The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#31New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 00:42:30
@MadCornishBiker Said

Well, this is the reasoning behind that association, check the scriptures for yourself. There are too many to quote separately here.

Michael is the only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel.” (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of [Daniel’s] people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.”—Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.
The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’” Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.
In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.


Just a casual observation, but, this conversation is rather lopsided. The JWs have spent years rewriting the bible, changing meanings, creating convoluted and at times, outright absurd defenses of their weird beliefs. To simply cut and paste large slabs of stuff from them to defend their belief is fine, I suppose, but it weighs the conversation down.

The JW tactic of overpowering people with information is, for the record, pure sophistry. Still, it is a sure way to wear down an opponent and end an argument. The 'win' is totally without honour or integrity, but, they are not important is sophistry.

Luckily however, I can descend to the game playing level of others when the need arises.

A rebuttal of your points can be found here. https://standequipped.com/jehovahs-wtinesses-beliefs/jehovahs-witnesses-beliefs-about-jesus/michael-the-archangel.html

I expect that you will read this rebuttal and be champing at the bit in your eagerness to respond .

But anyway, the 1 Thess passage says things that the JWs deny, as I understand these things.

Prior to your quote, it clearly says that we (meaning Christians), believe that Christ was resurrected. Do JWs believe this now? Do they now accept that Christ was raised from the dead, not that he was given a new body and a recreated spirit or whatever it is that JWs used to believe? These guys are getting more Christian all the time MCB. Great to see!

And, the text you do cite, says that Christ will return with three things:
1. A loud command.
2. The voice of the archangel.
3. The trumpet call of God.

Note, the text does not say he is the progenitor of these three things, merely that he will return with them. For example, if I came home yesterday with a hot roast chicken, a very attractive duck, and three libidinous camels, does it suggest that these things are somehow a part of me? Not at all. They are things distinct from myself.

And, the text calls him Jesus, not Michael.

And, he is "descending from heaven" not, "arising out of the inner rooms of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation."

Didn't Russell change his false 1914 Armageddon prophecy after the event, to say that what he really meant was that Christ would invisibly return to earth in 1914? Why would Christ descend from heaven if he is on the earth? Why would he not "arise from his place upon the earth, and ... etc etc etc" instead of descending from heaven?
woodss On February 26, 2024




,
#32New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 00:45:36
JWS are bunch of overpowering ppl, but they hate Adeventists too I told a JW I'm a Adventist and he stepped back at me, thats the to me is the antidote to JW rubbish.

Mental health people think these beliefs are unrealistic.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#33New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 08:39:45
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Just a casual observation, but, this conversation is rather lopsided. The JWs have spent years rewriting the bible, changing meanings, creating convoluted and at times, outright absurd defenses of their weird beliefs. To simply cut and paste large slabs of stuff from them to defend their belief is fine, I suppose, but it weighs the conversation down.

The JW tactic of overpowering people with information is, for the record, pure sophistry. Still, it is a sure way to wear down an opponent and end an argument. The 'win' is totally without honour or integrity, but, they are not important is sophistry.

Luckily however, I can descend to the game playing level of others when the need arises.

A rebuttal of your points can be found here. https://standequipped.com/jehovahs-wtinesses-beliefs/jehovahs-witnesses-beliefs-about-jesus/michael-the-archangel.html

I expect that you will read this rebuttal and be champing at the bit in your eagerness to respond .

But anyway, the 1 Thess passage says things that the JWs deny, as I understand these things.

Prior to your quote, it clearly says that we (meaning Christians), believe that Christ was resurrected. Do JWs believe this now? Do they now accept that Christ was raised from the dead, not that he was given a new body and a recreated spirit or whatever it is that JWs used to believe? These guys are getting more Christian all the time MCB. Great to see!

And, the text you do cite, says that Christ will return with three things:
1. A loud command.
2. The voice of the archangel.
3. The trumpet call of God.

Note, the text does not say he is the progenitor of these three things, merely that he will return with them. For example, if I came home yesterday with a hot roast chicken, a very attractive duck, and three libidinous camels, does it suggest that these things are somehow a part of me? Not at all. They are things distinct from myself.

And, the text calls him Jesus, not Michael.

And, he is "descending from heaven" not, "arising out of the inner rooms of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation."

Didn't Russell change his false 1914 Armageddon prophecy after the event, to say that what he really meant was that Christ would invisibly return to earth in 1914? Why would Christ descend from heaven if he is on the earth? Why would he not "arise from his place upon the earth, and ... etc etc etc" instead of descending from heaven?



Yes, those three parts have yet to happen, but watch out when they do, because that will mean it's too late to change your mind and take to the truth.

You seem to have a "thing" about the JW's changing the meanings of the bible, and yet everything, and I mean everything, they teach can be proven from every translation that can be found. I've certainly used a few.

Have you really studied a New Word Translation for yourself? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be saying what you do. Try comparing it with any translation you care to name, is it very little different? The main difference is that they have put God's name back in the 7,000 or so places it should be, wherever the Tetragrammaton was in the Hebrew.

OK so ask yourself the questions below, honestly, putting yourself n God's "shoes" when you do. And think for yourself, don't just parrot the things you have been told, by those who should, and quite probably do know better.

Surely that is what should be done?

After all God did say that it was His memorial to time indefinite, so was it not wrong to remove it?

Why remove it?

What did the translators of those translations need to prove that required them removing it?

How do you think God feels about having His name removed so casually?

If they were prepared to remove the most Holy Name, what else have they had the need to alter?

What was their agenda?

I know from experience that the only agenda the JWs have is to find truth. That is why they have always been prepared to admit their errors in the face of evidence. Something else you criticise them for.

I have asked this before, but you have never had an answer for it.

Which of your two major accusations is true.

Have they changed scripture to prove doctrine?

Or have they rather, been honest enough to admit their errors and change doctrine to fit scripture?

You can't much as you try to and would wish to, have it both ways. Either they have done the one, to they have done the other.

You have, many times accused them of both, but if you are honest enough to think about it they are mutually exclusive. No-one who does the one would even countenance the other.

No. Your accusations are merely another of Satan's tactics to confuse the issue. He likes confusion, it stops people actually thinking.
woodss On February 26, 2024




,
#34New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 08:55:12
Maybe so MCB, give scentific proof.
ive waited for those 3 things for nearly 30 years and prob never happen in my lifetime, that in my opinion is reality.

And I;m being realstic.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#35New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 09:12:01
@MadCornishBiker Said

I have asked this before, but you have never had an answer for it.
Which of your two major accusations is true.
Have they changed scripture to prove doctrine?


Yes, they have done precisely this. I have in fact, given you examples of this at least 10 times now. They added "other" to the text of Colossians, when the word "other" is not even implied, let alone used, in the text. For some time, they did not use parenthesis, just had it there as though it belongs. Now, they have it in parenthesis as though it is implied in the text. Both of these things are wrong. They also do this in other places throughout the bible, to change the meaning of the text (which I have also pointed out to you).

