Jump to content

Alessandro Corona

Demonism and the Watchtower

Recommended Posts

I would suggest, everyone read this. It is written by a former bethelite who was disfellowshipped for calling out Rutherford on the use of spirit healing and Ouija boards, it also goes into detail about how one of the original Awake (golden age) writers was demon possessed and later wrote the finished mystery. 

demonism_and_the_watch_tower.pdf

Rutherford has also been quoted as saying that one of the 24 elders of Revelation revealed to him the identity of the great crowd. Before this he made claims that Russell was leading the watchtower from beyond the veil. Then he later stated that the 1/24 elder who revealed to him the identity of the great crowd was Russell himself, which means the resurrection had to have happened some time before 1935. The fool went as far as to say that even demons tell the truth. I am not making this up, these are Rutherford's words. Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:14 AM, Alessandro Corona said:

I would suggest, everyone read this. It is written by a former bethelite who was disfellowshipped for calling out Rutherford on the use of spirit healing and Ouija boards, it also goes into detail about how one of the original Awake (golden age) writers was demon possessed and later wrote the finished mystery. 

demonism_and_the_watch_tower.pdf

Rutherford has also been quoted as saying that one of the 24 elders of Revelation revealed to him the identity of the great crowd. Before this he made claims that Russell was leading the watchtower from beyond the veil. Then he later stated that the 1/24 elder who revealed to him the identity of the great crowd was Russell himself, which means the resurrection had to have happened some time before 1935. The fool went as far as to say that even demons tell the truth. I am not making this up, these are Rutherford's words. Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has. 

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COS:

So..please give us some FACTS! 

The ONLY thing you have supplied is an accusation.

The statement you made MAY be true, or it may be false..or partially true, or partially false.

IT IS YOUR BURDEN to prove what you have said,  so that any reasonable person will agree that you are NOT a slander and a liar.

YOU PERSONALLY ... not just waving your hand at a second-hand referenced PDF file link, which although I only read 55 pages ... proved to be in my opinion, the rantings of a delusional madman.

Please supply enough detailed overview and references that your seemingly OUTRAGEOUS claims may be INDEPENDENTLY checked by the average, reasonable person.

Unless you do provide such proof. those same reasonable persons can dismiss you as being a fool, a slanderer, and a liar  ... because you have ZERO credibility.

Your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

COS:

So..please give us some FACTS! 

The ONLY thing you have supplied is an accusation.

The statement you made MAY be true, or it may be false..or partially true, or partially false.

IT IS YOUR BURDEN to prove what you have said,  so that any reasonable person will agree that you are NOT a slander and a liar.

Unless you do provide such proof. those same reasonable persons can dismiss you as being a fool, a slanderer, and a liar  ... because you have ZERO credibility.

Your move.

Johannes Greber...your move!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You seem to be unclear completely clueless on what constitutes proof, reason, and logic.

You have supplied NOTHING for consideration that even PRETENDS to be proof, or reason, or logic.

They used an occultist to uphold their false teachings (1 Tim. 4:1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:34 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I rest my case ....

Mr. Rook,

 

I began to read your very long post in the other thread, which I will address after I have read it completely, so please bear with me.

 

My oversight in this thread is assuming that you are aware of the occultist, Johannes Greber, but it seems that maybe you are not up to speed on certain issues.

 

In 1956 the Watchtower warned its readers about Johannes Greber occult practices (see The Watchtower, February 15, 1956, page 110,111).

 

But then in 1962, knowing full well of Greber’s occult connections they quoted his demon inspired “translation” of the New Testament to support the NWT rendering of certain passages (see the Watchtower September 15, 1962, page 554).

 

Then again in the book “

    Hello guest!
, p. 1134 and page 1669, they quoted him again with approval.

 

And again in

    Hello guest!
October 15 p. 640 Questions From Readers.

 

Again in

    Hello guest!
April 15 p. 231 Insight on the News.

 

I trust that you will check these for yourself, and then you will notice how the Watchtower knowingly cited an OCCULT source to support their false teachings; now read 1 Tim. 4:1. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 0:02 PM, Cos said:

But then in 1962, knowing full well of Greber’s occult connections they quoted his demon inspired “translation” of the New Testament to support the NWT rendering of certain passages (see the Watchtower September 15, 1962, page 554).

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:

On 9/3/2017 at 5:01 AM, Cos said:

how often they [WT] cite occult sources

There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:

There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

Gone Fishing,

 

Why do you think that this is “insignificant” in the context of the thread?

 

Is it true? Yes!

 

Luke 4 records Jesus’ interaction with the Devil, but nowhere in that discourse does Luke “support” the actions or speech of the Devil. So it is preposterous for you to say that that is similar!

 

Does the Watchtower agree with the occultist teachings? Yes.

 

Why does 1 Tim. 4:1 speak out against demon inspired teaching if it’s insignificant? Because this is what is to happen and is happening!

 

Why play down the fact that the Watchtower is in accord with demonic teachings?

 

The Watchtower's occult links are true. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cos said:

Why do you think that this is “insignificant” in the context of the thread?

insignificant

ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"

synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 

2. meaningless.

"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"

The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.

8 minutes ago, Cos said:

nowhere in that discourse does Luke “support” the actions or speech of the Devil.

By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".

In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:

(Matthew 12:24)

"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”

and dealt with them graciously:

(Matthew 12:25-28) 

"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

insignificant

ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"

synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 

2. meaningless.

