Jump to content

4Jah2me

Revelation 5:9,10 - "On the Earth" vs. "Over the Earth"

Recommended Posts

CCJW.  Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the GREEK Scriptures.

Revelation 5 v 10.

From the Greek it reads ..... and they are reigning upon the earth.

But in the NWT it reads  ........ and they are to rule as kings over the earth.

In most translations I have looked at it reads as  'on the earth'.   Why do the GB / Writing Dept translate it as Over the earth ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anointed are the new creation. (2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:23)They will reign on the earth as priests and kings, as well as have access to "heaven'.  That is why they are a "new creation", both human and angel.  (1 Cor 15:44)   God's word is reliable and this is backed up by the promise given to Jacob (Israel) and to his seed:

"Now Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran. 11 So he came to a certain place and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep. 12 Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.

13 And behold, the Lord stood above it and said: “I am the Lord God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. 14 Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.”

16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.” 17 And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!”

If the priests are to teach the people (Mal 2:7), how can they do so if they are not among them?  The WT has devised a conception of the "144,000" as clones, men, with beards, looking down from heaven unable to enjoy their inheritance. To me, this is Satan making jest of God's new creation.   Since the WT has "trampled" the anointed as it is, why not fill every JW mind with as many lies as they can, about the role of the anointed?  Why not wipe away the individuality and personalities of His priests, not only now as an unrecognizable "nation" presently, but by creating a blasphemous picture of the 144,000 looking exactly the same -  in face, clothing and sex.  Sheesh.  They might as well be some sort of heavenly robot.  

Jesus also spoke of this ladder:

And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”   John 1:51

Mal 2:7 states that the priests are God's messengers.  "Angel" means messenger.  Those ascending and descending on this stairway, are part of  the Bride of Christ that "comes down from heaven" with Jesus, to rule/teach all of Gods children. 

Jesus returns to the earth with his "cloud" of witnesses - "Israel". The "great cloud of witnesses" are God's chosen witnesses - "Israel", not every JW in the organizaiton.  Mark 14:62; 13:26; Heb 12:1; Isa 43: 1,10;  Matt 24:30

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since [e]the world began.   Acts 3:19-21

who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”   Acts 1:11

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  Rev 21:2

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.  Rev 3:12

The temple/New Jerusalem, made with "living stones", will be with mankind on earth.  They will also have their time in heaven.  So, "ascending and descending" between heaven and earth is necessary for God's kings/priests to serve Him, Jesus and God's children.  

We have been indoctrinated with a lie that supports the silencing of the anointed.  The earth presently is Satan's domain.  His enemy is Christ and Christ's brothers.  Why would he allow the truth about them inheriting the earth, to be revealed in the organization where we know the priests of God have been replaced by a large army of elders who have the authority to spiritually judge His chosen people?  (Joel chapter 2)

4 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Check Eph 4:6

I'm trying to understand why you chose that scripture. 

"one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

God's spirit dwells in the anointed heart.  They are His "dwelling"/temple even while on the earth. (1 Cor 3:16,17) They are priests/kings, even while on earth. (1 Pet 2:5,9) God is naturally, "above" everything, in spirit, because He IS spirit.  John 4:24; Ps 139:7,8

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JJJ-AUSTRALIA said:

Because it suits their ideology and also because the translators of the NWT werent scholars.

Or it just shows you do not understand and or lack the elementary knowledge of Strong's Concordances. Regardless of translation, it is unwise to not check the strongs and go about your own understanding.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

CCJW.  Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the GREEK Scriptures.

Revelation 5 v 10.

From the Greek it reads ..... and they are reigning upon the earth.

But in the NWT it reads  ........ and they are to rule as kings over the earth.

In most translations I have looked at it reads as  'on the earth'.   Why do the GB / Writing Dept translate it as Over the earth ? 

Granted the other two were shot down on Hebrew and Greek Strongs, I will inform you of the following. Strong's Concordances' purpose is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. It  allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible in a correct matter. This index allows a student of the Bible to refind a phrase and or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.

Revelations 5:10

You stated the following: From the Greek it reads ..... and they are reigning upon the earth. But in the NWT it reads  ........ and they are to rule as kings over the earth.

The Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses use, NWT (dunno which one you are looking at be it org or revised), shows the following:

and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

The reality of this is the fact that, there is no issue with the verse, granted the Strong's line up correctly. It is only a problem if the is no Strong's indication whatsoever.

[1] There is no Strong's Violation

The answer is simple. The word "Over" is under G#1909

Quote

upon
ἐπὶ (epi)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at.

the
τῆς (tēs)
Article - Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong's Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

Some more facts:

Quote

Word: epi

Pronounce: ep-ee'

Strongs Number: 

    Hello guest!

Orig: a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

Use: Preposition

Heb Strong:

  1. 1) upon, on, at, by, before
    2) of position, on, at, by, over, against
    3) to, over, on, at, across, against

For this passage, majority of Translations are in agreement with the Strong's concerning this verse [

    Hello guest!
]

There is no outside notion of the word either.

As for "The" the same thing applies, that is G#3588.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, there are some out there who try to argue a specific word in the Strong's although it can be incorrect, An example would be the young woman vs. virgin usage in a specific verse found in Isaiah. The irony with this instance, virgin isn't part of the Strong's but due to Christian Tradition, they added it granted the citation says it is incorrect. I had a field day with this one too.

That being said, it is only a violation IF it is a different # and or non-existent.

 

I am linking an example I posted a long time ago when this forum was a debate battlegrounds. The below is an example of adding a word in the text that is NOT lining up with the Strong's in a verse:

 

Share this post


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

God is "over all". 

Human, angels, 144000 are not. Or?

That's G#1909, therefore, no issue as the Strong's stands as fact. As I recall, I told both you and Witness this in the past, for I remember one of you tried to twisted the Greek Strong's regarding darkness, smoke, destroyer, and I believe pit as well. We will leave it at that for I do not want to expose the cracks in your armure manquant de durabilite, in this thread.

