Yes, and they would have understood it as the pagans do, there is not three gods mushed into one. There is still only one God, so the pagan idea of three gods and trying to help the Jews understand three person’s one God instead.[/quote]
Brother Chris. These comments you make do nothing but detract from the information at hand. You have moved from being involved in a discussion regarding the trinity to discussion regarding the maturity level of the ancient Jewish nation and the like. You have then moved to insulting respected translators and their works as well as discrediting many translations as a whole. It is unfortunate that you turned your direction in the conversation. All that does to those reading is make it look like you are making a personal attack on others, which soils your reputation. I am presenting facts here. If you choose not to participate in a similar discussion, feel free to bow out. I have no desire to go on random tangents about relatively meaningless information and I have strong doubts that anyone would follow you down those roads for long.
However, if you wish to come back to sharing scripture (even involving the Greek and Hebrew if needed) feel free. Some search for the truth others prefer not to, a fact proven through actions.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
[quote]
At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say “this means,” “represents,” or “signifies,” but Jesus used none of them in his statement, “This is my body.” Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our LordÃ?¢??s words to “This means my body” in Matthew 26:26. [/quote]
Matthew 12:7 - your translation has changed the word estin(is) to “means”.
Yes, and they would have understood it as the pagans do, there is not three gods mushed into one. There is still only one God, so the pagan idea of three gods and trying to help the Jews understand three person’s one God instead.[/quote]
Brother Chris. These comments you make do nothing but detract from the information at hand. You have moved from being involved in a discussion regarding the trinity to discussion regarding the maturity level of the ancient Jewish nation and the like. You have then moved to insulting respected translators and their works as well as discrediting many translations as a whole. It is unfortunate that you turned your direction in the conversation. All that does to those reading is make it look like you are making a personal attack on others, which soils your reputation. I am presenting facts here. If you choose not to participate in a similar discussion, feel free to bow out. I have no desire to go on random tangents about relatively meaningless information and I have strong doubts that anyone would follow you down those roads for long.
[/quote]
I can quote or summarize text out of books that I have, but those “respected” translators are not respected for their works except by JW’s and other liberal protestants. Conservative Protestants, High Church Anglicans, and most certainly Catholics do not respect the mans’ work. They have have worked on committees with respected translations, but their translation disagree with those personal opinions of the translation.
I can’t help that you are bringing non-sense into the argument. So far both Moffatt and Goodspeed I have never seen or read anyone respect their personal works on translation as their work deviates too far from the tradition and are compete and utter outliers.
Yes, and they would have understood it as the pagans do, there is not three gods mushed into one. There is still only one God, so the pagan idea of three gods and trying to help the Jews understand three person’s one God instead.[/quote]
Brother Chris. These comments you make do nothing but detract from the information at hand. You have moved from being involved in a discussion regarding the trinity to discussion regarding the maturity level of the ancient Jewish nation and the like. You have then moved to insulting respected translators and their works as well as discrediting many translations as a whole. It is unfortunate that you turned your direction in the conversation. All that does to those reading is make it look like you are making a personal attack on others, which soils your reputation. I am presenting facts here. If you choose not to participate in a similar discussion, feel free to bow out. I have no desire to go on random tangents about relatively meaningless information and I have strong doubts that anyone would follow you down those roads for long.
[/quote]
I can quote or summarize text out of books that I have, but those “respected” translators are not respected for their works except by JW’s and other liberal protestants. Conservative Protestants, High Church Anglicans, and most certainly Catholics do not respect the mans’ work. They have have worked on committees with respected translations, but their translation disagree with those personal opinions of the translation.