They also placed "a" in John 1:1 on a premise that was entirely false, as they claimed that it was a form of speech that does not exist in Greek. Upon having this truth repeatedly pointed out, did they admit their error? No. They merely said that it was a different form of speech, and kept their wrong addition to the text.

Both of these alterations to scripture are based solely and entirely upon an incorrect doctrinal consideration.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Or have they rather, been honest enough to admit their errors and change doctrine to fit scripture?


I have answered this at least 20 times, closer to thirty even, but, here we go again: Do they admit their errors? At best, I would say yes and no. For example, they admit the false prophecies, however, they lie in the following ways.

1. They say it was "some brothers" that believed these false dates. It was not though, it was "the cult leaders" Russell *and* Rutherford, and, their false prophecy was repeated in the Watchtower magazine. It was cult doctrine, not some misled brothers as the current JW lie would have us believe. So, they admit the falsity on one hand, as they have no choice, but on the other, they deny the falsity by saying, "It wasn't really us."

This type of prevarication is rife in the JW schema, something that is incontrovertibly driven home as indisputably true by conversations with you (no offense intended). The position is so nonsensical it borders on actually insane, but, it gets worse as the following points clearly demonstrate.

2. They lie and say it was not prophecy, because prophecy does not happen. However, this is ridiculous. To say that they were guided by the spirit of God to make definite claims about future events, but that this was not prophecy, is lunacy that no reasonable human being could possibly believe. And, this is without adding the fact that in the past they claimed that they were *the* prophets of God.

3. Despite claiming that the false prophecies were not prophecy, and weren't theirs, they nonetheless say that Russell's false prophecy of 1914 regarding Armageddon (the same prophecy that they rather confusingly deny even happened) was *not* a prophecy about Armageddon at all (even though it indisputably was as his own words demonstrate beyond doubt), but that instead it was a prophecy about Christ returning to earth in some invisible form.

So, MCB, you tell me. Do the JWs admit their mistakes?
woodss On February 26, 2024




,
#36New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 09:13:11
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Yes, they have done precisely this. I have in fact, given you examples of this at least 10 times now. They added "other" to the text of Colossians, when the word "other" is not implied in the text. For some time, they did not use parenthesis, just had it there as though it belongs. Now, they have it in parenthesis as though it is implied in the text. Both of these things are wrong. They also do this in other places throughout the bible, to change the meaning of the text (which I have also pointed out to you).

They also placed "a" in John 1:1 on a premise that was entirely false, as they claimed that it was a form of speech that does not exist in Greek. Upon having this truth repeatedly pointed out, did they admit their error? No. They merely said that it was a different form of speech, and kept their wrong addition to the text.

Both of these alterations to scripture are based solely and entirely upon an incorrect doctrinal consideration.



I have answered this at least 20 times, closer to thirty even, but, here we go again: Do they admit their errors? At best, I would say yes and no. For example, they admit the false prophecies, however, they lie in the following ways.

1. They say it was "some brothers" that believed these false dates. It was not though, it was "the cult leaders" Russell *and* Rutherford, and, their false prophecy was repeated in the Watchtower magazine. It was cult doctrine, not some misled brothers as the current JW lie would have us believe. So, they admit the falsity on one hand, as they have no choice, but on the other, they deny the falsity by saying, "It wasn't really us."

This type of prevarication is rife in the JW schema, something that is incontrovertibly driven home as indisputably true by conversations with you (no offense intended). The position is so nonsensical it borders on actually insane, but, it gets worse as the following points clearly demonstrate.

2. They lie and say it was not prophecy, because prophecy does not happen. However, this is ridiculous. To say that they were guided by the spirit of God to make definite claims about future events, but that this was not prophecy, is lunacy that no reasonable human being could possibly believe. And, this is without adding the fact that in the past they claimed that they were *the* prophets of God.

3. Despite claiming that the false prophecies were not prophecy, and weren't theirs, they nonetheless say that Russell's false prophecy of 1914 regarding Armageddon was *not* a prophecy about Armageddon (even though it indisputably was as his own words demonstrate beyond doubt), but that instead it was a prophecy about Christ returning to earth in some invisible form.

So, MCB, you tell me. Do the JWs admit their mistakes?


Most of the materal done by the JWs should be scruched up and thrown in the bin.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#37New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 09:49:09
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Yes, they have done precisely this. I have in fact, given you examples of this at least 10 times now. They added "other" to the text of Colossians, when the word "other" is not even implied, let alone used, in the text. For some time, they did not use parenthesis, just had it there as though it belongs. Now, they have it in parenthesis as though it is implied in the text. Both of these things are wrong. They also do this in other places throughout the bible, to change the meaning of the text (which I have also pointed out to you).

They also placed "a" in John 1:1 on a premise that was entirely false, as they claimed that it was a form of speech that does not exist in Greek. Upon having this truth repeatedly pointed out, did they admit their error? No. They merely said that it was a different form of speech, and kept their wrong addition to the text.

Both of these alterations to scripture are based solely and entirely upon an incorrect doctrinal consideration.



I have answered this at least 20 times, closer to thirty even, but, here we go again: Do they admit their errors? At best, I would say yes and no. For example, they admit the false prophecies, however, they lie in the following ways.

1. They say it was "some brothers" that believed these false dates. It was not though, it was "the cult leaders" Russell *and* Rutherford, and, their false prophecy was repeated in the Watchtower magazine. It was cult doctrine, not some misled brothers as the current JW lie would have us believe. So, they admit the falsity on one hand, as they have no choice, but on the other, they deny the falsity by saying, "It wasn't really us."

This type of prevarication is rife in the JW schema, something that is incontrovertibly driven home as indisputably true by conversations with you (no offense intended). The position is so nonsensical it borders on actually insane, but, it gets worse as the following points clearly demonstrate.

2. They lie and say it was not prophecy, because prophecy does not happen. However, this is ridiculous. To say that they were guided by the spirit of God to make definite claims about future events, but that this was not prophecy, is lunacy that no reasonable human being could possibly believe. And, this is without adding the fact that in the past they claimed that they were *the* prophets of God.

3. Despite claiming that the false prophecies were not prophecy, and weren't theirs, they nonetheless say that Russell's false prophecy of 1914 regarding Armageddon (the same prophecy that they rather confusingly deny even happened) was *not* a prophecy about Armageddon at all (even though it indisputably was as his own words demonstrate beyond doubt), but that instead it was a prophecy about Christ returning to earth in some invisible form.

So, MCB, you tell me. Do the JWs admit their mistakes?


Yes, they do admit their mistakes. And I have read the publications from that time and in none of them does 1914 get described as Armageddon. It was, and is, known to be the time of Jesus taking up Kingdom power in the heavens.

