as a substantive (`the releasing') which in this context is unscholarly and atrocious Greek." - p. 77.

It turns out, then, that this terrible "perversion" is not merely the basic meaning of the word, but the rendering of a verb infinitive ("to run," "to give," "to release," etc.) as a substantive ("the giving," "the releasing," etc.).

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a substantive is "... a verbal noun, or any part of speech used as a noun equivalent." So most of Martin's diatribe here has to do with the rendering of an infinitive verb as a noun equivalent. Before we examine this "calculated perversion," let's look at the basic meaning of the word analuo.

NT scholar Ralph P. Martin tells us that this word in Phil. 1:23 "is a euphemism for death; it is a military term for striking camp ... and a nautical expression for releasing a vessel from its moorings." - p. 81, Philippians, (Revised ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Eerdmans, 1991 reprint.

The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, The Lockman Foundation, 1981, states:
"360. analuo; from 303 and 3089, to unloose for departure" - p. 1631.
"303. ana ... upwards, up" - p. 1630.
"3089. luo; a prim. vb.; to loose, to release ...." - p. 1664.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, tells us:
"360... 1. to unloose, undo again, (as woven threads)...." - p. 40.
"3089... 1. to loose any person (or thing)...fastened" - p. 384.

Obviously, then, it is certainly proper to translate this verb as "to release"!

Phil. 1:23 -

"desiring to be loosed and to be with Christ" - GNV.

"I desire to be released and to be with Christ" - NMB.

"having one eager desire to be loosed, and be with Christ" - Julia Smith.

"having, the coveting, to be released, and to be with, Christ" - Rotherham.

"constantly having the craving (holding the strong desire and impulse) into the [situation] to untie and loose back up again [as in loosing tent pins and ropes when striking camp, or loosing moorings to set sail], and to be (to exist being) together with Christ" - JMNT.

But what about rendering it as a substantive or a verbal noun? Can the infinitive to analusai (literally "the to be loosing up") be rendered "the releasing"? Yes, this is a common practice in all Bible translations as anyone (NT Greek scholar or not) who takes the time to examine an interlinear Bible can easily discover! Honest New Testament scholars, of course, already know this elementary fact:

"The neut. to [the definite article, `the'] before infinitives a. gives them the force of substantives." - Thayer, p. 435, #6.

"The Greek infinitive, being a verbal noun, can have the article, like any other noun.... The infinitive with the article can stand in most of the constructions in which any other noun can stand." - pp. 137, 138, New Testament Greek for Beginners, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, The Macmillan Company.

For example, the verb infinitives at Phil. 1:21 (literally, "the to live" and "the to die") are rendered in the following Bibles as :

1. "As life means Christ to me, so death means gain" - Moffatt translation.
2. "For, to me, `life' means Christ; hence dying is so much gain" - NAB.
3. "For to me life is Christ, and death gain" - NEB; BBE; and REB.
4. "Life to me...is Christ, but then death would bring me ... more" JB; NJB
5. "what is life? To me it is Christ. Death, then will bring more" - TEV.
6. "For to me LIVING means Christ and DYING brings gain" - CBW.
7. "LIVING means Christ and DYING something even better." - AT.
8. "LIVING is Christ and DYING is gain." - NRSV.
9. "To me, LIVING means having Christ ...." - NLV.
10. "For me, LIVING is Christ and DYING is gain." - HCSB.
11. "Because for me, LIVING serves Christ and DYING is even better." - CEB.
12. "for to me, the LIVING is Christ, and the DYING is gain." - DLNT.
13. "To me the only important thing about LIVING is Christ, and DYING would be profit for me." - NCV.
14. "For to me, LIVING is Christ and DYING is gain." - NET.
15. "For to me, LIVING means living for Christ, and DYING is even better." - NLT.


Yes, In spite of Martin's falsehoods, these respected Bibles translated the literal NT Greek infinitive verbs as nouns! Again, just who is falsifying here?

 

[Deeje]

Im not 'promoting' anything, Im discussing the Bible.

Well, it appears as if you only want to discuss your own take on the scripture you quote. Unless you can see any verse as part of the Bible as a whole, you will not get the correct understanding.

I noticed that you took down your religious identity.....can you not identify your belief system of choice? It helps to know where you are coming from.

Huh? John 5:37
Needs to be explained in a context with other verses

Now that is a worrying statement...or is it a question?
All scripture has to be taken in context, otherwise it can be misconstrued....as you have done.

Exodus 3:6
and needs to be explained in your general argument.

"6 He went on to say: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at the true God."

This is Moses' encounter with an angel who spoke on God's behalf from a burning thornbush. Exodus 3:2 says that an angel appeared to him and spoke to him from the fire, which did not consume the bush. How is this even related to the discussion?
The angel was in all probability, "the Logos"....Jesus in his pre-human existence....God's spokesman.

