1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4oh my dear caissad4 first of all, you have attributed a quotation from Paul to Christ.
And pray tell, what did Jesus say when asked what the greatest virtues were??
Answer: Faith, hope and the greatest is charity.
You should read the recent discovery of the deliberate mistranslation around 1800 years ago.
Or perhaps you disagree with your "god" on this one.
I don't recall any Jehovahs Witnesses pointing this out at any time in your sects history. But I am sure they will now, lol.
Christ when in fact asked, by the Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders of his time), what the greatest commandment was replied as follows,
(Mark 12:28-32) Now one of the scribes that had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one God, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’ The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
and now the quotation from Paul,
(1 Corinthians 13:13) . . .Now, however, there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
therefore to which of these quotations are you referring?
As for this assertion of mistranslation, 'charity', in fact seems to me to be a very inadequate translation, and indeed a rather antiquated word at that, reminiscent of the 1800s, for what does it mean? is it love, is it mercy, is it generosity, what is it?
where is the verse that has been 'mistranslated' and i am more than one hundred percent sure that either there is an explanation, or a simple difference of opinion which can be satisfactorily addressed, for the body of work in both Greek and Hebrew study is extensive, as are the manuscripts available to form an accurate picture of the text.
now if i wasn't so rubbish at chess, id give you a chess lesson as well! 😛
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMost people consider all but the last evidence of a low moral standard, rather than a high one. As attractive as your church sounds, I think you have twisted some things.
Actually unless you have a very high moral standard you cannot become one of Jehovahs witnesses, that includes living with someone to whom you are not married, smoking tobacco, taking drugs, drinking alcohol to excess, any predisposition towards violence, member of the armed forces etc
Originally posted by Wulebgri think one must be careful Wulebgr, for my intention was not to elevate us above anyone else, nor to demean anyone else's morality, simply to show that we are not in the habit of dragging people in off the street. You must study to become one of Jehovahs witnesses, it is not automatically achieved by virtue of parenthood, or geographic demarcation, or ethnicity or anything else!
Most people consider all but the last evidence of a low moral standard, rather than a high one. As attractive as your church sounds, I think you have twisted some things.
these principles are readily understood from scripture, for example
(2 Corinthians 7:1) Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear. . .
cleansing ourselves would naturally rule out smoking, for it pollutes the body
(Galatians 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife. . . . . . . . . that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom
this phrase 'practise of spiritism', literally comes from the Greek, pharmakia, here rendered “practice of spiritism,” and means “druggery.
and so we can go on and establish every principle Biblically.
with reference to the armed forces, we have deemed it hypocritical for us to talk of a worldwide brotherhood based on love, while actively engaging in either preparations for, or the proliferation of, warfare.
If you think that we are twisting the scriptures are are going beyond what is written, then let your objections be known, if we can give a reasonable defence, then so much the better, for even if we cannot, the best we can hope for is candid and open discussion, leading to a mutual understanding.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was simply noting that you said the opposite of what you meant.
i think one must be careful Wulebgr, for my intention was not to elevate us above anyone else, nor to demean anyone else's morality, simply to show that we are not in the habit of dragging people in off the street. You must study to become one of Jehovahs witnesses, it is not automatically achieved by virtue of parenthood, or geographic demarcation ...[text shortened]... t, the best we can hope for is candid and open discussion, leading to a mutual understanding.
That such fundamental misunderstanding of language undergirds JW theology was not part of my observation.
3 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgrthen you have nothing of any import to relate other than a vocabulary and grammar test, oh well, hum ho, life goes on. but while we are here, please you shall relate what it was i stated and why indeed i did not say what i really meant, if you please! for a man than knows the motives of others is surely able to discern the intentions of the heart, if you please.
I was simply noting that you said the opposite of what you meant.
That such fundamental misunderstanding of language undergirds JW theology was not part of my observation.
please let it be noted as yet you have also failed to substantiate you claims of 'twisting', although given the opportunity!
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe last time I spoke with a JW who wanted to convert me, it was a vocabulary and grammar test for his argument rested on nuances of the Greek language, although he could not read Greek. Elementary English grammar was sufficient to call into question the distinction he was making, and when I learned to read Greek, I learned that I had been correct in my speculative refutation.
then you have nothing of any import to relate other than a vocabulary and grammar test, oh well, hum ho, life goes on. but while we are here, please you shall relate what it was i stated and why indeed i did not say what i really meant, if you please! for a man than knows the motives of others is surely able to discern the intentions of the heart, ...[text shortened]... you have also failed to substantiate you claims of 'twisting', although given the opportunity!
He offered a theological argument rooted in identification of Theos as a different personage than Theon. I suggested, based on the structure of the sentence, that the ending might be grammatical. Theos was the subject in a sentence; Theon was the object of a preposition.