The "a" in John 1:1 fits in entirely with the fact that John used two different words for "god" in his text, which he would not have done unless he wanted to differentiate between the two. That was done before they even existed in the emphatic Diaglott, interlinear section, though removed in the non interlinear section. Proof positive that it was an altered rendition, or the "a" would not have appeared in the interlinear.

It also fits in with other translations which use the word "divine" instead of God. No-one is arguing that Jesus is not divine, or to use yet another rendering, of divine nature. He was created as a spirit being, and you cannot have a more divine nature than that.

Scriptures referenced to the last phrase in John 1:1 are:-

(Isaiah 9:6) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
(John 10:35) If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,
(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God


Other alternate translations of John 1:1 are:-

Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., ??? ???? ?? ? ????? (kai the?os? en ho lo?gos)
1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An
Improved Version, Upon the
Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s
New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), by
Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P.
Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach
kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried
Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach
the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes
Schneider,Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
Würzburg, Germany.

So you see the JWs ar not the only ones to differentiate between God and Christ, nor were they the first by some way, The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. (1808) being the first listed. All of which argue against the trinity as taught in the Athanasian Creed, the official doctrine of all churches affiliated to the World Council of Churches.

Again my question: Which translation is more trustworthy. The one which was altered to remove the Holy Name, or the one which put it back where it belongs?

The NWT wasn't the only one to attempt to put it back, but it is, of course, the one we are discussing here.

There are two reasons for changing scripture.

One reason is to prove a point.

The other is to correct errors. I believe, and the evidence backs it up, that the JWs have attempted to make it as accurate as they can. They have even included disputed sections of scripture which only appear in some manuscripts, though they have made a point of listing the manuscripts they do or don't appear in. A typical example of that is John 7:53 -8:1-11. This is a passage that not all believe belongs in place, but the JWs have still included, prefacing it's inclusion with "Manuscripts ?BSys omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:"

Why would they include that it their intention is to lie, as you say they do.

Also this rendition fits in with the fact that both Peter and Paul definitely differentiate between God and Jesus, even describing God as the "God and Father of Jesus Christ". If one has a God the none is not equal to that God. By fitting in with those texts it removes the obvious contradiction they raise.

How do explain that away, when it is found in many different translations as the OP shows.

There are more holes in your reasoning than in a large sieve. Were I to attempt to plug them all it would take me pages to do so. With that in mind I shall concentrate on the most important and most glaring of them.

You certainly are proving to be a "fighter against God" so far.
woodss On February 26, 2024




,
#38New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 09:51:45
What a pile of rubbish about 1914 MCB.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#39New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 11:23:48
@MadCornishBiker Said

Yes, they do admit their mistakes. And I have read the publications from that time and in none of them does 1914 get described as Armageddon. It was, and is, known to be the time of Jesus taking up Kingdom power in the heavens.


In fairness to truth MCB, they equivocate over their mistakes. To paraphrase them, they say, "yes we did make a mistake but it wasn't us even though it was, and we are prophets but we aren't prophets even though we are, and the mistake that we made that we didn't make wasn't the mistake that we did make (that we really didn't make), because we misunderstood what we were saying, even though we are the prophets of God and know his truth because we are the ones he tells, even though we are always wrong when we make prophecies, because they aren't prophecies because we are always right."

In a nutshell, that is the JW defense. It might work for you, but for normal people, it kind of sounds a little bit insane.

But, to the specifics.

"In subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun... And that the "battle of the day of the great God Almighty" (Revelations 16:14) which will end in a.d. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. From C.T Russell, "The Time is at Hand," 1889, p.101.

"But let us suppose a case far from our expectation... Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and without evidence that the "very elect" have been changed and without the restoration of natural Israel to favour under the New Covenant (Romans 11:12, 15). What then? Would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck to the parallel dispensations of Israel's trouble, and to the Jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called the "Gentile Times," and to the 1,260, 1,290, and 1,355 days... None of these would be available any longer... What a blow it would be." From The Watchtower reprints, Vol. 9, 1907, p.4067.

@MadCornishBiker Said
The "a" in John 1:1 fits in entirely with the fact that John used two different words for "god" in his text, which he would not have done unless he wanted to differentiate between the two.


We have already been through this. Why do we have to do it again?

John's wording in John 1:1 is utterly precise in stating that the Word was God. The JW defense violates rules of Grammar - specifically Colwell's Rule, in this case. However, as the JWs had no scholars on their translation committee, this is not surprising. Indeed, the scholars they quoted to support their rendering, actually refute them. The JWs systemically misquoted biblical scholars - hence the threat of legal action against them if they did not stop.

And of course, the JW rendering is based solely on their doctrinal considerations, and is inconsistently applied by them. That is, they say it should read "a god" due to the text lacking the definite article "ho". However, in John 1:23 where the definite article is also not used, the JWs do not apply this rule, or else their text would read "a Jehovah" (as they translate kurios as "Jehovah" ).

So, in short, the JW interpretation is unscholarly, because none of the JWs were scholars. It is supported by the JWs misquoting scholars, and, they inconsistently apply their own rule, whilst ignoring the rules of Greek Grammar.


@MadCornishBiker Said
So you see the JWs ar not the only ones to differentiate between God and Christ, nor were they the first by some way, The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. (1808) being the first listed. All of which argue against the trinity as taught in the Athanasian Creed, the official doctrine of all churches affiliated to the World Council of Churches.


I never said they were the first. I only said they were wrong.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Again my question: Which translation is more trustworthy. The one which was altered to remove the Holy Name, or the one which put it back where it belongs?


Is this another of those, "you have no excuse for not knowing God's name because no-one knows God's name" type arguments that you have used before? Do we really have to go through this again?

@MadCornishBiker Said
I believe, and the evidence backs it up, that the JWs have attempted to make it as accurate as they can.


They have attempted to make the bible "as accurate as they can" through inconsistently applying their own rules, ignoring the actual rules of Greek grammar, misquoting scholars, not having any scholars on the translation committee, and interpreting text based on doctrinal considerations? That is one way you could describe what they have done. I can think of a few others though that are more accurate, and less complimentary.

@MadCornishBiker Said
They have even included disputed sections of scripture which only appear in some manuscripts, though they have made a point of listing the manuscripts they do or don't appear in. A typical example of that is John 7:53 -8:1-11. This is a passage that not all believe belongs in place, but the JWs have still included, prefacing it's inclusion with "Manuscripts ?BSys omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:"

Why would they include that it their intention is to lie, as you say they do.


My bible says that too. So, I guess if the logic applies for your bible, it applies also for mine.

As for other the other stuff in your post, let's just focus on one or two things for now. I actually have a life to live, and this takes up a lot of my time that could be better spent doing other things.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#40New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 12:27:54
@bob_the_fisherman Said

In fairness to truth MCB, they equivocate over their mistakes. To paraphrase them, they say, "yes we did make a mistake but it wasn't us even though it was, and we are prophets but we aren't prophets even though we are, and the mistake that we made that we didn't make wasn't the mistake that we did make (that we really didn't make), because we misunderstood what we were saying, even though we are the prophets of God and know his truth because we are the ones he tells, even though we are always wrong when we make prophecies, because they aren't prophecies because we are always right."