That being said, you guys liked to link biblehub, therefore regarding what @Outta Here  mentioned, this is, obviously not to your liking, correct --> 

    Hello guest!

It would be wise to sharpen yourself and go to Bible Hub and learn, or simply google Strong's Concordance.

That being said, The Most High is above all, in the heavens and on earth. No one is equal to him and or can surpass him. He is the God of the Christ, he is the God of me, he is the God of you.

@Witness All those verses cited, as pointed out regarding Strong's are correct, but to go around the concordances raises issue. Keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 4:49 AM, Witness said:

Why not wipe away the individuality and personalities of His priests, not only now as an unrecognizable "nation" presently, but by creating a blasphemous picture of the 144,000 looking exactly the same -  in face, clothing and sex.  Sheesh.  They might as well be some sort of heavenly robot.  

Hybrids. Mixture of angels and humans. 

Perhaps artist want to show Unity and Uniformity. 

I am not sure that i understand explanation, interpretations of some Bible words about this "transformation". Also, if human are created by God to live on Earth, and WT theology said how Catholics or some other religious people not "going" to "heaven" after death because that is false teachings.....why would that be different for some JW class, "anointed"? 

Resurrection is good hope. But to live on Earth. Why would God be in need to have group of people, earthly women and men for living in "heaven" and rule over humankind? And be invisible to their subjects? I would drove some line with Eden and human. God was invisible to Adam and Eve, Abel, Cain .... according to Bible. But they spoke together.  Human heard a Voice.

This is also interesting. If you "see" God you will be dead, but if you "hear" His voice, you will not be dead. ??!! ...

So, according to WT theology; Will they, 144000, speak with humans? Will humans "heard" their voices as Adam, Eve, Abe, Cain did hear God's? Because "voice" is need to be heard for purpose of learning. Human will need to be instructed how to get "perfection" and how to find "true doctrines" without later,  subsequently,  afterwards so called "clarifications". :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JJJ-AUSTRALIA said:

Lol he must have got all the responses from the watchtower, only the watchtower bible translation is correct without any errors... According Space M. 

Ignorance is a bliss, no? Actually my sources were from the Strong's Concordances itself (something I take with seriousness). If you can read carefully, you can see I linked a source(s). I didn't include manuscripts because it would seem it would be a bit of a handful for you.

That being said, the correction is not by translation. The source is by Manuscript Sources. There is a different, i.e. There is a reason as to WHY some verses are omitted from revised versions of most translations vs. the KJV.

But I do invite you if you want, let's make it a challenge, for this is what I live for. Pick any verse from any translation. CSE members love Hermenutical/Scriptural challenges concerning Bible verse/passage translations.

17 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Don't need to puzzle over this surely??

It is too much of a puzzle for Srecko. Perhaps a difficult as that equals to that of the mystery of a Tomato being either fruit or vegetable - too mind boggling, to difficult for him to comprehend.

@Srecko Sostar On the contrary, there's a concordance for that too. Also God cannot be dead, nor can he die. God is not even a man according to the Bible, even by Job's own words. God is a spirit, as stated by the Christ. Seriously.... That is elementary, I really do not have to bring up the very thing you hate the most ----->>>>> Biblical Facts. 

Good times for I remember that inevitable struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'teaching' in the JW religion (1960's & 70's) used to be that the Elders would be Princes here on the Earth in the 'new 'world'. So they taught that the 144,000 would be up in heaven and the Elders would be in charge here on Earth.  It seemed not to be mentioned from then onward but I think the Elders do 'fancy themselves' as princes though. :) 

I am not going to get into debate with SM about Strong's etc. My point was the CCJW / JW Org / Watchtower, printed quite plainly in their Interlinear Translation that it says 'on the earth', but then they print in the NWT 'over the earth' 

So they have written both themselves. Only one can be right. If the true translation from the GREEK is 'on the earth' then that is what is should be in the NWT.  The question is, Is anyone actually being guided by God's Holy Spirit to write TRUTH ?   Is Strong's guided by Holy Spirit ? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 8:57 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

#8e44ad;">Hybrids. Mixture of angels and humans. 

#8e44ad">Perhaps artist want to show Unity and Uniformity. 

Perhaps so, in a fleshly way!  

In its simplest form, I understand WT’s ideology on “organization” as two-fold.  Both the “earthly” (in the form of the WT) and the “heavenly” where the anointed are, with both systems reflecting each other. Yet, on the earth, the elders are the “princes” and apparently the priests.   In a literal one-place heaven, the anointed are the kings/priests. I see them mirroring each other in a sense, with God and Jesus supposedly over all.  There is little to none information, especially recently, of the anointed as God’s temple.  That would detract from their doctrine that the earthly organization is a facet of God’s encompassing organization.  The word “temple” and its spiritual meaning escapes the minds of JWs.  JWs are now being told that they are part of that temple; especially helpful in this, is their standing doctrine of the “great crowd” with every JW as part of that. (Rev 7:9,10,13-15)

When the scriptures speak of the 144,000 sitting on thrones, I view it as their literal understanding of what it must be like; well structured according to our earthly terms.  This is from the minds of earthly men, not from spiritual men. 

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  1 Cor 2:14

Heaven cannot be defined as one place.  It is a spiritual existence.  When Jesus was resurrected, he appeared and disappeared among his disciples, before he “ascended” or rose to that spiritual existence, until the time of the end when he will again, be seen on the earth.  Under the New Covenant, this is no different than what his angel servants/members of his body – his Bride – will experience in the Kingdom. They have within them a spirit life, and their humanly life.

“Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.”  John 3:6

The members of the new creation are both this spiritual state of “heaven” and of the fleshly state of “earth”.  They are the firstborn of “righteous” children in God’s Kingdom, and the first after Christ, to inherit the earth.  Ps 37:11 They are patterned after Christ, not Adam.  2 Pet 3:13,14; 1:4

Those of the “second resurrection” also will receive their inheritance of the earth. 

 

"sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written, The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is* from heaven. 48 Like the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; like the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven." 1 Cor 15:4-49

This describes the new “heaven” and the new “earth”. 

