"The only-begotten God" in Jn 1:18

[Robert.Evans]

so much to read through ... Wow

 

[Clear]

REGARDING
1) THE EVOLUTION OF LUCIFER FROM ARCH ANGEL OF GOD INTO AN ENEMY OF GOD AND
2) THE TIMING OF THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND POSITION




A) When Jehovahs Witnesses believe Lucifer became and enemy and was cast out of heaven

Clear asked : Wikipedia says : “ Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "

….. Does this quote from Wikipedia Correctly represent Jehovahs Witness timeline regarding Satan and his demons being "cast down" to earth from heaven? Do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe Satan was cast down in the above timeline or not?

Pegg answered : That is more or less our belief, yes. Satan and his demons were cast out of heaven when the heavenly kingdom began to rule...when Christ was enthroned as its king as the book of revelation states in Revelation 12 ….

So yes. We do beleive this war occured in 1914 and that is based on a few key prophecies. And we also accept what Jesus and the Apostles taught regarding Satan and his rulership over this earth:



OK.

With this firm position we can examine this claim in greater detail. Am I to understand by this Jehovahs Witness theory that :

1)Satan and his demons were still in heaven before October 1st, 1914

2)Satan and his demons are not yet enemies of God before being cast out of heaven (or is an enemy of a Holy God and all righteousness allowed to live in heaven with a Holy God and other Holy angels)?

3)If Satan is NOT yet an enemy of God before Oct 1st, 1914, then what is the context of Satan and his interactions with mankind (which seem to be evil).

4)Where does human suffering originate before Oct 1nd, 1914, when Satan and his demons are cast down?

5)Is human society NOT influenced and misled by Satan and his demons before Oct 1nd, 1914?

6)If Satan and his demons are a cause of human suffering after oct 1st, 1914, what is the cause of similar suffering before October 1st, 1914?

7)If Satan is the ruler of the “world order” before October 1st, 1914, then who rules the “world order” before October 1st, 1914?


If your claim is correct that Jehovahs Witness get their theology ONLY from the bible, can you tell us where Jesus and the Apostles tell us the answer to these initial questions?

Honestly it seems that much is added in the way of modern context, and modern occurrences and modern interpretations, modern logic and modern reason rather than these doctrines and answers coming ONLY “from the bible”.




B) Different conflicts between God and the Devil

Pegg Claimed : “ You have said that you believe this war happened even before mankinds creation, yet John was given this vision and told it would be a 'future' event. “


No, you are confused Pegg.

I used early historical Judeo-christian textual witnesses from Christian, Jewish and Islamic texts demonstrating their early Christian belief that the Devil became an enemy to God BEFORE Adam and Eve encountered him in the Garden of Eden. These texts tell us that the dispute over the honoring of Adam was simply one fulcrum motivating this animosity and his being cast down to earth. This was not the only dispute or interaction, merely the most famous of all early historical textual witnesses.

You have already been corrected regarding your misrepresentation of these two “wars” as being the same dispute. Perhaps you are simply confused or perhaps you are doing this on purpose. I cannot tell.

However, you have already been told that the war you describe is an end-time event, whereas the war in early Jewish and Christian and Islamic theology occurred before the Garden of Eden. These are two entirely different events in entirely different time periods. If you mix the two you cannot create a coherent and accurate historical theory.





C) The origin of the New World Translation, the Jehovahs Witness Bible

Clear asked : WHO created the New World Translation of the bible (or what group of individuals created the text). What are their names and who are they? For example, anyone may look up Doug Moos’ group and see the names of the individuals who worked on the NIV. WHO created the New World Translation?

Pegg replied : it really doesnt matter who was involved in the translation of it...


This is a strange and incorrect conclusion. It DOES matter who creates a bible and the processes by which translation is done and the accuracy of the final product. If you were a translator any ancient language, you would understand.

The ability to actually translate accurately from a dead language, accounting for historical nuances and subtle nuanced contexts, cannot BE done by uneducated individuals who have inadequate knowledge of language and historical usage of language and cultural nuances affecting the language anciently.

If the New World Bible was created by a few uneducated bible students with a koine dictionary over a coffee table, this process is very different to that of a scholarly group of historians and linguists that create a bible. There must be some reason that would explain the multitude of errors and inconsistencies and strange renderings that we see in the New World Translation.


Pegg, WHO created the New World Translation of the bible? If it was a group of individuals, give me names of these individuals so as to allow me to do even the most basic analysis of the type of translators and their qualifications and their historical background that went into the creation of this Bible.





D) What the Apostles taught vs INTERPRETATIONS of what the Apostles taught. Different Christian Movements and varying INTERPRETATIONS

Pegg asked : “ How can these writers be displaying a christian world view when what they write is contrary to what the Apostles taught?“

1) The early Christians believed in Jesus and the Apostles just as you and I do. But, the early Christians had their own understanding and interpretation as to what Jesus and the Apostles meant by what they said concerning the genesis of the Devil. When Jesus said “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Lk 10:18), early Christians assumed this sentence that is couched in past tense really WAS referring to a past event rather than a future event in October 1st, of 1914.

The early Christian interpretations differ from Jehovahs Witness interpretations. The early Judeo-Christians describe in multiple early textual witnesses that they believe that the Devil was already an enemy to God when Adam and Eve interact with them in the Garden of Eden and was an enemy to jesus when trying to convince jesus to worship him in the new Testament accounts, etc.

2) If you believe the historical descriptions of early Christian theology are incorrect, and instead believe that Jesus' apostles taught that the Devil became evil and was cast down after October 1, 1914, give us some quotes from the New Testament apostles that clearly tell us the Devil becomes an enemy and was cast down to the earth after October 1st, 1914 and that he lived in heaven before being cast out after October 1st, 1914.





E) The historical questions the bible cannot answer as well as early Judeo-Christian writings

Pegg said : “ You seem to put more creedence in their writings then in the bible's writings....why?“

This is another incorrect conclusion.

I read the bible just as you do, (though not in english). However, While ONLY an autographic biblical text can tell us what the apostles actually wrote (which we do not have), even such a text cannot tell us how the early Christians themselves interpreted what the apostles said.

The historical question I am interested in is not how a multitude of later Christian movements interpret what Jesus and the apostles said, but in this case I want to understand how the earliest form of Christianity interpreted what they heard from the apostles and what the apostles wrote. This is NOT the same as how many modern Christian movements such as the Jehovahs Witnesses interprets the text they read.

To answer the question regarding how the earliest Christians interpreted early traditions, saying and texts, then the most reliable answer is to read their own descriptions where they wrote down how they interpreted these things and what they, themselves believed.

For example, to see how “historical” the Jehovahs Witness theory regarding Lucifer becoming the devil and the timeline of his initial casting out, YOU could read ANY of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature of your choice. You will not find your modern theory in ANY of the earliest texts in any thematic form. Thus, your theory regarding the devil being a good angel and not yet an enemy to God or to Adam is not historical Christianity, but a modern Christian theory.

Actually, this would be a good exercise for you. Read ANY of the earliest sacred Judeo-Christian literature and see if you find the early christians describing this specific Jehovahs Witness interpretation inside it. Let us know if you ever find it.


Clear
σιειτωω

 

[Pegg]

REGARDING
1) THE EVOLUTION OF LUCIFER FROM ARCH ANGEL OF GOD INTO AN ENEMY OF GOD AND
2) THE TIMING OF THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND POSITION

before i start, i just want to clear up that we have never viewed Satan as the Arch Angel. The bible names only one Arch Angel and it is Michael....ie, Jesus Christ. Arch means 'chief' so there can be only one chief angle and it is Jesus Christ.