I can’t help that you are bringing non-sense into the argument. So far both Moffatt and Goodspeed I have never seen or read anyone respect their personal works on translation as their work deviates too far from the tradition and are compete and utter outliers. [/quote]
So far the information that you presented for Moffatt you pulled from Wikipedia. I found it there. And pretty much word for word what you said. I am bringing published authors with much experience into a conversation. I would hardly call that non-sense.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
Okay, what is your point? [/quote]
Your translation is “guilty” of the same errors that you are discrediting my translation about. If you discredit one, you must discredit the other.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So far the information that you presented for Moffatt you pulled from Wikipedia. I found it there. And pretty much word for word what you said. I am bringing published authors with much experience into a conversation. I would hardly call that non-sense. [/quote]
That is kind of insulting, yet not surprising. I’m on my BlackBerry, at work. The effort to go back from this and Wikipedia is not worth the effort and would rather make a mistake in what I say then take the ten minutes to look up the information just to copy and paste it.
I brought in published authors as well. Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. refuting Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions on his work
Truth in Translation.
The fact that they are published doesn’t make them right, Dr. Kevorkian was published, as well. BeDuhn seems to get a lot of his ideas from both Moffatt and Goodspeed.
This is solely on a scholarly level; however, religiously NW isn’t authorized and neither was Moffatt’s personal efforts or Goodspeed’s.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So far the information that you presented for Moffatt you pulled from Wikipedia. I found it there. And pretty much word for word what you said. I am bringing published authors with much experience into a conversation. I would hardly call that non-sense. [/quote]
That is kind of insulting, yet not surprising. I’m on my BlackBerry, at work. The effort to go back from this and Wikipedia is not worth the effort and would rather make a mistake in what I say then take the ten minutes to look up the information just to copy and paste it.
I brought in published authors as well. Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. refuting Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions on his work
Truth in Translation.
The fact that they are published doesn’t make them right, Dr. Kevorkian was published, as well. BeDuhn seems to get a lot of his ideas from both Moffatt and Goodspeed.
This is solely on a scholarly level; however, religiously NW isn’t authorized and neither was Moffatt’s personal efforts or Goodspeed’s. [/quote]
Look, if you want to go with a topic on Bible translation, please, feel free to start that thread. It is not relevant to this thread. You appear done sharing points about the trinity. Forbes and forlife seem reasonable in their discussion. I cannot say the same (anymore) about your efforts on this topic.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
Okay, what is your point? [/quote]
Your translation is “guilty” of the same errors that you are discrediting my translation about. If you discredit one, you must discredit the other.[/quote]
What Greek are you using?
Actually it’s just the RSV Bible, I use it because it is common enough language. However, we can use the first English Bible the DRBO:
Apocalypse - Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.
Matthew - But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mark - And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him.
and Matthew - And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.
I don’t understand what you’re trying point out in your “meaning” point in Matthew.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So far the information that you presented for Moffatt you pulled from Wikipedia. I found it there. And pretty much word for word what you said. I am bringing published authors with much experience into a conversation. I would hardly call that non-sense. [/quote]
That is kind of insulting, yet not surprising. I’m on my BlackBerry, at work. The effort to go back from this and Wikipedia is not worth the effort and would rather make a mistake in what I say then take the ten minutes to look up the information just to copy and paste it.
I brought in published authors as well. Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. refuting Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions on his work
Truth in Translation.
The fact that they are published doesn’t make them right, Dr. Kevorkian was published, as well. BeDuhn seems to get a lot of his ideas from both Moffatt and Goodspeed.
This is solely on a scholarly level; however, religiously NW isn’t authorized and neither was Moffatt’s personal efforts or Goodspeed’s. [/quote]
Look, if you want to go with a topic on Bible translation, please, feel free to start that thread. It is not relevant to this thread. You appear done sharing points about the trinity. Forbes and forlife seem reasonable in their discussion. I cannot say the same (anymore) about your efforts on this topic.
[/quote]
Are you not the one that brought up Biblical translations?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
A question I would like you to reflect on is this: Father’s name: Jehovah; Son’s name: Jesus. What is the Holy Spirit’s name? If they are all individual people (and, as you suggest, the most powerful people in the universe) wouldn’t all 3 of them have names?
[/quote]
I’ll answer! God has many names, I don’t think his name is particularly relevant, he’s much bigger than a name… God’s spirit is part of God, his spirit is who he is, and his way of reaching us spirit to spirit. His son is his way of submitting to humanity. It is to humble himself to reach out to us.
