Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

POST TWO OF TWO

Brian2 said : “I have heard this sort of argument from Jehovah's Witnesses who seem to want to justify the Watchtower's changing of scripture by pointing to what they claim is a change of scripture on the part of Christendom.” (Post #859)

I suspect you have NEVER heard Jehovah’s Witness say “Other” was added to Colossians 1:16 because the word "other" was removed by early "christendom". Rather I suspect they will tell you the word “other” was added to Colossians 1:16 because, to them, that is what the specific text means in their theology.

In both cases, it is theology that motivates the addition of “other" to Colossians 1:16, just as your type of theology motivates the addition of “exact” to Hebrews 1:3.


Brian2 said : “Translators come from diverse opinions and are individuals or small groups. I cannot justify all translations from "Christendom". I also cannot justify the New World Translation.” (Post #859)

I agree with you on these points.

The problem is that theology is being used to make and justify additions and changes to the translations of source text rather than the meaning of words of the source text.

For example, one of the Oxford english dictionaries' use of the word "Character" is : "The sum of the moral or mental qualities which distinguish an individual or a race." It relates to the moral or mental constitution.

While my personal theology is that the moral qualities of Jesus are "exactly" the same as that of his Father, I cannot find that statement of "exactness' in the source Greek for Hebrews 1:3 and neither can you.

My theology feels consistent with the text (to me), and I can see my theology in the text, but but I am still not allowed to change this specific source text to align with or to support my theology.



Brian2 said : “I see no hypocrisy there. If I did, then it would mean that anyone from Christendom who criticised the New World Translation is a hypocrite.” (Post #859)

Not everyone.
However, those who support inserting an error into authentic text and justifying that error by their own theology (and not by authentic translation) cannot criticize others for doing the same thing they, themselves are doing without risking hypocrisy.


Clear
εισετωσετωω

“Other” at Col. 1:16
“For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth” - MLB.
“by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created” - NWT.

The use of the word “other” by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian “scholars” very upset. Dr. Walter Martin tells us in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 75 that this “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’” is “one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen.” He further states that “attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World Bible Translation Committee enclosed each added ‘other’ in brackets.”

The accusation is perfectly clear: Martin (and others) is claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God’s Word! But what is the truth about words added to the original text?
Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and often signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language.

Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV; NKJV; TEV/GNB; ERV; MEV; WE; NCV; Beck; Mounce; etc.) supplied the word “other” at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not written in the original text. Notice that they did not even indicate that it was added! Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term “all” (and “every”). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!” Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says “everyone”! Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.”

This also applies to the word “all” [pas, panta, etc.] as used in the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible. For example, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich (abridged in one volume by G.W. Bromiley) tells us of this word in the ancient Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint): “In many passages, of course, the use is rhetorical”. And in the NT this esteemed work tells us of the word “all” that it is often “used in the NT simply to denote a great number,” not literally “all.” – pp. 796, 797, Eerdmans, 1992 reprint.

And Dr. Young wrote in the foreword (“Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”) of his well-known Bible Concordance:
“Some particles such as ALL, are frequently used for SOME or MOST, e.g., … Matt. 3:5; 26:52 [even King David?]; … 1 Cor. 6:12; … Col. 3:22” – Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 reprint.

(Also see p. 97, vol.1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984; examine Isaiah 44:24)

An American Translation, The Common Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Twentieth Century New Testament, and translations by C. B. Williams, Moffatt, Beck, and Weymouth all add “other” after “all” at 1 Cor. 15:24 (e.g. “when he will put an end to all other government, authority, and power” - C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Moody Press, 1963). [see first Heb. 2:8] Although the NWT does not happen to add “other” at that scripture, its translators (as well as every other Jehovah’s Witness on earth) would whole-heartedly agree that those who have added “other” there have done so properly and that the original Bible writer so intended the meaning! And conversely, at Jn 2:10 the NWT has added “other,” and, although most [other] translations do not add it, I’m sure most people would agree that, whether actually written in the scripture or not, context demands such an understanding: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first...”

Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, AT, GNB, TEV, JB, NJB (among others) have added “other” to the text. And the NWT agrees whole-heartedly! And at Matt. 6:33 JB, AT, GNB, TEV, and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added “other” (NEB has added “the rest”), and, again, the NWT agrees.