Satan is named as an anointed Cherub by the prophet Ezekiel. To be anointed in scripture means to be commissioned to a task.....so that indicates that at one point, Satan was a righteous holy angel before he fell into sin.

A) When Jehovahs Witnesses believe Lucifer became and enemy and was cast out of heaven

1)Satan and his demons were still in heaven before October 1st, 1914

Yes, heaven is the residing place of spirits. We see in the book of Job that all the holy angels came in before God in a heavenly assembly and 'even Satan proceeded to enter in among them'

Job 1:6 Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.
7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.​

So from this scripture, we see that Satan was able to walk about in the physical earth and he could still enter the heavens and appear before God.

2)Satan and his demons are not yet enemies of God before being cast out of heaven (or is an enemy of a Holy God and all righteousness allowed to live in heaven with a Holy God and other Holy angels)?

Satan has been an enemy of God since he rebelled in Eden. So he has been rebelling for the past 6,000 years.
Prior to 1914, he still had access to heaven... after he was cast out, he could no longer enter in. That is why the scriptures say
Revelation 12:10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! ...12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them!
If Satan was not in heaven, who was he tormenting? Who was he accusing day and night? Obviously he was an argumentative disruptive force in heaven...and after being cast out, those who reside in heaven (God and his holy angles) had reason to rejoice and be glad.

3)If Satan is NOT yet an enemy of God before Oct 1st, 1914, then what is the context of Satan and his interactions with mankind (which seem to be evil).
4)Where does human suffering originate before Oct 1nd, 1914, when Satan and his demons are cast down?

5)Is human society NOT influenced and misled by Satan and his demons before Oct 1nd, 1914?

6)If Satan and his demons are a cause of human suffering after oct 1st, 1914, what is the cause of similar suffering before October 1st, 1914?

Satan has been the cause of human suffering since he first induced Eve to sin. He has been an enemy of both God and Man since Eden.

7)If Satan is the ruler of the “world order” before October 1st, 1914, then who rules the “world order” before October 1st, 1914?

If your claim is correct that Jehovahs Witness get their theology ONLY from the bible, can you tell us where Jesus and the Apostles tell us the answer to these initial questions? Honestly it seems that much is added in the way of modern context, and modern occurrences and modern interpretations, modern logic and modern reason rather than these doctrines and answers coming ONLY “from the bible”.

In the first century Jesus stated:

John 14:30 I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me. ​

Showing that Satan is the ruler of the world, the scriptures record the discussion between Satan and Jesus:

Luke 4:5 So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 If you, therefore, do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.”
​

Satan offers Jesus all the 'kingdoms of the world'... that begs the question, If Satan did not really have the power over these kingdoms, would this have been a temptation to Jesus? It would be like me offering you the title deeds to the White House! And notice how Satan believes he has absolute power (i've underlined it)
And we know that Jesus believed that Satan was the worlds ruler for later he said:

JOhn 12:30 Jesus answered: “This voice has occurred, not for my sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 3​

The Apostles show that they believe that Satan is the ruler of the world and the people in it:

Eph 2:2 Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience​

(2 Corinthians 4:3, 4) If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

(1 John 5:19) We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.


All this is from the bible, nowhere else.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in a separate post shortly.

 

[Clear]

Clear asked : Wikipedia says : “ Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,at which point the end times began. Witnesses believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order, that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. "

Pegg clarified : “ before i start, i just want to clear up that we have never viewed Satan as the Arch Angel. The bible names only one Arch Angel and it is Michael....ie, Jesus Christ. Arch means 'chief' so there can be only one chief angle and it is Jesus Christ. “


Thank you for the clarification Pegg :

I was speaking by habit from the context of early christian tradition that there were countless angels of different “orders” and leaders among them. And I cannot help the context of the usage of koine Greek (since that was the language and context of the earliest extant bibles) and used αρχον as they did. Thus, when you read an early Christian Text and it says “ My Father made every order [of angels] in the heavens to come and worship him, whether angel or archangel.(abbaton)”, the text is referring to the earliest traditions where different levels and orders existed among the angels.

When Enoch refers to “….the archangels who are over the angels...“ 2nd Enoch 9:3, he is speaking from this early context. Thus, when early texts describe Lucifers refusal to honor Adam, it speaks of angels who are “under” him. For example : “ When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. Life A&E (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3.they are speaking from the context of early Christian tradition that Lucifer was a leader of other angels, an "archangel" who fell and many others "under him" fell with him (that is, he did not fall alone, but took other hosts of heaven with him in this "fall").

Since an “αρχον” refers to a leader, any angel who is over other angels is, by definition, an “αρχαγγελος” may be one of many archangels in early Christian tradition. Just as there are two “gods” in Jehovahs Witness theology, and only one “God” (almighty), there are multiple Archangels in early Christian tradition and one who is chief of them all. Though Michael is not a God in these early contexts, he is the chief of all angels “... Michael, one of the holy and revered angels–he is their chief...” 1 Enoch 24:6. In this explanation, I am not arguing that the early Christians and their traditions are more or less correct than yours on this point, merely to explain my habit of description. I am a historian and cannot help such habits.

There are multiple linguistic difficulties in early texts for translators that cause similar contextual problems. One is that αγγελος (angel) simply means “messenger” and whether the text refers to a mortal man who is delivering a message from one government official to another, or if it is a mortal man who is delivering a message from God, or if it is a divine metaphysical being out of heaven, the same word is used for all of these, and often, only the context gives us clues as to which class of being we are speaking of when using this common word. For example, John the Baptist is referred to as an αγγελος” (angel) in Greek manuscripts (Just as Michael is referred to by the same greek word). If a God is coming as a "messenger", one can just as correctly refer to God as an αγγελοσ. In this specific usage he is not really of the class of beings called "angels", but is coming as a “messenger” with a message.

Such historical and linguistic issues may give you a hint as to why it is important that translators of ancient texts have some knowledge in history and language and culture if they are going to translate a historical text from a different language. My background in Koine Greek, similarly, brings up linguistic nuances that affect my descriptions.

I like your description so far and much of it parallels early Christian worldviews and theology. This is an example of why a non-historian should not label all of early Judeo-Christian writings as "heretical" simply because the Early Christians disagree in some ways with one's own modern theory.

IF you label their theology as entirely "heretical" and "apostate", then what happens when this "heretical" and "apostate" theology has specific agreements with one's current theology? Does the person who labeled such theology as "apostate" and "heretical" then admit that the areas where their own theology agrees must then, also be "heretical" and "apostate" since the two belief systems are the same on certain points? One must be careful to honestly allow early Judeo-Christian witnesses to stand on their own.

Pegg, It honestly won’t matter whether we use early Christians context or modern Christians context in our discussion of the timing and motives of the “good” angel Lucifers decision to become an “evil” enemy to God. I’m simply explaining why I couched Lucifer in the historical term "archangel". It was habit..


Keep going Pegg, I think you are doing a wonderful job so far. You achieved a "like" from me on this.

