1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by calm, Jul 8, 2019.

  1. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    324
    Ratings:
    +102
    Religion:
    Natsari
    Elohim (the true term is Alahim) is not a name it is a title.

    "El" (Al) is the absolutely God. "I am AL and no one else" (Is. 45,22). The root Al means "towards" and describes the main activity of God, namely that of subordination, it is the title of the Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, 1Co 15:28).
    "Eloah" (Alah) is literally someone who is focused on Al. "All Eloah's(Alahs) speech is purified" (Proverbs 30:5).
    The majority is "Elohim" (Alahim): the subordinates to Al. These can also be people who have been given special powers by Al, but who submit to El(Al). People from Israel are called Elohim(Alahim) because they were given authority over others (Ps 82:8; John 10:34), e.g. Judges (Gen 21:6) or Moses (Gen 4:16). Moses was made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).
     
  2. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    324
    Ratings:
    +102
    Religion:
    Natsari
    Exactly.
     
  3. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,750
    Ratings:
    +3,293
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nope.. You're wrong. Didn't you read any of the links I provided? Christian and Jewish scholars have been working on these Ugaritic tablets since the 1940s... and it had revolutionized our understanding of the languages and the myths. Had you never even heard of them before?
     
  4. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +1,648
    Religion:
    diversity
    What is your source for this pronunciation?

    Take a look at Gen 4:35 and 4:39? Thoughts?
     
  5. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +1,648
    Religion:
    diversity
    Respectful question: If God exists, isn't possible that there was a divine revelation to the Canaanites / Ugarites / Egyptians, etc, etc, etc... and that explains the similarities between Judaism and the others?
     
  6. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,750
    Ratings:
    +3,293
    Religion:
    Christian
    You have never been to the region, have you? Its not much bigger than a postage stamp.
     
  7. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    324
    Ratings:
    +102
    Religion:
    Natsari
    The ancient Hebrew.
    You have to know that the ancient Hebrew is not the modern Hebrew. They are different.
    What do you mean?
     
  8. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +1,648
    Religion:
    diversity
    OK.

    But you didn't answer my question...

    Respectful question: If God exists, isn't it possible that there was a divine revelation to the Canaanites / Ugarites / Egyptians, etc, etc, etc... and that explains the similarities between Judaism and the others?

    Also,

    If God doesn't exist, isn't it possible that similarities in stories and religious symbolism is a caused by simple human nature and the stories and beliefs "make sense" to primitive people? As an example: do you remember the flood story I posted in one of your threads from Hawaii? The similarities to the Abrahamic flood story are remarkable.

    "In Hawaiian mythology, Nu'u was a man who built an ark with which he escaped a Great Flood. He landed his vessel on top of Mauna Kea on the Big Island. Nu'u mistakenly attributed his safety to the moon, and made sacrifices to it. Kāne, the creator god, descended to earth on a rainbow and explained Nu'u's mistake."

    hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Nu'u

    The names: Noah ... Nu'u
    The ark...
    The story ends with a rainbow...

    But Hawaii is geographically distant from Canaan. This shows that often, people come up with similar ideas, and... Sooda, It's not copying. It's just people coming to the same conclusion based on similar observations.

    It happens in science and for inventors too:

    "The concept of multiple discovery is the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors.

    Commonly cited examples of multiple independent discovery are the 17th-century independent formulation of calculus by Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and others, described by A. Rupert Hall. The 18th-century discovery of oxygen by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and others. The theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. What holds for discoveries, also goes for inventions. Examples are the blast furnace (invented independently in China, Europe and Africa), the crossbow (invented independently in China, Greece, Africa, northern Canada, and the Baltic countries), and magnetism (discovered independently in Greece, China, and India)."

    hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Multiple discovery

    Sooda, Even if the stories are similar, that doesn't mean that one is copying from the other. And even if they were, no one knows who was copying from whom. Stories were originally passed word of mouth. Denying that means denying the rich tapestry of religious myth of Native Americans and other tribal cultures.
     
    #148 dybmh, Jul 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  9. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +233
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    These were quotes that I used to undermine Trinitarians viewpoint of Christ all the time.

    The tricky thing about them is that how one interprets them is entirely dependent on how one views the nature of God. If a person is a Unitarian then it is obvious to them that Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true God, which excludes Jesus from being God. If one is a Trinitarian, then their view is that god split himself into three. So if he is split, and one part of him is in a human body, and it is saying that the Father is the only true God makes sense, but it doesn't exclude that the other two are also not the only true God.

    The whole God worshipping himself though undermines Trinitarianism, as i don't know why a part of God would worship himself, but not certain other viewpoints that claims that Jesus is God who aren't Trinitarian.