"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"

The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.

By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".

In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:

(Matthew 12:24)

"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”

and dealt with them graciously:

(Matthew 12:25-28) 

"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

Gone fishing,

 

The Watchtower DO support the utterance of demons, they acknowledge this by citing for support of their own teaching, an occultist!

 

Gone Fishing, I thought you were a bit more astute, but it seems not, the Jews FALSELY accused Jesus of being in league with the Devil, how is that the same as the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings?

 

Answer this simple question; did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? Yes or no?

 

The Bible firmly condemns any alliance with occult teachings! <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cos said:

did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? 

Yes, and even if they distance themselves from it now, it is still the basis of the nwt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cos said:

how is that the same as the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings?

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.

10 hours ago, Cos said:

did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? Yes or no?

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.

The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.

Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.

The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.

Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Gone Fishing,

 

You claim my comment "Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings" is a “false accusation”, but then you contradict yourself by saying “Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable…demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths”.

 

That is a contradiction sir and no wonder, just like the Watchtower, that warned its readers about Greber demon inspired NT, then goes and quotes it for support.

 

Despite knowing full well that Greber was a occultist, the Watchtower Society continually cited Greber as an authority in support for their own false teachings.

 

And in the end the Society lied outright by claiming that they were unaware of Greber’s occult association. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cos said:

Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable…demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths”...That is a contradiction sir......

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.

Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 

So there is no contradiction ...sir.

However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":

"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:32 PM, Gone Fishing said:

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.

Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 

So there is no contradiction ...sir.

However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":

"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

Gone fishing

 

The fact that the Watchtower lied about not knowing of Greber’s occultism should worry you…what other lies are they telling you…?

 

I showed you your contradiction. You called what I said about the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings a “false accusation”, but then you go on to support that they did agree with Greber.

 

Look, if you want I can show how the Watchtower teachings, which are in line with demon teachings, are false. Let me know and we can look at them closely.

 

Sure the Devil can quote Scripture, I never said he can’t, but he distorts what he quotes and falsely applies it, read it for yourself.<><   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the Greber changes. It is all supported by the Bible. Idk why a demon would tell the truth, but if you read the Bible you would know whatever it said was in harmony with the scriptures. That isn't a pass to go read Greber's translation, but the demon who told him these things were already there for mankind to read. 

 

What I am more curious about is the reason it would tell the truth, for example, in Acts 16:16+ a demon possessed girl is telling everyone that Paul will lead you to everlasting life. 16 Now it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She supplied her masters with much profit by fortune-telling.  17 This girl kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God and are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”  18 She kept doing this for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned and said to the spirit: “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour. 

 

Why would a demon tell anyone the truth about Paul? I don't understand. 

 

Again, I've heard stories of people playing with ouija boards, and they make a Bible based question and the board responds with Jehovah's Witnesses, a couple at a convention asked the board what the true religion was and it responded with JWs, so they converted, this doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching the absolute truth, because 1914 is a false prophecy, but they are the only denomination that don't believe the trinity, don't worship the cross, don't celebrate pagan holidays, know the truth about death, etc. 

Rutherford claims that an angel revealed to him the identity of the great crowd, we know Angels wouldn't contact humans unless Jehovah sent them, so this was obviously an Angel of light. Does it mean the identity of the great crowd is wrong? If you read the Bible, in Revelation, you will see there are two groups of survivors, one that is numbered at 144000 and another that no man can number, is this a lie? No. 

I left Jehovah's Witnesses because I don't believe in 1914, Luke 21:8, and the fact that bethel was practicing spiritism. But the rest of the stuff they teach is and I believe Jehovah's Witnesses are being misled by the man of lawlessness in 2 thessalonians 2, and from what I have heard over the years, demons usually tell 50% truth and 50% lies. I don't know why they do the things they do, because even Jesus said a house divided does not work, so maybe the angel of light had some new ideas after Jesus said that. I just want people to become aware of the mystery of this lawlessness surrounding 1914. 

If you read the sahidic coptic new testament, which the oldest New testament known to man, you will see the correct rendering of John 1:1, which is the word was a God, not a god, nor God, but a God. Greek doesn't use indefinite articles, which is why "a" couldn't have possibly existed at the time John 1:1 was written. Secondly, Jesus is MonoGenes, begotten, made, he has not always existed and in Philippians 2:5 it says he isn't equal to the father, the trinity is false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

And so this makes it ok to accept teachings from demon inspired people, when God prohibits it? I'm not sure about you, but my God does not approve and tells me that through His word we can gather all the teachings He wants us to know by the means of the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13-15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2017 at 0:32 AM, Gone Fishing said:

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts

YES IT DOES, because Satan quoted out of context just as the wt does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

ok to accept teachings from demon inspired people

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him.

Jehovah can interfere with any source of "inspired" teaching and turn it to His own ends if He wishes. He has demonstrated this amply. I'll let you figure out where and when.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

YES IT DOES

OH NO IT DOESN'T

This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him

Can you provide proof that the wt had this teaching prior to Gerber, and merely used him as support? I seem to think that the NWT wasn't even in existence until the 40's/50's? Prior to then the wt used the KJV and the KJV does not have the same teachings as Gerber.