In a nutshell, that is the JW defense. It might work for you, but for normal people, it kind of sounds a little bit insane.


No, that is your twisted version of a defense and doesn't fit anything either I or they have said.

This is getting laughable. You really are getting desperate aren't yoou. Again you are trying to have it both ways.

It must be obvious to many who are reading this exchange just how bigoted you are, truth doesn't matter to you as long as you can appear right in your own eyes, or those of your peers.

Well that's your choice, and you will not get the benefits of the Kingdom unless you do it.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

But, to the specifics.

"In subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun... And that the "battle of the day of the great God Almighty" (Revelations 16:14) which will end in a.d. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. From C.T Russell, "The Time is at Hand," 1889, p.101.

"But let us suppose a case far from our expectation... Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and without evidence that the "very elect" have been changed and without the restoration of natural Israel to favour under the New Covenant (Romans 11:12, 15). What then? Would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck to the parallel dispensations of Israel's trouble, and to the Jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called the "Gentile Times," and to the 1,260, 1,290, and 1,355 days... None of these would be available any longer... What a blow it would be." From The Watchtower reprints, Vol. 9, 1907, p.4067.

Fair enough I haven't seen anything that far back I must admit, I have
read back past the formation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, but not past.

However those quotes do not prove what you say. At that time C T Russel was merely an individual, not a part of the WTB&TS.

I wonder who made the reprint from the Watchtower you quote. Was it the society or someone simply trying to make them look good? Either way it doesn't support your argumentation as it merely states that it would be a disappointment if it didn't happen which is very different from saying that it definitely will.

1914 is still the truth, but it wasn't until later, after many had got over the disappointment that your quote foretells, that they pearned how much more was to happen between Jesus taking up Kingdom power and Armageddon itself, and the spent the next few decades learning exactly what.

Sorry, but despite changing the meanings of what you have quoted, and their significance you still have to prove your claim that the Society themselves said anything about 1914 or any later date actually being Armageddon. Think about it and you will realise. That is if you dare think about it.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

We have already been through this. Why do we have to do it again?

John's wording in John 1:1 is utterly precise in stating that the Word was God. The JW defense violates rules of Grammar - specifically Colwell's Rule, in this case. However, as the JWs had no scholars on their translation committee, this is not surprising. Indeed, the scholars they quoted to support their rendering, actually refute them. The JWs systemically misquoted biblical scholars - hence the threat of legal action against them if they did not stop.


We have to have it again because as always you are distorting things. I have already provided evidence that the correct understanding was out there before the JWs got hold of it. They "changed" the reading, not to prove their doctrine, but to bring it in line with other, earlier renderings which remove the contradiction that "your" version of John 1:1 brings in. In fact they didn't change it at all, they simply accepted the earlier reading that made more sense and fitted in with the rest of scripture, as the examples I quoted earlier prove beyond argument.

@bob_the_fisherman Said


And of course, the JW rendering is based solely on their doctrinal considerations, and is inconsistently applied by them. That is, they say it should read "a god" due to the text lacking the definite article "ho". However, in John 1:23 where the definite article is also not used, the JWs do not apply this rule, or else their text would read "a Jehovah" (as they translate kurios as "Jehovah" ).


Is it? or is the version you prefer not based on the doctrinal consideration of the Apostate churches that the translators were a part of. After all doesn't the very fact that they removed God's name and replaced it with LORD proof of their bias and dishonesty?

I would say that is much more likely.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

So, in short, the JW interpretation is unscholarly, because none of the JWs were scholars. It is supported by the JWs misquoting scholars, and, they inconsistently apply their own rule, whilst ignoring the rules of Greek Grammar.


So what. Firstly you have no idea of the scholarly qualifications of the Translation Committee or any members thereof, and secondly what are qualifications worth if they are gained by accepting false teachings anyway? Nothing.

Did Jesus have religious qualifications at the time?

Did the Apostles?

No, the Apostles were "unlettered and ordinary" and chosen for their heart more than their heads.

The Pharisees had the religious qualifications then, and the same is true today. Those qualifications mean nothing in the eyes of God, because like His son, he does not choose people for qualifications earned through men.truth, and chooses them. He seeks only those interested.

Thus the only qualification that any JW needs is to have the approval of God, and the JWs definitely have that, as anyone with an honest heart soon learns.


I never said they were the first. I only said they were wrong.



Is this another of those, "you have no excuse for not knowing God's name because no-one knows God's name" type arguments that you have used before? Do we really have to go through this again?



They have attempted to make the bible "as accurate as they can" through inconsistently applying their own rules, ignoring the actual rules of Greek grammar, misquoting scholars, not having any scholars on the translation committee, and interpreting text based on doctrinal considerations? That is one way you could describe what they have done. I can think of a few others though that are more accurate, and less complimentary.



My bible says that too. So, I guess if the logic applies for your bible, it applies also for mine.

As for other the other stuff in your post, let's just focus on one or two things for now. I actually have a life to live, and this takes up a lot of my time that could be better spent doing other things.
woodss On February 26, 2024




,
#41New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 12:36:08
MCB ur the twisted one .with that rubbish about blood
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#42New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 13:16:43
@MadCornishBiker Said

No, that is your twisted version of a defense and doesn't fit anything either I or they have said.


This is now officially beyond boring. There is nothing more I can do, I think. I have showed you repeatedly how they equivocate over their guilt. I have showed you that Russell said Armageddon would happen in 1914 or 1915 (not just with those quotes, but others that I have used previously from the Watchtower stuff).

@MadCornishBiker Said
This is getting laughable. You really are getting desperate aren't yoou.


No. Just bored.

@MadCornishBiker Said
It must be obvious to many who are reading this exchange just how bigoted you are, truth doesn't matter to you as long as you can appear right in your own eyes, or those of your peers.


My peers? Who are my peers MCB?

And, let's assume for a moment that people here said that I am a bigot. Doubtless, you would take that as proof that you are right. However, if people came on and said that you are a JW muppet, and Bob has done all that is humanly possible to help you through the madness of the cult you are trapped in, no doubt you would say that this is proof that "Christians" and atheists are all part of the world system, which would prove that you are right anyway.

It is hard to beat cult logic.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Well that's your choice, and you will not get the benefits of the Kingdom unless you do it.


What benefits? The benefit of a mind that does not function?

@MadCornishBiker Said
We have to have it again because as always you are distorting things. I have already provided evidence that the correct understanding was out there before the JWs got hold of it. They "changed" the reading, not to prove their doctrine, but to bring it in line with other, earlier renderings which remove the contradiction that "your" version of John 1:1 brings in. In fact they didn't change it at all, they simply accepted the earlier reading that made more sense and fitted in with the rest of scripture, as the examples I quoted earlier prove beyond argument.