If the Jews had never even known god, then why would you bring up anything in a 'previous to Jesus', Judaism context?

My turn....huh? The Jews had always known God because they were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their time in Egypt grew more difficult as time went on and Joseph and his God faded from memory. Moses was reintroducing them to the God of their forefathers....the God that had called him to deliver his people from cruel slavery and to guide them to a place that he had chosen for them...."a land flowing with milk and honey".

Their reaction to Moses taking too much time on the mountain receiving God's instructions, and falling back to Egyptian calf worship, shows how much they still needed to learn about their God and his abhorrence of idolatry.
Their 40 years in the wilderness was to educate them, to demonstrate God's care for them in hostile surroundings, and to allow a corrupted generation to pass away so that their children, under Moses' leadership could finally enter the Promised Land. Moses died before they entered the Promised Land, so his successor Joshua led them in.

Jesus didn't say they forgot the name of god, He said they had never heard, so forth his father/pater.
John 1:18
John 5:37

Moses reacquainted the Israelites with the God of their forefather Abraham. He revealed God's name and the importance of reverencing it. So from their release from Egypt as a nation (remembering that they entered Egypt as a family) the Israelites (Jacob's clan) knew God's name, had received God's laws, as well as his guidance, direction and his protection. All they had to do was obediently comply with the covenant that they had entered into willingly of their own volition at Mt Sinai. But, they were serial covenant breakers, as the Bible reveals.

Speaking of which, my explanations for these are that Jesus is talking to specific people, not "jews or Judahites" generally.

Jesus' entire ministry was directed at Jews exclusively. He was not sent to the Gentiles, but to "none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matthew 15:24) It is true that he did on occasion show favor to Gentiles who demonstrated extraordinary faith, but his mission was to Israel because of God's covenant with them. That covenant ended when Jesus instituted the new covenant with his disciples on the night before his death.

When you generalize these verses, you get a Bible that hardly makes sense.

On the contrary....when you take the Bible as a whole, everything makes sense. It is apparent that you dont take the Bible as one book, with one message as it appears to be lost on you.

When you try to make the Bible say what it does not, you just get confusion. Look at the state of religion in the world...confusion reigns.....I rest my case.

 

[Deeje]

I wanted to point out to you that there were indeed Christians who believed in the Trinity before the Catholic Church added it to their teachings. So your claim earlier is wrong and I hope you won't pass on such false information again.

And I was pointing out to you that Christianity was going to become apostate. It happened very early. There was no false information.
Making Jesus into God was the most blasphemous part of that apostasy. The Catholic Church is the mother of apostate Christendom.....all the churches inherited their apostate teachings from her. They corrupted the very nature of God, gave immortal life to souls after death, and invented horrendous places for the wicked to suffer after death......none of which was taught by Jesus at all. His figurative references to many things have been misconstrued and the true God has been totally misrepresented to the world. There will be an accounting. (Revelation 18:4; Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[Desert Snake]

Now that is a worrying statement...or is it a question?
All scripture has to be taken in context, otherwise it can be misconstrued....as you have done.



"6 He went on to say: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at the true God."

This is Moses' encounter with an angel who spoke on God's behalf from a burning thornbush. Exodus 3:2 says that an angel appeared to him and spoke to him from the fire, which did not consume the bush. How is this even related to the discussion?
The angel was in all probability, "the Logos"....Jesus in his pre-human existence....God's spokesman.

Then you are making an argument for Jesus being God, since these verses are direct.
By the way, how you are reading these verses as a 'representative' of God, and not God, I have no idea.
Exodus 3:4-14
Exodus 3:4
Exodus 3:5
Exodus 3:6
Exodus 3:7
Exodus 3:8
Exodus 3:9
Exodus 3:10
Exodus 3:11
Exodus 3:12
Exodus 3:13
Exodus 3:14

Talk about 'interpreting ' Scripture, you've taken that to the extreme.

•

 

[Spartan]

IMO, that makes no sense-- unless one uses "essence" within that formulation.
Literalist interpretations all too often miss the mark since the ancient Jews used symbolism a great deal, which one can clearly read in books like the Psalms and Revelation.

It makes a great deal of sense, and most denominations agree with the deity of Jesus.

The "Suffering Servant" was not Jesus but within Christian circles it sorta "prefigures" Jesus as both Jews and the early Christians well understood the circular and on-going revelations.

Jesus is indeed the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. The Book of Acts 8:26-40 verifies it. Jesus also also claimed to be the Messiah in John's Gospel, and numerous ancient rabbis agreed Isaiah 53 was talking about the Messiah.

But then that would pit Jesus as somehow being another deity. My sister and I were from the same family but we are not the same people.

No, Jesus can be Jehovah and still be one God with the father and the Holy Spirit (one God manifested in three persons).