Clear
σεδρτωω

 

[Pegg]

...
I was speaking by habit from the context of early christian tradition that there were countless angels of different “orders” and leaders among them. And I cannot help the context of the usage of koine Greek (since that was the language and context of the earliest extant bibles) and used αρχον as they did. Thus, when you read an early Christian Text and it says “ My Father made every order [of angels] in the heavens to come and worship him, whether angel or archangel.(abbaton)”, the text is referring to the earliest traditions where different levels and orders existed among the angels

When Enoch refers to “….the archangels who are over the angels...“ 2nd Enoch 9:3, he is speaking from this early context. Thus, when early texts describe Lucifers refusal to honor Adam, it speaks of angels who are “under” him. For example : “ When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. Life A&E (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3.they are speaking from the context of early Christian tradition that Lucifer was a leader of other angels, an "archangel" who fell and many others "under him" fell with him (that is, he did not fall alone, but took other hosts of heaven with him in this "fall").

The bible writers do mention some of the positions held by angles, so i can agree with that. But the difference in the bible is that 'arch' means chief and we usually understand that a 'chief' means the 'head' of a group. So in terms of angels, it names only 1 archangel but mentions that there are a number of 'foremost princes' among the angelic hosts, for example Gabrielle would be one of those foremost princes. It makes sense to me that there might be several prominent angels, but only one chief angel....and that could only but not that there could be several 'chief' angles. Anyway, it seems that the apochryphal 'Enoch' book does also say Michael is the chief angel... but it also says there are multiple chief angels... so it sounds like its contradicting itself.

Since an “αρχον” refers to a leader, any angel who is over other angels is, by definition, an “αρχαγγελος” may be one of many archangels in early Christian tradition. Just as there are two “gods” in Jehovahs Witness theology, and only one “God” (almighty), there are multiple Archangels in early Christian tradition and one who is chief of them all. Though Michael is not a God in these early contexts, he is the chief of all angels “... Michael, one of the holy and revered angels–he is their chief...” 1 Enoch 24:6. In this explanation, I am not arguing that the early Christians and their traditions are more or less correct than yours on this point, merely to explain my habit of description. I am a historian and cannot help such habits.

....

I like your description so far and much of it parallels early Christian worldviews and theology. This is an example of why a non-historian should not label all of early Judeo-Christian writings as "heretical" simply because the Early Christians disagree in some ways with one's own modern theory.
IF you label their theology as entirely "heretical" and "apostate", then what happens when this "heretical" and "apostate" theology has specific agreements with one's current theology? Does the person who labeled such theology as "apostate" and "heretical" then admit that the areas where their own theology agrees must then, also be "heretical" and "apostate" since the two belief systems are the same on certain points? One must be careful to honestly allow early Judeo-Christian witnesses to stand on their own.

The problem i see is the contradictions that many of these writings show. They do not agree with the bible writers. Now, if we use their writings to come to our understanding, who's understanding are we getting? I dont think it is Gods because they disagree with the inspired writers who wrote under direction of the holy spirit. So i think it does matter who we listen to.

Im having some computer issues and have resorted to using my daughters lap top... my graphics card is Kaput so i might be a little slow in replying

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'll reply to the rest of your post in a separate post shortly.

As soon as you get a weeks holiday.. hahaha

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE TIMING AND MOTIVE FOR LUCIFERS BECOMING AND ENEMY TO GOD AND BEING CAST OUT OF HEAVEN. THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DATE OF OCTOBER 1ST, 1914


Regarding the historical use of the Koine word αρχον (ruler, ancient, leader, etc) as it applies to αγγελοσ to create αρχαγγελοσ (archangel)

Hi Pegg : Please remember that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible did not graduate college, nor was language his major, and that he had only a single introductory course in "biblical greek" (koine) and his other 4 semesters in lower level Greek coursework were in "Classical Greek" (i.e. homeric type greek) which is not biblical greek. Please consider that any rules of language and meaning he might have suggested that the Jehovahs Witnesses adopt and use will not have the same credibility and depth of applicability as the suggestions coming from individuals who are authentic, educated, linguists, historians and individuals who actually have greater knowledge and understanding of "biblical greek" (koine).

The early texts use the term "archangel" as a class of beings, rather than applying it exclusively to Jesus as with Jehovahs Witness theory

For example: In describing the creation of the world by God, it was early tradition that God did not simply Create the world with the help of "angels", but he created it through his son and "archangels" as this 3rd c.e. papyri examples : " Ο κτισας θεους και αρχαγγελους ..." (ParisPapyrus 574.1200 (iiia.d.)

In it's various usages, the meaning of αρχον was not static but changes and applied to multiple similar meanings and useages. The great Koine linguist Moulton pointed out that "The prefix αρχ(ι) could be attached to any word at will...". We certainly have examples of this as many of the early papyri demonstrate.

Αρχαιοσ, in its' early sense applied to the concept of a thing that was “original” (as opposed to παλαιοσ which meant “old”)

For example, Acts uses this word to describe the chosing of Mattaias as someone who was "in the beginning", i.e. an “original”. This is not saying Mattaias is “Old” but rather “original” (belonging to the “beginning” of Christs ministry- which was only 3 years). Thus the word in that context became applied to an “ancient initiate” or an “ancient oracle” versus the newer writings or newer visions or newer texts.

Thus in BGU II 992.ii (160 b.c.), the “οι αρχαιοι κυριοι” refers to the “original owners” and not to the original “chiefs” (obviously plural in this case). The concept of “original” lends itself to the concept of the “earliest” or the “ancient”, thus matthew uses it in in 5:33 in referring what was said to the ancients. Thus, when the Papyri of the Christian enclave of Onychyrynchus uses the term in P Oxy II.235.6 (a.d. 20-50) " κατ[αδετους] αρχαιους κρονους...", then are speaking of the “old style”. This term was often used in documents to indicate agreements were made in the “Old” calendar system (after the Augustan calendar was introduced).

In this context of "age" it came to be used as a term for a “capital” or “principle” city. This is how Epicteta in Michel 1001viii.8 (of 200 b.c.) and Syll 517.12f both use it (respectively). Thus, Hermopolis refers to itself as a great “principle” or “ancient” city in P Lond 1157 (a.d. 246) “ Ερμουπολεως της μεγα αρχαιας...” even though it was not THE greatest or Oldest city, but instead it was simply “A” great and Old city.

The same principle applied to Synagogues. In Preisigke 623 (80-69 b.c.) one reads " ων αρχισυνα]γωγος και αρχιερευς…” This did not mean that this was the ONLY αρχισυναγωγος with the ONLY αρχιερευς, but this was a geographical designation of "A" great synagogle with "A" high priest within that geographical area. Thus, it means something different to have Jesus not merely referred to as “A Great High Priest" versus being called simply a “High” Priest. (Εχοντες ουν αρχιερεα μεγαν...). There were other “High Priests” (i.e. other “Chief Priests” if jehovahs Witnesses assume αρχον only means “chief”)

When the early Papyri describes “Plenis, the younger, chief shepherd” who lived [so many years], “Πληνις, νεωτερος αρχιποιμενος εβιωσεν ετων... “ he is not necessarily the ONLY chief shepherd, but merely one of several chief shepherds.

Though αρχον was indeed used to indicate an official “ruler”, it was also used in contexts as honorary titles as well. For example, in Archiv II p 430, (Augustus’ time) it speaks of Julia Severa (a.d. 60-80) who was a Jewish woman who, because of her life held the honorary title of “ruler of the synagogue” (“…ο δια βιου αρχι[συν]αγωγος…” are the words of the text).

