Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jehovas Witness Bible, any exclusive contradictions?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 46 of 64 (387498)
02-28-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by truthlover
02-28-2007 12:58 PM


truthlover writes:
So begotten as in created was the "orthodox" doctrine of the church for almost 300 years until Arius showed up. Then they wanted to stop using the word "created" because of the way Arius applied it.
Well, after-all, I am on the 'orthodox' side. The JW's are in agreement with Arius, and in some cases herald him as a type of prophet precursor of their elders. There is a point where scripture can point in two or more directions, and the rest is up to logic and reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 02-28-2007 12:58 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Equinox, posted 03-01-2007 9:07 AM anastasia has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 47 of 64 (387561)
03-01-2007 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by anastasia
02-28-2007 7:24 PM


Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Ansastasia wrote:
quote:
There is a point where scripture can point in two or more directions, and the rest is up to logic and reasoning.
Amen!
Even after the orthodox chose only those scriptures which can support their view, there still is a lot of places where the non-orthodox influences and origins of the books in the Bible is evident. This shows up in the many places where, as Anastasia points out, we have to read an orthodox meaning into the text.
Understanding this makes the Bible make a lot more sense. The many contradictions disappear, and it becomes much richer in meaning. By realizing that the books each have their own views, own authors, and often, own religions, requires a lot less mental gymnastics than trying to cram the meaning from other biblical books into each book of the Bible. In other words, let each book speak for itself. The Jesus of Mark is a very differnt Jesus as compared to the Jesus of John (in both concrete and general ways), and the religion of Mt is a different religion than that which Paul preaches. Letting each book speak for itself reveals why Luther wanted to cut out the book of James, and why Hell suddenly pops up with Jesus, after not being around in the previous 80+ % of the bible.
Take care-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 7:24 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by truthlover, posted 03-01-2007 9:17 AM Equinox has not replied
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 9:46 AM Equinox has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4058 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 48 of 64 (387563)
03-01-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Equinox
03-01-2007 9:07 AM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Understanding this makes the Bible make a lot more sense. The many contradictions disappear, and it becomes much richer in meaning. By realizing that the books each have their own views, own authors, and often, own religions, requires a lot less mental gymnastics than trying to cram the meaning from other biblical books into each book of the Bible. In other words, let each book speak for itself. The Jesus of Mark is a very differnt Jesus as compared to the Jesus of John (in both concrete and general ways), and the religion of Mt is a different religion than that which Paul preaches. Letting each book speak for itself reveals why Luther wanted to cut out the book of James, and why Hell suddenly pops up with Jesus, after not being around in the previous 80+ % of the bible.
I agree it is good to let each author speak for himself. I have a couple disagreements, though.
Letting each book speak for itself does not explain why Hell suddenly pops up with Jesus. Jesus' description of hell is pulled right out of the Book of Enoch. I don't know the history that led to the Book of Enoch, but it is true that you won't find a description of hell like that in the Old Testament.
And Luther's wanting to cut out the Book of James had to do with Luther's bizarre theology, which contradicts most of Paul, too. The early church never even addressed difficulties reconciling James & Paul, because their theology, mostly influenced by Paul himself, had no difficulties with the Book of James.
I realize James wasn't Scripture to all the early, orthodox churches, but those who did have it did not find the contradictions that ONLY post-Luther believers find. Luther invented those problems.
I don't agree on the Matthew-Paul thing, either, being quite confident that Paul's letters and Matthew's Gospel were produced by the same churches, who knew and agreed with each other, but I can at least understand why you say what you said. The James-Paul thing irritates me, though, because it's not a James-Paul thing, it's only a James-Luther thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Equinox, posted 03-01-2007 9:07 AM Equinox has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 49 of 64 (387567)
03-01-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Equinox
03-01-2007 9:07 AM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Equinox writes:
Even after the orthodox chose only those scriptures which can support their view, there still is a lot of places where the non-orthodox influences and origins of the books in the Bible is evident. This shows up in the many places where, as Anastasia points out, we have to read an orthodox meaning into the text.