Think about this, what if you had to reach out to dogs and explain baseball. To do this, you had to become a dog and you have to explain a concept they are not equipped to understand. How do you do it?
[/quote]
Pat, I will agree with you on this part: God has many different… and then it splits But on a serious note. God says in the Bible that he has many titles and he has many different attributes. His power balances with his justice which balances with his love. We get tangled on the idea that Jesus is in the same being as Jehovah. To us (Jehovah’s Witnesses) we just don’t see them as the same individual. We have many texts that we share to show that with others.
I have been trying to understand the belief of the Trinity, and it seems that people want to give sooo much credit (rightly so) because of everything he has done for us that he must be God. And if he isn’t referred to as such it is insulting to him. However, you would (if you were to go to any of our meetings, assemblies, conventions) be able to see just how highly we view Jesus. We know that Jesus left us a model to follow his steps closely. We study very closely what we Jesus did on earth, and what qualities of Jehovah he was reflecting. We then apply this attributes in our own lives. We are extremely thankful for what he has done for us. Our entire ministry work (which consists of over 1.5 trillion hours a year split among 7.5 million people) is based upon the work Jesus did while he was on earth and we spread that same message he commanded his disciples to spread.[/quote]
I just can’t believe the JW’s because of their statements about the early church ending after the Apostles dying, and that they picked it up. And, the fact that their translation is faulty (I went and talked to the dude, and found his book in the library and read it, and read a retort of it as well, and I’m not sure how he could be an expert since he doesn’t have the credentials to do it).[/quote]
Well, we should be so lucky as to live as the early Christians…They were hoodlums and party animals.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
A question I would like you to reflect on is this: Father’s name: Jehovah; Son’s name: Jesus. What is the Holy Spirit’s name? If they are all individual people (and, as you suggest, the most powerful people in the universe) wouldn’t all 3 of them have names?
[/quote]
I’ll answer! God has many names, I don’t think his name is particularly relevant, he’s much bigger than a name… God’s spirit is part of God, his spirit is who he is, and his way of reaching us spirit to spirit. His son is his way of submitting to humanity. It is to humble himself to reach out to us.
Think about this, what if you had to reach out to dogs and explain baseball. To do this, you had to become a dog and you have to explain a concept they are not equipped to understand. How do you do it?
[/quote]
Pat, I will agree with you on this part: God has many different… and then it splits But on a serious note. God says in the Bible that he has many titles and he has many different attributes. His power balances with his justice which balances with his love. We get tangled on the idea that Jesus is in the same being as Jehovah. To us (Jehovah’s Witnesses) we just don’t see them as the same individual. We have many texts that we share to show that with others.
I have been trying to understand the belief of the Trinity, and it seems that people want to give sooo much credit (rightly so) because of everything he has done for us that he must be God. And if he isn’t referred to as such it is insulting to him. However, you would (if you were to go to any of our meetings, assemblies, conventions) be able to see just how highly we view Jesus. We know that Jesus left us a model to follow his steps closely. We study very closely what we Jesus did on earth, and what qualities of Jehovah he was reflecting. We then apply this attributes in our own lives. We are extremely thankful for what he has done for us. Our entire ministry work (which consists of over 1.5 trillion hours a year split among 7.5 million people) is based upon the work Jesus did while he was on earth and we spread that same message he commanded his disciples to spread.[/quote]
I just can’t believe the JW’s because of their statements about the early church ending after the Apostles dying, and that they picked it up. And, the fact that their translation is faulty (I went and talked to the dude, and found his book in the library and read it, and read a retort of it as well, and I’m not sure how he could be an expert since he doesn’t have the credentials to do it).[/quote]
Well, we should be so lucky as to live as the early Christians…They were hoodlums and party animals. [/quote]
Our leader is a glutton and a wine dribbler, after all. Hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes, and as Colbert says, any good conservative wouldn’t hang out with tax collectors.
Back to the Trinity, I propose that understanding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary will allow for further understanding of not only the Holy Trinity, specifically the Holy Ghost, as He who purposes as the most maternal person of God, but as well the Church and Christ himself, more fully.