You keep banging on about this contradiction that is contained in Christian doctrine, but, what is it? Oh, that's right, Jesus cannot be God because God is his father. It does not matter that the bible makes it blisteringly clear that the Jews knew what this meant (namely, that Christ and God were equal), as that does not fit the JW doctrine. It doesn't even matter that the bible says that Christ was equal with God...

@MadCornishBiker Said
Fair enough I haven't seen anything that far back I must admit, I have read back past the formation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, but not past.

However those quotes do not prove what you say. At that time C T Russel was merely an individual, not a part of the WTB&TS.


Not quite. He was leader of a group, from sometime around 1872, which became the JWs. I can't remember the original name, and cannot be bothered trying to find it. But, as to it not proving what I say - bulls***. The first quote clearly said the "great battle" will end in 1914. The second says if this system does not end before 1915 is over, that the whole JW schema has suffered "irreparable wreck."

The JW schema is irreparably wrecked MCB.

And, as the leader of the JW cult, Russell never retracted his belief about the time of Armageddon (although, that is not strictly true. After 1914 ended and this world didn't, he changed it to 1915, but we both know that is not what I mean).

@MadCornishBiker Said
Is it? or is the version you prefer not based on the doctrinal consideration of the Apostate churches that the translators were a part of. After all doesn't the very fact that they removed God's name and replaced it with LORD proof of their bias and dishonesty?


No, to put it bluntly. Why do they not put in a name that is unknown? I don't know.

@MadCornishBiker Said
So what. Firstly you have no idea of the scholarly qualifications of the Translation Committee or any members thereof, and secondly what are qualifications worth if they are gained by accepting false teachings anyway? Nothing.


Well, as I have said repeatedly, the members of the committee are now known (except one). But the guys on the committee that had the final say are known, and they were not scholars. But, I have told you this repeatedly, and given the quote from Franz wherein he says explicitly how the JW translation was 'revealed'.

As to being scholars - actually understanding the Greek language of the time, and, the understanding of language that the Jews had, would clear up some errors that the JWs hold to - like the obvious one about how Jesus cannot be God because he says he is the son of God. However, it is true that even without being a scholar, one can clearly see how the Jews interpreted that statement, when they said he was a blasphemer for making himself equal with God. I am pretty sure that Jesus was a Jew, so I am pretty sure he knew how they would interpret his statement that he is the son of God. Logic, MCB, logic.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Did Jesus have religious qualifications at the time?


What is the relevance of this? Was Jesus an ordinary man? Even in the JWs skewed, unsound schema the answer to that is no.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Did the Apostles?


Did they need to be? They actually spoke the same language. They actually spoke to Jesus. He actually said more to them than is contained in the bible. Try thinking before you post.

@MadCornishBiker Said
No, the Apostles were "unlettered and ordinary" and chosen for their heart more than their heads.


Again, see above. And, what about Paul?

@MadCornishBiker Said
The Pharisees had the religious qualifications then, and the same is true today. Those qualifications mean nothing in the eyes of God, because like His son, he does not choose people for qualifications earned through men.truth, and chooses them. He seeks only those interested.


That is true MCB. God no doubt wants his people to be honest. Especially those that teach. That is why I am so scathing of the JWs.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Thus the only qualification that any JW needs is to have the approval of God, and the JWs definitely have that, as anyone with an honest heart soon learns.


I doubt they have the approval of the God of the bible, as they make him a liar on many occasions, one clear example of which I have also pointed out to you many times cf., Adam, Eve, Abraham and Sarah seeing and speaking with God.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#43New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 14:12:03
@bob_the_fisherman Said

This is now officially beyond boring. There is nothing more I can do, I think. I have showed you repeatedly how they equivocate over their guilt. I have showed you that Russell said Armageddon would happen in 1914 or 1915 (not just with those quotes, but others that I have used previously from the Watchtower stuff).[?QUOTE]

Yes, you have showed me that one person said that it was likely not the Society. You have also shown me that the Society said it would be a disappointment if it didn't happen.

Neither of the above fit what you have claimed for the Society as a whole, and both of which reveal either your bias, bigotry or gullibility for what it may be, whichever applies.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

No. Just bored.



My peers? Who are my peers MCB?


All who are, either foolish enough, gullible enough, bigoted enough or biased enough to fall for the false teachings you adhere to so blindly and determinedly.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

And, let's assume for a moment that people here said that I am a bigot. Doubtless, you would take that as proof that you are right. However, if people came on and said that you are a JW muppet, and Bob has done all that is humanly possible to help you through the madness of the cult you are trapped in, no doubt you would say that this is proof that "Christians" and atheists are all part of the world system, which would prove that you are right anyway.

It is hard to beat cult logic.


But at least it is logic, and the truth is impossible to beat in the end whether it comes from what you believe to be a cult or not.

No, you own words are proof enough for me. I care not what others think, whatever their supposed qualifications, only what the bible teaches.

God's word is all that counts in the end, and God's word, as I have shown time and again destroys all such false teachings as the trinity no matter how hard you cling to the works of proven Apostates to back you belief.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

What benefits? The benefit of a mind that does not function?


What benefits? Are you joking? Do you know your bible so little that you do not know the benefits the kingdom will eventually bring to all those who live under it?

OK I'll detail it here, with scripture you can check for yourself in any translation you care to choose.

And yes, I can't be bothered to do it myself so this comes from the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures".