Isa 65:17; Rev 21:1,5

The priests with Christ will “hear” God’s word, and together will relay it to all of His children, who will be resurrected onto the earth.  (Mal 2:7)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The 'teaching' in the JW religion (1960's & 70's) used to be that the Elders would be Princes here on the Earth in the 'new 'world'. So they taught that the 144,000 would be up in heaven and the Elders would be in charge here on Earth.  It seemed not to be mentioned from then onward but I think the Elders do 'fancy themselves' as princes though. :) 

Do you have a source? Those of Zion are to operate as such, this is elementary Bible knowledge concerning the chosen ones. There is notion to those who are tasked to teach the people of God in the aftermath, so I do not see what you are conveying here.

You seem to be missing the context regarding the verse with that statement.

12 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I am not going to get into debate with SM about Strong's etc. My point was the CCJW / JW Org / Watchtower, printed quite plainly in their Interlinear Translation that it says 'on the earth', but then they print in the NWT 'over the earth' 

There is no debate, they are not in error in this regard. Regardless, it is only a problem if there is a Hebraic/Greek violation, then you would have a problem and in their part, it would be a critical problem. As for the I.L, it does not use TR, the TR is a later source, which the 1611 uses.

 

Therefore "on the earth" and "over the earth" have no issue. ON and OVER are both the same Strong's. UPON is another one, if that is, you checked the verse on Bible Hub.

14 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

So they have written both themselves. Only one can be right.

The Strong's number is exactly the same, therefore they are both right. It is only an error or a mis-translation if the number does not line up with the source. So for example, if 1909 was somehow 1988, you'll have a problem.

15 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

If the true translation from the GREEK is 'on the earth' then that is what is should be in the NWT. 

You are going off on your own exegesis at this rate. Translations of any kind stick to, or try to stick to the originally source, going with what I know about the NWT, regarding this verse, they are sticking to the original source. Granted I mentioned Greek Strong's, they used Westcott-Hort, which is the Batman to The Trinity's Joker, in this sense.

42 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Only one can be right.

Granted G#1909 is in use, they are, as is with most translations for this verse, are in the right. Both of them.

44 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The question is, Is anyone actually being guided by God's Holy Spirit to write TRUTH ?

Yes. The writers were inspired to write the Scriptures, as for after the death of the Apostles, spirit led ones picked up and or found the manuscripts and translated the Hebrew and Greek text. Sadly, due to the craziness that is Christianity in the past, people came up with their own narratives and later manuscripts were formed with errors, which resulted in some translations having errors and or not even correctly lining up with the Strong's.

46 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is Strong's guided by Holy Spirit ?

By those who provided the Textual Criticism, yes. If it were not for them, Yahweh would be seen as "female", Jesus would have been seen as a hater of women and or insulting the poor, as is with having the ability to make tress burst into song, and being able to grow into the size of a giant.

Makes you wonder how things would be like if it were not for Textual Criticism and Strong's. You'd probably believe today that of inanimate objects "literally" sing about Jesus. Or to the JWs here, they would think and or preach in their gospel that Jehovah is a "she". Such things are absurd, and we should be thankful for those who did what they did, even giving their lives in the process. Bible History is interesting, of course.

That being said, I strongly urge you to read and or learn about Strong's.

I suggest you start here: 

    Hello guest!

But I do warn you, there are some Strong's out there that apply later manuscripts, which can result in some of their own additions, to which both Jews and Muslims today often point out. That is a story for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 4:02 PM, Srecko Sostar said:
On 6/9/2020 at 12:42 AM, Outta Here said:

Check Eph 4:6

God is "over all". 

Human, angels, 144000 are not. Or?

+ Rev 5 10

Upon all OR over all ? what is more correct? @4Jah2me showed how JW have two Bibles with different translation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

+ Rev 5 10

Upon all OR over all ? what is more correct? @4Jah2me showed how JW have two Bibles with different translation. 

They are both correct. Case and point.

    • Hello guest!
    • Hello guest!
    • Hello guest!

As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself.

Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7.

Is it not wise to address this information instead of something that is already deemed as correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW have two Bibles with different translation. 

That is rather poor research then. I know JW with Bibles with 4 different translations for that verse, and that is just looking through 10 Bibles of the many available. So, as you are already aware of Biblehub, then why not make your own mind up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

That is rather poor research then. I know JW with Bibles with 4 different translations for that verse, and that is just looking through 10 Bibles of the many available. So, as you are already aware of Biblehub, then why not make your own mind up?

Granted due to Srecko's past, he does not like using Bible Hub because it, as with the to others, will be an instrument that would engineer their own demise 6 ways through Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Biblehub

Is this internet page approved by GB and WT? Does WT endorse JW's to go on Biblehub or to go only to official JW org sites that have best bible translation and brand new interpretations ? :)))) 

 

over or upon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Srecko Sostar You do not need to rely on Jehovah's Witnesses for Strong's. Also no one is speaking of Prepositions and masculines/feminines. We are on the topic of Concordances..... As for the word in which @Outta Here is in the right, as with the Strong's. There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error.

Even all this time, your nature remains the same - deviation.

 

That being said, the claim of yours is false granted we have the concordances and early manuscripts if need be, be it public. That single image does not prove your case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I don't think SM actually wants to understand what I'm saying. 

What I'm saying is the CCJW / Watchtower are using both 'on the earth' and 'over the earth' in written translations. 

BUT they are teaching only 'over the earth'. Because it lines up with what they want to teach. 

If they are writing both and only teaching one, then they are withholding the other viewpoint. 

Could that be classed as deception ? Because if they are writing both, then they must believe both to be true. 

If a scripture has more than one possible explanation, shouldn't all explanations be given ? 

SM says both are right. So why then does the CCJW only teach one of them ? 

Do they actually forget that they have written the Interlinear Translation, or do they forget that people still use it ? 

Is it possible that the Anointed will be here on Earth, if only 'part time', to teach 'new scrolls' that are to be opened ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Do they actually forget that they have written the Interlinear Translation, or do they forget that people still use it ? 

