Originally posted by sonshipNo one is attempting to diminish anything and i resent your assertions that anyone is. It seems rather apparent that you cannot assail the logic and you are therefore left with the only possibility open to you to cast aspersions on the person who provided the logic. Its what people who have no recourse left to reason do and i resent your doing it.
[b]
No. We know that they do not because at Exodus 3:14 the Greek Septuagint Version (the translation that was often quoted by the apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e·go´ ei·mi´ ho Ohn´, “I am the Being.” This is quite different from the simple use of the words e·go´ ei·mi´ (I am) at John 8:58. The verb ei·mi´, at John 8:58, is evidently in the his ...[text shortened]... ur joy would be made full by joining the fellowship of the apostles with the Father and the Son.
Jesus is simply not quoting from the passage at exodus 3:14 and there is not a single iota in the text at John to state that he is. Grammatically the text is quite clear, Jesus is stating the he existed before Abraham. Why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Furthermore the term the Jesus uses in the book of John is entirely different to the clause of exodus 3:14 making your assertions that Jesus is claiming that he is the so called I AM (there are also no capitals you seem to have added that to give the the text some significance, why is known only to you and your translators) to put it kindly, unsubstantiated and extra Biblical.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999You obviously are unaware of what Jesus mean but the disciples 'joy would be made full', and your statement is the most basic lie and false teaching of your version of the Christian doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reference to joy being made full was from the Apostle John's word to those who believed the witness of the apostles. That is the witness that they knew and know and enjoyed the Word made flesh.
" That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life.
(And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us);
That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
And these things we write that OUR JOY MAY BE MADE FULL." (1 John 1:1-4 my emphasis)
I was simply referring to the joy of fellowshipping with those who took the lead to fellowship with the Triune God.
The real followers of Christ know this statement from the mouth of Jesus himself represents the truth:
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. (John 15:9-11 KJV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you for quoting that quite significant passage also. But what I had in mind was First John 1:1-4. Of course I don't mind you drawing my attention to John 15:9-11 as well.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
To abide in Christ and for his followers joy to me made full the followers need only to obey the commandments of Christ.
Nobody needs to join your false doctrine fellowship that denies the most basic teachings of Christ which is to follow him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was referring to the true teaching that the Word of life, the eternal life of the Triune God (the Father - the Son - the Holy Spirit), was testified to by John and the apostles.
He penned the epistle of First John. Verses 1 - 4 are not some false doctrine I invented.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo one is attempting to diminish anything and i resent your assertions that anyone is. It seems rather apparent that you cannot assail the logic and you are therefore left with the only possibility open to you to cast aspersions on the person who provided the logic. Its what people who have no recourse left to reason do and i resent your doing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannot assail the logic ?
Cast personal dispersions ?
I think I admitted that I did not read or write ancient Hebrew.
And I did not challenge the linquistics of your technicalities.
I did say the amounted to not much difference.
As for anything like ad homs, it is true that JWs are basically in rejection of the New Testament's revelation.
That is not an ad hom. That is a frank recognition of the facts.
Jesus is simply not quoting from the passage at exodus 3:14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think He was again saying what God said in the appearance to Moses. And I think the evangelist John sought to portray it that way.
John sets out to show that the Word was God (who was with God) and became flesh - Incarnation.
No, he was not saying Jesus was "a god". John was telling us that Jesus was God.
In his epistle John says they handled the Word of life which was with the Father and was manifested to the disciples. How subjective to God is the life of God ?
The ZOE life which was with the Father, they heard, they saw, they handled, the testify to.
Your organization is in rejection to that revelation in favor of saying that what John says was the life which was with the Father amounts to the created angel Michael who was with the Father.
I'm not sorry if you count the exposing of that as a dispersion.
It is not meant to be a personal ad hom but a frank exposure of the erroneous Christology of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Furthermore the term the Jesus uses in the book of John is entirely different to the clause of exodus 3:14 making your assertions that Jesus is claiming that he is the so called I AM (there are also no capitals you seem to have added that to give the the text some significance, why is known only to you and your translators) to put it kindly, unsubstantiated and extra Biblical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can agree with you about the capital letters. Then again there would be no capital letters with Jehovah or Yahweh or the tretragram either, I think.
