1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kthank you Conrau, you are correct, i have never denied the qualitative reading, infact, i have on many occasions cited Moffats translation in support of a qualitative reading, (the word was divine) for in essence, to us, Christ is just that, a divine being, (a god) although not the Almighty.
As far as I know, RC has never denied the qualitative reading i.e. 'The Word was divine'. What he has disputed is the theological consequence of this: whether, as this article claims, the Word shares in the divine nature or whether the Word is some other divinity.
EDIT: I think the article you posted was too long and so has been truncated. Could you supply the rest in another post. It is an interesting read, thank you.
Originally posted by Wulebgrstill not one reference to the sahidic coptic text, i wonder why, oh yes, for it completely refutes you rather fanciful claims!
While ya'll are copying and pasting things that you either fail to comprehend or that you are deliberately misrepresenting, go ahead and read the whole article by Harner. Here's an excerpt to show how you have twisted words of scholars like him to mean the opposite of what they argued.
Journal Of Biblical Literature: Philip Harner: Qualitative Anarthrous ...[text shortened]... ard the qualitative emphasis as prim...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, that is not quite what the qualitative reading means. What it means, as Wulebgre's article said, is that 'The Word had the divine nature'. It does not mean that the Word is a separate divine being. English uses the indefinite article in the same way.
thank you Conrau, you are correct, i have never denied the qualitative reading, infact, i have on many occasions cited Moffats translation in support of a qualitative reading, (the word was divine) for in essence, to us, Christ is just that, a divine being, (a god) although not the Almighty.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes perhaps in wulgbers case, however, as was pointed out from the commentary i supplied on the sahidic coptic text, from which the new world translation is rendered, based of the westcott and hort text, the very simple explanation was given,
Well, that is not quite what the qualitative reading means. What it means, as Wulebgre's article said, is that 'The Word had the divine nature'. It does not mean that the Word is a separate divine being. English uses the indefinite article in the same way.
1- IF used qualitatively, with John 1:1c as an example, we would have "the
Word was divine."
2- IF used regularly, in the indefinite sense, we would have "the Word was a
god/a God."
3- In neither sense does the Coptic use of the indefinite article 'predicate
equivalence with the proper name God, which is always without exception
supplied with the definite article.'
4- Thus, "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a god" are grammatically
acceptable, whereas "the Word was God" is not, according to the Coptic
construction found at John 1:1c.
this is very clear. Wulger, as is the want of those who are inebriated with their own erudition has explained something that is essentially very simple in complicated terms. It is the sign of a very poor teacher.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've claimed nothing. I've only doubted your spurious claims rendered through bad translations buttressed through misquotation.
still not one reference to the sahidic coptic text, i wonder why, oh yes, for it completely refutes you rather fanciful claims!
As I've stated repeatedly, the only point of interest to me in this thread is your comic error. I know what you meant to say, dull though it was. I greatly enjoyed what you actually said, despite yourself. Thanks for the education.
I am beginning to enjoy, however, your revelry in fine points of grammar in languages that you cannot read while you slough off any need to acquire competence in the use of your native language. Keep it up. Soon we'll be arguing semantics in a language that no one speaks.
2 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgrdefiant until the last, oh well. shall i go back and find your very own words, so that you may eat them for a second time? No i could not do that to you, despite your condescension and sniggering, i deem it unchristian. Never the less, the New world Translation of the Holy Scriptures stands vindicated, and the next occasion a witness of the most High God steps across your threshold i would be pleased if you treated them kindly. One does not need to know how triads make chords, nor how harmony and counterpoint work, to enjoy music, does one? i merely provided them as a point of reference.
I've claimed nothing. I've only doubted your spurious claims rendered through bad translations buttressed through misquotation.