Hm. I don't think we have to read an orthodox meaning into the text exactly. I am sure you know there is no real 'orthodox' meaning. I also do not quite buy that the 'unorthodox' sects of christianity were using ideas from all over the Bible to any greater extent. What I am saying is simply what Arius proved; he was able to make a case against the Trinity as we know it using only the same Bible and passages that had been used to make a case for it. So, as far as Biblical support goes, both were 'orthodox' but not equally accepted based on extra-biblical logic.
Understanding this makes the Bible make a lot more sense. The many contradictions disappear, and it becomes much richer in meaning. By realizing that the books each have their own views, own authors, and often, own religions, requires a lot less mental gymnastics than trying to cram the meaning from other biblical books into each book of the Bible. In other words, let each book speak for itself. The Jesus of Mark is a very differnt Jesus as compared to the Jesus of John (in both concrete and general ways), and the religion of Mt is a different religion than that which Paul preaches. Letting each book speak for itself reveals why Luther wanted to cut out the book of James, and why Hell suddenly pops up with Jesus, after not being around in the previous 80+ % of the bible.
Hm, again. How do the contradictions disappear? They don't, really, they are just ignored if the Bible is looked at book by book. If you put all the pieces together, you can actually solve some contradictions, like the Trinity.
I definitely did not mean that I take the Bible as a collection of stories alone; I see its major importance being in the unfolding of one story.
Luther picked over things he didn't like. You can't really decide to invalidate one book based on your own failings. What if we all did that? I don't see a problem. There are other reasons why Paul preaches a different religion. There are many things which appear for the first time with Jesus. IMO reading the Bible entirely one way or the other is overlooking some valuable insight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Equinox, posted 03-01-2007 9:07 AM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Equinox, posted 03-05-2007 4:13 PM anastasia has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 50 of 64 (388317)
03-05-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by anastasia
03-01-2007 9:46 AM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
Hm, again. How do the contradictions disappear? They don't, really, they are just ignored if the Bible is looked at book by book.
It depends on the contradiction. From a Christian perspective, looking at the books separately can show that apparent contradictions are due to human thoughts on the part of the writers, thus avoiding the conclusion that God is confused. For instance, Mark has Jesus clear the temple near the end of his life, just before being crucifies, while for John, it’s the first thing Jesus does. So which was it?
Fundamentalists mash the whole bible together, and insist that because the bible is inerrant, either Jesus cleared the temple twice, or more often they ignore stuff like that all together. Instead, a Christian can look at that and say that Mk and Jn were written by different people who heard different stories about Jesus - thus the important part, (that Jesus cleared the temple and what that meant) is sorted from petty details about who said what. So the “contradiction” ceases to be some indictment, but instead shows some history. This can be applied to most of the contradictions that can be found in those big long lists of bible contradictions, making the contradictions show historical data, instead of being big theological problems.
quote:
Luther picked over things he didn't like.
Sure, and so did Luke when he creatively copied Mark. We can each choose whether or not that will be a theological problem or not. I think the strongest Christian view is one where these changes and differences are not hidden from, but instead are understood. After all, they do shine some light on the honest attempts by the early church in bringing the Christianity we know into existence.
quote:
If you put all the pieces together, you can actually solve some contradictions, like the Trinity.
You know that the trinity is not a contradiction that can be solved. I’m surprised someone with an orthodox understanding would say that it is. The trinity is, as you know, is a “divine mystery” - it is beyond human understanding, according to the Catholic Church, as well as most Protestant churches. A divine mystery can’t be solved - that’s half the point of it.
Also, it may be true or it may not, but I hope we all agree that is isn’t explicitly in the Bible. As I wrote in the other thread:
quote:
In the of a million words that make up the Bible, you’d think that if any of the dozens of writers of the Bible thought the trinity existed, then some phrase like “God is composed of three beings, the father, son, and holy ghost - these three are one god.” wouldn’t be too much trouble to write. That was only 17 words . . . ..