    I think that both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is wrong though, as either side either ignores certain scriptures or use mental gymnastics to interpret these scriptures to anything other than what they explicitly say.

    Various people interpret the majority of texts based on and in light of the texts that they find foundational. So a Trinitarian might quote John 1:1 and view all other texts as building on the idea that Jesus is God. A Unitarian might use the verses you quoted as the foundation of their beliefs about Jesus and interpret all other texts based on the idea of Jesus not being God.

    So proof texting back and forth doesn't help as it comes down to "my text vs yours". People should actually use the immediate context to understand the verse. Also, each book in the bible is written by one author. Believers assume that all the books harmonize with each other. They should read each book individually to see what it says in its own context and not read into the book because another book or letter says the opposite of what the text clearly says. For all we know, one author might have had a completely different viewpoint to another, hence contradictions.
     
  10. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +233
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    This is interesting, Do you think that the Holy Spirit is in you? And please prove it if you think you do?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    324
    Ratings:
    +102
    Religion:
    Natsari
    I can't prove anything to you.
     
  12. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +233
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    OK. So it is your own subjective belief then?
     
  13. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    324
    Ratings:
    +102
    Religion:
    Natsari
    You think smart, thats good.
    I have a question, what is wrong with Jesus worshipping his father? Are you not aware that Jesus was human when he worshipped his father?
     
  14. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3,151
    Ratings:
    +1,648
    Religion:
    diversity
    Focusing on the pronunciation for a moment...

    My sources report it is pronounced Elohim in Genesis, and Ail in Isaiah. Nothing I have indicates "AL".

    But even if we disagree on precisely how the vowels are pronounced, are you proposing that the word "Aleph-Lamed" in Isaiah 45:22 is pronounced in a similar manner as "Alpeh-Lamed-Hei-Yud-Mem" in Genesis 1:1?

    Here are multiple sources showing that there are different vowels for these words.

    "Alpeh-Lamed" in Isaiah 45:22 ( the vowel is a Tzeireh )

    Biblehub:

    Capture-1.JPG

    Sefaria:

    Capture-2.JPG

    Judaica Press:

    Capture-6.JPG

    "Aleph-Lamed-Hei-Yud-Mem" in Genesis 1:1 ( the vowel is a Chataf Segol )

    Biblehub:

    Capture-3.JPG

    Sefaria:

    Capture-4.JPG

    Judaica Press:

    Capture-5.JPG

    @calm, Respectful question: Why do you think the Aleph-Lamed ( with a tzeireh ) in Isaiah 45:22 should be pronounced the same as the Alpeh-Lamed ( with a chataf segol ) in Genesis 1:1? Are all of these sources wrong that the vowels are different? Are the different vowels intended to be pronounced in the same manner?
     
  15. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +233
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    Ha! I give the illusion of thinking smart.

    My thoughts aren't fully thought out though on this I suspect.

    There are certain theories in which I think it would make sense for Jesus to worship God. My current viewpoint is that Jesus is an Avatar of God. So if his human body has its own personality but is filled with a part of God then it makes sense that he would pray.

    If what I think the Trinitarian viewpoint of Jesus is true, then the view would be that Jesus was 100% God but 100% human, but if his consciousness was that of one of the three persons of God who are equal in position, then there is no point in worshipping the Father. I understand Jesus then speaking with God on equal terms, even if he might have been in an inferior nature, because the reason God is worshipped is because he is the creator (Rev 4:11), and therefore if Jesus is also creator, even then he was worthy of worship, on equal terms as the Father, and therefore didn't need to worship the Father.

    Although, now that I think of it, if the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to be humiliated, and being obedient to the Father as per Philppians 2 which says:

    He humbled Himself

    and became obedient
    to death—

    even death on a cross.

    then that might make sense.

    Scenario: if part of Gods plan was to for a third of himself (Jesus) to become obedient to the other third (the Father), meaning that Jesus was submissive to the Father and played inferior, then Jesus had to worship as a form of submissiveness to the Father.

    The question then is: why would God's plan require one third of himself to be submissive to the other to the point of worship? Is it simply so that followers can follow in his footsteps? Or is there another alternative explanation?
     
  16. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,841
    Ratings:
    +268
    Religion:
    Christian
    1) REGARDING THE GRAMMAR OF JOHN 1:1c AND THE RENDERING "And the word was a God".

    Hi @calm, I have to agree with @Blü and @tigger2 on the specific point regarding John 1:1c. It would do good for you to learn greek so that you can understand WHY you lost that specific debate on that specific subject. IF you could spend just a bit of time learning greek you would see that you are giving @Blü and @tigger2 perfect examples why they are correct regarding the actual use of the article in John 1:1c as the ancients used it.

