Originally posted by robbie carrobieLOL well in there defense they were younger guys very late teens early 20's and there were 6 total. One was I would say the senior guy and he was the only white shirt. Now I'm defending JW's LOL something is wrong in the universe 😉
we are actually counselled not to be so flamboyant, for we dont want people to be
checking out our suits or ties or shirts rather than paying attention to our message,
never the less, i seen some photographs of the brothers in the seventies, they had
those crazy 'kipper', ties and strawberry coloured suits with big bellbottom trousers. I
think if one turned up for the ministry with that getup on, one could be sent home.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Well thanks as we need the help. It's not a natural thing, at least not for me to go up to a complete strangers door to knock and talk. It's just not in my nature to be that brave I guess and then knowing that 95% of the ones that answer aren't interested and then 20% of those get really mean with us at times and then share a few 4 letter words we'd just soon not hear. And occasionally they'll throw something at us or let their dogs out to terrify us a little. And it's rare now but the police get called if we're in an apartment complex or some community that the managers think they can be the law.
LOL well in there defense they were younger guys very late teens early 20's and there were 6 total. One was I would say the senior guy and he was the only white shirt. Now I'm defending JW's LOL something is wrong in the universe 😉
Manny
So over all it can be a little tuff at times but as long as one person might be interested and doesn't know much of anything about the Bible and is wanting to learn what Jesus taught us which gives hope for the future, we'll keep it up.
🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne does not even have to know Greek to see that "Theos" (God)
Once again your made up rules are not the rules of Greek grammar and you are quite
wrong, as you have been throughout the entirety of this thread,
The indefiniteness of this text (Luke 20:38) is proved by the parallel account at Mark
12:27, which reads, ouk estin theos nekron, where 'theos', follows the verb rather
than proceeding it, what ...[text shortened]... eek grammar simply because it does not conform to their dogma!
Who knows you may do better.
is definite in both Luke 20:38 and in Mark 12:27 because in both
cases it refers back to "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".
That is a definite God. After all we are translating into English
and have to follow English grammer rules in doing so.
Mark 12:26-27
But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the
book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to
him, saying, ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND
THE GOD OF JACOB’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living;
you are greatly mistaken.”
Notice also that the definite article is before "Theos" in the following
Greek texts:
1. Greek Orthodox Church
2. Bynzabtine/Majority Text
3. Textus Receptus
4. Stephanu Textus Receptus
But as I pointed out before it does not have to have the definite
article to be definite in either language and the position in the
sentence does not matter in determing whether or not it is
definite or not.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAfter all we are translating into English
One does not even have to know Greek to see that "Theos" (God)
is definite in both Luke 20:38 and in Mark 12:27 because in both
cases it refers back to "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".
That is a definite God. After all we are translating into English
and have to follow English grammer rules in doing so.
Mark 12:26-27
But regarding the fact th ition in the
sentence does not matter in determing whether or not it is
definite or not.
and have to follow English grammar rules in doing so.????
The Bible was not written in English, it was written in Greek and Hebrew, you may
wish to take that into consideration when making these quite frankly ignorant
assertions. The meaning of the text is rooted in the original language, a translation
therefore must conform to the original model, you are trying to do the opposite
because the text has shown your dogma to be false and your translators to be in
error. The rest of your text is therefore unworthy of our consideration, I thought
you might do better and make at least some reference to the original language, as it
is, your content to substantiate your dogma in the face of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Once again the Bible was not written in English, it was written in
Greek and Hebrew.
All you have done is try to substantiate a translation, with another translation, rather
than look at the original, its a common practice by those unversed in the intricacies
of the ancient text, they simply prefer mere opinion rather than letting the scriptures
speak for themselves.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnly my mother calls me Joey.
Westcott and Hort did nothing of the sort, all they did was to produce and compile,
from all available sources a Greek base text, they did not produce a translation.
You do know the difference, dont you?
Rather interestingly, when the King James version was produced, manuscripts and
Greek references were scant in England at the time, when t ...[text shortened]... of the original Greek text it is not, nor ever will be.
Suck it up Joey and study your Bible.
Okay robby, the verse in question, John 1:1. How can you possibly, sanely, rationally say it, based on all the manuscript evidence available, can be translated into English to say "a god"?
Please don't parrot the Watch Tower. None of their translators are recognised as authentic by any Greek scholars I know of.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI did make reference to the original language and "Theos" in both
After all we are translating into English
and have to follow English grammar rules in doing so.????