As @Outta Here give information, WT have various Bible versions,  translations.

But only last edition have to be count as "best Bible" :))) and to be use for spreading "spiritual food" aka truth that leads to eternal life. Yes, he must be right. You can read whatever Bible Translation you like, but confirmation about what is meaning of text need to be made by Watchtower study edition. ;)) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

BUT they are teaching only 'over the earth'. Because it lines up with what they want to teach. 

If they are writing both and only teaching one, then they are withholding the other viewpoint. 

 

I often refer to their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, since many times their translation  on the right is in favor of their doctrine.

image.png

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Is this internet page approved by GB and WT? Does WT endorse JW's to go on Biblehub or to go only to official JW org sites that have best bible translation and brand new interpretations ? :)))) 

 

over or upon.jpg

This is interesting.  I didn't realize it is found in the WT's Kingdom Interlinear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found interesting to present this two view about same issue, about religious truth, or to be said, what is the meaning of Bible text aka - interpretations. Both quotes are originated from persons who are deeply involved in defending religious truth and teachings. They are, i believe, bible scholars of some sort. I don't know what credentials they have.

 

First quote is made by an individual and is very concise. We may say, clear and simple as it should be, because we will agree how truth have to be clear and simple. But, perhaps it is not always that way :)) 

quote 1: There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error. 

 

Second quote is made by group of people and is massive. And stands as opposite to first one. 

quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12) As the Bible foretold, he has accelerated this process during “the time of the end.”—Daniel 12:4.

These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.

 

I will leave further comments, if any, to the audience of this forum. :)) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Oh dear. I don't think SM actually wants to understand what I'm saying.

Actually I do, hence my citation, JB.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

What I'm saying is the CCJW / Watchtower are using both 'on the earth' and 'over the earth' in written translations. 

And? None of the 2 violates the Greek Strong's granted the word in question is still 1909, if it is not 1909, then you have a problem.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

BUT they are teaching only 'over the earth'. Because it lines up with what they want to teach. 

lol what? You can't be serious.... "upon the earth" and "over the earth" there is no shift in teaching and or interpretation. The context of the verse/passage has not been negated whatsoever. Therefore, the Concordances outweighs your view here, regardless.

That being said, there are commentaries for EVERY SINGLE VERSE in the Bible. And granted as to what is seen by these studies, it puts your notion to shame, in this regard.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If they are writing both and only teaching one, then they are withholding the other viewpoint. 

No viewpoint is withheld. It is only you saying that, but the commentary disagrees with you, as is, with those in the Strong's community. The basic significance of the Greek word in question "epi" is upon, on, or before, over, etc, for that is not the only meaning. When used in connection with power, authority, or dignity, epi can also mean over as well. Therefore nothing has been shifted.

If a given translation is possible according to the known usage and rules of Greek (Greek Grammar and Structure), it is intellectually dishonorable to make accusation of a translation trying to make it fit his current beliefs.

The context points to the notion of the one who rules from heaven. And since “epi” can legitimately be translated over and or similar within G#1909, one can see this as the option that most likely reflects the intended meaning.
That being said, that statement of yours does not make much sense granted that the context of this verse alone is easily understood, in fact, nearly 100% of people who study the Bible, specifically Revelations, understand what this verse is about.

  • As for context: It is regarding God's accomplishment. The purpose of restoring the earth under Kingship by means of the heavenly Kingdom, that consist of Lord Christ Jesus as the King, accompanied by the chosen ones [priests], whom have authority. As a whole, due to their divinity and connection, they make it possible to bring forth the earth into what God intended it to be, harmoniously aligned with God's original promise, thus fulfilling this purpose of restoration.
  • More context: Verse 10. - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and didst make them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests. Of those whom thou didst redeem from every nation, thou didst make a kingdom and priests. Wordsworth remarks that these honours conferred upon the redeemed imply duties as well as privileges. They receive the princely honours conferred upon them only on condition that they also become priests, presenting themselves, their souls and bodies, a living sacrifice to God.

If you wish, you can post their view here, or quote them granted you deem the view is different, then we can see what is actually correct regarding this verse because from what I have seen, nearly everyone is in agreement with what this verse conveys, even the Restorationist community agrees, as is with even Bible adept commentators. The ones who do not agree are the ones who Creed adheres of MSC.

That being said, no viewpoint as been changed by anyone in this regard.....

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Could that be classed as deception ? Because if they are writing both, then they must believe both to be true. 

There is no deception, granted one can see the context of this verse is in regards to Jesus and the Chosen ones, having a role in the restoration of the earth, which correlates with God's actual purpose found in The Genesis Act of Creation, not to mention, God's Promise, found in that same book.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If a scripture has more than one possible explanation, shouldn't all explanations be given ? 

There is only one explanation granted the context. The problem here is you are injecting your viewpoint from an modern English speaker rather than one who applies Hermeneutics in the Scripture itself.

That being said, I thought your focus was on the wording, now you want to speak of explanation granted it is an obvious one?

I suggest you do the research because the your view vs. the legitimate view of this verse is vastly different: 

    Hello guest!

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM says both are right. So why then does the CCJW only teach one of them ?

It is not about teaching, it is about context. The Interlinear is a literal Greek Translation into the Language, however, the latter is a modern day version and or revised, if need be.

The teaching regarding the Kingdom of God and who is to be stationed in said Kingdom has not changed, or has ever changed.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Do they actually forget that they have written the Interlinear Translation, or do they forget that people still use it ? 

They haven't forgotten apparently, for they have it listed. Interlinear Bibles in general and or the Hebrew to English Translations are primarily for those that prefer the literal choice, and or do so to learn what this word means and or how it looks in the language in question, etc.

Most modern readers know of these translations too, but prefer to stick to the modern translations.

17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is it possible that the Anointed will be here on Earth, if only 'part time', to teach 'new scrolls' that are to be opened ? 

You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right?

God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom.

God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise.

 

What amazes me is how you missed this context...

And no - regardless of who is of Zion, they are not part time workers, if that is what you are implying.