15 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

OH NO IT DOESN'T

This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................:)

Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it so. The real evidence is the Bible itself: 

Genesis 3:1, John 8:44, Matt 4:5-7

Satan may quote scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. Just as we see with Eve and Jesus. He quoted perfectly, but changed the meaning to trick. So it does matter the source, because there are motives behind the source which do not align with the Word of God. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

wt had this teaching prior to Gerber

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries.

13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

He quoted perfectly, but changed the meaning to trick

Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.

"The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. You will guard them, O Jehovah; you will protect each one of them from this generation forever." Ps 12:6-7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries

 

On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

It is not irrelevant. Based upon your statements, you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof. If there is no proof, then the wt used Gerber to support what they might have been thinking, but the support is from the occult/spiritism. The teaching is not in harmony with what was actually written in John's gospel. It is only a play of tricks on wording that the wt inserted their influence onto the gospel. Your dismissal of those facts is a part of the actual problem, people seems to think that because the wt says its true, but the fact of the matter is that they use Gerber to insert their doctri

 

8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.

you can think so, but I've already given you scripture that shows that satan misleads by use of quoting scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. JUST LIKE THE WT.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof.

The idea seems to have been around earlier than the first WT

"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ' and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such."
Quote from Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible p.54.   Robert Young - 1865

Selection of WT quotes reflecting "a god" as an appropriate rendering of John 1:1

Quote : WT Nov 15 1913:

"Accurately translated it reads, "The Logos was with the God and the Logos was a god; the same was in the beginning with the God"

Quote: WT Dec 15 1913:

"St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."

Quote: WT Jan 1 1922

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1., 2)"

Quote: WT Nov 15 1925:

"..it is not to be expected otherwise than that John would speak of this one who was in the beginning with God as being a god, a mighty one." 

Quote from Greber's rendering of John 1:1

 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1

Quote from The New Testament, A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts’’ Johannes Greber. 1937.

Greber (1874–1944) seems considerably behind on this matter.  His spiritistic activity appears to have begun in 1923, with his Bible Translation not started until after 1929, published in 1937. (according to

    Hello guest!
).

On 9/11/2017 at 5:45 PM, Shiwiii said:

Can you provide proof that the wt had this teaching prior to Gerber

Seems that the WT did use this rendering prior to Greber, and, of course, the idea preceded the WT anyway.

Was this really so obscure??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it? Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it?

Es macht nichts!

Just to end off this little sub-thread:

Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT. The pre WT view of this text, along with pre-Greber references in the WT attest to this conclusion..

The KJV remains an excellent translation of the Scriptures, despite it's errors, archaic vocabulary, and embarrasing insertions, (paticularly 1John 5:7). I frequently use it as it still has currency in many quarters. 

I suppose it underlines one of the lessons in the account at Matt 19:25-26:

“Who really can be saved?” Looking at them intently, Jesus said to them: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Bye for now!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gone Fishing said:

Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT.

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

You just cant leave it can you even though from at least 1865 this idea has been batted around? Unless you believe Greber was a reincarnation?? Maybe he was???

I don't know!! Even though this so-called support has long been discarded (1983), and even though the critics huff and they puff continuously , this house just won't fall down will it? Somebody has the issue round their neck it looks like. 

Anyway, thanks for the spar. I never had to look at the detail on the Greber stuff before. I have a study interested in this subject so it's been useful.

I'm really off now. Have fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing

As much as I have enjoyed the argument on Bible translation and spiritism? I find the argument, lacking in facts and substance. I believe someone asked to show one instance of a bible rendering of John 1:1 that has “a god” prior to GerberÂ’s NT in 1937.

 

The New Testament: in an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory Newcome, William, 1729-1800; Belsham, Thomas, 1750-1829; Wait, Thomas Baker, 1808-1809AD

1808_newcombe_new-testament.png

Johannes Gerber New Translation and Explanation 1937

 

 

Das Neue Testament

 

Mit Hilfe der Geisterwelt Gottes um 1930, in modernen Stiel der heutigen Sprache angepaßt.

 

Aus dem Altgriechischen neu übersetzt von

 

 Johannes Greber

 

1 Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott; und ein 'Gott' war das Wort. 2 Dies war im Anfang bei Gott. 3 Alles ist durch das Wort entstanden, und ohne es trat nichts Geschaffenes ins Dasein.

 

 

The new Testament

 

With the help of the spirit world of God around 1930, adapted in modern stalk of today's language.

 

Translated from the Ancient Greek by

 

 Johannes Greber

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and a 'God' was the Word. 2 This was in the beginning with God. 3 Everything has been created by the Word, and without it there was nothing created into existence.

 

The argument on Greek translation can be seen with two sub functors. One, henotheism even though it has a shortcoming, two, monetarism that doesn’t. It’s only the misbelief of the opposition to argue a nonargument of “a god” to the Trinitarianism “Is, The, was God” which Gerber himself identified as 2 separate beings in the article” is the trinity doctrine divinely inspired.

One only needs to understand the Greek, usage of, the definite article but has no indefinite article. So, when the definite article is left off, it is implied to be indefinite. So, when dealing with "God" himself, there is the definite article 'ho' (i.e. The, as in The God). But in reference to the Word in John 1:1, it has no definite article, making it 'a god', not 'the God'.