“The Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception” - St. Maximilian Kolbe, the martyr of Auschwitz.
Dr. Scott W. Hahn, “First Comes Love: The Family Spirit (appendix).” St. Paul Center
I think everyone will enjoy the poetic and theological description of the Holy Ghost, by Dr. Hahn.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
Okay, what is your point? [/quote]
Your translation is “guilty” of the same errors that you are discrediting my translation about. If you discredit one, you must discredit the other.[/quote]
What Greek are you using?
Actually it’s just the RSV Bible, I use it because it is common enough language. However, we can use the first English Bible the DRBO:
Apocalypse - Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.
Matthew - But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mark - And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him.
and Matthew - And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.
I don’t understand what you’re trying point out in your “meaning” point in Matthew.[/quote]
This translation is guilty of the same thing. Look at the “attack letter” on the NWT and the WTS that you posted. I made the correlation easy.
edit: look at the greek word for “meaning” and “is” in the two different verses.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.[/quote]
[quote]
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6. [/quote]
OK.
Rev 3:9 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “bow down”.
Matthew 18:26 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “fell on his knees”.
Mark 15:19 - your translation has changed the word proskuneo(worship) to “knelt down in homage”.
Okay, what is your point? [/quote]
Your translation is “guilty” of the same errors that you are discrediting my translation about. If you discredit one, you must discredit the other.[/quote]
What Greek are you using?
Actually it’s just the RSV Bible, I use it because it is common enough language. However, we can use the first English Bible the DRBO:
Apocalypse - Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.
Matthew - But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mark - And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him.
and Matthew - And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.
I don’t understand what you’re trying point out in your “meaning” point in Matthew.[/quote]
This translation is guilty of the same thing. Look at the “attack letter” on the NWT and the WTS that you posted. I made the correlation easy.
edit: look at the greek word for “meaning” and “is” in the two different verses.[/quote]
Here’s the problem, Honest. The disassembly of the Trinity is central to your faith. I do not think the JW approach is the right one. One of the main reasons is that it required rewriting scripture to fit the notion. Ultimately, I think your a good dude, and I really don’t feel the need to convert you or make you believe something else. I think it is sufficient that you know and are shown examples that the trinity is a scriptural concept. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up your faith unless you find it lacking in someway.
Just know that the Trinity is not believed with out due cause and has been central to Christianity for centuries.
Here’s the problem, Honest. The disassembly of the Trinity is central to your faith. I do not think the JW approach is the right one. One of the main reasons is that it required rewriting scripture to fit the notion. Ultimately, I think your a good dude, and I really don’t feel the need to convert you or make you believe something else. I think it is sufficient that you know and are shown examples that the trinity is a scriptural concept. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up your faith unless you find it lacking in someway.
Just know that the Trinity is not believed with out due cause and has been central to Christianity for centuries.[/quote]
I assure you that nothingthat is done in the NWT is unique. Meaning, there are many other Bibles that have done the same thing. I am confident that every example of “changed scripture” presented I could show other Bibles doing the same thing. (I have already) I think the difference is that when the ‘founders’ of the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses sat down to figure out the doctrine, they didn’t do so with preconceived notions. That is what attracted me to it so much. They sat down with a bunch of people and picked a topic and found all the scriptures related to that topic and then discussed it to come up with a resolution. I am a very logical guy and so I was drawn to an organization that was/is the same way. No question I have every had has been answered with “just have faith” or thereabouts (not saying that yours have) and there is always scriptural backing to everything we do.
I do not think the JW approach is the right one.[/quote]
We are not forceful people (at least most of us). If you don’t agree, you don’t agree. I supplied the facts (meaning I supplied scripture and tried to explain very little) and people must carry their own load.
You have been a reasonable guy (at least with me) and I respect that and wish you the best in that regard.
Here’s the problem, Honest. The disassembly of the Trinity is central to your faith. I do not think the JW approach is the right one. One of the main reasons is that it required rewriting scripture to fit the notion. Ultimately, I think your a good dude, and I really don’t feel the need to convert you or make you believe something else. I think it is sufficient that you know and are shown examples that the trinity is a scriptural concept. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up your faith unless you find it lacking in someway.