The fact of the matter is that even if we granted some room for argument about a connection between John 8 and Exodus 3 there are simply too many places elsewhere where we see Jesus is God incarnate.
Your BEST case would be a case of "one down, one hundred to go".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by roigam
(Matthew 28:18) Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
So, who gave Jesus authority?
How would you answer?
God.
God the Father.
God is triune. He is triune for the purpose of dispensing Himself into man.
In the Bible what God does can never be separated from what God does. Because His eternal purpose is to dispense Himself into man, this three-one nature of God is revealed from the first chapter of the Bible until the last.
What God IS in His three - one nature is never divorced from His eternal purpose of imparting Himelf into man to be one with man.
See this in John 16:14,15:
"He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will declare it to you.
All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He receives of Mine and will declare it to you."
The Three of the Triune God are for the dispensing of all that God has in His communicable attributes into His people.
19 Nov 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBefore you made the edit to your post, you answered "I don't know" to my question "Was he referring to your organisation's translation of the word "Jehovah" [when he talked about the accuracy of the translation]? Did you delete the words "I don't know" because you knew you'd be called out for lying?
Why don't you tell us what he meant by 'the most accurate translation'.
Originally posted by FMFYou don't think he meant it when he said that the New world translation was the 'most accurate translation? what did he mean then? and more importantly how does that reconcile with your own statement of 'a customized translation?'.
Before you made the edit to your post, you answered "I don't know" to my question "Was he referring to your organisation's translation of the word "Jehovah" [when he talked about the accuracy of the translation]? Did you delete the words "I don't know" because you knew you'd be called out for lying?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJason BeDuhn ~ whom you have cited as an authority on translation ~ said that "the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament." [wiki]
You don't think he meant it when he said that the New world translation was the 'most accurate translation? what did he mean then? and more importantly how does that reconcile with your own statement of 'a customized translation?'.
My reference to what I call customized translation relates to the part about how, according to BeDuhn, your organisation's version of the Bible "...violates accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God". You cannot, in all honesty, pretend that you are unaware of this criticism from the scholar you yourself like to cite.
Originally posted by FMFyes quite, can you tell us what he meant by, 'the most accurate translation?' and 'a remarkably good translation?' can you tell us how we should evaluate your own statement of a customized translation in the light of those terms? did we customize it to become more accurate? did we customize it to make it more remarkably good?
Jason BeDuhn ~ whom you have cited as an authority on translation ~ said that "the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptanc ...[text shortened]... esty, pretend that you are unaware of this criticism from the scholar you yourself like to cite.
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you have - as you claim - read the book, and specifically the appendix on the issue of the use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament, then you will already know exactly what Jason BeDuhn 'means' by his criticism. Do you have a rebuttal of that strong criticism of the use of "Jehovah" that leaves your endorsement of him intact?
yes quite, can you tell us what he meant by, 'the most accurate translation?' and 'a remarkably good translation?' can you tell us how we should evaluate your own statement of a customized translation in the light of those terms? did we customize it to become more accurate? did we customize it to make it more remarkably good?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFI am more interested in the idea of 'the most accurate' and 'remarkably good.' Was it the translation team of Jehovahs Witnesses that, in your words, 'customized', the Westcott and Hort base text that made it the 'most accurate' and 'a remarkably good translation?'
If you have - as you claim - read the book, and specifically the appendix on the issue of the use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament, then you will already know exactly what Jason BeDuhn 'means' by his criticism. Do you have a rebuttal of that strong criticism of the use of "Jehovah" that leaves your endorsement of him intact?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you acknowledge Jason BeDuhn's criticism of the use of the word "Jehovah"?
I am more interested in the idea of 'the most accurate' and 'remarkably good.' Was it the translation team of Jehovahs Witnesses that, in your words, 'customized', the Westcott and Hort base text that made it the 'most accurate' and 'a remarkably good translation?'
20 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you only read the parts of his book that you agree with and then avoided or ignored the critical things he said?
Is translation the same as restoration?
You once seemed to suggest that you had read his lengthy appendix in which he heavily criticized - in detail - the JW translators' insertion of the word "Jehovah" - numerous times - into the NT.
Do you even accept that this criticism exists?