So, the argument that the Watchtower was influenced by a spiritualist is just speculation to enhance the “false” claims perpetrated by opposers that saw a similar interpretation of John 1:1 in Geber’s NT, that is NOT comparable, to the Watchtower since Gerber’s NT also suggest that Jesus was “the God” in reverse (the Word). This has been going on for at least, 15 years now! The Watchtower has made many “open” articles about Pastor Gerber since 1955. That denounces, spiritualism.

This is why Jesus words are expressed, clearly in John 17:1-5

John 17:1-5New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Prays to Be Glorified

17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

This also shows that Jesus divinity was elevated as a higher being. The problem with trinity can be identified with one simple conclusion. JESUS NEVER CREATED! As people wish for him to have done so. ThatÂ’s why, Jesus himself Glorified the one true God, NOT himself.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The New Testament: in an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory

Great example.

This headed the list on p27 in the 1989 brochure, Should You Believe in The Trinity?:

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what the Watchtower said about Greber’s translation when they lied about not knowing of his occult practices.

 

This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings… as given in the New World Translation” (The Watchtower 1983 April 1 p. 31 Questions From Readers).

 

Whoever says that the Watchtower didn’t use Greber’s translation for support is completely wrong? <><

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who make appeal to Archbishop Newcome's New Translation ‘with a Corrected Text’...

 

After Archbishop Newcome's death a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text!

 

This altered text by the Unitarian Belsham, dishonors Archbishop Newcome's careful scholarship. Archbishop Newcome certainly never said the Word was "a god".

 

Then there is the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson. Mr. Wilson never studied biblical Greek and therefore his renderings are slanted to his doctrinal bias. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cos said:

After Archbishop Newcome's death a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text

 

Good to clarify this regarding the editions.

In fairness, the title page of the 1809 edition makes it clear that that the edition is BASED on Newcome's new translation. Also the Introduction, whilst acknowledging value of Newcome's work, lays out the principle that "no alteration should be made in the Primate'sTranslation, but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error or inaccuracy in the text, the language, the construction, or the sense,". And that, where an alteration was made to the text, "where it was thought necessary" , along with Newcome's rendering, "a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." Also in connection with additional items of explanantion included, "that where it was thought necessary, a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory."

So, the revision is more honestly handled by this commitee than perhaps those who were responsible for introducing the Comma Johanneum earlier. (which Archbishop Newcome, admirably, omitted from his translation, albeit without a footnote comment.)

11 hours ago, Cos said:

Archbishop Newcome certainly never said the Word was "a god"

Certainly he did not, and the cross references provided in the footnote presumably are there to reinforce his view: 

Was God.] Isai. vii. 14. ix.6. Matth. i. 23. John x. 33— 36. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii.6. Hebr. 1.3, 8.

11 hours ago, Cos said:

a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text

But not without a clear and explanatory foot note:
"and the Word was a god.] "was God," Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to men as God that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See John x. 30, compared with xvii. 8, II, 16; iii. 34; v. 23; xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true reading was ***, the Word was God's, q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commission from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority."

The readers must decide for themselves.

11 hours ago, Cos said:

Greber’s translation for support

Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

just a drop of poison won't hurt will it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing

It's interesting that opposers argue a misguided theme between Archbishop Newcome William to that of Belsham, Thomas that “accepted” Newcome translation of the New Testament as scholarly and authoritative to continue to build upon that authority.

 

The same argument made by opposers when suggesting the same thing between BISHOP JAMES USSHER, and JOHN LIGHTFOOT.

This Trinitarian rebuttal is self-evident when attempting to distract people from their own ill-conceived notions, of unscholarly understanding in the Greek language, that is best suited for a true linguist.

A Liberal Translation of the New Testament: Being an Attempt to Translate 1768 Edward Harwood page 281

The beginning of the Holy Gospel according to John:

Before the origin of this world existed the LOGOS — who was then with the Supreme God — and was himself a divine person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

This Trinitarian rebuttal is self-evident when attempting to distract people from their own ill-conceived notions, of unscholarly understanding in the Greek language, that is best suited for a true linguist.

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about? Do you mean to tell me that God Himself allowed misunderstanding from 100 ad until the 1500's for the world to be in confusion? Really? Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding? Isn't it your belief that the Word of God is in fact complete? Why does it take a group of men to change the meaning of the Bible from what gods people, ANYONE WILLING TO READ THE BIBLE AND ACCEPT IT, to what the wt says it means? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding?

Good question!

Even better answer:

2 Thess.2:9-11

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good to clarify this regarding the editions.

In fairness, the title page of the 1809 edition makes it clear that that the edition is BASED on Newcome's new translation. Also the Introduction, whilst acknowledging value of Newcome's work, lays out the principle that "no alteration should be made in the Primate'sTranslation, but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error or inaccuracy in the text, the language, the construction, or the sense,". And that, where an alteration was made to the text, "where it was thought necessary" , along with Newcome's rendering, "a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." Also in connection with additional items of explanantion included, "that where it was thought necessary, a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory."

So, the revision is more honestly handled by this commitee than perhaps those who were responsible for introducing the Comma Johanneum earlier. (which Archbishop Newcome, admirably, omitted from his translation, albeit without a footnote comment.)

Certainly he did not, and the cross references provided in the footnote presumably are there to reinforce his view: 

Was God.] Isai. vii. 14. ix.6. Matth. i. 23. John x. 33— 36. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii.6. Hebr. 1.3, 8.