However, αρχον also applied to ANY set of rulers of ANY ruling caste. For example, an inscription during the reign of Claudius describes Berenice in Cyrenaica and a list of Jewish αρχοντες is given, saying “…εδαξε τοις αρχουσι και τω πολιτευματι των εν Βερενικη Ιουδαιων…”

In the early papyri, we have many, many examples of αρχον applied to multiple levels and classes of rulers who are ruling at the same time. For example, in Modern Greek, or "οι αρχοντεσ" or "η αρχοντια" mean “the local aristocracy” as a general class term.

The proper use of this term depends upon the context and without knowledge of the historical context. A cut and paste from a dictionary not enough to translate accurately, and a "cut and dried" assumption that the word means only one thing also will cause inaccuracy in translation and in the creation of theological theory. This is why it matters WHO created the Jehovahs Witness Bible and what their knowledge base of both Koine Greek (BIBLICAL Greek) and specific history was. In fact, I’ll start a separate thread on the origin of the Jehovahs Witness Bible (NWT) so that we can get to that point as well.

For example, The Jehovahs Witnesses have adopted the theory that Jesus is an angel Michael, who is the only "archangel" and you referred to hypothetical "texts" that regard "foremost princes". However, the text actually says "rulers" and not "princes".

For example : Daniel 10:13 does NOT support the specific concept of Michael as the ONLY archangel, actually it clearly uses a PLURAL noun and refers to this Michael as one of the foremost rulers.

The LXX reads “… and behold Michael one of the rulers of the ones foremost came to help me, …”Και ιδου Μιχαηλ εις των αρχοντων των πρωτων ελθε βοηθεσαι μοι, …” Daniel 10:13

The man who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible renders αρχοντων“ as “princes” rather than “chiefs” which you say it means, and he also rendered it different than “rulers” which the koine actually reads. This actual biblical text tells us that this Michael was one of several rulers. (αρχοντων). IF one is to render it into another type of leader, that change must be warranted by the historical context that justifies us changing the common generic term for a rare specific term.

It is these sorts of examples of changing the text to reflect Jehovahs Witness Doctrine, rather than adopting a doctrine that fits the text that undermines the statement that your doctrines come from “the bible”. These quotes you provide me do not exist in nor come from other, authentic bibles.

Again, my point is NOT to argue that the Jehovahs Witnesses are either more or less correct in their usage of these terms than the early Judeo-Christians who understood and used their own words differently, but merely to point out that these terms cannot be taken out of historical context without some potential loss of context and meaning.

Please Pegg, Continue with your present point that after October 1st 1914 is the date after which Lucifer falls from or is cast out of heaven. I’ve never seen the bible used to show a specific date in this way.


Clear.
σεσιδρω

 

[Pegg]

REGARDING THE TIMING AND MOTIVE FOR LUCIFERS BECOMING AND ENEMY TO GOD AND BEING CAST OUT OF HEAVEN. THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DATE OF OCTOBER 1ST, 1914


Regarding the historical use of the Koine word αρχον (ruler, ancient, leader, etc) as it applies to αγγελοσ to create αρχαγγελοσ (archangel)

Hi Pegg : Please remember that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible did not graduate college, nor was language his major, and that he had only a single introductory course in "biblical greek" (koine) and his other 4 semesters in lower level Greek coursework were in "Classical Greek" (i.e. homeric type greek) which is not biblical greek. Please consider that any rules of language and meaning he might have suggested that the Jehovahs Witnesses adopt and use will not have the same credibility and depth of applicability as the suggestions coming from individuals who are authentic, educated, linguists, historians and individuals who actually have greater knowledge and understanding of "biblical greek" (koine).

Well i have to say that this is not quite the way our NWT bible was produced. There was not just one person involved...it was a group known as the 'writing committee' who are responsible for production of the NWT.
Secondly, our translation uses an existing translation as its basis. The Westcot and Hort translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts is the basis for the NWT....so its not like our writing committee sat down and made their own bible translation.
Thirdly, biblical scholars have read the NWT and have given it very good reviews.
One scholar is Jason David BeDuhn. He is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine popular English bibles inclding TheAmplifiedNewTestament,TheLivingBible,TheNewAmericanBibleWithRevisedNewTestament,NewAmericanStandardBible,TheHolyBible, NewInternationalVersion,TheNewRevisedStandardVersion,TheBibleinToday’sEnglishVersion, and KingJamesVersion.
He examined controversial passages and specifically looked for biased attempts to change the meaning of the original words. What is his assessment of the NWT?

he says: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” He doesnt agree with every rendering, but he says this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” He calls it a “remarkably good” translation.

And he is not the only scholar to make such comments about the NWT...so our writing committee did a very good job at what many other 'educated' people did not.

The early texts use the term "archangel" as a class of beings, rather than applying it exclusively to Jesus as with Jehovahs Witness theory

Early 'Apochryphal' texts say a lot of things which are different to what the bible says. Its important to make the distinction between the texts you refer to and the texts we refer to... our texts are all bible based while your's are from writings other then the bible.

And in the bible, archangel is only ever spoken of in the 'singular' never in the plural. That in itself is strong evidence that there is only one archangel. See Daniel 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7.

For example, The Jehovahs Witnesses have adopted the theory that Jesus is an angel Michael, who is the only "archangel" and you referred to hypothetical "texts" that regard "foremost princes". However, the text actually says "rulers" and not "princes".

For example : Daniel 10:13 does NOT support the specific concept of Michael as the ONLY archangel, actually it clearly uses a PLURAL noun and refers to this Michael as one of the foremost rulers.

Here are some other bible renderings of this word that you say should be 'ruler' and not 'prince' in this verse:

Daniel 10:13New International Version (NIV)
But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia

KJV

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia​

Orhodox Jewish Bible

13 But the Sar Malchut Paras (Prince of the Kingdom of Persia) was standing before me ​

Complete Jewish Bible

The prince of the kingdom of Persia prevented me from coming for twenty-one days; but Mikha’el, one of the chief princes, came to assist me; so that I was no longer needed there with the kings of Persia​

American Standard Version

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia.​

All of these bibles readily use the word 'prince' in this verse as does the New World Translation. What may account for having more then one 'prince' is that there are many princes or 'nobles' ... this is not describing Michael in his role as the Archangel ... it is a different role in this verse... just as sometimes the bible refers to jesus as the 'Word' of God and at other times it calls him the 'Messiah'... these are different roles.

The LXX reads “… and behold Michael one of the rulers of the ones foremost came to help me, …”Και ιδου Μιχαηλ εις των αρχοντων των πρωτων ελθε βοηθεσαι μοι, …” Daniel 10:13

the LXX is a greek translation of the Hebrew text. Our bible, and many others, use the Hebrew manuscripts to translate the hebrew directly into english. I think that may account for the difference here.

You dont need the LXX (greek septuagint) as a translation for the Hebrew scriptures anymore. Its better to translate from Hebrew into english which is why so many bibles use the word 'prince' in that verse.

Please Pegg, Continue with your present point that after October 1st 1914 is the date after which Lucifer falls from or is cast out of heaven. I’ve never seen the bible used to show a specific date in this way.

Clear.
σεσιδρω

The year of 1914 was not first discovered by our founder Brother Russell....there were other christian pastors in the mid 1800's who saw the chronology of the bible prophecies pointing to the year 1914 as significant.

The year is significant because it marks the end of the 'appointed times of the nations' and the beginning of the rulership of Gods Kindgom.