You grammatical meltdown in stating comically the opposite of what you intended brought to my recollection an old assertion that JW theology is built upon such elementary misunderstandings.
When study appears to cultivate learned ignorance it must be eschewed.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgrthen perhaps you had better cite this instance so that one and all can look at it, for even among 'scholars', there is distinct disagreement. Also citing elementary English grammar in the context of a disagreement about Greek is like citing ancient Coptic as a reference for a discussion of Latin text, practically useless! Perhaps this point escaped your notice in your ardour to 'discredit', his Greek. who can tell? The point of the matter is, that i doubt you in your erudite self acclaimed brilliance, can offer any refutation of a text, taken out of context and on the basis of an apparent , discrepancy of Greek meaning seen through the lense of English grammar, that is of course unless you are able to discount the entire Hebrew text as well which also forms part of our faith. who knows perhaps you were a world war two flying ace and a submarine commander as well!
The last time I spoke with a JW who wanted to convert me, it [b]was a vocabulary and grammar test for his argument rested on nuances of the Greek language, although he could not read Greek. Elementary English grammar was sufficient to call into question the distinction he was making, and when I learned to read Greek, I learned that I had been correct in ...[text shortened]... ary misunderstandings.
When study appears to cultivate learned ignorance it must be eschewed.[/b]
Jehovahs witnesses dont convert anyone, persons make an informed decision for themselves, even as i have done!
Originally posted by WulebgrHe offered a theological argument rooted in identification of Theos as a different personage than Theon. I suggested, based on the structure of the sentence, that the ending might be grammatical. Theos was the subject in a sentence; Theon was the object of a preposition.
The last time I spoke with a JW who wanted to convert me, it [b]was a vocabulary and grammar test for his argument rested on nuances of the Greek language, although he could not read Greek. Elementary English grammar was sufficient to call into question the distinction he was making, and when I learned to read Greek, I learned that I had been correct in ...[text shortened]... ary misunderstandings.
When study appears to cultivate learned ignorance it must be eschewed.[/b]
Yes. I don't think Greek is necessary for understanding the NT; however, if someone wants to engage in exegesis and expound the Bible for the purpose of conversion, then some knowledge of Greek is necessary.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes this is a worthy point, however a knowledge of Greek , what can we say, lends itself to a broader understanding , although it may also be argued that it has some bearing on a fundamental level as the erudite trout fly was pontificating. For example its helpful to know the Greek words for Love, agape, philia, storge, (eros, love between the sexes, not being used in scripture) a principled love, brotherly love and natural affection, respectively, or to know the etymological background of a word, to trace its development, for the sake of accuracy. take for example the word for punishment. those who are fond of burning persons in hell for an eternity render the phrase at Mattew 25:46, 'everlasting punishment', whereas we render the verse as
[b]He offered a theological argument rooted in identification of Theos as a different personage than Theon. I suggested, based on the structure of the sentence, that the ending might be grammatical. Theos was the subject in a sentence; Theon was the object of a preposition.
Yes. I don't think Greek is necessary for understanding the NT; ...[text shortened]... and expound the Bible for the purpose of conversion, then some knowledge of Greek is necessary.[/b]
(Matthew 25:46) . . .And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”
“checking; correction; punishment.” Literaly, “lopping off.” Greek, kolasin, therfore it is helpful when taken with other verses to be able to trace the historical development of the word and to render it appropriately, thus instead of punishment, here we understand the basic meaning of the Greek word kolasin is “checking the growth of trees,” or pruning, cutting off needless branches thus we have rendered it cutting off, the very antithesis of life. It is quite helpful and in this instance has a direct bearing on our exegesis.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOr when one wishes to distinguish Theon from Theos to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
yes this is a worthy point, however a knowledge of Greek , what can we say, lends itself to a broader understanding , although it may also be argued that it has some bearing on a fundamental level as the erudite trout fly was pontificating. For example its helpful to know the Greek words for Love, agape, philia, storge, (eros, love between the sexes ...[text shortened]... hesis of life. It is quite helpful and in this instance has a direct bearing on our exegesis.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI asked him whether he knew Greek. He said he didn't.
then perhaps you had better cite this instance so that one and all can look at it, for even among 'scholars', there is distinct disagreement. Also citing elementary English grammar in the context of a disagreement about Greek is like citing ancient Coptic as a reference for a discussion of Latin text, practically useless! Perhaps this point escaped ...[text shortened]... dont convert anyone, persons make an informed decision for themselves, even as i have done!
Up until that point, he was identifying Jesus as Theon, and therefore separate and distinct from Theos (God). I suggested that the way the word was used in the sentence accounted for the difference in spelling.