But not without a clear and explanatory foot note:
"and the Word was a god.] "was God," Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to men as God that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See John x. 30, compared with xvii. 8, II, 16; iii. 34; v. 23; xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true reading was ***, the Word was God's, q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commission from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority."

The readers must decide for themselves.

Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

Gone fishing,

 

You have generously given some quotes from Thomas Belsham’s title page. One would think that this information on how Mr. Belsham made alteration to Bishop Newcome’s text should have been made known to the readers of the Watchtower when they quote Mr. Belsham’s rendering for support, yes?

 

And of course the obvious reason Mr. Belsham altered the original was to conform to his Unitarian perspective.

 

Also, now you admit that the Watchtower did use Greber occult inspired NT as support for their own rendering, when previously you were alleging that this was not the case? <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

It's interesting that opposers argue a misguided theme between Archbishop Newcome William to that of Belsham, Thomas that “accepted” Newcome translation of the New Testament as scholarly and authoritative to continue to build upon that authority.

 

 

 

 

The same argument made by opposers when suggesting the same thing between BISHOP JAMES USSHER, and JOHN LIGHTFOOT.

 

 

This Trinitarian rebuttal is self-evident when attempting to distract people from their own ill-conceived notions, of unscholarly understanding in the Greek language, that is best suited for a true linguist.

 

 

A Liberal Translation of the New Testament: Being an Attempt to Translate 1768 Edward Harwood page 281

 

 

The beginning of the Holy Gospel according to John:

 

 

Before the origin of this world existed the LOGOS — who was then with the Supreme God — and was himself a divine person.

 

 

Come Now Mr. Ewing

The obvious reason Mr. Belsham altered the original was to conform to his Unitarian perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cos said:

Also, now you admit that the Watchtower did use Greber occult inspired NT as support for their own rendering, when previously you were alleging that this was not the case?

Misjudgement again. Greber's rendering is quite acceptable. Greber and his demonic associates are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cos said:

should have been made known to the readers of the Watchtower when they quote Mr. Belsham’s rendering for support,

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

conform to his Unitarian perspective.

Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good question!

Even better answer:

2 Thess.2:9-11

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

So you must believe that the "man of lawlessness has been revealed already? verses 1-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good to keep in mind that WT was using Greber's rendering as a support, not "Greber and his demons". 

Like I stated earlier in this thread, even satan uses scripture but is wrong by means of context. So if Gerber received his information from evil sources, then it is not to be trusted as being accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
4 hours ago, Cos said:

Come Now Mr. Ewing

The obvious reason Mr. Belsham altered the original was to conform to his Unitarian perspective.

Come! Come! Mr. COS

You first accuse the Watchtower of spiritualism, and now you have shifted to Unitarianism. How about the example, provided above, prior to Archbishop Newcome? Was that rendition Unitarian? I guess “all” translations with the edaphus of “a” is Unitarian. Please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
14 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about?

This is the many Christian Bible Versions, accepted, translation from the old Vulgate by which the majority of modern bibles are based on.

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1

The Gospel According To John

 

 Chapter 1

 

The incorrect translation of Latin into English:

 

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

 

The Correct translation of Latin into English:

 

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word

 

 

With this subtle transfer of words, allowed for Trinity to exist. Therefore, the “error” is on the early church fathers to claim their argument was correct, thus eventually giving power to the Vatican under a “false” premise.

 

 The same argument that was being made back then, on how to identify Jesus Divinity status, reignited with the reformation of Martin Luther in 1517AD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gone Fishing said:

The big if.......again.

the wt has already admitted it, so from the stance of the wt he did and from Gerber himself he said he did, but YOU.....you're not too sure. 

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

This is the many Christian Bible Versions, accepted, translation from the old Vulgate by which the majority of modern bibles are based on.

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1

The Gospel According To John

 

 Chapter 1

 

The incorrect translation of Latin into English:

 

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

 

The Correct translation of Latin into English:

 

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word

 

 

With this subtle transfer of words, allowed for Trinity to exist. Therefore, the “error” is on the early church fathers to claim their argument was correct, thus eventually giving power to the Vatican under a “false” premise.

 

 The same argument that was being made back then, on how to identify Jesus Divinity status, reignited with the reformation of Martin Luther in 1517AD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up:

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up

You don’t have to go to all that trouble of finding it on the internet. The simplest thing you can do is use google translate from any Latin Vulgate Bible, and use this little trick that many publishers use.

 

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum / without the period, answer!

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum. /with the period, answer!

This is how modern deception is achieved with Latin translations.

But if you’re up to the task, then the below scale from Norte Dame with the highlights is a start as an example. Just keep in mind, there are many propositions with scales, and this is just from Latin to English. You still need Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek, and then interpret those to Latin and then to English.

 

 

(1)

    Hello guest!

