Jehovah's Witnesses Knocked on My Door

[savagewind]

savagewind,
I say that I believe no man’s words unless I know that what they said is true, and that pertains to Bible truth.
Are you thinking straight, or are you just trying to find anything to argue about?
The fact is; none of the words we read are actually God’s words, because He had His people write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
It is the message from God that we want to transmit accurately.
If you change one word of God’s Holy Bible, if done on purpose, you could be sinning against The Holy Spirit, Matthew 12:32, because it was the Holy Spirit that guided men as they wrote tha Bible, 2Peter 1:20,21, 2Timothy 3:16,17, 2Peter 3:15,16.

I am not twisting anything you said. You say that to purposely change any of what is called God's Word, you could be sinning.

My opinion is that to change any word enough to change the meaning IS sinning and it is a sin even if it is done "innocently". The reason why is that to change it means it is now a man's word and not God's word.

Trinity isn't the answer. I'm just asking you if that is your final word on the matter or do you want to change it?

In other words, is "If you change one word of God’s Holy Bible, if done on purpose, you could be sinning against The Holy Spirit," the truth?

You say: If you change one word of God’s Holy Bible, if done on purpose, you could be sinning against The Holy Spirit,

I say: If you change one word of God's Word enough to change the meaning you are sinning against the Holy Spirit.

Mine is simpler so if anyone is twisting anything it is YOU.

Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Matthew 23:26

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, beloved, since we have these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that defiles body and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Ephesians 5:1
Be imitators of God, therefore, as beloved children,
Colossians 1:28
We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.
James 1:4
Allow perseverance to finish its work, so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

 

[savagewind]

To accuse me of twisting things if I have not twisted things is a sin. Is it not?

Are you going to apologize? @12jtartar

Or, am I going to the end calling you a liar? You can see that a twist or a knot is a complicated thing. YOU make it complicated. I don't.

It is simple. Change the Word and it isn't the Word anymore. Change it to suit your agenda and it becomes just another word to bet on. I'm not betting on it. It is why to believe in anything but the way, the truth and the life will prove the downfall of you and yours. Matthew 7:27

Agape!

 

[savagewind]

Hiding was prophesied. Revelation 6:15

 

[savagewind]

I hope you're not dead!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course motive is a question.

We ask for no money, so suggest another motive.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

JW's decided every reference to Lord ought to be replaced with an English equivalent of YHVH

That's not entirely correct....it's where the Scripture has "LORD", not Lord. As in Psalms 110:1, or in Psalms 8:9, or Malachi 3:16, or Exodus 3:15....it goes on and on, where reading The Name can bring a clearer understanding of the passage.

I mean, God put His name in the Hebrew Scriptures over 6,800 times! Who are humans to take It out?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If scripture is open to interpretation, then who decides what the correct interpretation is for everybody else on the planet?

The accepted Bible canon, itself. That's always worked for me, to either prove or disprove a concept.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

New World Translation. The proprietary translation used by JWs and their predecessors, Bible Students. It has some key differences but overall not much more dissimilar from the NIV or ESV.

The Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were known prior to their name change in 1931, used mainly the KJV, or the ASV. They did not have the NWT, until it's creation in the '50's, way after the name change.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were known prior to their name change in 1931, used mainly the KJV, or the ASV. They did not have the NWT, until it's creation in the '50's, way after the name change.

I stand corrected. I know some Bible students who use it, so I incorrectly assumed it was part of the old guard's library.
There are still Bible students by the way.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It appears to me that they changed it because they didn't like what it said. That's sad.

No, it is because of the grammar of Koine Greek, the language the Apostle John used when writing his Gospel.

Although Koine Greek has the definite article, ie., “the,” it doesn’t have the indefinite articles, i.e., "a" or "an". (Example: Instead of saying, "I saw an elephant", they'd say, "I saw elephant." The elephant in this sentence has no definite article (“the”) with it, so elephant here is considered anarthrous.)

Additionally, the second “theos” (“god”) mentioned at John 1:1 (i.e., “....and god was the word”), is situated in the Greek sentence as a qualitative, anarthrous predicate noun.

These two facts are very significant to understanding this verse!

In the article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John1:1, “.....and the Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17, they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

Acclaimed scholar and Roman Catholic Priest John J. McKenzie, (a Trinitarian), S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. (Bold type is mine.)

In harmony with these facts, the following translations render John 1:1 as... “the Word was divine” —The Bible, An American Translation (1935), by J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed; “the Logos was divine” — A New Translation of the Bible (1934), by James Moffatt; “the word was a god.” — The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808), published in London.