Kingdom

Definition: The Kingdom of God is the expression of Jehovah’s universal sovereignty toward his creatures, or the means used by him to express that sovereignty. This term is used particularly to designate the manifestation of God’s sovereignty through the royal government headed by his Son, Jesus Christ. “Kingdom” may refer to the rulership of the one anointed as King or to the earthly realm ruled by that heavenly government.
Is God’s Kingdom a real government?
Or is it, instead, a condition in the hearts of men?
Luke 17:21, KJ: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you [also TEV, Dy; but “among you,” KJ margin, NE, JB; “in the midst of you,” RS; “in your midst,” NW].” (Notice that, as shown by verse 20, Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, whom he also denounced as hypocrites, so he could not have meant that the Kingdom was in their hearts. But the Kingdom as represented by Christ was in their midst. Thus The Emphatic Diaglott reads: “God’s royal majesty is among you.”)
Does the Bible actually speak of God’s Kingdom as being a government?
Isa. 9:6, 7, RS: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government [also KJ, AT, Dy; “dominion,” JB, NE; “princely rule,” NW] will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.”
Who are the rulers in the Kingdom?
Rev. 15:3: “Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity.”
Dan. 7:13, 14: “With the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man [Jesus Christ; see Mark 14:61, 62] happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days [Jehovah God] he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. And to him [to Jesus Christ] there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.”
Rev. 5:9, 10: “You [Jesus Christ] were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.” (At Revelation 14:1-3 these “bought from the earth” to be rulers with the Lamb on heavenly Mount Zion are said to number 144,000.)
What effect will this Kingdom have on human governments?
Dan. 2:44: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”
Ps. 2:8, 9: “Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your own possession. You will break them with an iron scepter, as though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.”
What will God’s Kingdom accomplish?
Sanctify Jehovah’s name and uphold his sovereignty
Matt. 6:9, 10: “You must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come.’” (Here the sanctifying of God’s name is closely associated with the coming of his Kingdom.)
Ezek. 38:23: “I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.” (God’s name will be cleansed of all reproach; it will be treated as holy and deserving of respect, and all who live will be persons who willingly uphold Jehovah’s sovereignty, delighting to do his will. Upon such sanctification of Jehovah’s name the peace and well-being of all the universe depend.)
Put an end to Satan’s tolerated rulership over the world
Rev. 20:2, 3: “He [the heavenly King, Jesus Christ] seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.” (Thus mankind will be freed from the satanic influence that has made life very difficult for people who want to do what is right. Gone will be the diabolic influence that has caused acts of extreme inhumanity and the demonic influence that has filled the lives of many with fear.)
Unify all creation in worship of the one true God
Rev. 5:13; 15:3, 4: “And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: ‘To the One sitting on the throne [Jehovah God] and to the Lamb [Jesus Christ] be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’” “Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity. Who will not really fear you, Jehovah, and glorify your name, because you alone are loyal? For all the nations will come and worship before you, because your righteous decrees have been made manifest.”
Bring mankind back into harmonious relationship with God
Rom. 8:19-21: “The eager expectation of the creation [humankind] is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God [the evidence that those raised to heavenly life with Jesus Christ have gone into action as rulers]. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself [mankind in general] also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Free mankind from all threat of war
Ps. 46:8, 9: “Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah, how he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth.”
Isa. 2:4: “They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”
Rid the earth of corrupt rulers and oppression
Ps. 110:5: “Jehovah himself at your right hand will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.”
Ps. 72:12-14: “He [Jehovah’s Messianic King] will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. He will feel sorry for the lowly one and the poor one, and the souls of the poor ones he will save. From oppression and from violence he will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes.”
Provide an abundance of food for all mankind
Ps. 72:16: “There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; on the top of the mountains there will be an overflow.”
Isa. 25:6: “Jehovah of armies will certainly make for all the peoples, in this mountain [in heavenly Mount Zion, the seat of God’s Kingdom, provision for its earthly subjects will be made], a banquet of well-oiled dishes, a banquet of wine kept on the dregs, of well-oiled dishes filled with marrow, of wine kept on the dregs, filtered.”
Remove sickness and disabilities of all kinds
Luke 7:22; 9:11: “Go your way, report to John what you saw and heard: the blind are receiving sight, the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up, the poor are being told the good news.” “He [Jesus Christ] received them kindly and began to speak to them about the kingdom of God, and he healed those needing a cure.” (Thus Jesus demonstrated what he as heavenly King will do for mankind.)
Provide suitable homes for everyone
Isa. 65:21, 22: “They will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating.”
Assure satisfying employment for all
Isa. 65:23: “They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them.”
Guarantee security, freedom from danger to one’s person or property
Mic. 4:4: “They will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble; for the very mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken it.”
Ps. 37:10, 11: “Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; and you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”
Cause righteousness and justice to prevail
2 Pet. 3:13: “There are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.”
Isa. 11:3-5: “He [the Messianic King] will not judge by any mere appearance to his eyes, nor reprove simply according to the thing heard by his ears. And with righteousness he must judge the lowly ones, and with uprightness he must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. . . . And righteousness must prove to be the belt of his hips, and faithfulness the belt of his loins.”
Safeguard mankind from any injury due to natural forces
Mark 4:37-41: “Now a great violent windstorm broke out, and the waves kept dashing into the boat, so that the boat was close to being swamped. . . . With that he [Jesus] roused himself and rebuked the wind and said to the sea: ‘Hush! Be quiet!’ And the wind abated, and a great calm set in. . . . But they felt an unusual fear, and they would say to one another: ‘Who really is this, because even the wind and the sea obey him?’” (Thus Christ demonstrated the power that he as heavenly King will exercise over such natural elements.)
Resurrect the dead
John 5:28, 29: “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [the voice of Christ the King] and come out.”
Rev. 20:12: “I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds [those done following their resurrection; compare Romans 6:7].”
Remove all death due to inheritance of Adamic sin
Isa. 25:8: “He will actually swallow up death forever, and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces.”
Rev. 21:4: “He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
Provide a world in which people genuinely love one another
John 13:35: “By this all will know that you are my disciples [hence, in line to be Jesus’ associates in the heavenly Kingdom or earthly subjects of that Kingdom], if you have love among yourselves.”
Bring animals and humans into harmonious relationship with one another
Isa. 11:6-9: “The wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain.” (Also Isaiah 65:25)
Hos. 2:18: “For them I shall certainly conclude a covenant in that day in connection with the wild beast of the field and with the flying creature of the heavens and the creeping thing of the ground, . . . and I will make them lie down in security.”
Make the earth a paradise
Luke 23:43: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”
Ps. 98:7-9: “Let the sea thunder and that which fills it, the productive land and those dwelling in it. Let the rivers themselves clap their hands; all together let the very mountains cry out joyfully before Jehovah, for he has come to judge the earth. He will judge the productive land with righteousness and the peoples with uprightness.”
Compare Genesis 1:28; 2:15; Isaiah 55:11.
When was God’s Kingdom to begin to rule?
Was it in the first century?
Col. 1:1, 2, 13: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy our brother to the holy ones [those who were heirs of the heavenly Kingdom] . . . He [God] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us [the holy ones, members of the Christian congregation] into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (So Christ had, indeed, begun to rule over the Christian congregation in the first century, before this was written, but the establishment of the Kingdom to rule over all the earth was yet future.)
1 Cor. 4:8: “You men already have your fill, do you? You are rich already, are you? You have begun ruling as kings without us, have you? And I wish indeed that you had begun ruling as kings, that we also might rule with you as kings.” (It is obvious that the apostle Paul is reproving them for having the wrong viewpoint.)
Rev. 12:10, 12: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.” (The establishment of God’s Kingdom is here associated with the hurling of Satan out of heaven. This had not occurred at the time of the rebellion in Eden, as is shown in Job chapters 1, 2. Revelation was recorded in 96 C.E., and Revelation 1:1 shows that it deals with events then future.)
Must the coming to power of God’s Kingdom await the conversion of the world?
Ps. 110:1, 2: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord [Jesus Christ] is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying: ‘Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.’” (So there would be enemies for him to subdue; not all would submit to his rule.)
Matt. 25:31-46: “When the Son of man [Jesus Christ] arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. . . . And these [who showed no love for his anointed brothers] will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” (Obviously, not all mankind were to be converted before Christ would take his throne; not all would prove to be righteous ones.).