(1)in                   PREP   ABL                        

in PREP ABL [XXXAX] 

in, on, at (space); in accordance with/regard to/the case of; within (time);

in                   PREP   ACC                        

in PREP ACC [XXXAX] 

into; about, in the mist of; according to, after (manner); for; to, among;

 

(2)principio           N      2 4 DAT S N                

principio           N      2 4 ABL S N                

principium, principi(i) N N [XXXAX] 

beginning;

principio           V      1 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 1 S   

principio, principiare, principiavi, principiatus V [EXXFS] Later veryrare

begin to speak; begin to peak (medieval);

 

(3)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(4)verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                 

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

(5)et                   CONJ                              

et CONJ [XXXAX] 

and, and even; also, even;(et ... et = both ... and);

 

verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

(6)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(7)apud                 PREP   ACC                         

apud PREP ACC [XXXAO] 

at, by, near, among; at the house of; before, in the presence/writings/view of;

 

(8)deum                N      2 1 ACC S M                

(9)Deus, Dei N M  [XEXAO] 

God (Christian text); god; divine essence/being, supreme being; statue of god;

*

(10)et                   CONJ                              

et CONJ [XXXAX] 

and, and even; also, even; et ... et = both ... and);

 

(11)deus                 N      2 1 VOC S M                

deus X [XEXCX] 

god; God!: Oh God;

de.us                N      2 1 NOM S M                

Deus, Dei N M [XEXAO] 

God (Christian text); god; divine essence/being, supreme being; statue of god;

 

(12)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(13)verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

In, beginning existed the word with God and the Word was as (a) god, existed the word.

 
   

No definite article

 

The paradigm here is the usage of the word “both” as in God, and Christ as it was originally read. Then you can play with whatever words or vowels like, is, a, was, etc.

So, my personal rendering is the example above, but I prefer the Watchtower as a clear, concise and grammatic rendition of the original script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture.

Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.

Gone fishing,

 

Yes it is “easily obtainable” in today’s world but not back when the Watchtower started using Belsham’s version for support. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Come! Come! Mr. COS

 

 

You first accuse the Watchtower of spiritualism, and now you have shifted to Unitarianism. How about the example, provided above, prior to Archbishop Newcome? Was that rendition Unitarian? I guess “all” translations with the edaphus of “a” is Unitarian. Please!

 

 

Mr. Ewing,

 

It was you who brought up the Watchtower’s usage of Thomas Belsham’s version. All I was doing is expressing the fact that Mr. Belsham altered Archbishop Newcome's text to conform with his own perspective, even Gone fishing grasped this.

 

Now you want to jump to “the example provided above”.

 

I have never noticed that the Watchtower ever cited Edward Harwood “Liberal Translation” but I might be wrong, so please refer me to where they utilized this translation?

 

Anyway, note if you will, the footnote Edward Harwood provides where he speaks against “the Platonist” philosophical view that the Logos is somehow an inferior person to God. Also, I believe that the term “divine” in biblical theology means nothing other than God. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:18 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

What is "biblical Greek?" Are you sure that is not just "Trinitarian Greek?"

 

Certainly can’t be "Arian Greek" because that all made-up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You don’t have to go to all that trouble of finding it on the internet. The simplest thing you can do is use google translate from any Latin Vulgate Bible, and use this little trick that many publishers use.

 

In, beginning existed the word with God and the Word was as (a) god, existed the word.

 
   

 

No definite article

The paradigm here is the usage of the word “both” as in God, and Christ as it was originally read. Then you can play with whatever words or vowels like, is, a, was, etc.

So, my personal rendering is the example above, but I prefer the Watchtower as a clear, concise and grammatic rendition of the original script.

Mr. Ewing

 

When studying Latin, I was struck with the directness of the language.

 

Google translate is good only to a point, not something I would use or rely upon.

 

You cannot translate the Latin of John 1:1 with “a” at the end as you suggest.

 

“Deus erat Verbum” translates directly to, “Word was God”

 

It cannot in anyway translate to “Word was [a] God”. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up:

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

 

Hi Shiwiii

 

These sites are in Latin.

 

    Hello guest!

 

And of course the place where Latin is still used as a language,

 

    Hello guest!

 

Hope this aids you with what you seek. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What throws a shoe into the careful logic is that the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in ...oh ... what's the word I am looking for ...OH YEAH! ... Greek!

ACID TEST: Get a Bible written IN GREEK, their equivalent of the KJV, whatever that is ... and ask a native Greek educated person to explain John 1:1 to you.

Probably some regular folks at any Greek Orthodox Church. Might be a good experiment on a Sunday morning, after breakfast.

To find out who knows what ... ask him (or her) if they understand what a

    Hello guest!

All else is fibrillation for delusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 7:21 AM, Alessandro Corona said:

Rutherford claims that an angel revealed to him the identity of the great crowd, we know Angels wouldn't contact humans unless Jehovah sent them, so this was obviously an Angel of light. Does it mean the identity of the great crowd is wrong? If you read the Bible, in Revelation, you will see there are two groups of survivors, one that is numbered at 144000 and another that no man can number, is this a lie? No. 

Could you provide a source on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You still need Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek, and then interpret those to Latin and then to English.

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
28 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

Isn't that what happened with the church fathers between the time frame you gloriously indicated in 100CE to the 15th century? Now you want to change the prospective to fit your ideal? Your type of ideology is the one that is not necessary. But, I do understand your disinterest in not wanting to learn a complex way of reasoning, since that is the issue with “past” translations, who is correct. That’s why I find The Watchtower NWT to be a more reliable translation above all others. But, I'm glad you admit it doesn't make sense to you, as a nonlinguist, it shouldn't.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

Isn't that what happened with the church fathers between the time frame you gloriously indicated in 100CE to the 15th century? Now you want to change the prospective to fit your ideal?  

 

 

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 

1 minute ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Your type of ideology is the one that is not necessary. But, I do understand your disinterest in wanting to learn a complex way of reasoning, since that is the issue with “past” translations, who is correct.