As I've stated repeatedly, the only point of interest to me in this thread is your comic error. I know what you meant to say, dull though it was. I greatly enjoyed what you actually said, despite yourself. Thanks for the educat ...[text shortened]... tive language. Keep it up. Soon we'll be arguing semantics in a language that no one speaks.
i do not understand everything that you have stated, for it seemed to me that the 'cloak' of language was disguising the actual ideas, for when one can get beyond this and actually grasp the essence of the idea being expounded, more often than not they can be grasped and understood, however, the language somehow obscures the actual ideas rather than lends itself to a proper understanding. it seems to me quite a cumbersome devise, but then who am i , for i can only speak Urdu, English and a smattering of Gaelic.
Nice rapping with you Trout fly, may the peace of our God go with you wherever you go and may your keep net be filled with Salmon 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i deem it unchristian.
Duh. I'm agnostic.
Nice rapping with you Trout fly, may the peace of our God go with you wherever you go and may your keep net be filled with Salmon 🙂
That's sweet. Thanks.
I think I've been a goat in your little notebooks for many years. But, if missionaries knock on my door and I have some time, I invite them in, offer them some coffee, and engage them in conversation.
Most cultists will find that I have a few questions prepared.
Based on our discussions here, I would say that the old guy I had in my apartment back in the early 1980s either gave a poor account of the reasons John 1.1 in the NWT differed from accepted Bible translations, or that the explanations of the Watchtower Society have changed since then.
BTW, why are there so few university professors among your esteemed ranks? I would think that a church that puts so much emphasis upon scholarship in its training of the young would be sending far more of its numbers into the world's graduate schools. Yet, I cannot name a single JW with an advanced degree in the humanities.
Originally posted by Wulebgri was of course, when i stated unchristian, not referring to your behaviour, but mine. duh!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b] i deem it unchristian.
Duh. I'm agnostic.
Nice rapping with you Trout fly, may the peace of our God go with you wherever you go and may your keep net be filled with Salmon 🙂
That's sweet. Thanks.
I think I've been a goat in your little notebooks for many years. But, if missionaries kn ...[text shortened]... graduate schools. Yet, I cannot name a single JW with an advanced degree in the humanities.[/b]
secondly, there are many persons who are members of Jehovahs Witnesses that are relatively highly educated, my wife has a degree in library science, my friend from Ghana has a Phd in biochemical engineering, and there is a young girl, Emma Stewart in my congregation who happens to be a lecturer at Glasgow University, lecturing in sociology.
Education and any prominence which may go with it are not goals within themselves, our main priority is helping those who are inclined to understand the principles in Gods word, that takes time and effort, therefore most persons on completion of an education, try to find part-time work to facilitate a public ministry whenever possible. This is not compulsory, naturally, but those who make room for it, have great joy in their lives.
we are not a cult, never have been, nor ever will be, for we have no charismatic leader, other than the Christ himself.
thank you for your kindness and i hope that you get time to sit down and have a coffee with my brothers and sisters soon, you shall not regret this, for Christ shall surely bless such a hospitable demeanour 🙂
Hey R.C. I saw that it was 19 degrees F there in Glasgow. Any snow? I would like to say that Wulebgr brings a point. While education may not always be foremost why are there so few who actually except the NWT as the correct rendering of John 1:1 ? Learned scholars of Greek? Who have devoted their lives?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Hey manny. Just board so I thought I'd add into the thread.
Hey R.C. I saw that it was 19 degrees F there in Glasgow. Any snow? I would like to say that Wulebgr brings a point. While education may not always be foremost why are there so few who actually except the NWT as the correct rendering of John 1:1 ? Learned scholars of Greek? Who have devoted their lives?
Manny
There are certian things that would be happening in what the Bible calls the last days according to the Bible prohpecy. Would you agree to that? And according to those prophicies there would be good things as well as bad things going on to identify when that period would be.
We know some of those signs that Jesus told his followers then would be wars, earthquakes, famine, etc. Not that these have not always happened but for Jesus to say this as with a warning, it must be to a greater degree then normal or that has ever happened.
So those are some of the bad things. But one of the good things that would also be happening would be a worldwide preaching work done as Jesus himself showed to his followers then and that would also be done during these bad times which all lead up to Armegeddon. This work is for a purpose and that is to educate those that are interested, about what is going on now and in the very near future that will effect every human on this planet just like the flood did during Noah's day. It will be a very decisive end to the world as we know it and either ones will live thru it or not, just as it was with the flood. Jesus refered to this very clearly.
