At what moment "The Truth" has ceased to be "The Truth"?

[JOHN BUTLER]

6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Channels as in what? Be clear - you are grown so therefore please be clear and concise if you want to make a reference to me.

That being said, you are cycling about as to what you profess months ago, only this time, you show yourself to be more true to your the very person of whom I mention in this regard.

He is using a translation that does not shy away from the manuscript sources of old that does not mix inspired text with uninspired text. And a couple of seconds at glance one can see there is no mix up or violation of Strong's in the Greek Language.

the lack of Biblical intuition rather telling, therefore your own word about spiritual wisdom begets you.

When the Strong's is in application, the verse, Hebrews 13:7 does indeed say leaders. the "Those" in question are the ones who are leading, to add more water to your decreasing fire, the cross-references even add further proof to claim. This verse connects with the other verse of which you mention which is identical to the previous whereas this also applies to verse 17.

Another factor against you is

If I were you, I'd be scared of Greek Strong's because the last time you tried some of your silliness, you tripped upon yourself and was quick to make mention of the English Bible, when in reality, even the English Bible informs you of what the word and or passage actually means.

Next time if you are going to try and say a word is there or not, perhaps look it up on Biblehub - after all, you did say it was interesting. It may be interesting now a perhaps like sour grapes to the tongue if you check out the Hebrews verses on it now.

Here you go, I am giving you the honor of clicking and seeing for yourself:

• https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-7.htm
• https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-17.htm
• Here is the Strong's: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2233.htm

That being said, spiritual leaders... Hebrews is clear, as is with the cross-references, as is with the quotations, as is with nothing that compromised the text which can result in a Greek and or Hebraic violation - that of which is unfounded, that of which whatever you have made claim to to be incorrect.

Also I find this interesting....

This comes from a man, the same man who makes claim he does not not such persons, yet can say this. A bit hypocritical much, perhaps on judging and know who is who in terms of God's Approval, let alone Spiritual Wisdom when he himself cannot see the verse or passage for what it really is?

Surely, well this I can attest, truly a former Jehovah's Witnesses such as yourself would be doing far better than that, the good thing is your not like the guy who believes he can, who is in the same position as you, believes he can heal with his hands, it didn't fair well for him in the long-run, do not apply that example.

Well if they are trying to be like the apostolic church in them being one of the few who recognizes the apostolic church, how can you be so sure when you cannot prove it to be wrong?

This is why anyone who is doing such you have to examine them -carefully.

That being said remember who the head of the church is, or he may not recognize you when the time comes.

I love the way you try to be the big boss man. So funny SM.  You tell me, do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. As if you have some authority over me.  And I love the way you criticise me, it helps me to examine myself.  Keep it up. 

Channels as in what? Be clear. Channels of communication from God to us. I would think that you do not believe that the GB of the JW Org are the correct channel of communication that we need to use. In fact I think that you might feel we do not need an extra channel of communication, that we should have direct communication with God through Jesus Christ, by means of Holy Spirit.  

I am open to suggestions on that point..............  Next :-

I quoted the Hebrew verses from the New World Translation. Now you are saying they have written it wrongly. The NWT as you know is the JW Org Bible, translated by the GB. That is the Bible i have come to use regularly as I find the wording is easy to understand. However it would seem that you are suggesting that this is not a good translation ? I'm sure the GB would say they were 'guided' by God's Holy Spirit when they did this translation, so once again I am confused.

I am just an ordinary man, and if God's word is for such as me, then there are indeed great problems. I honestly do not think that God expects us to use Strong's, or to compare ten different translations of His written word, every time we sit down and study it. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

As to what human rules are you even speaking about?

You have the Church whereas its teachings are to be adhered to, as with what is commanded by God ans his Christ. Nothing in this sense screams human rule, if you can agree with an apostle who lead the church, it is understandable, but to agree with someone who is alienated from eh church or teach what is accursed, clearly you will run into some problems.

there is a line between what is of the church and what is considered accursed and not of the church.

S.M please tell us, what is 'of the church' ?   What church ?  You quite often use this word 'Church' but it would be nice if you would define it. 

Some people think of the building they use as the church. Others think of the Apostles as being the church. So please make it clear exactly what you mean. Thank you

[TrueTomHarley]

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I literally owe my life to the things I have learned that I could not have learned ANYWHERE else.

The old pork chop speaks true here. At long last, he has a point.

It is the pearl of high price that we speak of, accurate Bible knowledge that allows one to make sense out of a crazy careening world, to know why a God of love would permit evil, to know what happens to the dead & even the reason that people die. Judging from what is on display online, when people leave, caught up in some contemporary controversy, they lose all interest in these matters. They become freedom fighters for some current cause, and never make mention again of answers to the deeper questions about life.