Prior to the 'appointed time of the nations', God had a king on earth who represented his rulerhip. The earthly kings of Judah were a representation of Gods rulership on earth. When the line of kings was interupted, the rulership of God was not represented on earth. So the 'appointed times of the nations' began when the last King of Judah (Zedekiah) was removed from the throne. There has not been a Judean King since that last kind and there are prophecies which provide insight into the length of time before Gods kingdom is reestablished. Those prophecies are what point to 1914 as the year when Gods kingdom would be established and that was the year when all hell broke out on earth and its never been the same since.

But im running out of battery and am getting a new computer tomorrow so will need to finish this then.

 

[Clear]

post one of two

1)Regarding the early Christian belief in multiple classes of angels of varying levels

Pegg, you are certainly correct regarding multiple renderings of αρχοντων and it’s applicability to “princes” I lost context of our discussion when trying to type between appointments at work.

1) My point was that you First, defined an “αρχι” as “chief.
2) Secondly, you have said there is only ONE chief.
3) Thirdly, you then conclude that, there can be only one αρχαγγελος(archangel).

However, you then refer me to a scripture Daniel 10:13
1) Which, First, refers to multiple (plural) αρχοντων or “chiefs”
2) And secondly, these αρχοντων or chiefs are "angels" (i.e. they are “among the angelic hosts" as you described them..)
3) If they ARE plural αρχοντων(chiefs) and they ARE plural αγγελοι, (“angels“) then they are, by definition plural αρχαγγελοι (archangels).

Do you see the point now? The very text you are offering me undermines your theory that there can be only one “archangel”.

I might add that you labeled the examples I gave you from early koine papyri as “apocrypha”. As with the last time you made this error, I must again point out, none of these koine papyri come from apocryphal sources.

They are examples from Koine Greek as to what these terms means to koine speaking greeks of the biblical period. If one disregards how authentic Koine was actually used, then they disregard the meanings and usage of biblical Greek. It is these sorts of repeated mistakes that non-historian, non-linguists cannot avoid making in their creation of a bible and in the creation of theological theory. This is why it matters that the person who creates a bible needs to have some degree of knowledge and understanding of both history and biblical era greek (Koine Greek) and these points are used in creating a bible.. If, in creating a bible for the Jehovahs Witnesses, Franz was also unaware of such language and historical principles, then it affected the bible he created. This would also explain the how and why of the final product and why it has unusual characteristics.




2)Regarding the creation of a bible by and for Jehovahs Witnesses

Clear said : “ Hi Pegg : Please remember that the man who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible did not graduate college, nor was language his major, and that he had only a single introductory course in "biblical greek" (koine) and his other 4 semesters in lower level Greek coursework were in "Classical Greek" (i.e. homeric type greek) which is not biblical greek. Please consider that any rules of language and meaning he might have suggested that the Jehovahs Witnesses adopt and use will not have the same credibility and depth of applicability as the suggestions coming from individuals who are authentic, educated, linguists, historians and individuals who actually have greater knowledge and understanding of "biblical greek" (koine). “ post 87

Pegg replied : “ Well i have to say that this is not quite the way our NWT bible was produced. There was not just one person involved...it was a group known as the 'writing committee' who are responsible for production of the NWT.



Pegg, when the "New World Bible Translation Committee" was formed, historically, it was composed of five Jehovah's Witnesses who claimed to be anointed to this task : Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel.

Frederick Franz was, according to historical sources, the only one with sufficient knowledge of biblical language, who was felt to be qualified to create this translation. If the others did not contribute translational skills, then the task of creation a translation fell to Fredrick Franz.. It was this historical point that I was referring to when referring to a single person who created a bible for the Jehovahs Witnesses.

However, Franz only had a 3 credit hour introductory course in biblical Greek (Koine) to call upon. His other four semesters of greek were in lower level coursework Classical (Homeric) Greek and not biblical greek. He had no college education in Hebrew at all. I think the fact that he was learning Hebrew by himself in some of his spare time is quite admirable and it gives him an honest right to venture an opinion, but it is insufficient to actually create a bible from greek or hebrew.

Actually, regarding this issue of the creation of a bible by the Jehovahs Witnesses, I started a new thread called :Who created the Jehovahs Witness Bible and by what process was it created? Do you want to follow up on these points in that thread so as to simplify your presentation on the Devil being cast out of heaven in late 1914 in this thread?



3)REGARDING THE ATTEMPT TO USE JASON DAVID BEDUHN’S BOOK TO SHOW THE NEW WORD BIBLE IS AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION


Are you sure that you don’t want to amend your claim and give the readers a bit more information regarding the very specific type of Bias this book is speaking of? If your description seems deceptive once we start discussing this book, then readers may feel a deception occurred; a “bait and switch”.


A) The author chastises Jehovahs witness for textual bias and it’s effect of changing the text by inappropriately inserting “Jehovah” where it never existed in the text
For example, in this book, Beduhn chastises the Jehovahs Witnesses for both translational AND theological errors and bias against the Jehovahs Witness bible.

Beduhn spends an entire appendix pointing out the errors of the New World Translation in it’s inappropriate insertion of “Jehovah” where it is unwarranted in many, many places.

If you still want to use this book and this scholar as a reference for “bias”, then we should discuss what sort of very specific “bias” he was looking for in his comparison, what sort of bias the New World Translation doesn’t have as much of and the opposite sort of bias the Jehovahs Witness Bible has the most of in Beduhns personal measurement.


B) The author maintains ALL bibles are biased, but he is looking at a SPECIFIC bias supporting Trinitarianism
As another example, if you do a minimal amount of research, you will see that the Author is NOT analyzing a “General Bias” since the author is very clear that ALL bibles have bias. Instead, he is comparing a small sample of scriptures from a small sample of bibles for the very specific bias that relate to the worship of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament.

post two of two follows

 

[Clear]

post two of two


C) The Jehovahs’ Witness bible has the LEAST “Trinitarian” bias of the few bibles in the sampling
Beduhn says he is analyzing for specific textual Bias for a specific Trinitarian bias (i.e. Jesus is the same as "God").

Since the creators of the Jehovahs Witness bible did not believe Jesus is the God of the Old Testament whereas the creators of the other Bibles did believe in Jesus as the God of the Old Testament, the analysis is not surprising.

A bible created by a committee who believes Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, has the most textual bias that demonstrates this point the Jehovahs witness bible created by a committee who believes Jesus was notthe God of the Old Testament has the least textual bias in favor of this doctrine.



D) The Jehovahs’ Witness bible has the MOST “non-Trinitarian” bias of the few bibles in the sampling
The Author explains that all bibles have bias.

Thus, one can use this principle to use the same data set to demonstrate that the Jehovahs Witness bible is the most biased text toward Jesus NOT being the God of the Old Testament while the Trinitarians bible is least biased toward Jesus NOT being the God of the Old Testament. We are partly speaking of semantics.

Read the book before you use it as a supporting reference regarding “bias” as a general principle or you might consider changing your claim to avoid creating erroneous conclusions in those who read your claim on this point.



4) REGARDING THE TIMING AND MOTIVE OF LUCIFER BECOMING AN ENEMY TO GOD AND BEING CAST OUT TO EARTH FROM HEAVEN (THE FIRST TIME)


Pegg explained : “The year of 1914 was not first discovered by our founder Brother Russell....there were other christian pastors in the mid 1800's who saw the chronology of the bible prophecies pointing to the year 1914 as significant.

The year is significant because it marks the end of the 'appointed times of the nations' and the beginning of the rulership of Gods Kindgom.