Or how about Luke 13:2 where many trinitarian translations add ‘other’:

“all the other Galileans” - NIV, Luke 13:2
“all other Galileans” – NASB
“all other Galileans” – NAB (’91)
“all other Galileans” - NRSV
“all other Galileans” - NKJV
“all the other Galileans” – RSV
“anyone else in Galilee” – NEB and REB
“than any other Galileans” - JB
“than all other Galileans” - NJB
“any other Galileans” - AT
"everyone else in Galilee" - CEV.
"all other Galileans" - TEV.
"all other Galileans" - BBE
"other people from Galilee" - GodsWord
"all the other Galileans" - ISV NT
“the rest of the Galileans” - Moffatt

Another good example of honest adding can be seen in reference to another too literal interpretation of “all.” Romans 3:23 says literally, “All have sinned” -- but, obviously, Jesus, the Father, and myriads of faithful angels have not sinned! So some Bibles (including TEV and NAB [1970 ed.]) have honestly qualified this “all” by adding to this scripture and translated it “All men have sinned.” You may notice also that they haven’t even bothered to indicate that the word “men” has been added.

Also in Romans we find the very same words used by Paul in Col. 1:16 (ta panta) - “He [God] didn’t spare His own Son but gave him up for all of us - He will certainly with Him give us everything [ta panta].” - Ro. 8:32, Beck (Lutheran). Obviously, the “everything” that is given to Christians does not include God or Jesus, or even fellow created Christians. It certainly would not be improper to translate this as: “He will ... give us all [other] things.” In fact, notice these trinitarian Bible translations:

“... how can he fail to lavish every other gift upon us?” - REB.
“ ... will he not with him also give us everything else?” - NRSV
“... won’t he also surely give us everything else?” - Living Bible.
“... will he not also give us everything else along with him?” - NAB (‘91)
“... will He not with Him graciously give us everything else?” - CBW.

Since ta panta does not include all created things in this scripture, it certainly does not have to mean all created things in Col. 1:16!

Yes, Col. 1:16, 17 needs a qualified “all” as the teaching of the rest of the Bible testifies. It is similar to Hebrews 2:8 in this respect.

At Heb. 2:8 we read: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” However, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the teachings of the rest of the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., “Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection...;” or even, “Thou hast put all things [except the Father and yourself] in subjection...” - see 1 Cor. 15:27 below.

(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

(NASB) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son].

(NIV) …. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.

(CEB) …. When it says that everything has been brought under his control, this clearly means everything except for the one who placed everything under his control.
Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and “bestowed on him the name above all names.” - NEB.

But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Nor can it be above his [Jesus’] own name. Therefore, it is not wrong to add “other” and render this as “God ... gave him the name which is above all other names” as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); AT; GNB/TEV; LB; CBW (NT); Beck (NT); ETRV; and NLV.

Paul continues in Phil. 2:10, “So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth....” But, obviously, the Father in heaven does not bend his knee, and Jesus certainly does not bend his knee to himself! This, too, should be a qualified “every knee”!

So how accurate is Martin (and many others) when he says the translators of the NWT have made a “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’”?

Well, let’s look at Col. 1:17 itself: “And he is before all things.” - KJV. This is the literal wording and what Martin wants.

But look at what these (other) trinitarian translations have added to this verse:

“He is before all else that is...” - NAB (‘70).
“He was before all else began...” - LB.
“He existed before anything else… - NLT.
"God’s Son was before all else," - CEV.
"He himself existed before anything else did" - ISV.
"And he is ahead, prior to all else" - NTE.

Since it is obvious that Christ did not exist before himself, nor before the Father, these two, at least, have to be excluded from “all things.” Therefore, the trinitarian Bibles above have properly added “else” to this scripture. This is the same thing as writing “before every [other] thing”!

Certainly it is not wrong from a grammatical viewpoint (nor is it a “dishonest rendering”) to add “other” as the NWT has done at Col. 1:16, 17 (and the Bibles listed above have done with “else” at Col. 1:17) and so many trinitarian translators have done in other similar situations. Whether it is doctrinally correct as Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30, 1 John 4:9 (“only-begotten”), and Col. 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation”) suggest is a matter for all honest-hearted persons to discover but not a reason for falsely accusing someone of dishonestly rendering God’s Word!

Brian2 said:

Are you going to answer my posts or just repeat your posts?
If you want to deny that Jesus is God then answer my posts otherwise Thomas is correct when he calls Jesus "My Lord and my God".
Imagine a Jew in Jesus day saying that to anyone. Blasphemy right? Yes.

Click to expand...

Thomas displayed his confusion from the start. He refused to believe Jesus rose.
Fact--Jesus prayed to God, who was in heaven, not on earth.

metis said:

Nope.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons:[2][3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5]...

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God[6] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas, including Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5.[7][9] Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all", while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"[10] has led theologians across history in attempting to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Eventually, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were brought together to form the doctrine of the Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance. The doctrine of the Trinity was used to oppose alternative views of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[11]... -- Trinity - Wikipedia [especially note the underlined parts]

Now, are you going to believe in the Gospels or what your Governing Body has told you?

Click to expand...

Jesus told me--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- I am glad my teachers listen to him over schools of men. Men replaced Gods personal name in the OT in nearly 6800 spots. MEN put the word LORD in the OT, they had no right. That is causing confusion.