Whether the Kingdom Hall will build a howitzer rack for JTR to park his weapons is seriously questionable, in my view. But he does raise a point about where spiritual thirst can be meaningfully satisfied.

[JOHN BUTLER]

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The old pork chop speaks true here. At long last, he has a point.

It is the pearl of high price that we speak of, accurate Bible knowledge that allows one to make sense out of a crazy careening world, to know why a God of love would permit evil, to know what happens to the dead & even the reason that people die. Judging from what is on display online, when people leave, caught up in some contemporary controversy, they lose all interest in these matters. They become freedom fighters for some current cause, and never make mention again of answers to the deeper questions about life.

Whether the Kingdom Hall will build a howitzer rack for JTR to park his weapons is seriously questionable, in my view. But he does raise a point about where spiritual thirst can be meaningfully satisfied.

TTH I love your sense of humour, it's all so funny. 

where spiritual thirst can be meaningfully satisfied. What a joke. The GB don't even believe half of what they allow to be published.

JTR seems to have used the JW Org as some sort of probation office / reform school : a place where young people who have committed crimes are sent to live and be taught to behave in ways that are socially acceptable.

accurate Bible knowledge, um, SM suggests that the translation in places is not accurate. Well not according to Strong's anyway. 

So if the GB cannot be trusted and the NWT cannot be trusted, then where is this spiritual feast coming from ? 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB don't even believe half of what they allow to be published.

They do believe half. They also believe the other half.

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I love the way you try to be the big boss man. So funny SM.  You tell me, do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. As if you have some authority over me.  And I love the way you criticise me, it helps me to examine myself.  Keep it up. 

If asking a question means being a boss, well I guess that would be the case according to you. Clearly I do not have authority over you merely stating what is actual true about those verses in Hebrews, knowing how you put an emphasis on LEADERS who are leading among the people of that same Spiritual House, the truth of the matter would be bitter sweet to you when the Strong's actually counterpart your response in regards to LEADERS.

Therefore, to say it isn't in the passage is being hypocritical, when the context and other things proves otherwise.

After all, you were the one who spoke of Spiritual Wisdom, only this time your own words begets you, granted that response was of your design.

Perhaps do the research before you cry victim, Mr. Butler. And I will keep it up the next time you bring forth a violation of Strong's, of which I made it clear to you several times already, even when you asked why my focus is on such.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Channels as in what? Be clear. Channels of communication from God to us. I would think that you do not believe that the GB of the JW Org are the correct channel of communication that we need to use. In fact I think that you might feel we do not need an extra channel of communication, that we should have direct communication with God through Jesus Christ, by means of Holy Spirit.  

If that is the case, perhaps you should pay attention to @Anna granted I did see her response just now, and now yours.

It should come as no surprise to you, that God knows who is for him and who isn't. God, as he did in the days of old had used people, even by means of Shaliach Principle to get his Word across.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I quoted the Hebrew verses from the New World Translation.

But you do realize which is it they are going for? Right? Even though it is their own Bible, it should occur to you, as someone who reads it as to which translation is which, what it derives from.

We can say for certain, they are not using the TR-1245 (Textus Receptus).

That being said, using their Bible or any Translation that does not adhere to the TR-1245, can be used, but seeing these verses in Hebrews and no violation of text is present, it matters not what translation you are using and the Strong's still stand.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now you are saying they have written it wrongly.

This just further proves that you miss the point I had always made to you, Butler,, and I say this because the  those mentioned in the text are the leaders.

They haven't wrote it wrongly because the Strong's still point to leaders, as is in which harmonizes with the Greek Strong's.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The NWT as you know is the JW Org Bible, translated by the GB.

I know what the NWT is. And I highly doubt that religious leaders actually translated the Bible themselves. It would have been done - as is with ALL translations - by a translator.

And anyone who some common sense and basic research and see that as to who made the translation, what textual basis is used and so forth.

If you had noticed, I have been using the ESV and clearly it has not been translated by Unitarians, for translators take up from a source to produce the Bible.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

That is the Bible i have come to use regularly as I find the wording is easy to understand.

Ok, so how are you unaware of the Translation and Textual Basis your Bible uses?

You know what Kittel is? If you do not mind me asking.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However it would seem that you are suggesting that this is not a good translation ?

Can you quote anywhere as to where I am suggesting it isn't a good translation?

The verses in Hebrews that [those] are the leaders, it is in accordance with the Strong's in fact because 2233 is in use in that verse.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm sure the GB would say they were 'guided' by God's Holy Spirit when they did this translation, so once again I am confused.