But no. instead we get entire stories copied word for word twice that go on for pages, or pages and pages of geneologies of people who are never again mentioned, or stories about ancient beauty pageants.
From http://EvC Forum: Bible Interpretation and History -->EvC Forum: Bible Interpretation and History
The key is that those things were all more important than the trinity to the writers of the Bible at the time each book was written - again, solved by looking at it in a way that shows historical development, instead of framing it in a way that makes one doubt Christianity. The fact that Christianity has a history doesn’t mean it’s not valid - in fact ignoring that history only makes Christians look nave, which in turn makes Christianity look nave. That’s why I don’t think that ignoring vestiges of it’s history is a good thing for Christians to do.
Christian doesn’t = Trinitarian. There are millions of Christians today who aren’t Trinitarian, and those are the Christianities that are growing the fastest. I personally don’t favor one side or the other, but feel that clarification is needed when the Bible is said to contain a doctrine that only developed much later than the books in the bible were written.
Have a fun day- Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 9:46 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 7:35 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 64 (388369)
03-05-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Equinox
03-05-2007 4:13 PM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Equinox writes:
It depends on the contradiction.
True, and the example you gave of the clearing of the Temple is one of those contradctions where it is beyond me that people would insist that this must have happened twice. I had almost had some temporary amnesia and forgotten that there are those types out there.
But then you get into other contradictions; Jesus as man, as God, as the son of man, the allusions in the OT, and there are obvious reasons why some clear picture of exactly who He was would need to be developed. Reading book by book is not going to solve it.
Sure, and so did Luke when he creatively copied Mark. We can each choose whether or not that will be a theological problem or not.
Yes, but there is a difference between Luke and Luther. A big huge time gap, for one, making what Luther did a disregard for certain texts based on his theological problem.
I’m surprised someone with an orthodox understanding would say that it is.
The Trinity is a resolution of the contradictory texts, one of several. That is not to say that the Trinity is less of a mystery in itself.
Also, it may be true or it may not, but I hope we all agree that is isn’t explicitly in the Bible.
Yes, I agree. It is a conclusion which has been arrived at by extra-biblical reasoning, which incidentally was what prompted this swing in the conversation.
Christian doesn’t = Trinitarian. There are millions of Christians today who aren’t Trinitarian, and those are the Christianities that are growing the fastest. I personally don’t favor one side or the other, but feel that clarification is needed when the Bible is said to contain a doctrine that only developed much later than the books in the bible were written.
I understand completely, the JW sect being one of those non-Trinitarians...although in certain terminologies they are not considered christian. It is possible as you say that if the other early interpretations had gained as large a following christianity as we know it would not include this Trinity clause, but these are the types of things which I believe led to the early orthodox church gaining such a following; the Trinity is not the most Biblical, but the most logical explanation...which is to say, that while others may be just as viable if you are flying sola scriptura, they don't entirely solve the logical inconsistancies, and that is something which is extremely necessary if Scripture is to have any of the value which is ascribed to it.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Equinox, posted 03-05-2007 4:13 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 3:57 PM anastasia has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 52 of 64 (388767)
03-07-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by anastasia
03-05-2007 7:35 PM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
quote:
quote:
Equinox writes: It depends on the contradiction.
True, and the example you gave of the clearing of the Temple is one of those contradctions where it is beyond me that people would insist that this must have happened twice. I had almost had some temporary amnesia and forgotten that there are those types out there.
Yeah. The funniest one that comes to mind is the “cock crows” one. John has Peter deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crows, while Mark has Peter deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crows twice. Fundamentalists sometimes claim that Peter must therefore have denied Jesus 6 times - 3 times before the cock crowed, then again 3 more times before the cock crowed again.
quote:
But then you get into other contradictions; Jesus as man, as God, as the son of man, the allusions in the OT, and there are obvious reasons why some clear picture of exactly who He was would need to be developed. Reading book by book is not going to solve it.