@bob_the_fisherman Said

You keep banging on about this contradiction that is contained in Christian doctrine, but, what is it? Oh, that's right, Jesus cannot be God because God is his father. It does not matter that the bible makes it blisteringly clear that the Jews knew what this meant (namely, that Christ and God were equal), as that does not fit the JW doctrine. It doesn't even matter that the bible says that Christ was equal with God...


Contradiction? You can't see it for yourself?

OK I'll put it in terms a baby can understand.

KJV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Can you not see how that the above, which bolsters the Athansian Creed is a distinct contradiction to the following:- All from Translation other than the NWT.

1 Peter 1:3 (KJV)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

If Christ has a God over him how can he be equal to that God?

John 7:28 (CAB)
Therefore Jesus cried out, as He was teaching in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come on my own, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.

If Jesus was sent, who was superior to him and could send him,?

John 5:19-23

KJV(i) 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Are you trying to tell me that the son is not subservient to the Father according to this scripture?

Need I go on, there are so many more that contradict John 1:1.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Not quite. He was leader of a group, from sometime around 1872, which became the JWs. I can't remember the original name, and cannot be bothered trying to find it. But, as to it not proving what I say - bulls***. The first quote clearly said the "great battle" will end in 1914. The second says if this system does not end before 1915 is over, that the whole JW schema has suffered "irreparable wreck."

Check the history of the rest of the Group. Some went on to for their own "churches", few followed Russell into the organisation which became the JWs. But whatever you say You cannot classs C T Russell at that time as part of an organisation which did not exist, therefore any claims he made before the WTB&TS was even formed.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

The JW schema is irreparably wrecked MCB.


No I think you will find that it is yours that is wrecked, lol.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

And, as the leader of the JW cult, Russell never retracted his belief about the time of Armageddon (although, that is not strictly true. After 1914 ended and this world didn't, he changed it to 1915, but we both know that is not what I mean).


Actually the change was to 1918, but again, nothing official was put out by the society except on the lines of "wouldn't it be appropriate if",which is not a prophecy, a predication or a definitive statement but a hope. Neither I nor they have denied misinterpreting the signs in the past and getting a little too hopeful, but it was never a definitive prediction by the Society.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

No, to put it bluntly. Why do they not put in a name that is unknown? I don't know.


But the name is known. It was known since Jehovah revealed it to Moses. OK, Maybe they should have simply put in the transliteration YHWH, in your eyes anyway, but the accepted English translation of that tetragrammaton was even back then, known to be Jehovah, so why not include it, or as I say at least include the YHWY? That at least would have been honest.

No, if they had included it that would have undermined the Apostate teaching of the trinity so it had to go.

If the trinity is not an Apostate teaching, why was it not recognised until the Council of Nicea was was called by Constantine to settle the argument whether or not Christ was equal to God (with no mention of Holy Spirit incidentally). That argument alone had only been raging for 200 years, not the 350 or so it would have needed to be to have any validity whatever.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

Well, as I have said repeatedly, the members of the committee are now known (except one). But the guys on the committee that had the final say are known, and they were not scholars. But, I have told you this repeatedly, and given the quote from Franz wherein he says explicitly how the JW translation was 'revealed'.


Even if you are right that the Committee has been revealed (which I seriously doubt) that still doesn't change my point that qualifications are unnecessary and invalid considering how and where they were gained. Just as the qualifications of the Pharisees were invalidate in Jesus day.

How come I have never found any reference to Rutherford saying that? And what if he did? Any translation with God's approval would only be so if the translators were guided by Holy Spirit and that would mean the intervention of angels. I know I get that guidance myself.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

As to being scholars - actually understanding the Greek language of the time, and, the understanding of language that the Jews had, would clear up some errors that the JWs hold to - like the obvious one about how Jesus cannot be God because he says he is the son of God. However, it is true that even without being a scholar, one can clearly see how the Jews interpreted that statement, when they said he was a blasphemer for making himself equal with God. I am pretty sure that Jesus was a Jew, so I am pretty sure he knew how they would interpret his statement that he is the son of God. Logic, MCB, logic.


I don't understand Koine Greek, nor do I claim to, yet even I can see the glaring error in the common translation of John 1:1, and understand why so many have interreted it differently. As you say, logic, simple logic.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

What is the relevance of this? Was Jesus an ordinary man? Even in the JWs skewed, unsound schema the answer to that is no.

Did they need to be? They actually spoke Greek. They actually spoke to Jesus. He actually said more to them than is contained in the bible. Try thinking before you post.

Again, see above. And, what about Paul?

That is true MCB. God no doubt wants his people to be honest. Especially those that teach. That is why I am so scathing of the JWs.

I doubt they have the approval of the God of the bible, as they make him a liar on many occasions, one clear example of which I have also pointed out to you many times cf., Adam, Eve, Abraham and Sarah seeing and speaking with God.


I know they have the approval of the God of the bible, the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" as Peter said. I have seen more than enough evidence of that. And nothing you can say will ever persuade me otherwise.

Apart from all that I actually know the True God as a friend, as did Abraham. You cannot claim that and not accept the truth of what I say.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#44New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 14:16:13
@bob_the_fisherman Said

This is now officially beyond boring.


That statement in itself says it all.

No true worshipper of the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" could ever find discussions of scripture boring, the help of the Holy Spirit removes any chance of that, because through that spirit we are given the strength to carry on and stay firm,whatever opposition we meet. I certainly could not do that alone, and in human terms I am totally alone, as a disfellowshipped person.

If I were truly guilty I would be alone, but I am not and that gives me further hope for my future. God was with me when I was part of His earthly Organisation, and continues with em still.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#45New Post! Feb 20, 2012 @ 22:54:14
No offense MHB, but I cannot be bothered reading your badly quoted post. If you would like to repost it so it is readable MHB, that would be great. Otherwise, I am not going to bother. However, as I flicked through it, I found one or two gems, and I would like to briefly discuss those.

@MadCornishBiker Said

All who are, either foolish enough, gullible enough, bigoted enough or biased enough to fall for the false teachings you adhere to so blindly and determinedly.


This is the funny thing about you MHB. The cult you belong to says that because a few people adhered to our beliefs (people that include Mohammad and Greber), that this is evidence for the JW view.

Now, if I say the majority of Christians have adhered to a doctrine that is counter to yours, you claim this is evidence for your view, because the majority of people are wrong. Cult logic - not logic.

If I point out that the Council of Nicaea was called to eliminate the false teachings that were creeping into Christian thought, such as the belief that Christ was not God - which was not the view held by the overwhelming majority of Christians, then, doubtless, this will be 'proof' that the majority were wrong even then.