The fact you do not even know where your own translations derives from thus discredits your claim.

So far if we take the Bible as a whole, one is using TR-1245, the other, is not.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I am just an ordinary man, and if God's word is for such as me, then there are indeed great problems.

Well it is best you understand God's Word then. Because if you missed that part in Hebrews just like you do not understand Nakedness, there is a problem.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I honestly do not think that God expects us to use Strong's, or to compare ten different translations of His written word, every time we sit down and study it. 

It should be realized by you that the Bible originated from Manuscripts, Strong's are used in as much of a way so you can actually read the Bible in English.

To be ignorant of Biblical History shows your lack of Spiritual Wisdom of where the Bible came from, and this is coming from a former Jehovah's Witnesses, which proves shocking.

Dare I ask, do you know the reason why Acts 8:37 or John 7:53–8:11 is omitted from the NWT Bible of which you use, can you answer properly?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

S.M please tell us, what is 'of the church' ?   What church ?  You quite often use this word 'Church' but it would be nice if you would define it. 

Some people think of the building they use as the church. Others think of the Apostles as being the church. So please make it clear exactly what you mean. Thank you

The Church of which Jesus built years ago - The apostolic church of the Apostolic Age that puts into application the teachings and practices followed by the disciples, the apostles, followers of the Christ, into the days of our Church Fathers, into the days of the Great Awakening, into this present day and onward.

The Church has never failed and as Jesus said, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [Hell/Sheol] shall not prevail against it.

And those of the church who take up the teachings make up the Spiritual House, for they are all stones of that same house, in turn are part of the Body of the Christ.

How did you miss that simple fact of the one you claim to follow, the Christ?

You agreed with me before, so how must you ask again when I told you previously when I mentioned such that is another question.

[Space Merchant]

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

accurate Bible knowledge, um, SM suggests that the translation in places is not accurate. Well not according to Strong's anyway. 

Do not add to my words Butler. You know exactly what I said. If you do not understand Strong's do the research otherwise you will show yourself to be ignorant of what it is, granted you do not know where the very bible you read derives from.

11 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So if the GB cannot be trusted and the NWT cannot be trusted, then where is this spiritual feast coming from ? 

If you do not trust a translation, why bother to read it because you find it easier? Double-Speak much?

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

They do believe half. They also believe the other half.

Is that why they said in The Revelation book that "It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible".

What I call a 'cop out', a 'loop hole' as they know they don't believe it themselves.  

[Space Merchant]

@JOHN BUTLER  With the realization that the Book of Revelation, otherwise known as John's Revelation or The Apocalypse is primary about marks, signs and symbols. Something of which everyone knows.

Therefore it isn't a cop out or a loophole.

How is it they do not believe it if they profess it? You use to be one yourself so how is that so?

[JOHN BUTLER]

S.M and I are in debate about some scripture in Hebrews. 

without going back pages, i think it was Billy that used a scripture that used the word Leaders.

Whereas in the NWT the words were 'taking the lead'

In my personal opinion there is a difference. Politicians may call themselves 'leaders', but they seldom physically 'take the lead'.

In years gone by of course a Leader would in fact lead, from the front, leading. 

But in modern day terminology  a Leader can be one that gives orders from behind, not actually partaking in the activity.

S.M. has vast knowledge of course and i don't mind being corrected by him. It teaches me humility. 

My point, not to SM here, is that most JW's do not do so much research into who wrote the translation, whether Strong's was used, and / or cross reference with other translation, or even going back to 'original manuscripts (as far back as possible). 

JW's are supposed to trust the GB and take every word from the GB as being correct, including the NWT.   Many JW's (such as myself) are not highly educated people, so tend to follow like sheep. 

As meanings of words can change and often do, then the NWT has been updated, and I am asking myself now have i been foolish to trust it ?  For me the plot thickens.  

[JOHN BUTLER]

23 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

@JOHN BUTLER  With the realization that the Book of Revelation, otherwise known as John's Revelation or The Apocalypse is primary about marks, signs and symbols. Something of which everyone knows.

Therefore it isn't a cop out or a loophole.

How is it they do not believe it if they profess it? You use to be one yourself so how is that so?

The cop out / loop hole is in what they say on page 9. Quote :  It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible".

That sound to me as if they are doubting their own explanations. They are saying their explanations could be wrong. If they doubt themselves, how are others supposed to believe them ? 

 

 

[Anna]

6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The cop out / loop hole is in what they say on page 9. Quote :  It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible".

That sound to me as if they are doubting their own explanations. They are saying their explanations could be wrong. If they doubt themselves, how are others supposed to believe them 

But they cannot know for sure, can they? No one is infalible.