Seriously - I strongly suggest you read the BASICS in Bible Strong's Concordances because as of now, you are sounding like the KJV-Onlyist I deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Witness said:

I often refer to their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, since many times their translation  on the right is in favor of their doctrine.

image.png

 

 

 

There is no shift in doctrine because everyone agrees on what this verse conveys, as you can see "EPI" is seen in the verse --> 

    Hello guest!

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

quote 1: There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error. 

Because there is no change whatsoever. If there is a change, you'd have to prove that there is something else there that does not correlate with G#1909.

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12) As the Bible foretold, he has accelerated this process during “the time of the end.”—Daniel 12:4.

These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.

Literally has nothing much to do with the subject matter at hand, and according to what you conveyed before, seems to be in reverse. Therefore attempting to use this when the Concordances are there is indefensible, granted the verse in question the context has not changed regardless of which form of 1909 is used.

That being said, the next response would be the past regarding Strong's in other discussion, you best you be prepared for that because the way I see it in the situation of Strong's is nothing more than the KJVO discussions I've been in.

@Outta Here Starting to realize that this is a repeat of 2018.

I remember stating he following:

On 9/25/2018 at 5:17 AM, Space Merchant said:

The funny thing about Biblehub is no one pays attention to commentary, the fact that it shows in the both of these misguided ones, who agree with each other and say they read the Bible, is rather telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so SM defends the CCJW. So be it. 

Having quickly looked at Wiki regarding Strong's, I do not see any mention of God's Holy Spirit being involved. 

As I've said many times, if the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of God's Holy spirit, then it needs God's Holy spirit to understand them. 

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

As there can be only one true way of serving God then would God supply Holy Spirit to help a person study Theology ? 

Being a Truther, is that what God wants ?  If it is then many of us have no chance. Why ? Because many of us are of a basic education and many things are deliberately made so complicated as to confuse many.

The old old story. If you cannot satisfy them with science, then baffle them with bulls--t. And it works. The Leaders of the CCJW have proved that it works, over and over again. 

I make no apologies to Space Merchant because I think he is sitting on the fence. That's his choice but I don't have to sit there with him :) 

@Srecko Sostar gave us a quote here :-

 

" quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape ..... "

 But the problem here is this. A sensible person would not go stumbling around in the dark before the 'sun reveals details of a landscape ..' The Leaders of the CCJW / Watchtower have obviously been up too early and have stumbled themselves and many others. The blind leading the blind and both fall into the pit. 

Simply put. Why were they in so much of a hurry to run ahead of God and Christ ?  Because it has been shown that they did not wait on true spiritual guidance to lead them ..........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@4Jah2me It is a defense of the Strong's and it's correlation with Scripture. The most jarring thing is even with the evidence in front of you, you ignore it.

You said there viewpoint is different than you it yourself, as I invited you to post said viewpoint. Which, as with all pertaining evidence, is counted against you.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

So like you, I am suppose to accept the fact that congregants poison their members and never die? Am I to accept and support unity despite sexual sin being rampant? Am I suppose to believe that because of someone's standing he kills his own people for honor and is justified by it? Or am I to believe everyone is guilty, hence to be quick with judgement despite only One holds the power of said judgment?

Clearly no, because I speak truth doesn't mean I have to succumb to the inability to understand things.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Having quickly looked at Wiki regarding Strong's, I do not see any mention of God's Holy Spirit being involved. 

That is why I encouraged you to do research. A quick glance at something does not negate to automatically understanding Strong's. It takes time, it takes understanding and patience. Understanding Strong's is what enables one to the realm of Hermeuntics and study of Scripture in a proper way, so when a situation comes, such as this one, the truth can be spoken, the same case I make with KJV-Onlyist.

God's Spirit is involved when the early writings were written for God has chosen these men do to as such, from Moses, to Paul, to John, etc. These men were indeed spirit filled, and God is the author of what they have written, hence Paul said in his letter to Timothy, it is God breathed. Granted that we do not have our original manuscripts, we have the copies, of which those long after the Apostles have to work with. From translation to translation and eventually into the modern tongue of which you, me and everyone else here speaks, clearly our modern tongue is not literal Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

That being said, Revelation 5:10 is as clear as day of what it means, what it is conveying. I don't see how that flew past you in this regard.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist. 

And what does my study of religion and all this of Abrahamic Faiths have to do with this subject matter? Is this another tool of deviation on your part because you are unwilling to provide your claims?

Yes I have studied religions for the very reason to counter falsehood and misconceptions. Both you and I can agree that God is not Triune, without the Strong's or Textual Criticism, that concept would be the end of what is true. This is one of the reasons as to why we speak up.

That being said, you have now moved from the study of Scripture to the study of religion. To deviate from what the Strong's pinpoint that is true, JB?

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

As there can be only one true way of serving God then would God supply Holy Spirit to help a person study Theology ? 

When it comes to study and teaching, the reader seeks the spirit from God to enable that person to understand. The truth of the matter must be looked for, otherwise, confusion and falsehood will become the person.

Again, we are on the subject of a verse in the Bible, adding on to deviate from the topic at hand is not going to help you here. Granted When it comes to this variation of Textual Criticism, this is where I am most serious. So deviation is, to me, seen as being evasive in the wrong way.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Being a Truther, is that what God wants ?  If it is then many of us have no chance. Why ?

Now you are tending on another territory. What does me being a Truther have to do with the discussion at hand? Mind you, quite random, as is with the religious studies part.

A Truther is someone who speaks the truth and finds truth. Outside of Christianity, the role of the truther is see what is true and push forth that truth whereas the world sees such things as right, we see it as wrong.

For instance, when it comes to homosexuality, Truthers do not condone that conduct, let alone teaching children immoral and brazen, we speak against it.

That being said, I do not know as to why you interjected Truther here, is that to commit mockery of something? Granted Truthers, in this sense when it comes to immorality are the ones who indirectly give you help by their actions of their hands? That seems like an appeal to motive granted you really do not have anything to help your case - I remain unfazed by that attempt because an appeal to motive just shows the cracks in the armor, in this case.