This may appear logical to you, MHB, but it is quite simply dumb, as a little reflection would show you.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Yes, you have showed me that one person said that it was likely not the Society. You have also shown me that the Society said it would be a disappointment if it didn't happen.


Yes, and who was that one person? Why, he was the leader of the cult. And, he said that his entire way of interpreting events would merrily fly out the window if his predictions turned out false (I won't bother to call them false prophecies anymore, as we all know that that is what they were, but, you will bizarrely do the "prophecy is not prophecy" defense, and I can't be bothered dealing with it anymore).

So, MHB, what we have established from this, is that the JWs now lie to their followers. Don't they MHB? Did you know that it was the cult leaders that arrived at these dates for Armageddon Mhb? *And* that they said it would work "irreparable wreck" on their entire system if 1914/15 did not see the end of this system MHB? Of course you didn't. Unless you too have been lying all this time.

But, in your defense MHB, they do not tell their followers that it was their cult leaders that came up with these wrong dates and biblical interpretations, do they?

@MadCornishBiker Said
I don't understand Koine Greek, nor do I claim to, yet even I can see the glaring error in the common translation of John 1:1, and understand why so many have interreted it differently. As you say, logic, simple logic.


What "common error"? The error of consistency, the error of correct interpretation and proper application of rules of Greek? What a shocker MHB.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Neither of the above fit what you have claimed for the Society as a whole, and both of which reveal either your bias, bigotry or gullibility for what it may be, whichever applies.


Oh how false you are MHB. It almost defies belief.

In 1904, the Watchtower said the following: The stress of the great time of trouble will be on us soon, somewhere between 1910 and 1912 - culminating with the end of the "Times of the Gentiles in 1914." And before you spaz out and try to redefine the meaning of this term so that it does not say what it says, let us bear in mind that Russell already said, in the quote I gave you earlier, that the end of this "Time of the Gentiles" would see Israel returned to favour etc etc. In other words, the JWs are wrong, and they lie about it.

And, in May 1914, the Watchtower said there is no reason for bible students to doubt that the "consummation of this Gospel age" is now at the door, and that the great crisis that "will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth is even now very near." (And again, to cut off pitiful objections, I will point out the obvious - this is said in relation to the assertions made by cult leader Russell, that Armageddon would occur in 1914/15).

@MadCornishBiker Said
But at least it is logic, and the truth is impossible to beat in the end whether it comes from what you believe to be a cult or not.




I said to you, if people agree with you, it shows you are right. If people disagree with you, it shows you are right. And then I added, 'you can't beat cult logic.'.

And you respond with this.

It is this that I get bored by MHB. The realisation on my part that that the person I am talking to is bereft of reasoning abilities by virtue of cult indoctrination.

I pity you. And I mean this sincerely. I do not see how someone could exist in the state you are in and not be wracked with mental issues (and this is not an attack on you - as I have said before, I have a friend in your cult. I honestly despair for Jehovah's Witnesses. You, I think, are one of the lucky ones. Having been kicked out, you at least have hope of deprogramming yourself.

If I had to guess, I would say that you are struggling at the moment with the fact that you are free to think for the first time in a long time, but possibly afraid to, as it runs counter to the cults teaching on blind obedience. And, let's be honest, if the world is either JW or Satan (as the JWs teach), there is no help for you anywhere. More than likely, you even sense somewhere inside, something that is wrong or missing in the JW system, but again, to question is to risk loss of hope.

I honestly hope you work it out, MCB.

@MadCornishBiker Said
That statement in itself says it all.

No true worshipper of the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" could ever find discussions of scripture boring,


It is not scripture that bores me, MHB, it is the pointless, all round repetitiveness of the posts with you that bore me. I cannot see a way through. I feel for you, but at the same time, I simply do not have the time to spend going around in pointless circles. You have to work out the truth on your own.

@MadCornishBiker Said

KJV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Can you not see how that the above, which bolsters the Athansian Creed is a distinct contradiction to the following:- All from Translation other than the NWT.
1 Peter 1:3 (KJV)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


Well first, in the limited time I have, I am going to answer these scriptures off the top of my head. I do not see any reason to do more, as I am sure there will be no need to.

@MadCornishBiker Said
If Christ has a God over him how can he be equal to that God?


For the reason that scripture mentions perhaps? When Christ did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but rather, emptied himself and became like a man.

@MadCornishBiker Said
John 7:28 (CAB)
Therefore Jesus cried out, as He was teaching in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come on my own, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.

If Jesus was sent, who was superior to him and could send him,?


Does someone need to be superior to someone to send them somewhere. I have sent my girlfriends to the shops once or twice over the years to buy me stuff. Does that mean I am superior to them? (And yes, I know that's a bad example, because, it goes without saying that I am superior to all my girlfriends )

@MadCornishBiker Said
John 5:19-23
KJV(i) 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.


MHB, this quote actually reveals the deity of Christ repeatedly, to be honest.

God is the judge, but the Father gives judgement into the hands of Jesus, but, God is our judge.

Jesus can only do what the father does. Jesus in fact, does what the father does.

The son gives life to whoever he will. Can any other than God do that?

Again, Christ refers to himself as God, by referring to himself as the son of God.

Anyone that dishonours the son, dishonours the father.

I am sure that if I could be bothered, I could find and cut and paste a massive explanation of this particular scripture, but, I really do not see the point.

@MadCornishBiker Said
Are you trying to tell me that the son is not subservient to the Father according to this scripture?


Yes, that is what I am telling you. At least, he is not subservient to the father in the way you imply. Christ volunteered to become lower than he was when 'he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but rather, humbled himself,' and became less than he was, in order to become like a man.

Now, in that text, it is made clear that Christ *was* equal to God, but he made himself less. Thus, it is obvious that, as a man, he could not have been equal to God.


@MadCornishBiker Said
Need I go on, there are so many more that contradict John 1:1.


Yes, I think you need to go on. In fact, I hope these opening salvos were the weaker proofs, because they were much weaker than I thought (and by that I mean, the tenacity with which JWs hold to this obvious falsehood, lead me to believe that they had at least one or two reasonable arguments in favour of their position. To find that people are convinced by such flimsy - almost non-evidence as this, is kind of surprising.

Can you save us the time MHB, and just point out the scriptural 'pièce de résistance' if in fact there is one?

@MadCornishBiker Said
I know they have the approval of the God of the bible,


And I know they are nutters who adhere to a false doctrine. So what?



____________________

MCB, just an aside here, but, I am sure that many, maybe even most, JWs are passionate and genuine people. However, so too are many Muslims. Believing a thing does not make it true.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Mon Jan 02, 2012 @ 11:57
3 744
New posts   Religion
Wed Jan 12, 2011 @ 15:11
24 5038
New posts   Roleplaying
Mon Jan 17, 2011 @ 08:05
15 6875
New posts   Random
Mon Jul 21, 2008 @ 13:15
54 4048
New posts   Politics
Tue Oct 03, 2006 @ 23:31
1 984