Prior to the 'appointed time of the nations', God had a king on earth who represented his rulerhip. The earthly kings of Judah were a representation of Gods rulership on earth. When the line of kings was interupted, the rulership of God was not represented on earth. So the 'appointed times of the nations' began when the last King of Judah (Zedekiah) was removed from the throne. There has not been a Judean King since that last kind and there are prophecies which provide insight into the length of time before Gods kingdom is reestablished. Those prophecies are what point to 1914 as the year when Gods kingdom would be established and that was the year when all hell broke out on earth and its never been the same since.”


a) Pegg, since you mention that you derive all of your theories and theology from the bible, can you explain “the appointed times of the nations” from biblical passages you used to develop this theory?

b) Can you also similarly demonstrate the biblical passages you used to develop the theory that when the earthly Kings of Judah ceased ruling, then the “rulership of God” ceased to operate upon the earth.

Once we understand these points as you understand them, perhaps we’ll have enough understanding to intelligently understand and analyze the remainder of this theory regarding how this all relates to the timing of Lucifers becoming an enemy to God and being cast out of heaven in Jehovahs Witness theology.

Thank you again for the information you are providing. I know this is a lot of work for you and I want you to know that I appreciate the time and effort this represents for you.


Clear
σιφιακω

 

[Pegg]

a) Pegg, since you mention that you derive all of your theories and theology from the bible, can you explain “the appointed times of the nations” from biblical passages you used to develop this theory?

sure,

First I will give you the information directly from our 'Insight on the Scriptures'

The period indicated by the expression “appointed times of the nations [Gr., kai·roi′ e·thnon′]” has occasioned considerable discussion as to its meaning and implication.

Meaningof“AppointedTimes.” The expression “appointed times” here comes from the Greek word kai·ros′ (plural, kai·roi′), which, according to Vine’sExpositoryDictionaryofOldandNewTestamentWords (1981, Vol. 4, p. 138), “signified a fixed or definite period, a season, sometimes an opportune or seasonable time.” Liddell and Scott’s Greek-EnglishLexicon (1968, p. 859) gives the further definition of “exact or criticaltime.” Thus, kai·ros′ is used to refer to the harvest “season,” “the season” of the fruits, and “the season” of figs (Mt 13:30; 21:34; Mr 11:13); “the proper time” for dispensing food (Mt 24:45; Lu 12:42); “the appointed time” for Jesus’ ministry to begin and the period of opportunity it brought (Mr 1:15; Mt 16:3; Lu 12:56; 19:44); and the “appointed time” of his death. (Mt 26:18) The demons, about to be cast out of certain men, screamed at Jesus: “Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”—Mt 8:29.

Kai·ros′ is also used with reference to future times or occasions within God’s arrangement or timetable, particularly in relation to Christ’s presence and his Kingdom. (Ac 1:7; 3:19; 1Th 5:1) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the sacred secret” revealed by God “for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times [kai·ron′], namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.” (Eph 1:9, 10) In view of the meaning of the word kai·ros′ as used in the Bible text, it can properly be expected that the expression “appointed times of the nations” refers, not to something vague or indefinite, but, rather, to a “fixed or definite period,” an “exact or critical time,” one having a definite beginning and a definite end.​

This 'appointed time' is a time for the 'nations'
Jesus said "Jerusalem will be trampled on until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" Luke 21:24
This indicates that the 'appointed times of the nations' has a definite end time. And those 'appointed times' were current when Jesus was on earth in the first century. When those times were to come to their end, Jesus said the Kingdom of God would rule mankind.

Another Insight on the scriptures reference to explain this:

Beginning of ‘trampling.’ The ‘trampling’ on that kingdom of the dynasty of Davidic rulers did not begin with the Roman devastation of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate. (2Ki 25:1-26; see CHRONOLOGY.) This accorded with the prophetic words directed to Zedekiah at Ezekiel 21:25-27, namely: “Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. . . . A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.” The one who has “the legal right” to the Davidic crown lost by Zedekiah is demonstrated in the Christian Greek Scriptures to be Christ Jesus, of whom the angel, announcing his future birth, said: “Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.”—Lu 1:32, 33.​

With Jerusalem’s fall in 607 B.C.E. the Gentile powers exercised domination over the entire earth. The Davidic dynasty and rule suffered interruption, and so Jerusalem, or what it stood for, would continue to be “trampled on” as long as God’s kingdom, as functioning through David’s house, was kept in a low, inoperative condition under the Gentile powers. Observing this connection with rulership Unger’s Bible Dictionary (1965, p. 398) comments: “Consequently Gentiles move on as ‘the nations’ to the end of their stewardship as earth rulers. The termination of this period will be the end of the ‘times of the Gentiles’ (Luke 21:24; Dan. 2:36-44).”—Compare Eze 17:12-21; also the description of Medo-Persia’s fall at Da 8:7, 20.​

b) Can you also similarly demonstrate the biblical passages you used to develop the theory that when the earthly Kings of Judah ceased ruling, then the “rulership of God” ceased to operate upon the earth.

Speaking to the King of Isreal, Ezekiel prophesied:

Ezekiel 21;25 “But your day has come, O fatally wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel,+ the time of your final punishment. 26 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Remove the turban, and take off the crown.+ This will not remain the same.+Raise up the low one,+ and bring low the high one.+27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it. And it will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes,+ and I will give it to him.’​

Ezekiels prophecy says that the Crown of the Isrealite kingship will be removed. The Isrealite line of kings were said to sit on Jehovahs throne: ie, 1 Chronicles 29 23 And Sol′o·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne+ as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelites were obedient to him.
So the kings of Isreal were representing Gods rulership on earth. they were responsible for delivering Gods law and enforcing Gods law among the Isrealites. But when the Babylonian destruction came in 607BCE, that rulership was interupted and it has not been reestablished on earth by any Judean king. And when we consider the prophecy of Ezekiel that the rulership 'will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes' we understand this to mean that the next ruler to represent Gods authority will be by the Messiah, the chosen one of God.

 

[Clear]

Pegg, thank you for the information in the last post.


You explained regarding the Jehovahs Witness theological model : So the kings of Isreal were representing Gods rulership on earth. they were responsible for delivering Gods law and enforcing Gods law among the Isrealites. But when the Babylonian destruction came in 607BCE, that rulership was interupted and it has not been reestablished on earth by any Judean king. And when we consider the prophecy of Ezekiel that the rulership 'will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes' we understand this to mean that the next ruler to represent Gods authority will be by the Messiah, the chosen one of God. (Post # 88 and underline is mine)


Pegg : When you mentioned the theory the Kings of Israel were “representing” God’s rulership on earth, I initially took this to mean that you did not mean the kings of Israel were actually God’s rulership over the entire earth, but merely “represented” his model of leadership over the entire earth. However, you later say that “ The Davidic dynasty and rule suffered interruption, and so Jerusalem, or what it stood for, would continue to be “trampled on” as long as God’s kingdom, as functioning through David’s house, was kept in a low, inoperative condition under the Gentile powers.” (Post # 91, underline is mine)


Can you clarify from biblical text and commentary?

1) Are you theorizing the model of Kingship of Israel is “representative” of the sort of Kingship rule that God uses in his interaction with his creation and individuals within that creation or Are you theorizing that the Kings of Israel were the "actual" rule of God over his creation and all individuals within it? The first theory is easily understood. However, if you theorize that these kings of this small nation in a small portion of history are the "actual" rule of God over the entire earty, such a theory will require more data to either understand or to support.