Clear said:

Hi @Brian2, @kjw47 , and @Oeste


1) THE INITIAL CLAIM THAT THE SINGLE WORD "CHARACTER" IN LEVITICUS MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER" FAILED
Am I to understand that you are admitting that the word for “mark” or “Character” does NOT mean “exact mark” or “exact character”?
If so. I agree.
The specific Greek word for “Character” never mean “exact character”. That has always been my point.




2) THE NEW CLAIM REGARDING "EXACTNESS" OR "PRECISENESS" IN LEVITICUS 13:28

Brian2 said : “Not that the shape is exactly the same in each case but that if the bright spot did not move or spread in the skin and should be dark it is that which shows precisely that it is the mark of a clean inflammation and not unclean”


If you are claiming the text indicates “preciseness” in this text due to a change in the “mark” or “character”, this is a different claim.

I don’t have any interest in this new claim other than to remark that the Jews themselves deny preciseness in the Talmud.
The Jewish Mishna describes “doubful” cases are (generally), not to be considered unclean (Ḥul. 9b et seq.).

Your description from Leviticus lacks preciseness (Where are you getting the "preciseness" or the "exactness" from? For example :

You did not tell us whether the hair was plucked from the lesion before the priest saw the lesion. (If there is white hair the person is declared unclean, it the hair was plucked out before examination then the person is clean (Neg. viii. 4).

For example, you say preciseness lies in the fact that the lesion should be “dark”.

So, how dark should it be?
Should the darkness be “not white”, or “slightly tan” or “tan”, or “brownish”, or “dark brown”.
Does the lesion simply need to be darker than the surrounding skin?
What if the person has light colored skin?
What if they are of very dark skin?

DEGREES OF DARK AND LIGHT
There are degrees of darkness just as the Jews had four major degrees of whiteness.
For example, Talmudic descriptions of “whitness” describe four different degrees of whiteness. The whiteness of snow is "Baheret". The whiteness of lime. The white of an egg and the whiteness of white wool. (Additionally, the Mishnah describes the presence of intermediate shades)

What, “precise” shade of “darkness” does Leviticus 13:28 refer to?

You also did not tell us precisely where the lesion was and this was important since an ulcer on the extremities did not render a person unclean (Neg vi. 7)
You did not tell us precisely the size of the lesion. A bleeding ulcer must be of the size of a lentil in order to render one unclean (A Neg viii. 2)

You do not actually need to answer any of these questions for me. I just want to raise some questions so that you know that making a claim regarding "exactness" or "preciseness" requires some data. If you are correct or incorrect on this new claim you are making, it is fine with me either way.

MY DISAGREEMENT WAS WITH THE ORIGINAL CLAIM THAT "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER".

"Character" simply meant "Character.

​

I am glad that you have abandoned the claim that “Character” or “Mark” means “exact character” or “exact mark”. This was the basis of our debate.



3) DUELING TEXTUAL CHANGES IN HEB 1:3 AND COL 1:16 – AVOIDING HYPOCRISY

JUSTIFYING ONES OWN CHANGED TEXT WHILE CRITICIZING ANOTHERS CHANGED TEXT.

Hi @Brian2 and @kjw47

Brian2 says of the Jehovahs Witnesses : “You know how they have changed it I presume,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by adding the word "other" into the passage 4 times, and they have even taken the brackets away (other) and made it appear that "other" is part of the original Greek text. (post #842)

Brian2, your religion changed Hebrews 1:3 to read according to it’s theology.
The Jehovahs Witnesses have changed Col 1:16 to read according to their theology.

How do you justify criticizing Jehovahs witnesses for simply doing what your religion has done? (i.e. changing text to read according to it's own theology)


Hi @Oeste

4) AGREEMENT THAT "CHARACTER" CAN MEAN "MARK"

Oeste said : “That’s correct and very astute Clear. The question is: Why are you bringing up Leviticus 13:28? Χαρακτηρ is NOT interpreted as “character” or “exact character” in Leviticus 13:28. It’s translated as “mark”. (Post #845).

It is fine with me to translate the Greek word Χαρακτηρ (Character) as a “mark”.
Whether "Character" is translated as "Character" or "Mark" or "seal" or "impression" is fine.

The problem is if you claim “mark” means an “exact mark". “Exactness” is not implied in either rendition.

“Character” still means “Character” and not “exact Character”. If you render Χαρακτηρ as “mark”, then still, no “exactness” is implied.



5) REGARDING OESTES CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS ONE EXACTLY WHAT DOES, AND EXACTLY WHAT DOES NOT MARK LEPROSY.

Oestes original claim was #1 : “I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline is mine)

Oestes original claim was #2 : “This EXACTNESS helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline are mine)



A) THIS CLAIM FAILED THE SIMPLEST TEST.