So in order for this preaching and teaching work to be done and with God's approval, it has to be done right and with full truthfullness.
This is where the examples that Jesus gave about the talents and the bridesmades comes into your question. Jesus said while he was gone for a little while after he died and rose to heaven, he would come back ( only in a spiritual sence ) to see who was using these talens, or the knowledge of what he told us to do. Again this is the world wide preaching work he told his followers to do. Correct?
And he also spoke of the light, or the correct understandings of his prophies and what to do with them during this time and they would get brighter and brighter. Or that the truths in the Bible would become clearer and clearer which would mean that many of the old beliefs and understandings and false doctrines would be let go from the teachings ones may have had with their old religions.
And Jesus also mentioned that the ones who would be doing this preaching and teaching word would do it worldwide and would also be pursecuted for it.
So when it comes to scriptures that so many are confused about and fight over and each with his own opinion such as John 1:1, does it not make sence that if the JW's are the ones that are doing this work, a very serious work, that he would let us know what that scripture really means even in the face of wise men on this earth who disagree with us? Someone has to know exactly what it means, right?
I can honestly tell you and whoever else reads this that everyone JW down to the last one completely agrees on this scripture. But can each in other religions that believe the trinity have the same complete and one belief in what it means or even understands it? I know for a fact they don't as many JW's came from those religions as my own Mother did and all say they did not understand it or could never get anyone to agree on what it even was. So how could those religions do this preaching work worldwide to warn others about what's about to happen if they don't even understand the simple truths in the Bible?
Well, that's enough. Didn't mean to ramble but not much else going on....
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71its like been -10 in Glasgow for ages, everywhere is white with snow. we built a snow man and went sledging, its was awesome. no sign of a thaw either.
Hey R.C. I saw that it was 19 degrees F there in Glasgow. Any snow? I would like to say that Wulebgr brings a point. While education may not always be foremost why are there so few who actually except the NWT as the correct rendering of John 1:1 ? Learned scholars of Greek? Who have devoted their lives?
Manny
as for this question, i think the article cited by Wulgbr is very interesting, please note this statement quoted directly from his text.
"the Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christian reader whose Trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of 'God' as a larger concept than 'God the Father.'
thus it is a matter of conditioning of the mind. Unable to make the distinction between the Christ and the Father the tinitarian concepts have all but negated any type of objectivity. It is worthy to note that not all have been conditioned this way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its like been -10 in Glasgow for ages, everywhere is white with snow. we built a snow man and went sledging, its was awesome. no sign of a thaw either.
as for this question, i think the article cited by Wulgbr is very interesting, please note this statement quoted directly from his text.
"the Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christia ...[text shortened]... y type of objectivity. It is worthy to note that not all have been conditioned this way.
as for this question, i think the article cited by Wulgbr is very interesting, please note this statement quoted directly from his text.
"the Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christian reader whose Trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of 'God' as a larger concept than 'God the Father.'
thus it is a matter of conditioning of the mind. Unable to make the distinction between the Christ and the Father the tinitarian concepts have all but negated any type of objectivity. It is worthy to note that not all have been conditioned this way.
That quote in fact belongs to an eminent bible scholar, Raymond Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
I think you have misunderstood both Brown and Trinitarianism. Trinitarians, mind you, do distinguish between Christ and the Father. In fact, it is foundational to Trinitarianism that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different persons.
2 edits
yes but do you not also hold that Christ is God, as the Father is God as the Holy Spirit is God? If so, then despite the assertion that there are three different personages, it is confusing and incomprehensible to assert that the three are different, yet the same in substance or essence or whatever other terms one wishes to utilise to try to explain the trinity. A failure to make a distinction between the Christ as the son, a created entity, and the Father, seems to me, to be the root of the entire problem. Once you accept that Christ was a created entity all other things become very clear. There is no need of terminology, there is no need of of attempts at vague explanations like , 'it is too be experienced', 'its the mingling of God and man', nothing, its almost matter of fact.