The Bible was not written in English, it was written in Greek and Hebrew, you may
wish to take that into consideration when making these quite frankly ignorant
assertions. The meaning of the text is rooted in the original language, a translati ...[text shortened]... text, they simply prefer mere opinion rather than letting the scriptures
speak for themselves.
passages is definite and not indefinite, otherwise "He" is not the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". And there is no reason to
think that it refers to some other "indefinite" god.
Originally posted by josephwSo who made these Greek scholars the standard we are to follow? Do they not promote the trinity completly and because of that would promote it with either deciding what this means or even tainting the obvious to farther promote this doctrine?
Only my mother calls me Joey.
Okay robby, the verse in question, John 1:1. How can you possibly, sanely, rationally say it, based on all the manuscript evidence available, can be translated into English to say "a god"?
Please don't parrot the Watch Tower. None of their translators are recognised as authentic by any Greek scholars I know of.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes your correct I was. But refer back to this in Genesis and who was God himself talking too? Does God talk to himself? He did say "US". If he were and this is refering to God and the Jesus part of God or however this thing works, was the one part talking to just Jesus or Jehovah or the Holy Spirit or all three parts?
John 1:1 says nothing about "In our image". You must be thinking of
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and
over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth.”
If this is what you ...[text shortened]... man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them."
Originally posted by galveston75The only standard one needs to follow is the Word of God.
So who made these Greek scholars the standard we are to follow? Do they not promote the trinity completly and because of that would promote it with either deciding what this means or even tainting the obvious to farther promote this doctrine?
It is the Watch Tower that has tainted the scriptures. Everyone knows that except the JW's.
The verse sited was corrupted to say "a god". It is utterly false. No one who knows even as little as I do about manuscript evidence can possibly fail to see it.
Except the brainwashed.
Originally posted by galveston75The Godhead is not divided up into parts. We know from scripture
Yes your correct I was. But refer back to this in Genesis and who was God himself talking too? Does God talk to himself? He did say "US". If he were and this is refering to God and the Jesus part of God or however this thing works, was the one part talking to just Jesus or Jehovah or the Holy Spirit or all three parts?
that there are three persons in the one Godhead. This is manly do to
the fact that Jesus told His disciples to go baptize in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Notice that is one name (singular).
One of the early church father call this idea of the Godhead (Trinity).
In Genesis, one of these person in the Godhead says to the other two,
"Let us make man in our image." I think it might be the second person
In the Godhead, speaking,
Originally posted by RJHindsYou think? Ok if you say so.... All I see in your description is HollyWoods vision in their movies of Zues and all the other God's sitting around and discussing the day's activities.
The Godhead is not divided up into parts. We know from scripture
that there are three persons in the one Godhead. This is manly do to
the fact that Jesus told His disciples to go baptize in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Notice that is one name (singular).
One of the early church father call this idea of the Godhead (Trinity).
...[text shortened]... t us make man in our image." I think it might be the second person
In the Godhead, speaking,
Oh wait, that's not right because those God's area all seperate beings, not 3 in 1.
Sorry....
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwNo it's the JW's that have moved away from and exposed the tricks that ones will use to taint the truth in the Bible. Sorry you don't comprehend that but then the Bible makes it clear that most wouldn't....
The only standard one needs to follow is the Word of God.
It is the Watch Tower that has tainted the scriptures. Everyone knows that except the JW's.
The verse sited was corrupted to say "a god". It is utterly false. No one who knows even as little as I do about manuscript evidence can possibly fail to see it.
Except the brainwashed.
And again, who made these Greek scholars Gods?
Originally posted by galveston75Listen, this is one of the mysteries of God that no one completely
You think? Ok if you say so.... All I see in your description is HollyWoods vision in their movies of Zues and all the other God's sitting around and discussing the day's activities.
Oh wait, that's not right because those God's area all seperate beings, not 3 in 1.
Sorry....
understands. But if we understood everything about God, then
God would be limited. God made us in His image. So we must
fully understand ourselves first. I haven't got there, myself.
Originally posted by galveston75You mean gods, because there is only one God.
No it's the JW's that have moved away from and exposed the tricks that ones will use to taint the truth in the Bible. Sorry you don't comprehend that but then the Bible makes it clear that most wouldn't....
And again, who made these Greek scholars Gods?
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I'm only one person and not 3 in one so still in God's image?
Listen, this is one of the mysteries of God that no one completely
understands. But if we understood everything about God, then
God would be limited. God made us in His image. So we must
fully understand ourselves first. I haven't got there, myself.