IT COULD NOT TELL US WHAT IS “NOT LEPROSY”

Clear asked : I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl….
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
Oeste was unable to use Leviticus to tell me that this girls eczema was not leprosy.


B) THE RESPONSE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CLAIM

Oeste then claimed : “You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. “

Clear responded : No, I did not ask how to diagnose leprosy.

Oeste responded : “But of course you did @Clear.”

Read my request sentence again. I said : “... tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was NOT leprosy.” (capital is mine)


I was NOT trying to diagnose leprosy. The lesion was obviously NOT leprosy. It was OBVIOUS that it was simple eczema.

I asked to know that, if, (as you claimed), leviticus was so "exact" in distinguishing leprosy from non-leprosy, what in leviticus tells me that the lesion WAS NOT LEPROSY.

Read it again…..”...NOT leprosy”.


C) MIND READING AN AUTHORS INTENT DOES NOT WORK IN TRANSLATION.

POOR READING DOES NOT WORK IN UNDERSTANDING AN AUTHORS INTENT
So, we’ve already learned that your suggestion that we can "mind read" an authors intent and use that as an accurate translation doesn't work.

We now also see that gaining meaning by not reading the actual text of a writer doesn’t work either.

Since I was never trying to diagnose leprosy, all of your references to modern medical literature were irrelevant. The claim to “exactness” remains a failed claim.

We are left, after all of these posts with the greek word "Character" still meaning "Character" and it does not mean "Exact Character" without adding the adjective "Exact" to it.


Clear
εισεειακακω

Click to expand...

The JW translators, corrected errors put in centuries ago. They didnt translate to fit their teachings. They seek truth always.
Like At John 1:1--In the second line the true God is called-Ho Theos in Greek( THE GOD)--In the last line, just Theos. It did not call the Logos The God in the last line, thus- a god, small capitol g is correct.

kjw47 said:

Jesus told me--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- I am glad my teachers listen to him over schools of men. Men replaced Gods personal name in the OT in nearly 6800 spots. MEN put the word LORD in the OT, they had no right. That is causing confusion.

Click to expand...

The above is called "circular reasoning" per previous discussions.

Clear said:

A) THIS CLAIM FAILED THE SIMPLEST TEST.

IT COULD NOT TELL US WHAT IS “NOT LEPROSY”

Clear asked : I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl….
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.

Oeste was unable to use Leviticus to tell me that this girls eczema was not leprosy.

Click to expand...

It wasn’t necessary nor was it an issue. You did not speak of eczema until later. The sudden introduction of eczema was the “straw” in your strawman, a necessary component to build your strawman, slap Oeste’s avatar on it, and knock it down.

No one "can use the information from Leviticus" to diagnose eczema. As I explained previously, eczema is a medical condition, not a spiritual one. How you managed to do this using Leviticus is beyond me and I suspect, most Rabbis. The only diagnosis a Levitical priest will make is leprosy or not a leprosy. That is, he will state his charge is clean or unclean. There are no other diagnoses possible and that includes "eczema".

In my last post I pleaded with you to let this strawman go...to let it rest in peace. Instead you keep kicking and probing for signs of life. I suppose the only thing to do at this point is to heave it up from the morgue and put it back on the table.

Clear said:

B) THE RESPONSE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CLAIM


Oeste then claimed : “You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. “

Clear responded : No, I did not ask how to diagnose leprosy.

Oeste responded : “But of course you did @Clear.”

Read my request sentence again. I said : “... tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was NOT leprosy.” (capital is mine)

Click to expand...

NOT Leprosy?? (capitals not mine)

I thought you had simply mistyped. This is like going to a doctor's office and asking them to tell you not what the rash is, but what the rash isn't.


Apparently this argument has convinced you there may be signs of life in your strawman. If we can just keep Oeste busy going through every possible diagnosis that is NOT leprosy, keeping special attention to step over any diagnosis that is leprosy, we can keep him busy for months if not years.

I think it's a lot easier to show you what it is, not what it is not. Let's do that by starting at your argument's beginning, way back on post #765:

The first thing anyone will notice is that I didn’t look at this mythical girls’ arm @Clear. I never saw this girl. It was a girl of your imagination where you made up all the rules, including what was seen or not seen.

I'm not the medical clinician in this scenario. I'm not even in the scenario. YOU are the medical clinician who sees a χαρακτηρ (mark) on this teenage girl.

Was there a photo, video or other illustration of this teenage girl and her mark?


Who actually “sees” the mark?


Did Clear describe the mark he saw?


Did he share what he saw with anyone else?


Did Oeste see the mark?


Did anyone else see the mark?


At this point, the only person who has seen the mark on the girl is Clear. He’s the only one who’s seen this girl before, during or after our conversation. He is the only one who CAN see the girl.

I could be wrong. Perhaps everyone has seen the girl's mark but me, but I really think I’m on solid ground here.