What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 

 

3 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That’s why I find The Watchtower NWT to be a more reliable translation above all others. But, I'm glad you admit it doesn't make sense to you, as a nonlinguist, it shouldn't.    

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
4 hours ago, Cos said:

When studying Latin, I was struck with the directness of the language.

 

Google translate is good only to a point, not something I would use or rely upon.

Mr. COS

Google is a fine example of the owner wishing to be as accurate with his program as possible. Everyone knows that. Technology advancements have made it possible. Would I rely on it to be 100 percent? No! but isn’t that what you want people to believe with your assertion?

Come! Come! You can’t be dismissing everything just to subjugate your interest. As for the Latin language, it’s not that language that has a “definite or indefinite article proposed in it, isn’t it?

Google translate was used as a simple tool to show the “deception” of publishers and those bible translations that wish to use the term Word was God. with a simple “period” to make it so, in Latin.

 

As for the usage of other bible versions to illustrate that the NWT is not the only one to use and “indefinite article” with its translation was over emphasized by your attempt to discredit the example provided. Just like the frivolous attempt to discredit the second example, that you insist the word “divine” can only mean GOD, even though you cannot refute the usage of “a” on an earlier bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
25 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 

Now you can say, your understanding makes no sense!

26 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 

Isn't that what you are doing? Isn't your version of bible text are doing?

27 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

I enjoy the NWT because it's more accurate as I stated. No one is putting a gun to my head to accept it. How many scholars do you think God used to transcibe his words. At any rate, you seem to forget, that Brother F. Franz was up to the task, scholarly!

As for the rest, of your "angry" rant, it's just your personal opinion!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I enjoy the NWT because it's more accurate as I stated

This is only within your own mind, which is ok.  Numerous scholars disagree with you. F Franz was a very educated man, but...

According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)

 

Two years of Greek does not compare in the slightest to the Greek scholars who disagree with Franz and the nwt. It really doesn't matter too much, as I'm sure you have convinced yourself otherwise. I'm just not wired that way, I choose to search and see for myself if things are true or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt.

 

13 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

F Franz was a very educated man, but...

According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)

I believe you own your crosswords. But at any rate, I'm sure you can't look beyond the "deception" offered by Christendom, But at least you're willing to admit, you need to further your studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

 

I believe you own your crosswords. But at any rate, I'm sure you can't look beyond the "deception" offered by Christendom, But at least you're willing to admit, you need to further your studies.

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar?

You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

This is stupid. 

I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks. Witness the experts testifying with regard to Russia's attempt to ban it. Not their witnesses, of course, but everyone knows their witnesses couldn't translate their way out of a paper bag.

Not Trinitarian witnesses, either, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship instead of the other way around. And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament - it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep. But except for that, the NWT is very well received. 

Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts who, being Witnesses, also wished to remain anonymous like Franz so as not to distract from the true author of the work?

You want to find the 'qualifications' of the translators so you can gloat that they don't have any, in case they don't. How 'qualified' do you have to be with language? Put a baby in a bi-lingual home and he grows up knowing two, without any teaching at all. Put it in a tri-lingual home and it grows up knowing three. Okay, ancient language adds a degree of complication, but even so, it is just communication and that is humankind's oldest trick in the book. Since jw.org is translated into 900 languages, it seems clear that the prestigious universities that teach language ought to come crawling to us, and not the reverse.

It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not. Before my wife and I bought the home we now live in, we looked it over carefully for quality. We even hired an inspector. Satisfied, we moved in. We have no idea who actually built the house and have never lost a moment of sleep on that account. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks.

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament

This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament.

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep.

Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.

   

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts

who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. 

 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not.

you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.

If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.

You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What throws a shoe into the careful logic is that the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in ...oh ... what's the word I am looking for ...OH YEAH! ... Greek!

ACID TEST: Get a Bible written IN GREEK, their equivalent of the KJV, whatever that is ... and ask a native Greek educated person to explain John 1:1 to you.

Probably some regular folks at any Greek Orthodox Church. Might be a good experiment on a Sunday morning, after breakfast.

To find out who knows what ... ask him (or her) if they understand what a

    Hello guest!

All else is fibrillation for delusion.

 

How dare J.R. Ewing bring Latin into this, oh yes, it was OK then because you JW’s erroneously agreed with him…<><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Google is a fine example of the owner wishing to be as accurate with his program as possible. Everyone knows that. Technology advancements have made it possible. Would I rely on it to be 100 percent? No! but isn’t that what you want people to believe with your assertion?

 



 

 



 

 



 

 

Mr. Ewing,

 

You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 


Google translate was used as a simple tool to show the “deception” of publishers and those bible translations that wish to use the term Word was God. with a simple “period” to make it so, in Latin.

 



 

 



 

 

 

What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!

 

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 


As for the usage of other bible versions to illustrate that the NWT is not the only one to use and “indefinite article” with its translation was over emphasized by your attempt to discredit the example provided. Just like the frivolous attempt to discredit the second example, that you insist the word “divine” can only mean GOD, even though you cannot refute the usage of “a” on an earlier bible. 

 

Answer me this, is the Father a divine person? Of course He is! If you can say that the Father is a divine person without that demising His deity, then your employ of Edward Harwood translation is totally void. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
8 hours ago, Cos said:

 

You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.