Well, we can be different here. Fundamentalists never use the book by book solution, you sometimes use it, as you see fit, and I use it more often, as I see fit. For me, it does solve the Christology question simply. To me, it seems that Mark simply had a different Christology than John, who saw Jesus as equal to God the Father. Jesus as the suffering servant of God is consistent throughout Mark, while Jesus as divine creator of the world is consistent within John. To each his own.
quote:
quote:
Sure, and so did Luke when he creatively copied Mark. We can each choose whether or not that will be a theological problem or not.
Yes, but there is a difference between Luke and Luther. A big huge time gap, for one, making what Luther did a disregard for certain texts based on his theological problem.
Why does the time gap matter? Is it OK to let your theology affect your writing today, but won’t be OK to do the same thing in the future? Luke did certainly disregard parts of Mark’s text. In fact, in his opening lines, Luke appears to insult Mark. It reminds me of Luther saying that the book of James was “an epistle made of straw”. I’m still struggling to see a distinction, except perhaps that Luke actually did exclude the parts of Mark he didn’t like, while Luther ended up keeping the whole book of James unchanged.
quote:
The Trinity is a resolution of the contradictory texts, one of several. That is not to say that the Trinity is less of a mystery in itself.
That sounds like a contradiction. A “resolution” of a contradiction is not a mystery, it’s a resolution. Is the Trinity a mystery (= something that doesn’t make human logical sense)? If not, then why call it a mystery? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. We both know that the church doctrine is that the trinity is indeed a mystery because it is beyond human comprehension. Or is there another divine mystery on top of that, which says that a logical resolution can indeed still be a mystery and it’s a divine mystery as to how a logical resolution can still be a mystery? : )
quote:
the JW sect being one of those non-Trinitarians...although in certain terminologies they are not considered christian.
This sounds an awful lot like the whole “only our sect is saved”. The early Christians called the other Christians “not Christian”, and many modern Christians call other Christians “not Christian” if they don’t like their doctrine. Many Baptists say that Catholics aren’t “really Christian”, and on and on. It seems to me that anyone who bases their religion on their understanding of Jesus is a Christian. Do you consider Truthlover to be a Christian? Truthlover doesn’t base his Christianity on the Bible, which the JW’s at least do. Thus truthlover is a heretic at least as bad as the JWs in the RCC’s eyes. Though not a Christian myself, I don’t support the whole “Christianer than thou” stance we see so often. Actually, Anastasia, I bet you don’t either. Am I right? Thanks-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 7:35 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 5:00 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 53 of 64 (388779)
03-07-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Equinox
03-07-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Equinox writes:
To me, it seems that Mark simply had a different Christology than John, who saw Jesus as equal to God the Father. Jesus as the suffering servant of God is consistent throughout Mark, while Jesus as divine creator of the world is consistent within John. To each his own.
Well, they did have different Christologies, just as I have a different Mariology than my mother spiritually speaking. We can 'relate' to certain aspects of a person and talk about what we see as being Christ or being Mary. There is still a very big need to define who Christ is before you can base a religion around only Mark's Jesus, or only John's. It is one thing that we have different sects of christians, but christians can't believe Jesus changes in every book. He can't be only God, and then only Man. He must be both/and or either/or.
And yes, I do think a solution can be a mystery!
Why does the time gap matter?
What matters is that Luke is in the Bible, and Luther isn't. Therefore, whatever Luke did matters to Bible readers, and whatever Luther did is take-it-or-leave-it.
Though not a Christian myself, I don’t support the whole “Christianer than thou” stance we see so often. Actually, Anastasia, I bet you don’t either. Am I right?
That is complicated. I am Catholic, and I don't feel that all churches have found the 'right' answer in Bible interpretation. The churches don't agree with one another, so they can't all be equally 'true'. It is not a matter of being biased, but only of following my own logic. I like the Trinity, for example, so I can't like Unitarianism the same way.