Let’s continue:

I told Clear that if he’s a medical technician, and if he’s concerned about his patient’s skin lesion being leprosy, then rather look at Leviticus it would be much more productive to take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab:



That was post #769.

What was @Clear's response?


According to Clear I was "wrong". I was perhaps "watching too much television". There was no need for "silliness" because this imaginary girl that only he can see had an "obvious" spot of eczema!

You can't make stuff like this up.

Mind you, the only one who has actually seen this girl (or the mark) is Clear, either in person or in his mind's eye. Yet somehow, someway, by some means it should have been "obvious" to me (and apparently everyone else) this girl had "a spot of eczema"!

Clear is correct when he says I told him Leviticus defines exactly who does and does not have leprosy, but when you consider that Levitical priests are not asked to define eczema but only if their charge is spiritually leprous (unclean) or not spiritually leprous (clean) my conversation with Clear, while still enjoyable, gets all the more frustrating.

So when Clear wants to resurrect this strawman:


I invite everyone here to simply go back to post 765 and perform their own examination. Be a doctor. Be a Priest. Then let us know if, when, where and how you found “eczema” on this young girl, whether you found the condition of her eczema “obvious” and most importantly, let us know, using Leviticus, what exactly is “NOT leprosy.” I can start you out by stating definitively psoriasis and sarcoidosis are NOT leprosy.

And this was just point “A)" and "B)” from my walk with Clear. There are plenty of other points I'd like to address but I see Tigger is back and it looks like she’s waving a big sign that says “Other”.

metis said:

The above is called "circular reasoning" per previous discussions.

Click to expand...

John 20:17, Rev 3:12( Jesus)
2Cor 1:3--- 1Cor 8:6---1Cor 15:24-28---Ephesians 1:13,17---2Cor 11:31---Coll 1:3( Paul)
2 Peter 1:3 teaches and John in Rev 1:6 teach the Father is Jesus God as well.

Someone is in error. Its not Jesus and the apostles. Jesus' followers, believe him.

tigger2 said:

Other” at Col. 1:16
“For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth” - MLB.
“by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created” - NWT.

The use of the word “other” by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian “scholars” very upset. Dr. Walter Martin tells us in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 75 that this “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’” is “one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen.” He further states that “attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World Bible Translation Committee enclosed each added ‘other’ in brackets.”

The accusation is perfectly clear: Martin (and others) is claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God’s Word!

Click to expand...

They sure do @tigger2! However I think their charge has a lot of merit.

tigger2 said:

But what is the truth about words added to the original text?
Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and often signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language.

Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV; NKJV; TEV/GNB; ERV; MEV; WE; NCV; Beck; Mounce; etc.) supplied the word “other” at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not written in the original text. Notice that they did not even indicate that it was added! Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!

Click to expand...

Exactly right Tigger2! That’s what I’ve been saying, time and time again but some posters dont' seem to agree. I wish you had spoken up sooner. But I've been extremely busy myself so I can't complain.

tigger2 said:

Languages are different. They will have different idioms, grammar, morphology, sounds, and syntax. You cannot translate word for word. There will be occasions where you will either add or drop words in order to convey the natural intent of the author into a target language.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. There is this myth that there's a "pure" word for word translation out there but it's just not possible.

tigger2 said:

Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV; NKJV; TEV/GNB; ERV; MEV; WE; NCV; Beck; Mounce; etc.) supplied the word “other” at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not written in the original text. Notice that they did not even indicate that it was added! Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!

Click to expand...

Excellent @tigger2! I'm glad you brought this up.

I agree totally, but based on my discussions there may be posters who disagree as soon as they see “added” even if their church "adds".

But let’s look at Acts:


Yes, there’s that word “other” again.

“Other” is not really necessary here because “other” doesn’t change the meaning of the verse. We all know that Peter is an apostle. This is confirmed in various scriptures. So “other” changes nothing about the verse.

Of course, If Peter’s status was unclear, or if he was not an apostle, then adding “other” would have definitely changed the verse. In other words, If we were in the “Peter is not an apostle camp” and were using this verse to show that Peter was not an apostle ("Peter and the apostles answered and said…" showing a supposed clear demarcation between Peter and Jesus' apostles) then we would vehemently object to the addition of “other”.

tigger2 said:

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term “all” (and “every”). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!” Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says “everyone”!

Click to expand...

Let’s look at this a bit more hermeneutically

First, I think we would need a lot more context before we can agree with your conclusion. For example, the captain may have been working with the criminal group. After all, the sergeant did say “everyone”.

Second, It just may be that neither the sergeant or the captain were in the room where everyone is to be arrested.

Third, if we look at what you’ve written more closely, it seems pretty apparent from the available context that only the sergeant and the captain have the power to make an arrest. The criminal group would be subject to arrest, especially if they are criminals.