In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.”

Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalms 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·himʹ; Greek, the·oiʹ, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

As you can see, the way John 1:1 is rendered in the NWT is based on comparing Scriptures, sound reasoning, and solid scholarship.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are still Bible students by the way

Yes, I found that out, a few years back. They adhere closely to Russell's views, right?

I know there are some Millennial Dawnists, too.

According to the Scriptures, light gets brighter; Jesus indicated the same to his own disciples. We can't live in the past, we need to keep up with brighter light, so to speak.

In Russell's time -- even for a while after he died -- Jehovah's people used the cross in worship! We stopped that though....We've tried to "clean" ourselves (spiritually) from pagan influences.

Take care.

 

[savagewind]

The accepted Bible canon, itself. That's always worked for me, to either prove or disprove a concept.

But, you do not know that every person who handled it also used all other scriptures to make sense of it.

 

[savagewind]

Yes, I found that out, a few years back. They adhere closely to Russell's views, right?

I know there are some Millennial Dawnists, too.

According to the Scriptures, light gets brighter; Jesus indicated the same to his own disciples. We can't live in the past, we need to keep up with brighter light, so to speak.

In Russell's time -- even for a while after he died -- Jehovah's people used the cross in worship! We've tried to "clean" ourselves (spiritually) from pagan influences.

Take care.

According to the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory of Proverbs 4:18 the light doesn't get brighter, it changes its color.
It isn't like the dawn with the JWs. It is like the aurora borealis.

 

[savagewind]

We ask for no money, so suggest another motive.

I think that you are hearing things.

 

[savagewind]

I know why @Hockeycowboy @12jtartar @Deeje @Vee Jehovah's Witnesses can't answer the question, Is Jesus alive?. It is because a yes answer will beg the next question, Why can't he communicate, according to YOU? Or, why won't he?

 

[Deeje]

I know why @Hockeycowboy @12jtartar @Deeje @Vee Jehovah's Witnesses can't answer the question, Is Jesus alive?. It is because a yes answer will beg the next question, Why can't he communicate, according to YOU? Or, why won't he?

This is a joke...right?

Is Jesus alive? He was resurrected so why would we think he isn't?

Why can't he communicate with us directly.....one-on-one, you mean? For the same reason he used the apostles to communicate to the "sheep" after he was resurrected. He appointed shepherds to feed them and to care for them. They were treated as a "flock" so he did not, and has not communicated directly with humans since he left the earthly scene. He directs his disciples collectively through the only channel that he appointed to feed them....his "faithful slave"...who isn't an individual BTW. (Matthew 24:45)

This ensures that no one with unstable thinking runs away with the idea that they are "special" and have direct personal communication with Jesus. There are lots of those people in psyche wards.
Are they all to be believed? Isn't "Christianity" in enough of a fractured mess already?

Makes sense to me that he would communicate in an orderly manner by means of God's spirit....especially when people who make those claims are not exactly shining examples of Christian conduct themselves. Wasn't it Jesus who said we had to look at their conduct, not just listen to their claims? "By their fruits".....

 

[savagewind]

It's not a joke. So, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that what Jesus says, "I will be with you" is to be taken literally?

For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them Matthew 18:20

surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age Matthew 28:20

I am with you and no one will lay a hand on you, because I have many people in this city Acts of the Apostles 18:10

Just because the Bible shows levels of leadership in no way means that it is the only way we can commune with Jesus. YOU twist it up that way.

 

[savagewind]

Where is it written in the almighty word that Jesus will not share the truth with individuals?

 

[savagewind]

If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is a joke...right?

Is Jesus alive? He was resurrected so why would we think he isn't?

Why can't he communicate with us directly.....one-on-one, you mean? For the same reason he used the apostles to communicate to the "sheep" after he was resurrected. He appointed shepherds to feed them and to care for them. They were treated as a "flock" so he did not, and has not communicated directly with humans since he left the earthly scene. He directs his disciples collectively through the only channel that he appointed to feed them....his "faithful slave"...who isn't an individual BTW. (Matthew 24:45)

This ensures that no one with unstable thinking runs away with the idea that they are "special" and have direct personal communication with Jesus. There are lots of those people in psyche wards.
Are they all to be believed? Isn't "Christianity" in enough of a fractured mess already?

Makes sense to me that he would communicate in an orderly manner by means of God's spirit....especially when people who make those claims are not exactly shining examples of Christian conduct themselves. Wasn't it Jesus who said we had to look at their conduct, not just listen to their claims? "By their fruits".....

So why do you believe Paul? He never met Jesus and only allegedly had a vision.