If you say 'more christian' that could mean more Biblical or more orthodox. Generally speaking, Christians follow Jesus as God. Other people believe in Jesus as a teacher or minor God or prophet, even outside of Christianity. So, depending upon one's definition of 'Christian' it might be appropriate to say that there are true Christians and other kinds. It is mainly as internal thing...if I want to explain the teachings of JW's to a possible convert, it is important to note these differences in the status of Jesus. To leap from being Presbyterian to Methodist, or attending the services, is much different than it would be to jump into some of the other sects, because some main tenets which MOST Christians follow are denied, and one of those is that Jesus is God.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 3:57 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:42 PM anastasia has replied

  
nathan
Junior Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 3
From: puget sound region
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 54 of 64 (388903)
03-08-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by anastasia
02-24-2007 2:24 PM


contradictions?
i am an inactive jw, but from what i have read everybody either proves the jws wrong , then they prove them right. from just what i have read they would be more right, as there is no mention of the trinity, but they make a few verses say so. and as far as jesus being god i had not known the others thought he was actually god until the past few months, when i read it somewhere on the computer. but i will keep an open mind and see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 02-24-2007 2:24 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 55 of 64 (388982)
03-09-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by anastasia
03-07-2007 5:00 PM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
quote:
but christians can't believe Jesus changes in every book. He can't be only God, and then only Man. He must be both/and or either/or.
Ah - there’s that word: “Can’t”. Can’t due to what the doctrine/priest/preacher says? “Can’t” because it’s required to think as your are told - such as that the Bible is inerrant? Some similar “Can’t” reason? Christians could indeed decided that Mark’s gospel is right, and ignore John’s or vice versa. That’s how things were at the start of Christianity, and the PO picked which gospels to allow and which to toss - see my Peter example below.
quote:
And yes, I do think a solution can be a mystery!
We’ll agree to disagree. : )
quote:
quote:
Why does the time gap matter?
What matters is that Luke is in the Bible, and Luther isn't. Therefore, whatever Luke did matters to Bible readers, and whatever Luther did is take-it-or-leave-it.
So the unspoken assumption is that the Bible is inerrant. Otherwise, you could decide that Luke wasn’t any more justified than Luther, and then the time gap doesn’t matter. After all, even hundred of years after Jesus, the PO decided to exclude the Gospel of Peter, which appears to have been about as common as the Gospel of Mark. Or in the 1500’s the Protestants took out books like maccabbees and such, and the RCC doctrine of the immaculate conception is only a couple centuries old. Maybe taking some books of the Bible and not all of them is more consistent with how the early Christians were, and how things have been even up to now? And/or, add the new revelations from God, which you alluded to here:
quote:
The revelations of God are recorded in the Bible. They don't end there. . . ..
quote:
If you say 'more christian' that could mean more Biblical or more orthodox.
Why? Both “Biblical” and “orthodox” are human constructions from hundreds of years after Jesus, where Christians were on all sides of the debates.
quote:
Generally speaking, Christians follow Jesus as God.
Why require the “as god” part? The Gnostics (who aren't considered Christian by some Christians) certainly did see Jesus as God - depending on the type of Gnostic.
Plus, and more importantly, the “as God” part isn’t needed. For instance, Buddhists don’t see Buddha as God or even as a god. Marxists don’t see Karl as God or a god. Confucists don't see Confucius as God. Isn’t a Christian simply a person who follows Christ, just as a Buddhist follows Buddha, etc?
quote:
some main tenets which MOST Christians follow are denied, and one of those is that Jesus is God.
So then is the definition of “what a Christian is” determined by popularity? As we noted, with the rapid growth of the non-trinitarian Christianities, it seems quite possible that in the foreseeable future, perhaps in our lifetimes, most Christians will reject the trinity. Would that change who is a “true Christian”?