Lastly, I think we know the sergeant didn’t include himself because he didn’t say “We are all under arrest!”

Continued on next post.

...continued from prior post

tigger2 said:

Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.”

Click to expand...

I see no need to include “criminal with “everyone” as you’ve already separated “criminal” from “everyone”. You've even provided "criminal" with a verb that acts on "everyone". Since the criminal ties up everyone in the room he is separate from “everyone” and there is no need to merge this criminal back into the group called “everyone” as he has already been separated.

If we had somehow bundled "criminal" and "everyone" together, then it might be necessary to use a word like "other" to distinguish them or make whomever we were referring to more distinct.

“Everyone in the room was tied up” is another way to say this. This would include any criminal in said room.

tigger2 said:

This also applies to the word “all” [pas, panta, etc.] as used in the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible. For example, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich (abridged in one volume by G.W. Bromiley) tells us of this word in the ancient Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint): “In many passages, of course, the use is rhetorical”.

Click to expand...

This is good, solid, useful information but how does it apply to Co1 1:16 ? Will you be carrying forward the OT’s rhetorical usage into the New or just at Co1 1:16, and are there rules for rhetorical usage in the OT that also carry forward to the New?

tigger2 said:

And in the NT this esteemed work tells us of the word “all” that it is often “used in the NT simply to denote a great number,” not literally “all.” – pp. 796, 797, Eerdmans, 1992 reprint.

Click to expand...

Again, what is the relevance to Co1 1:16? Are you saying “all” denotes "a great number" at Col1:16 and does not literally mean “all”, and would the WT agree with such a translation?

tigger2 said:

And Dr. Young wrote in the foreword (“Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”) of his well-known Bible Concordance:

“Some particles such as ALL, are frequently used for SOME or MOST, e.g., … Matt. 3:5; 26:52 [even King David?]; … 1 Cor. 6:12; … Col. 3:22” – Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 reprint.

Click to expand...

I’m not seeing the relevance with Col 1:16. In fact, you seem to be drifting far away from "Other" at Col 1:16 and into general discourse.

Let’s stop here and review what we’ve learned so far.

Dr. Young states ALL is frequently used for SOME or MOST. I suspect the reason you are mentioning this is to suggest that since it can be applied at Matt 3:5 and Col 3:22 then it can be also be applied at Col 1:16. In other words, Dr. Young’s work is relevant to our discussion of Co1 1:16.

If this is NOT what you are saying then it might be better to weed out what is relevant to Co1 1:16 from what is not in your post as this saves the readers valuable time. It means we no longer have to sift through a rather long post to find out what is actually relevant to the discussion at hand.

However if Dr. Young’s commentary about "ALL" is relevant we should be able to apply it immediately to our discussion of Co1 1:16.

Here is the NWT in context with SOME in place of ALL, and the WT's four added "other" italicized:


We can also go back, substituting "All" with "MOST" or with "a great number" but I won't do that here.

I find it hard to believe the WT would present this argument as rationale for their egregious use of “other” at Colossians chapter 1. Are these your personal arguments, the ones you or other Witnesses use to rationalize the WT's translation, or are these the official, WT commentary on the use of "Other" in Colossians?

Also, I really do like a consistent approach to translation and I am immediately struck by the fact that "Other" is missing after "All" in verse 15:


Based on all you've told us so far, we should expect to see this instead:

And if what Dr. Young says is true and relevant to our discussion, then the following can also said to be true:


I am sure if the Watchtower “puts back” or adds "other" to verse 15 we Trinitarians might get upset but I'm pretty sure you'll have Mormons jumping for joy.

Can you explain the relevant parts of your post, how and why they apply to Co1 1:15-19, and why “other” is missing with ALL in verse 15?

Lastly, if "other" is missing from verse 15, then it is also missing from verses 18 & 19. Let's take a look at that:


Again, based on what I've read from your post so far, we might also see the following:


Or, if your prior posts are relevant to Co1 1:15, we could use SOME, MOST, or even "a great number":


I don't mind going through the rest of either Clear's and/or Tigger's excellent posts, but I'd really like to get these things out of the way first.

Hi @Oeste

1) LEVITICUS 13:28 - DOES IT TELL ANYONE WITH EXACTNESS WHAT DIFFERENTIATES “LEPROSY” FROM “NON-LEPROSY"?

Oestes original claims regarding Leviticus 13:28 were :

#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”

#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)



REGARDING THE FAILURE OF OESTES CLAIMS

The inability to use Leviticus 13:28 to differentiate what “marks leprosy and what does not”.

Oeste, your claim failed to differentiate even a simple skin lesion.
It failed.
Let it go.

This strange insistence that somehow your claim represents you being “set up” is silly.
I was never trying to embarrass you but YOU made these silly claims in the first place..
No one twisted your arms or forced you into making silly claims.