No chance? This just shows you do not even know what that term means, yet for some reason you had the idea of including it in a discussion for Bible Translation, as you did, with religious studies.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Because many of us are of a basic education and many things are deliberately made so complicated as to confuse many.

Strong's are not complicated. That is why I linked you my thread on 1 Timothy 3:16, that there is an obvious example compared to Revelations 5:10.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

The old old story. If you cannot satisfy them with science, then baffle them with bulls--t. And it works.

What are you talking about? Also, watch the language (Matthew 15:11; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:10)

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

The Leaders of the CCJW have proved that it works, over and over again. 

What are you talking about? You went from Rev. 5:10 to religious studies, to truther, to this...

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I make no apologies to Space Merchant because I think he is sitting on the fence. That's his choice but I don't have to sit there with him :) 

How am I sitting on the fence for agreeing with the Strong's and context?

You said the viewpoint is different - then let's see it, I invited you to cite their findings on the verse. If I can cite my findings on the matter, what is withholding you from doing the same if you stated the viewpoint in the realm of belief is vastly different?

That being said, Strong's Concordance on the literal Greek is not going to show you any mercy if the claim is no different from 99% of the commentaries.

 

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Simply put. Why were they in so much of a hurry to run ahead of God and Christ ?  Because it has been shown that they did not wait on true spiritual guidance to lead them ..........................

I don't get what you are saying, granted the origin of T.A used in their translation that, in this case, predates them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Space Merchant What I'm saying is simple. That it appears that you are not seeking to serve God, but seeking to studying 'religions'. Hence your time seems to be spent trying to prove points. but you don't succeed. You only succeed in your own mind. You convince yourself that you are right, but it does not mean that you are. 

And back to the Revelation scripture. ABOVE means totally different to ON. 

So if the CCJW say the 144,000 are above the earth, then the CCJW are not saying the 144,000 are on the earth. 

But they translate it as both. 

I will push Strong's to one side because I DO NOT THINK God requires us to dig deep into the original Hebrew and Greek. Many people do not have that mindset. So they believe the things they are taught by others. 

I have said before that i believe God will provide a true Anointed to teach truth before the Judgement comes. All I am doing is pointing out a discrepancy made by the CCJW. You can believe whatever you wish. 

Ecclesiastes 12 v 12

As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point talking to SM or any JW apologetics, i was former JW and because of the GB acts i lost trust in them and the society.

I mean i bet he would even defend the name Jehovah is in the Bible 😆😆😆

But anyways everyone to their own, my concience is clear not following the watchtower anylonger i prefer wasting my life looking for God and Jesus by my own than slaving and defending the watchtower 1 more second in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@4Jah2me Well it does not stop you from citing their viewpoint. If they are in the wrong and or misleading as you claim, can you cite it here please? Even with the Strong's not in use, the context is still there, to which you said it is in err.

Also

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And back to the Revelation scripture. ABOVE means totally different to ON.

Well if you checked the BibleHub it shows you the usages of all words in the Strong's which are appropriate for the verse in question. That being said, you have not proven anything pertaining to a Greek violation and nothing in this verse points to the latter being different.

That being said, like I said, if Strong's were to be ignored, you'd have people believing God is female, or that Jesus is cruel, which is indeed a reality for those who ignore it.

This goes hand and hand with the "nakedness" verse to which was discussed in the past.

@Srecko Sostar That is an understanding based on as how you view it, but the context and the Strong's gives us that understanding, it shows us what is being conveyed. The context of the verse in question has not changed and everyone agrees on this notion concerning the message itself. I do not see why you, Butler and everyone else is afraid to even go on Biblehub, let alone Bible Gateway, to which some of you use to use here alone.

@JJJ-AUSTRALIA Former JW or not, to go around Strong's and the context of Scripture speaks volumes, a problematic issue in the KJV-Onlyist community as it is here. The conveyance of the verse is the same even outside of the faith community in question.

Also way ahead of you, YHWH is a transliteration, there are 2 modern variations of YHWH in the modern language, Jehovah and Yahweh, Yehovah. Depending on the translation you will see one of these variations. The Tetragrammaton is H#3068. I said this to a Trinitarian a while back who said Jesus is YHWH.

  • Ephesians 1:20-22 speaks of The Christ being at the right hand of God, while Philippians 2:9 speaks of Jesus not taking plunder to be equal to God. God’s name YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a great name as is spoken of to be The Personal and Divine Name, the Proper name of the God of Israel: 
      Hello guest!
     | 
      Hello guest!
     
  • Another factor is Jesus’ name [Jesus] means Yahweh/Jehovah is Salvation (Yah/Jah saves for short), evidence of the StrongÂ’s even shows us too: 
      Hello guest!
       | 
      Hello guest!

That being said, the problem I see here is not the verse in question, but, because they said it, yet, when the real information is addressed, with source included, and the Strong's to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I put "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Bible hub .....and nothing :))

Let me help you with that, focus on the verse in question, I could not find "Glasglow", "Abraham being selfish" or "God approving brazen conduct" on Biblehub either. The website is verse associated and commentary filled.

Perhaps instead of ignoring the subject matter, check the links. You use to favor biblehub yet when it does not fit your narrative you willfully ignore it.

    Hello guest!

Also if you forgot how to use your favorite website, here is a tutorial, she pretty much points out some of the things I pointed out

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:49 PM, Space Merchant said:

They are both correct. Case and point.

    • Hello guest!
    • Hello guest!
    • Hello guest!

As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself.

Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7.

I linked you the same website a long time ago relating to another verse, same correlation with Bible Strong's in the past:

This goes back to the lesson on Biblical Facts, for you really cannot do much if it is the Bible alone. You've proven my point yet again.

From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is SM saying that God's word alone is not enough ? 

But ONLY God's word was inspired by Holy Spirit. Anything else is putting trust in men. 

Unfortunately we don't seem to have a true Bible translation because none of them seem to be inspired by God's Holy Spirit. 

For SM Bible Hub Revelation 5 v 10

    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

    Hello guest!

And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”

    Hello guest!

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

    Hello guest!