Just know that the Trinity is not believed with out due cause and has been central to Christianity for centuries.[/quote]
I assure you that nothingthat is done in the NWT is unique. Meaning, there are many other Bibles that have done the same thing. I am confident that every example of “changed scripture” presented I could show other Bibles doing the same thing. (I have already) I think the difference is that when the ‘founders’ of the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses sat down to figure out the doctrine, they didn’t do so with preconceived notions. That is what attracted me to it so much. They sat down with a bunch of people and picked a topic and found all the scriptures related to that topic and then discussed it to come up with a resolution. I am a very logical guy and so I was drawn to an organization that was/is the same way. No question I have every had has been answered with “just have faith” or thereabouts (not saying that yours have) and there is always scriptural backing to everything we do. [/quote]
I’ll just point something out, your faith lies in extreme biblical exegesis. Which, I suppose is fine (I personally do not rely, nor use, nor need). I just try to view everything from the point of view of the Jewish people, because our faith comes from them (the Catechism teaches us that learning the Jewish faith will further help us understand our Faith). I don’t do the whole “no notions” thing when it comes to the Bible. The authors didn’t write with “no notion” or bias to their writing. Why would I? Jesus was a semitic Jew, that spoke Aramaic. He was a “conservative” Jew at that.
We have mysteries, I’m not sure what you mean by “just have faith” after all Faith is one of the virtues.
Here’s the problem, Honest. The disassembly of the Trinity is central to your faith. I do not think the JW approach is the right one. One of the main reasons is that it required rewriting scripture to fit the notion. Ultimately, I think your a good dude, and I really don’t feel the need to convert you or make you believe something else. I think it is sufficient that you know and are shown examples that the trinity is a scriptural concept. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up your faith unless you find it lacking in someway.
Just know that the Trinity is not believed with out due cause and has been central to Christianity for centuries.[/quote]
I assure you that nothingthat is done in the NWT is unique. Meaning, there are many other Bibles that have done the same thing. I am confident that every example of “changed scripture” presented I could show other Bibles doing the same thing. (I have already) I think the difference is that when the ‘founders’ of the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses sat down to figure out the doctrine, they didn’t do so with preconceived notions. That is what attracted me to it so much. They sat down with a bunch of people and picked a topic and found all the scriptures related to that topic and then discussed it to come up with a resolution. I am a very logical guy and so I was drawn to an organization that was/is the same way. No question I have every had has been answered with “just have faith” or thereabouts (not saying that yours have) and there is always scriptural backing to everything we do. [/quote]
Oh I certainly agree, there are many translators of the Bible who have taken liberties. I am therefore most attracted to the ESV (English Standard Version). The mission, on the onset was to go back to the original languages of all the biblical texts and translate them, word for word, to english as closely as possible. As far as I have been able to tell, with out knowing greek, hebrew, latin, aramaic, etc. that this translation IS the closest English translation. The group who did it, pulled from all denominations and required only very intimate knowledge of the bible and biblical history. To my knowledge, it is the version translated with the least amount of prejudice.
As you probably know, that I am Catholic. The official translation that is used for all of America is the NAB (New American Bible). Now the church does not frown upon other translations save for a few, KJ and the Watch Tower translations are the stand outs, because they considered heavily errored in translation. I am not criticizing, just repeating. My point is simply that the version I use is not an official Catholic sanctioned version, but I do consider it the best. The reason why is that every time I have heard somebody refer to the original language on phrases or words from the original languages, the only Biblical translation that I have seen that has passed the original language test in every instance is the ESV. So I invite you to check it out, www.esvonline.com… I really think you’ll like it. You have to buy a Bible to get full access, but you can access the Bible itself with out pay.
But on a serious note. God says in the Bible that he has many titles and he has many different attributes. His power balances with his justice which balances with his love. We get tangled on the idea that Jesus is in the same being as Jehovah. To us (Jehovah’s Witnesses) we just don’t see them as the same individual. We have many texts that we share to show that with others.