Oeste now admits : “The only diagnosis a Levitical priest will make is leprosy or not a leprosy.” (post #867)

Yes, this is correct Oeste. Leprosy or “NOT Leprosy”.
In this case, you could not use Leviticus to tell us a lesion was “NOT leprosy”.

You seem to be obsessing on Eczema. Eczema was never the issue. I could have used common pityriasis alba or a common fungal infection instead of eczema or a dozen other skin lesions.
Your claim still would fail to tell what marks leprosy versus “NON leprosy” using Leviticus 13:28.

Leviticus 13:28 did not tell the priest “…exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” The verse did not have “exactness” which “…helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)

Your claim to "exactness" failed. Let it go. The world hasn't ended.




Oeste said : “I told Clear that if he’s a medical technician, and if he’s concerned about his patient’s skin lesion being leprosy, then rather look at Leviticus it would be much more productive to take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab.” (post #819)

Yes, you made this silly and irrelevant suggestion.
No one in my example is trying to diagnose leprosy.
AND...
No one needs to "take a biopsy" of common and obvious eczema or a simple pimple or a common wart.




Oeste said : “I invite everyone here to simply go back to post 765 and perform their own examination. Be a doctor. Be a Priest. Then let us know if, when, where and how you found “eczema” on this young girl, whether you found the condition of her eczema “obvious” and most importantly, let us know, using Leviticus, what exactly is “NOT leprosy.” I can start you out by stating definitively psoriasis and sarcoidosis are NOT leprosy." (post #819)

It feels like you are obsessing over these failed claims.
Your claim regarding Leviticus 13:28 and “exactness” simply doesn’t work.

Please Oeste, find some peace regarding this issue.
The world has not come to an end.
The debate was not personal.
No one is "out to get you".
You simply made a claim that was too ambitious to support.
It happens.

READERS : If anyone actually tries Oestes invitation to prove Oestes claim that Leviticus 13:28 tells anyone “exactly” what distinguishes “leprosy” from “non leprosy”, I suggest it is MUCH smarter to simply ask what a skin lesion looks like and THEN, compared that description to the description found in Leviticus 13:28.

Clear
εισιτζακφιω

metis said:

That's in reference to Jesus being the "final sacrifice", so how is it that God could be sacrificed to God?
As he sits on "God's right hand", so how can God sit on "God's right hand"?

Click to expand...

The final sacrifice doesn't mean that Jesus was sacrificed to God, it means that Jesus was sacrificed for the sin of the world. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in heaven because he also took on human nature when he became a man. He didn't stop being God.

Clear said:

Oestes original claims regarding Leviticus 13:28 were :

#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”

#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)

Click to expand...

Exactly right Clear! Leviticus tells the priest what is biblical leprosy and what is not. Who is clean and who is not.

It says nothing about “obvious eczema” or “a spot of eczema”.

Clear said:

The inability to use Leviticus 13:28 to differentiate what “marks leprosy and what does not”.

Click to expand...

Clear said:

Oeste, your claim failed to differentiate even a simple skin lesion.
It failed.

Click to expand...

Sorry @Clear, but that's what Leviticus does...IT DIFFERENTIATES SKIN LESIONS, EVEN THE SIMPLE:


The links are all there.

Clear said:

Let it go.

Click to expand...

I was willing to let it go. I asked you to let it go. But you kept bringing it up.
It was a strawman from the get-go. Your strawman died yet you refuse to accept its dead. All we’re doing here is performing the autopsy. It can be painful to watch, I know, but you really leave no other choice.

Clear said:

This strange insistence that somehow your claim represents you being “set up” is silly.

Click to expand...

It was a strange argument you made @Clear. Surely even you can see that.

Clear said:

I was never trying to embarrass you but YOU made these silly claims in the first place..

No one twisted your arms or forced you into making silly claims.

Click to expand...

I don’t feel “embarrassed” when defending the biblical record. I know some do but that just isn't me. As scripture states:


I consider Leviticus part and parcel to scripture and I don't claim what it purports to do as "silly". It worked and worked well for thousands of years.

Clear said:

Oeste now admits : “The only diagnosis a Levitical priest will make is leprosy or not a leprosy.” (post #867)

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Oeste now admits"? Why are you implying that I am only admitting this "now"??

I admitted it yesterday, I admit it today, and I'll be admitting it tomorrow. I've also been telling you the exact same thing over and over again for what seems like forever. I really do hope you understand this includes "clean" (no leprosy) and "unclean" (leprosy).

Clear said:

Yes, this is correct Oeste. Leprosy or “NOT Leprosy”.

Click to expand...

Excellent @Clear! I think you're catching on.

Clear said:

In this case, you could not use Leviticus to tell us a lesion was “NOT leprosy”.

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness! After all this time, after all our correspondence, you STILL do not understand what you are reading, do you?