    For example, you offered Isaiah 9:6 which is another example of the same type of lack of article seen in John 1:1c.

    The LXX says : "Οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη τπι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγενλος θαυμαστος συμβουλος θεος ισχυρος εξουσιαστης αρχων ειρηνης πατηρ του μελλοντος αιωνος αξω γαρ ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας και υγιειαν αυτω.

    The Greek of Isaiah 9:6 reads : for “a” child is given to us (Οτι παιδιον), not “the” child.

    “a” son (υιος) has been given to us, not “the” son.

    “a” great counsel (μεγαλης βουλης), not “the” great counsel

    “a”/”an” messenger/angel (αγγενλος), not “the” messenger/angel”

    “a” counselor (συμβουλος), not “the” counselor.

    “a” mighty God (θεος ισχυρος), not “the” mighty God”. (Not "almighty", but "mighty" or "strong")

    “a” ruler of peace (peaceful) (αρχων ειρηνης), not “the” ruler of peace.

    “a” father of the coming age (πατηρ του μελλοντος αιωνος), not “the” father of the coming age.

    The point is that you are giving your antagonists who read ancient languages the very examples that show why your cut and pasting regarding the use of the article in John 1:1c is incorrect.

    Even if you used the Hebrew such as ben Chayyim, you will find similar use of the article that demonstrates why your cut and pasting is incorrect and how the ancients used the definite article in their texts.

    כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם, .

    The author clearly knows to use the article, (כִּי-יֶלֶ “THAT” boy) and (הַמִּשְׂרָה “THE” government), but then the examples of lack of articles follows, :

    יוֹעֵץ “a” counselor, not “the” counselor

    אֵל גִּבּוֹר “a” mighty God, not “the” mighty God

    , אֲבִי-עַד “a” father of the coming age,. Not “the” father…

    שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם “a” prince of peace, not “the” prince of peace.


    John 1:1c is simply following these sorts of examples and the theology is consistent as well. While I do not particularly like Jehovahs Witness theories on other points, they and all others using this rendering of "a God" in John 1:1 are perfectly correct grammatically. (Ancient context is a different argument)



    2) REGARDING ISRAEL KAHNS DISCUSSION OF ELOHIM AS A PLURAL, EL IS THE SINGULAR FORM

    Hi @Israel Kahn : Isaiah 9:6 above, is an example where the truly singular “EL” is used for God (“a mighty God”), appearing above as the BLUE word.



    3) REGARDING VARIOUS RELIGIONS HAVING TRADITIONS SIMILAR TO JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

    @dybmh : Regarding your musings on similarities between Judaism and other religions.

    The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni ad loc, Sifrei 343), recounts that Jehovah offered the Torah to all the nations of the world before the Jews. In an quaint form it is recounted that ”First He approached the children of Esav and asked them, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They replied, "What is written in it?" "Do not murder." They said, "...Our father [Esav] was assured [by his father, Yitzchak] that, 'By your sword will you live! (Bereishis 27:40)' we cannot accept the Torah" Next Hashem went to the children of Ammon and Moav, and asked, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They asked, "What is written in it?" "Do not commit sexual immorality." They responded, "Master of the Universe, our very existence is based on an immoral act!" (These two nations are descended from the daughters of Lot, who were impregnated by their father.) Thus they too, refused the offer.” And the narrative continues as it explains why many other nations refused this greater guidance of the Torah.

    While the story itself is legend, It represents the concept that all nations have had prophets sent to them and have had portions of truth given to them in their own language and in their own symbol set and thus there should be a lot of parallel concepts in the various doctrinal “debri” floating around in the various religions that harken back to the earliest and most important legends and stories. For example, IF the Adamic narrative is true, then the gospel he taught his children and their children would have spread out to different developing nations and thus, there would be some similarities in the religious legends of different geographical areas and different nations.

    I like your thinking on this point.

    In any case I hope you all have good and insightful and wonderful spiritual journeys in life.