Have a nice day, I’ll be back next week-
-Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 5:00 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by anastasia, posted 03-10-2007 2:07 AM Equinox has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 56 of 64 (389013)
03-10-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Equinox
03-09-2007 2:42 PM


Re: Finding Coherency in the the Bible
Equinox writes:
Ah - there’s that word: “Can’t”. Can’t due to what the doctrine/priest/preacher says? “Can’t” because it’s required to think as your are told - such as that the Bible is inerrant? Some similar “Can’t” reason? Christians could indeed decided that Mark’s gospel is right, and ignore John’s or vice versa. That’s how things were at the start of Christianity, and the PO picked which gospels to allow and which to toss - see my Peter example below.
No, not can't, as in, not allowed. But 'can't' as in 'what sense would it make'? Given the gospels we have as canon, we can't flip-flop our over-all idea of Jesus to match, Sure, we can throw away a part of canon. But I am talking WITH this canon. We must find a reason to cohere them, or else toss one. And if we toss one, it can't be on the grounds of 'I dont like it'. This late in the game such a thing is very suspicious.
Why? Both “Biblical” and “orthodox” are human constructions from hundreds of years after Jesus, where Christians were on all sides of the debates.
I understand. But saying someone is 'more christian' is a recent term. It stems from centuries of 'knowing' what a christian is supposed to be. I am not saying that it is right, but it is a line drawing in some areas.
Why require the “as god” part? The Gnostics (who aren't considered Christian by some Christians) certainly did see Jesus as God - depending on the type of Gnostic.
There are other requirements, but sure they are not requirements for real. It is just a thing which has become common that people assosciate when they hear the word. Christians in general believe in a Trinity.
So the unspoken assumption is that the Bible is inerrant. Otherwise, you could decide that Luke wasn’t any more justified than Luther, and then the time gap doesn’t matter.
It has nothing to do with inerrancy. Put Luther in the Bible and people will study him, period, whether they believe in inerrancy or not.
Plus, and more importantly, the “as God” part isn’t needed. For instance, Buddhists don’t see Buddha as God or even as a god. Marxists don’t see Karl as God or a god. Confucists don't see Confucius as God. Isn’t a Christian simply a person who follows Christ, just as a Buddhist follows Buddha, etc?
No...all Buddhists see Buddha as a person and teacher. Same with Marx. If someone starts calling them God, they might be called something else. There has to be human words to define different people. If there are different types of Buddhists, there will be different words, That is why JW's are JW's, and Catholics are Catholics. It is also not realistic to say that JW's follow the same Jesus or follow HIm the same way.
So then is the definition of “what a Christian is” determined by popularity? As we noted, with the rapid growth of the non-trinitarian Christianities, it seems quite possible that in the foreseeable future, perhaps in our lifetimes, most Christians will reject the trinity. Would that change who is a “true Christian”?
That may be, to us. But not to God. We will have to see.
See you next week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:42 PM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AdminPD, posted 03-10-2007 6:32 AM anastasia has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 57 of 64 (389020)
03-10-2007 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by anastasia
03-10-2007 2:07 AM


Topic Warning
This thread is about exclusive contradictions within the JW Bible, not the Christian Bible in general.
Please reread Message 1 and continue the discussion accordingly.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by anastasia, posted 03-10-2007 2:07 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 58 of 64 (390181)
03-19-2007 8:24 AM


Still no William? Damn, and here I was a-waiting with changes in the NWT, the flip-flops on doctrine, the failed prophecies, the anger of misquoted scholars in both their Bible and publications, the heresy of Westcott/Hort, etc., etc., etc.--------

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (485916)
10-13-2008 3:11 AM


A JW defends the New World Translation
As a 3rd generation JW I've been in the house-to-house ministry 70 years. It blesses me with thousands of thoughtful discussions. I don't read Greek or Hebrew, but have the usual reference works, concordances, etc. Of course they're no substitute for a deep understanding of the original languages. Peter & John were "unlearned and ignorant men" according to Acts 4:13 and Paul wrote at First Corinthians 1:27 that "God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise."
Probably this passage puts most of us at the same level, we're not graduates of rabinnical schools, etc. So I'll defend the NWT with some help from my friends. I've collected about 4,000 books, including 36 translations. Often if I disagree with someonw I buy their books to understand their ideas. I have dozens of books by evolutinists. I consider it the absolute modern heresy.