BTW, scholars that read Greek do not disagree on this matter. They all know that Greek endings are grammatical. My knowledge of English grammar was sufficient to arrive at a speculative explanation for a difference in spelling. When I learned a tiny bit of Greek (day two in my Greek class), I found that I had been correct.
Elementary grammar in any language reveals an attention to the structure of language. Your failure to construct a proper English sentence (a comic failure in which you proclaim the moral worth of men that live with an know women that are not their wives and enjoy drunken carnality as good soldiers) brought. me into this thread. You can believe what you wish. I spent enough time praying to know the truth to realize that God has no issues with a quality secular education.
5 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgrhave you heard of artistic license? no, then the jokes on you! you cannot cite the specific reference, then you are also lost, you cannot substantiate the claim of 'twisting', then you are also lost, no one is questioning a secular education despite your claims to erudite greatness, pray all you like, its a noteworthy fact, that even the apostles of Christ were also considered, ordinary men and unlettered, perhaps you shall ask God why, perhaps they were lacking in grammatical construction of their sentences also, who can tell?
I asked him whether he knew Greek. He said he didn't.
Up until that point, he was identifying Jesus as Theon, and therefore separate and distinct from Theos (God). I suggested that the way the word was used in the sentence accounted for the difference in spelling.
BTW, scholars that read Greek do not disagree on this matter. They ...[text shortened]... e praying to know the truth to realize that God has no issues with a quality secular education.
i would thank you for your post but as yet you have uttered nothing of any substance other than proclaiming how much grammar you know in comparison to others and how erudite you are, i am quite sure you shall be a legend in your own lifetime! perhaps when i am standing before God and Christ, and they read out my report, God shall say, 'yes his sentence construction showed a very poor grammatical understanding and were filled with errors, everlasting cutting off for him', haha, what an old trout, is this what you are saying? it would appear so! or he cannot possibly make moral distinctions, for his sense of grammar is in want, haha, it is to laugh!
oh and as it has escaped you notice, i did not define the morality set out in the Bible, its self evident for all who wish to make a reasonable evaluation for themselves.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh yes, I've claimed to be erudite and a master of the intricacies of obscure points of English grammar. 😛
have you heard of artistic license? no, then the jokes on you! you cannot cite the specific reference, then you are also lost, you cannot substantiate the claim of 'twisting', then you are also lost, no one is questioning a secular education despite your claims to erudite greatness, pray all you like, its a noteworthy fact, that even the apostles o the Bible, its self evident for all who wish to make a reasonable evaluation for themselves.
If that's what you've gotten from my posts, then in order to show that one particular JW cannot read, I only need point to your posts.
Again, you mistyped, and I thought is was comic. You do not see the humor in praising those most consider immoral (with the exception of the soldiers)?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually unless you have a very high moral standard you cannot become one of Jehovahs witnesses, that includes living with someone to whom you are not married, smoking tobacco, taking drugs, drinking alcohol to excess, any predisposition towards violence, member of the armed forces etc.
In order to be a JW one must have high moral standards: these standards are demonstrated by living with non-spouses, smoking, doing drugs, excessive drinking, manifesting a predisposition to violence, and joining the armed forces.
Most Christians agree only with the last in your list, but you have made your faith appear attractive.
2 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgrwhat you are stating is quite evidently nonsense, it is essentially and relatively easy to understand from the immediate context, what the import of the post was supposed to be. if your strict adherence to the rules of grammar and your great erudition have indeed blinded you to the essentials, then, i suggest you throw them away. youre great learning is driving you mad! why would anyone espouse a sense of morality, advocating that sense of morality in order to convince others of its virtues and then undermine his own argument? that is correct, it is nonsense! nor do i believe the post actually does that either. I do not believe for one minute, anyone other than you, could possibly construe either from the grammatical structure, or any other inferences, the intent of the post was conferring a-moral stance.
Oh yes, I've claimed to be erudite and a master of the intricacies of obscure points of English grammar. 😛
If that's what you've gotten from my posts, then in order to show that one particular JW cannot read, I only need point to your posts.
Again, you mistyped, and I thought is was comic. You do not see the humor in praising those most consider imm ...[text shortened]... stians agree only with the last in your list, but you have made your faith appear attractive.
whether other christians agree or not is neither here nor there, for there are many that are termed christians and are in fact, nothing of the sort!
when i was at school, we did not formally learn the rules of grammar, the emphasis was on creativity, to this day, as a consequence, i am a very bad speller and admittedly have scant knowledge of grammar.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, you certainly are creative.
what you are stating is quite evidently nonsense, it is essentially and relatively easy to understand from the immediate context, what the import of the post was supposed to be. if your strict adherence to the rules of grammar and your great erudition have indeed blinded you to the essentials, then, i suggest you throw them away. youre great learni ...[text shortened]... s day, as a consequence, i am a very bad speller and admittedly have scant knowledge of grammar.
So you got that going for you.