 

8 hours ago, Cos said:

What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!

Mr. COS

 

How dare you make a mockery of a subject you or your alter ego Shiwii know “nothing” about. Continue your studies before accusing someone of rubbish, when your own is exactly that.

 

So, the only thing “void” is your lack of understanding of the Greek Language, and by extent Latin. The one that needs to learn it is yourself!

 

You have your accusations backwards. You’re the one making them.

 

Latin-English Interlinear (Nova Vulgata) Bible (GoogleTrans)

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

It is seldom that I agree with ANYBODY ... about ANYTHING, unless what I am SUPPOSED to be agreeing to is absolutely clear and unambiguous ... and correct.

Your assuming I agree with groupthink is a sad mistake, and shows how YOU think in a fog.

Doubleplusungood.

Mr. Rook,

 

It has been my experience on this forum that you usually jump in with some pun and/or comment/insult immediately after I have mention something you don’t like. If you did not agree with J.R. Ewing’s bizarre and outrageous allegation then I apologize.

 

As a side note I have asked a native Greek speaking person the question about John 1:1 to see if their understanding on the verse is in line with my study of Koine Greek, what do you think the outcome was...? <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 


Mr. COS

 



 

 

How dare you make a mockery of a subject you or your alter ego Shiwii know “nothing” about. Continue your studies before accusing someone of rubbish, when your own is exactly that.

 



 

 


So, the only thing “void” is your lack of understanding of the Greek Language, and by extent Latin. The one that needs to learn it is yourself!

 



 

 

You have your accusations backwards. You’re the one making them.

 



 

 

 

Latin-English Interlinear (Nova Vulgata) Bible (GoogleTrans)

 


    Hello guest!

 

Mr. Ewing,

 

You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.

 

To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!

 

Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?

 

And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.

 

My interest in this version was initiated when I was first shown the November 2008 Watchtower article “Was the Word ‘God’ or ‘a god’”, where the Watchtower appeals to the rendering in this version of John 1:1 as support of their own rendering. So I started by looking at “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect” by George Horner, and what I found did not support the Watchtower’s claim.

 

Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.”

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. The claims made by the Watchtower and by others who follow their teaching are unfounded and deceptive. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
1 hour ago, Cos said:

You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.

Mr. COS

Just like you erred with the assumption about JTR, that, in all regards sites with nonsense, your judgment is actually irrational, since I was only referring to the “mental” state.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!

They can only be fake if you are blind, and can’t comprehend a simple example of publisher’s deception by adding a simple period at the “end” to get the results they wish. That’s “factual” your argument isn’t. Or are you implying I hacked every Latin-English online dictionary to make the results go my way>< Now that would be absurd!!!

But, I’ll grant you, that many “active” witnesses in this forum don’t know or have known these simple publishers trick. They automatically assume as you do!

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?

Your Bias!!! You only include those ideologies that affirm your claim of “oneness”. Scripture in many places confirms the deity of the one and only true God, and the one and only True Son of God. I believe it’s your kind of people that complain the Watchtower doesn’t evaluate all possible avenues in order to make a sound judgment in translation. The Watchtower has done more to get clarity and Intune with the first-century message and the writings of God, than any other Christian Religion that stagnates with its rendering, and yet with all your innuendos, I see no signs of your progressiveness in language skills.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.

Theologians have known for a very long time. That’s the reason we don’t read too much into the opposition, you have just answered your argument for everyone. By the way! Why didn’t you bring up the Coptic Version if it fails with its rendering? Why hide something that opposers have known for over 70 years now. Why the mystery? Why the deception?

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

Your accusation precedes you. How, Have I only looked at this matter subjectively, if NOT objectively. This is another example of your lack of Koine Greek understanding. You are the one that ignores all possible avenues with the Greek language.

I could likewise use “the Word was like God”, “the word existed with God” “the word was godlike”, “of divine kind”, etc. The indefinite article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (i.e. we’d omit the English article) in English “is Divine” or an entity “is a god”; the reader decides which rendering to give it.

The Coptic pattern doesn’t predicate equivalence as cited with the Notre Dame example, (Both) with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the definite article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be ODD><

It would be no different when using mnemonics to assist you with memory!

So, your assertion of:

1:1  ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.

Would be mistaken, since the southern dialect affirms the “word” as a god, but NOT “the” God the Father which you vigorously argue.

You’re NOT impressing me in the slightest. But if you wish to compare Jewish scholars, I have an unlimited amount. Your insistence on using the “poison well fallacy” is evident.

Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”— The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.

Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”— The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cos said:

As a side note I have asked a native Greek speaking person the question about John 1:1 to see if their understanding on the verse is in line with my study of Koine Greek, what do you think the outcome was...? <><

I would like to hear what you have to say about that specific investigation ... your hard data would of course trump my guessing what the outcome of YOUR actual experiment was. 

Remember however, if you use my qualifying criteria,  the qualifier was that my experiment basis was that  the Greek speaking person person had to be educated enough to understand the uses of Greek predicate positions, etc., specifically the anarthrous predicate as it was used in context of the complete sentence being considered.

Please provide as much detail of your experiment as you can remember ... I wallow in enjoying long detail accounts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing

And with that robust commentary, Nuff said, back on topic with the assertion the Watchtower employed spiritualism to define the NWT. I yield the floor back to the Highlanders!!!!

Enjoy!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<