In 2003 Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at the
Univ/Arizona, Flagstaff, published "Truth in Translation", an analysis of 9 recent translations. BeDuhn won the Best First Book prize from the American Academy of Religion for an earlier work.
On page 163 he concludes "It can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He devotes chapter 11 to John 1:1, confirming the NW rendering: "the word was a god."
The NWT is deeply superior in many places, I'll name 4 of them:
1. In the public ministry, along with the NWT I carry the 1901 American Standard Version which presents the devine Name, Jehovah, 6,828 times. The ASV was the product of U.S. protestant denominations, then replaced by the Revised Standard Version which deletes Jehovah's Name. NIV has the same horrid zero score, but false gods regularly appear in all these versions: Zeus, Hermes, Dagon, Baal, AdramMelech, Chemosh and Satan the Devil. KJV uses Jehovah at Exodus 6:3, Isaiah 12:2 & 26:4 & Psalm 83:18. These translaters substitute LORD or GOD for Jehovah.
Some complain "That's not how they said it." All English names in the OT beginning with a J (Jerusalem, Jehu, etc) were pronounced with Y in Hebrew. (Yonah, Yeshua, Yehu) A translation eradicating the name of the Author is compromised. Would you eviscerate "Jesus" name? NWT uses Jehovah 7,100 times.
2. The Hebrew word for soul is "nephesh", translated over 30 ways in the KJV and 153 in the NIV. NWT sticks with soul all 750 times. The first 4 times it refers to animals, in Genesis 1. At Gen 2:7 it is first used for humans. Nephesh derives from Naphash (see Strong's concordance) which means a breathing creature. So a soul is a breather, not an immortal entity. 100 times Bible says the soul dies; never deathless, undying, indestructable or immortal. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel 18:4 & 20 KJV See Joshua 10:28 & 11:11.
3. KJV translates 4 Hebrew & Greek words are translated "hell", resulting in much confusion. They are Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. NWT agrees with the ASV, RSV, NIV, etc, in not translating the 65 Hebrew "sheol" appearances with English nouns.
KJV translates sheol 31 times Hell, 31 times Grave and 3 times Pit. The Catholic Douay is consistant and in all but 1 case uses Hell, so Job prayed at 14:13: "Protect me in hell" Hell is the Grave!
Gehennah, 11 times, was the city dump along Jerusalem's SW wall, with brimstone & maggots. (Mark 9:43-45) It was an idiomatic picture representing total destruction, the second death. In 1996 the Pope repudiated hell, look it up on the web. Billy Graham was quoted in TIME as saying he's not sure of it & doesn't teach it. No one frys when they die! Jeremiah 51:39 & 57
"Tartarus" occurs only at 2 Peter 2:4. It applies to angels, not us.
Incorrect translations of these words builds 2 false doctrines: immortality of the soul, & eternal torment. God is LOVE, not a torturing fiend!
4. In 1963 J. Wash Watts, Professor of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary released his tremendous book: A Distinctive Translation of Genesis. In his 26 page appendix Watts explains that Hebrew verbs are unlike English & are commonly mistranslated. The NWT was published years earlier but is in complete agreement with Professor Watts' rules. Thus Genesis 2 in the NWT correctly reads:
"The heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. And by the 7th day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the 7th day, because on it he has been resting from all his work."
The Hebrew verbs here Watts calls "imperfect", indicating actions extending over a period of time. All other translations I've seen convert them into past tense. Jehovah is still resting, according to Hebrews 3 & 4, so the days of creation were ages and we're still in the 7th day!!!

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 60 of 64 (493110)
01-06-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by anastasia
12-11-2006 11:28 AM


anastasia you seem to know the trinity well
could you provide the scriptural basis for the teaching?
Especially anything that Jesus said about it seeing he would have been talking about himself, he should know it pretty well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anastasia, posted 12-11-2006 11:28 AM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 01-06-2009 6:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024