2) When you speak of “God’s Kingdom” as “functioning through David’s House”, was "inoperative", can you explain this theory in greater detail? Perhaps you can define your theory on what God’s Kingdom is in this context from biblical text and then explain from biblical text why God's kingdom would be affected and become “inoperative” when the house of David was no longer ruling as they had in prior ages. (I can't tell if the answer is in how your theory defines "the Kingdom of God" or inside another mechanism of logic.)


3) I appreciate the discussion of what you think "καιροι εθνων" means in greek, however, can you explain what it actually IS and ROLE and significance in Jehovahs Witness theory using the biblical texts you say you take your theology from?


As always Pegg, I appreciate your time and effort in explaining these points to someone who has not had much exposure to modern theological theories and modern interpretations.

Thanks.


Clear
σιφυνεω

 

[Pegg]

Can you clarify from biblical text and commentary?

1) Are you theorizing the model of Kingship of Israel is “representative” of the sort of Kingship rule that God uses in his interaction with his creation and individuals within that creation or Are you theorizing that the Kings of Israel were the "actual" rule of God over his creation and all individuals within it? The first theory is easily understood. However, if you theorize that these kings of this small nation in a small portion of history are the "actual" rule of God over the entire earty, such a theory will require more data to either understand or to support.

The Kings of Isreal only ruled over Isreal...they did not rule over the nations. So, no. Their rulership did not signify the rule of God over the entire earth. Their rulership was limited to Isreal and the land that Isreal occupied.

2) When you speak of “God’s Kingdom” as “functioning through David’s House”, was "inoperative", can you explain this theory in greater detail?

Davids house is the line of Judean Kings. But when Babylon invaded Jerusalem in 607BCE, King Zedekiah was removed from the throne and Babylon installed their own ruler. So Davids house (the line of kings from his family) became inoperative.
This occured when Zedikiah was finally taken captive to Babylon and later killed by the Babylonians. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God warned Zedekiah what was to befall him:

Jeremiah 34:1

The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, when King Neb·u·chad·nez′zar* of Babylon and all his army and all the kingdoms of the earth under his dominion and all the peoples were fighting against Jerusalem and all her cities:+

2 “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘Go and speak to King Zed·e·ki′ah+ of Judah and tell him: “This is what Jehovah says, ‘Here I am giving this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire.+3 And you will not escape out of his hand, for you will without fail be caught and handed over to him.+ And you will see the king of Babylon eye to eye, and he will speak to you face-to-face, and you will go to Babylon.’+4 However, hear the word of Jehovah, O King Zed·e·ki′ah of Judah, ‘This is what Jehovah says concerning you: “You will not die by the sword. 5 In peace you will die,+ and they will make a burning ceremony for you as they did for your fathers, the former kings who were before you, and they will mourn you, ‘Alas, O master!’ for ‘I have spoken the word,’ declares Jehovah.”’”’”​

From the time of the removal of King Zedekiah, there was no kings for the nation of Isreal...and still today there are no kings for Isreal because, in line with Ezekiels prophecy, no one would sits on the earthly throne again until God gave the throne to the Messiah. Thats why, in the first century, Jerusalem was under the control of Rome and not Isreal. The Davidic line of kings, Davids house, was inoperative.

Perhaps you can define your theory on what God’s Kingdom is in this context from biblical text and then explain from biblical text why God's kingdom would be affected and become “inoperative” when the house of David was no longer ruling as they had in prior ages. (I can't tell if the answer is in how your theory defines "the Kingdom of God" or inside another mechanism of logic.)

Gods kingdom is the administration of his rulership and authority. Do you think the world of mankind today are living under Gods rulership and authority? Do the nations of the world submit to Gods rulership now?

Tell me, who rules America or Australia or China??? Who's in charge of these nations??

3) I appreciate the discussion of what you think "καιροι εθνων" means in greek, however, can you explain what it actually IS and ROLE and significance in Jehovahs Witness theory using the biblical texts you say you take your theology from?

its not about what 'we' think it means. We dont come up with definitions. We use the definitions given by the scholars:

the Greek word kai·ros′ (plural, kai·roi′), which, according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 138), “signified a fixed or definite period, a season, sometimes an opportune or seasonable time.” ​

So when Jesus said that 'Jerusalem would be trampled on until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled' it means that there would be a 'definite period' or 'season' when Jerusalem would be 'trampled' on by the nations. If a nation is being 'trampled' by another nation, what do you think it means?

In Jesus day, Rome was ruling the nation of Isreal and they had control of the city of Jerusalem and ruled over the people there. Many Jews were not happy with that and we can see from history the very many revolts and civil wars that erupted due to the Roman occupation. So with that in mind, we can understand the historical meaning of Jesus words "Jersualem will be trampled on by the nations"

 

[Clear]

Pegg : Though you've spent some time trying to discuss your theory that the devil was cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914, I still cannot tell how these theories tie into and support this theory.

If you can figure a way how to tie all these issues together in some logical and reasonable way, then I would be interested in hearing about it. If there is no logical and reasonable connection and logical way to present it, then I've lost interest in this theory. If you can think of any way to tie all of these issues into a logical and reasonable presentation, then I would be interested in hearing about this Jehovahs Witness theory.

Let me know if you are able to do this.

Thank you for your time and efforts so far.

Clear

 

[Pegg]

Pegg : Though you've spent some time trying to discuss your theory that the devil was cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914, I still cannot tell how these theories tie into and support this theory.

Considering the only mention of Satan being removed from heaven is found in the book of Revelation, when was the book of Revelation written?

Was it not in the first century ce?

And according to the opening verse, were the events from the past or the future.?

Revelation 1:1 A revelation* by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,+ to show his slaves+ the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John​

You tell me.

 

[Clear]

Pegg, I think your last post is another example of irrelevance and illogic.

I cannot tell how this post specifically supports your theory that the Devil is cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914. Where in revelations is data that supports this date?

If you cannot offer information that is logical and relevant, and reasonable, then I don't see the purpose of an irrelevant, illogical, and unreasonable discussion. Do you have biblical verses data supporting your theory that the devil was cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914 or not?

Clear

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, I think your last post is another example of irrelevance and illogic.

I cannot tell how this post specifically supports your theory that the Devil is cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914. Where in revelations is data that supports this date?

If you cannot offer information that is logical and relevant, and reasonable, then I don't see the purpose of an irrelevant, illogical, and unreasonable discussion. Do you have biblical verses data supporting your theory that the devil was cast out of heaven after October 1st, 1914 or not?

Clear

Actually, its very logical.

You believe that the devil was cast our of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve. That the war in heaven was before mankind existed, correct?

Yet, the only mention of the war in heaven and Satan being cast down is found in the bible book of Revelation. That book was written as a vision of 'future' events.

So, logically, if John was shown a vision of that war in heaven and Satan being cast to the earth, as a future event, then how can it be that the war happened before mans existence? John wrote revelation toward the end of the 1st century....that means, the war happened sometime AFTER the first century. That is logical because Revelation says; A revelation* by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,+ to show his slaves+ the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John"

Well, if the vision of that war was to 'shortly take place' it means that the war did not take place before the first century CE. It was to come sometime after the first century. Does that seem logical to you?