“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”

Um, which do we believe ?  

 If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

But it seems to me that SM is saying that everyone seeking to serve God needs to study Strong's. 

I do not agree with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.”

In the “generation” teaching, how many times did the sun struggle to rise beyond the horizon, only to drop back below it?  JWs were left in the dark about the meaning of “this generation”.  With the many prophetic dates of Armageddon, dawn never did arrive. 

“But the path of the just is like the shining sun,
That shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.
19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
They do not know what makes them stumble.” Prov 4:18,19

23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.

 

As long as God's people obeyed His direction, there was never a need for adjustment.   The true prophets sent by God, gave a reliable message.

Amos 3:7 - "Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his counsel to His servants the prophets."  

23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *

Many pastors/teachers use the Bible to verify their beliefs.  Do they have Holy Spirit?  Do the WT leaders have Holy Spirit? To say failed teachings shouldn't disturb us is a gloss-over of the reality at hand.  

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand."  Matt 24:23-25

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.

 

Hello Space! 

I can notice how You and @Arauna thinking differently about "past, history". Arauna don't want to bother herself about WTJWorg history, and not about my history on this forum. But you do save "records" about other people, what is for praise. :)))) 

You are not like JW elders who must destroy all notes and records about past cases they handled while were dealing with people. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 7:16 PM, Space Merchant said:

Even all this time, your nature remains the same - deviation.

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

Share this post


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

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs.

:)) Must be, (one of few explanations why and how it is possible that people have "own versions" about same stuff) similar to "1975 issue". Management of WT Company blaming followers for "own version" and "misunderstanding" all those WT publication articles that talking about 1975.

By the way, do you have problem with people's "own version" about this and that? Because WT GB also have "own version" about "spiritual food" they offer to JW members. And GB changing periodically "own version" of that same "truth -version". Do you consider them (GB) better than any other human here or elsewhere? Does GB using Bible hub for their meditation and Bible study? If yes, why they not recommending this web site and put it in weekly meetings program ? :)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs.

I don't think they have rejected their own version at all.  We each have had our own experience in the organization, our own “version” of WT’s truth.  The example of 1975 is a good one.  For some JWs, this prediction was taken as a grain of salt, others responded as if a house was on fire.  The critical view portrayed by those on the outside, is in relation to what they experienced while on the inside; however, once outside, their freedom to explore the entire dynamics the organization is built upon, proves to them that they made the right choice to leave.   And, they are motivated to tell those on the inside what they have found. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when one leaves the CCJW and they announce from the platform that ..... is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses then all the congregation shuns the one that left. I've no idea why do you ?  They do not ask if the person actually left of their own accord. 

But of course the one that left cannot inform the JWs of the congregation why they left because the GB rules have made it impossible for the leaver to talk to anyone in the Org. Very sneaky plan by the GB.   The GB try to keep their secrets inside the Org in this way. But hence ex JWs  go online and give the details on blogs or FB pages to warn others of the dangers of the CCJW.  

And we have people such as JWI that stay in the Org, but also give important information to others inside or outside the Org. He really does bring balance to it all ,and he makes up for people like Tom and Arauna that are unfortunately drawn to the Org like a moth to a light, for their own detriment.  The light they are drawn to is not true light...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is SM saying that God's word alone is not enough ? 

Of course not, Butler, to even think that is absurd. God's Word is as clear as day as is with the context, nothing has given the notion to go beyond that.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But ONLY God's word was inspired by Holy Spirit. Anything else is putting trust in men. 

God's Word is indeed inspired, not one is stating putting trust in man, but in what the Scripture is conveying. The learner and the wise can commit to knowing God's Word, but the latter, such as seen here, is asserting negativity in this regard.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Unfortunately we don't seem to have a true Bible translation because none of them seem to be inspired by God's Holy Spirit. 

All Bibles are Translations of the earliest copies of Manuscripts that we have. We do not have the originals, the ones written by the ones chosen by God to write. So modern day translations are of the copies, reasons why Textual Criticism and Strong's exist is to translate and transliterate God's Word so that you yourself can clearly read.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

For SM Bible Hub Revelation 5 v 10

Oh so finally you clicked on the link I sent to you, and the irony of it all, you speak NOTHING of the commentary because from the way I see it, Butler, you are doing the same thing as you have done before. Now, in this regard, I can freely and willfully use 1 John 4:1 against you in this rebuttal.

Let's begin:

Let's look at the verses from Biblehub of which you highlighted (I can see you only cited 5 out of about 23 verisons of Rev.5:10 and it can easily be seen you did this for a reason), mind you, if you scroll down in Biblehub for THIS verse, this is what is shows us

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

For SM Bible Hub Revelation 5 v 10

    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

    Hello guest!

And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”

    Hello guest!

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

    Hello guest!

“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”

I did you the favor of posting it all here (only going to highlight Greek Strong's Number 1909)

Quote

New International Version
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

New Living Translation
And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”

English Standard Version
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

Berean Study Bible
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

Berean Literal Bible
and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

New American Standard Bible
"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

New King James Version
And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”

King James Bible
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Christian Standard Bible
You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on the earth.

Contemporary English Version
You let them become kings and serve God as priests, and they will rule on earth."

Good News Translation
You have made them a kingdom of priests to serve our God, and they shall rule on earth."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on the earth.

International Standard Version
You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on the earth."

NET Bible
You have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

New Heart English Bible
and made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on earth."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
You made them a kingdom and priests for our God. They will rule as kings on the earth."

New American Standard 1977
“ And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

King James 2000 Bible
And have made us unto our God a kingdom and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

American King James Version
And have made us to our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

American Standard Version
and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.

Darby Bible Translation
and made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth.

English Revised Version
and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth.

Webster's Bible Translation
And hast made us to our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Weymouth New Testament
And hast formed them into a Kingdom to be priests to our God, And they reign over the earth."

World English Bible
and made us kings and priests to our God, and we will reign on earth."

Young's Literal Translation
and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.'