    Clear
    ειτωνετζω
     
    #156 Clear, Jul 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. kjw47

    kjw47 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,605
    Ratings:
    +247
    Religion:
    Jehovah' witness


    Lets look at reality

    There is no I am that I am in the Hebrew OT= Fact--A misleading error only found in trinity translations. I will be what I will be is correct.
    Jesus teaches he has a God like we do-his Father-John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- Making a capitol G God in the last line of John 1:1= error. Or maybe you can explain to the world how God has a God yet there is only 1 God???????? Either Jesus is a liar or trinity teachers are the liars. We all must choose who we listen to. Paul listened to Jesus he was 100% clear-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all the Father.
    The bible is clear--Only God gets worship--On earth Jesus was mortal( Hebrews 2:7-9) yet in every trinity translation a mortal Jesus is getting worship=100% error.
    At 1Cor 15:24-28--Jesus must hand back the kingdom to his God and Father( after the 1000 year reign) and subject himself--- does that sound like what a God would have to do?
    Trinity religions =( Mark 3:24-26) A house divided( 34,000 trinity religions) will not stand.-- you can take that to the bank.
    Trinity translations are filled with misleading errors.
    You have 0 clue if Jehovah is wrong or right.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Calm wrote: "The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence."

    [1. We are concerned with John's use of theos here [for John 1:1c], not theon.

    2. There are 13 uses of theon in the Gospel of John. Nine of them clearly use the definite article! (two others are in a series of nouns where the initial article is understood to apply to the others). Theon in John 10:33 does not have the article and the NWT (and NEB) translate it as "a god."

    3. John 1:18 uses both theon and theos - these are not "the same term." An anarthrous accusative noun (including theon) when used as a direct object and found before its verb is understood to be definite. Therefore the anarthrous theon in 1:18 is properly understood to be 'the god' or God. Theos in 1:18 has no article and may be properly rendered "a god."]


    Please reply to these clearly false accusations which are easily found in the public record.
    Greek Concordance: θεόν (theon) -- 148 Occurrences
     
    #158 tigger2, Jul 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,962
    Ratings:
    +5,233
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Doesn't this fit in with Genesis 11:1-9? Since God confused the language of the tower builders in order to scatter them all over the earth, wouldn't these ones have taken the bones of the flood story with them? Embellishments would have been added over time to make them culturally significant, but the story is basically the same in just about every ancient culture. It cannot have been a coincidence.

    Exactly. Oral traditions were passed down from generation to generation. No one was copying anyone, because it was the same experience that led to their version of the story in the first place. Each culture diversifying individually but keeping basic truths as a foundation. Isn't that why we see common threads in the beliefs and legends of all these cultures? They had the same ancient beginning....just lost in time.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,962
    Ratings:
    +5,233
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    @calm there has been so much scholarly evidence given to you on the whole issue of the trinity.
    My response to you on your other thread, I will post portions here because you did not respond to them....

    "It seems very obvious to me that the major English translations of the Bible came out of Christendom, a man made institution that translated the Bible with their own bias, long before anyone realized that they had one.

    A classic example is in the KJV in John 1:1 and John 1:18.....

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."


    The word "theos" is used in both verses and yet in verse 18 it says "son" not "God"...why? Both are the same word in Greek.
    So if verse 18 renders the word "theos" as "son", then John 1:1 should also render it "son" making that verse say...
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son."

    You want inconsistencies and bias in translation...there is a major one, right there.

    I don't know why people go to such lengths to make Jesus into God. Not once did Jesus ever say that he was God or even equal to his Father. He called himself "the son of God" but never did he claim to be "God". The Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy even though all he claimed to be was "the son of God".......imagine what they would have done if he'd claimed to God!? :eek:

    Jesus identified the Father as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)
    He said that the Father knew things that he didn't know, (Matthew 24:36)...that God's will could be different from his own (Matthew 26:39) How are they one God? Where will I find a trinity in the Bible?

    And why don't the Jews believe in a trinity? Jesus was Jewish, so he would never have even thought of such a thing. (Deuteronomy 6:4) But it's amazing how many trinities there are in all sorts of non-Christian religions....

    Trinities date back to Nimrod.
    [​IMG]

    Trinities are found in Egypt, Asia, Europe and Scandinavia.....they predate Christianity by centuries.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Northern hemisphere pagan trinity symbols which all predate Christianity.

    [​IMG]

    The apostles were in no doubt about who Jesus was....(Matthew 15:16)

    "For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

    To put another God in place of the Father is a breach of the First Commandment. Ask those in Christendom whom they believe God is, and see how many answer "Jesus Christ". That is blasphemy."

    Now, since you believe in a triune god your question was....
    My answer was....

    No. The holy spirit is the power that emanates from God that he uses to accomplish his will. It can empower others to do extraordinary things. Again, this is another whole topic by itself.
    If the holy spirit was a person, it would have a name like God and his son do.

    In all of the scriptures that speak of Jesus 'at his Father's right hand', can you give me a single scripture that puts the holy spirit at his left? Can you do that?

    My challenge still stands......
     
    #160 Deeje, Jul 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...