 

[Clear]

Pegg said : “ You believe that the devil was cast our of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve. That the war in heaven was before mankind existed, correct? Yet, the only mention of the war in heaven and Satan being cast down is found in the bible book of Revelation. That book was written as a vision of 'future' events.“

You are confused : When I gave you many, many examples from Jewish, Christian and Islamic Doctrines in the earliest centuries that spoke of the belief that the angel Lucifer became an enemy of God and was cast out of heaven and into the earth where he then interacted with Adam and Eve, which resulted in the fall. This was only one disagreement of multiple disputes between God and the Devil and this dispute was only upon a single point (Adam). Just as the story of Job relates to God and Satan disagreeing upon Job as a single issue. You seem to be speaking of the final battle between God and the Devil and his angels that will happen in the end times. As I've mentioned, these are not the same disagreements.


Thus, when Jesus speaks of one dispute where he speaks in past tense, saying “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven….” In Luke 10:18. Jesus is speaking in past tense, regarding one dispute in his past, whereas you are, apparently, speaking of a final future battle. You are using a single introductory verse in future tense and assuming there are no present or past tenses in other verses later in Revelation. (You might want to read other chapters to see if your theory is correct). In any case, that is yet another irrelevant issue to the Jehovahs Witness doctrine that this war happened and the Devil was cast down from heaven into the earth just after October 1st, 1914.


THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORY THAT THE WAR IN HEAVEN AND THE CASTING OF THE DEVIL OUT OF HEAVEN OCCURRED JUST AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 1914

Even if you are speaking of the final battle between Satan and God, and the Devil’s final banishment from heaven, you still have not spoken to the present issue of specific timing of October 1st, 1914. Pegg, I am starting to have to repeat this question too many times. What bible verses show that the war in heaven occurred and that the devil was cast out of heaven “just after October 1st 1914?

Clear
ακσεσεω

 

[Pegg]

Pegg said : “ You believe that the devil was cast our of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve. That the war in heaven was before mankind existed, correct? Yet, the only mention of the war in heaven and Satan being cast down is found in the bible book of Revelation. That book was written as a vision of 'future' events.“

You are confused : When I gave you many, many examples from Jewish, Christian and Islamic Doctrines in the earliest centuries that spoke of the belief that the angel Lucifer became an enemy of God and was cast out of heaven and into the earth where he then interacted with Adam and Eve, which resulted in the fall. This was only one disagreement of multiple disputes between God and the Devil and this dispute was only upon a single point (Adam). Just as the story of Job relates to God and Satan disagreeing upon Job as a single issue. You seem to be speaking of the final battle between God and the Devil and his angels that will happen in the end times. As I've mentioned, these are not the same disagreements.

He wasnt cast out of heaven at that time though. Those writings are wrong.

He was still able to be in heaven as can be seen by the account of Job where the bible says;'

JOb 1: 6 Now the day came when the sons of the true God*+ entered to take their station before Jehovah,+ and Satan+ also entered among them​

This is proof that Satan had not been cast out of heaven until much later. If he was cast out, how was he able to 'enter in' as shown in this account???

Still believe the apocryphal literature is telling you the truth???

Thus, when Jesus speaks of one dispute where he speaks in past tense, saying “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven….” In Luke 10:18. Jesus is speaking in past tense, regarding one dispute in his past, whereas you are, apparently, speaking of a final future battle. You are using a single introductory verse in future tense and assuming there are no present or past tenses in other verses later in Revelation. (You might want to read other chapters to see if your theory is correct). In any case, that is yet another irrelevant issue to the Jehovahs Witness doctrine that this war happened and the Devil was cast down from heaven into the earth just after October 1st, 1914.


THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORY THAT THE WAR IN HEAVEN AND THE CASTING OF THE DEVIL OUT OF HEAVEN OCCURRED JUST AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 1914

Even if you are speaking of the final battle between Satan and God, and the Devil’s final banishment from heaven, you still have not spoken to the present issue of specific timing of October 1st, 1914. Pegg, I am starting to have to repeat this question too many times. What bible verses show that the war in heaven occurred and that the devil was cast out of heaven “just after October 1st 1914?

Clear
ακσεσεω

I have not given you the scriptures which give us the time frame yet because i feel we need to first be clear about whether John wrote about the war in heaven as a future or past event.

This discussion has always been about when Satan was cast out of heaven and the war in heaven occured. You have said it occured before the creation of Adam and Eve. But i need you to honestly ask yourself whether Johns vision was of a future of past event...

So based on revelations account of that war in heaven, can you tell me if you think it is showing a vision of the future or the past?

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE TIMING OF THE ANGEL LUCIFERS BECOMING AND ENEMY TO GOD AND BEING CAST OUT OF HEAVEN


Clear said : Thus, when Jesus speaks of one dispute where he speaks in past tense, saying “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven….” In Luke 10:18. Jesus is speaking in past tense, regarding one dispute in his past, whereas you are, apparently, speaking of a final future battle. You are using a single introductory verse in future tense and assuming there are no present or past tenses in other verses later in Revelation. (You might want to read other chapters to see if your theory is correct). In any case, that is yet another irrelevant issue to the Jehovahs Witness doctrine that this war happened and the Devil was cast down from heaven into the earth just after October 1st, 1914. (# 98)

Pegg answered : He wasnt cast out of heaven at that time though. Those writings are wrong. He was still able to be in heaven as can be seen by the account of Job where the bible says;' JOb 1: 6 Now the day came when the sons of the true God*+ entered to take their station before Jehovah,+ and Satan+ also entered among them. This is proof that Satan had not been cast out of heaven until much later. If he was cast out, how was he able to 'enter in' as shown in this account???


Pegg, are you using the Jehovahs Witness Bible? We need to discuss this “biblical proof” you are giving us.

I have already agreed with your point in the “where/how the Jehovahs’ Witness Bible was created”, that the Jehovahs Witness, Frederick Franz, in creating this bible, often simply places into the biblical text, what he thinks the text means to him, rather than representing an authentic act of literal translation. This is not a good thing.

For example, the Greek text the Christians most commonly used, did not have words such as “the true God” (lxx is simply "God"), or the words “entered to take their station” (in lxx, Satan did not “enter” into anything, but they "came" / ηλθον and they "stood" / παραστηναι. There was no taking of a "station" (though they may have stood beside each other in context of "παραστηναι")

The LXX version from 300 b.c. (the bible the Christians most commonly used) has these messengers come to stand before him (ηλθον οι αγγελοι του Θεου παραστηναι). They are standing before the Lord (ενωπιον του Κυριου).
The devil “comes” (ηλθε). He does not “enter” (εισηλθε or etc.).

You are also assuming this meeting takes place in Gods “heaven” where God lives. Where does the text actually give you the right to assume the Devil, as an enemy to God, takes his “station” in the highest heaven where God lives? When the devil “went out” in vs 12 (εξηλθεν), the text does not have him leave from "heaven" but he leaves the presence of the Lord, and not where God "lives".

If you think it is more appropriate to use the Hebrew from the 10th century A.D. than the Jewish LXX from 300 B.C. you are welcome to analyze and explain these points from that version and language if you want. However, keep in mind that the LXX is part commentary as it indicates what these Jews of 300 B.C. thought their Hebrew version meant. This is part of the reason that the LXX is historically helpful to the Christian Context.

In answering these questions, also, keep in mind that none of these points seem, so far, to relate to the Date of October 1st 1914 as a specific date when, according to Jehovah Witnesses theory, the Devil is Cast out of Heaven. Can you discuss this date and where, in the biblical text, this date comes from?


Clear