The "mark" mentioned in Leviticus 13:28 is "NOT leprosy"!

I don't have to tell you this @Clear, the verse does!!

Here it is again, in case you missed it:



Clean = "NOT leprosy".

Do you understand this?

If not we can continue our autopsy on this strawman. We've got a long way to go here.

But to be honest I would much rather consider this Leviticus thing closed and move on to something else. I'm not here to embarrass you or anyone on this forum. I told you before, I can't get this kind of conversation at my local coffee shop, and with this Covid-19, you pretty much can't get any conversation at all.

I really do enjoy reading what everyone posts here and this includes our discussions.

Hi @Oeste

REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” MEANS “EXACT CHARACTER’

#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”

#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)

Oeste;

There is less and less in your posts that is relevant to your original claim of “exactness” regarding Leviticus 13:28 having “exactness” that differentiates leprosy from what does not and more and more irrelevance to your original claim of "exactness" in the word "Character" (greek "Χαρακτηρ").

I assume that you are moving away from the original claim that “Character” (Greek “Χαρακτηρ”) in Leviticus 13:28 implies “exactness” regarding what is and what is not leprosy?

Is this correct?
As your posts move further away from the original claim, I cannot tell if you are still wanting to support your original claim.
Are you still claiming "Character" (χαρακτηρ) still implies "exactness" in leviticus 13:28?
Or are you wanting to modify your original claim in a different way?


Clear
εισιτωσεφυω

kjw47 said:

John 20:17, Rev 3:12( Jesus)
2Cor 1:3--- 1Cor 8:6---1Cor 15:24-28---Ephesians 1:13,17---2Cor 11:31---Coll 1:3( Paul)
2 Peter 1:3 teaches and John in Rev 1:6 teach the Father is Jesus God as well.

Click to expand...

How many times does it have to be explained to you that the Trinitarian doctrine does not negate the above because it uses the concept of "essence"?

kjw47 said:

Someone is in error. Its not Jesus and the apostles. Jesus' followers, believe him.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't believe in utilizing any "reading comprehension" whatsoever.

Skywalker said:

The final sacrifice doesn't mean that Jesus was sacrificed to God, it means that Jesus was sacrificed for the sin of the world.

Click to expand...

Human sacrifices were not and are not allowed in Judaism nor Christianity.

What you are reading is basically called a "theological concept", which in this case relates Jesus' death on the cross as being symbolic of the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb. Such parallels are not to be taken at the literalistic level.

Skywalker said:

Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in heaven because he also took on human nature when he became a man. He didn't stop being God.

Click to expand...

Sorta. Again, what we are dealing with is a drawn parallel between God and Jesus [and the Holy Spirit] using the concept of "essence" that reflects the Greek concept in the early Christian writings. "Essence" implies that something is more than just a sum of its parts, thus Jesus is more than just another man and rabbi.

metis said:

Human sacrifices were not and are not allowed in Judaism nor Christianity.

What you are reading is basically called a "theological concept", which in this case relates Jesus' death on the cross as being symbolic of the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb. Such parallels are not to be taken at the literalistic level.

Sorta. Again, what we are dealing with is a drawn parallel between God and Jesus [and the Holy Spirit] using the concept of "essence" that reflects the Greek concept in the early Christian writings. "Essence" implies that something is more than just a sum of its parts, thus Jesus is more than just another man and rabbi.

Click to expand...

Jesus is not a human sacrifice. Jesus is God and God sacrificed himself for our sins.

Jesus is compared to a lamb because Jesus was killed for our sins. People in those times and cultures ate lamb often so it was an analogy that they could relate to.

The Greek concept of essence in the way you described it explains why I believe in the Trinity.

Skywalker said:

Jesus is not a human sacrifice. Jesus is God and God sacrificed himself for our sins.

Click to expand...

Illogical on a literalistic basis. How can God be sacrificed to God?

Skywalker said:

Jesus is compared to a lamb because Jesus was killed for our sins. People in those times and cultures ate lamb often so it was an analogy that they could relate to.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Skywalker said:

The Greek concept of essence in the way you described it explains why I believe in the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Yep.

metis said:

Illogical on a literalistic basis. How can God be sacrificed to God?

Yep.

Yep.

Click to expand...

It's like a judge paying the price of the crime of the criminal by taking that punishment of themselves. They would be punishing themselves.

Skywalker said:

It's like a judge paying the price of the crime of the criminal by taking that punishment of themselves. They would be punishing themselves.

Click to expand...

Except Jesus is not literally God, especially since we see numerous references whereas Jesus draws distinction between them, such as when he said that he did not know when the end of times would be and that only the Father would know that. If Jesus literally is God, how could he not know when that time would be?

Again, seeing it as a "theological construct" makes much more sense, imo, and that general approach is used throughout the Bible, btw.