Granted we have ALL the translations on Biblehub presented in front of us (not your cherry picking of translation), we can see all of them has been using G#1909, granted REGARDLESS of the translation, even the KJV, there is agreement with the manuscript in question.

As for the context of the Scripture, for some reason you didn't even bother to [A] scroll down to see the context of the verse in the commentary and You stated that Jehovah's Witnesses' view on this verse is vastly different, but granted what can be research of the view of the Restoration's on the matter, you are, as I can say this now since I am using 1 John 4:1 against you, are lying, thus makes you a lair. How and why can this be said?

On Biblehub, here are some commentary notes of the context for Revelations 5:10:

On 6/11/2020 at 8:53 AM, Space Merchant said:
  • As for context: It is regarding God's accomplishment. The purpose of restoring the earth under Kingship by means of the heavenly Kingdom, that consist of Lord Christ Jesus as the King, accompanied by the chosen ones [priests], whom have authority. As a whole, due to their divinity and connection, they make it possible to bring forth the earth into what God intended it to be, harmoniously aligned with God's original promise, thus fulfilling this purpose of restoration.
  • More context: Verse 10. - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and didst make them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests. Of those whom thou didst redeem from every nation, thou didst make a kingdom and priests. Wordsworth remarks that these honours conferred upon the redeemed imply duties as well as privileges. They receive the princely honours conferred upon them only on condition that they also become priests, presenting themselves, their souls and bodies, a living sacrifice to God.

Now, 4Jah2me, you said it yourself, that the viewpoint is different, well, I can quote you in this regard, as for you, you stated:

On 6/10/2020 at 3:48 PM, 4Jah2me said:

they are withholding the other viewpoint

In fact, you, Srecko and Witness said exactly the same thing, but none of you even pointed out as to WHY it is different from the core belief of Jesus and the Chosen Ones, and I would expect Witness to speak on the matter due to the claim of being Chosen, which is interesting because if the verse is in regards to her, she should have said something, but no, so regarding this it is safe for me to agree with Kossnnen who even he called this into question, for he is actually reasonable.but no.

I asked you several times to quote them, to cite their viewpoint, but every time you evade, you ignore it, and you pretend that you were not asked the question, and it is evident to the fact you tried to derail the question being interjecting Religious Studies and the Truther Movement into the discussion of a Bible verse. This is an appeal to motive because it was obvious you had no response because it would count against you. For if a man stated a claim about something from HIS word, why is it so difficult for you to bring it forth? I have done you the favor of not just finding on my own.

Aligned with the commentary notes above, this is what I found, which is contradicting to your claim and or statement:

Regarding Revelations 5:10, their viewpoint is thisThat Jesus was resurrected from earth to life in heaven, and they believe that others will be with him too, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses are referring to the Chosen Ones, so we can see here, the viewpoint of nearly the majority of Christendom has not changed with them, for as we know, 100% of Restorationist hold this view. Let’s continue, they pointed out John 14:2, 3 whereas Jesus said to his apostles he is going to prepare a place for them. Moreover, Jesus stated he will come back to receive them home and they will evidently be with him. So, granted the context, your statement is in error, thus makes you lair, which can be seen as to WHY when asked several times, you did not want to bring up any citation and or source to your claim of them changing the viewpoint to fit their belief when in REALITY, There viewpoint is no different from what is conveyed by 100% concerning those who believe Jesus is the Son of God and believe that God gives the Bride to the Lord.

Let’s continue, damaging, I know, but I am doing what you refuse to do, Butler. The context of Revelations 5:10 is as clear as the sky you look upon. The verse tells us, even Biblehub states this, it refers to those who are, the chosen ones, who are to reign with the Christ; which begs to differ the so called chosen one here who believes in the dismantling of God’s Order should have brought this up, but instead, becomes a church mouse. Let’s continue some more, The Chosen Ones, along with Jesus, make up the heavenly Kingdom, since I am citing the JWs’ view, they see this Kingdom as a Kingly government, to continue, this Kingdom will eventually rule over the inhabitants of all the earth and bring blessings to them.

From where?

On 6/11/2020 at 8:53 AM, Space Merchant said:

You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right?

God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom.

God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise.

For this is what the Bible shows us this:

The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.

Regarding The Kingdom and the position of the Chosen, as with the Christ. But as can be seen, you "laughed at" God's Inspired Word, which shows your spirit clearly.

This Kingdom is Heavenly, and they, those chosen by God, govern from up above, as with the Christ, who is seated at the Throne of David. To continue, this is the Kingdom that Jesus told his followers to pray for as can be seen in the Sermon of the Mount found in The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6 (Matthew 6:9, 10), to which Jesus states the sanctification of The Most High’s name, who is our Father in heaven. Jesus states for God’s Kingdom to come, and for it to take its place as in Heaven also on Earth.

 

Now granted I did what you alone cannot, tell me, as for your claim, how is their view vastly different to fit their beliefs if the core beliefs of Jesus and the Chosen Ones on Zion has not change for anyone expect those in Trinitarianism?

The VIEW IS ONLY DIFFERENT (and there is evidence to that) when the latter believes that Jesus is God, for when it is under this ideology, THAN the view differs. Reasons why I referenced The KJV-Onlyist crew because they primarily believe that Jesus is God.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Um, which do we believe ?  

Granted the Strong's has never changed, the viewpoint is found in the commentary notes I listed yesterday, I did you the favor of citing it again, or you can go to Biblehub and read it for yourself, that is, if you care to even look it up, but last I checked, you are incapable of doing the research, you even exposed yourself yesterday in this regard.

Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God knows that God has chosen him as King. As a King, he has those under him, the Chosen Ones who bear God's name and Jesus' name on their foreheads, who will rule with our Lord, our Christ - Jesus. The Kingdom of which God gives to his Son, he will be stationed their with the Chosen ones to reign over the earth from there. If you cannot take that from the context, this just shows you are Bibically ignorant, and you had the audacity to even go on Biblehub and not even look at what was stated there, which is exactly the same thing.

The Lamb is worthy, the Lamb takes the Scroll, and he is exalted.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

 If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

This just shows you do not understand anything. Are you literally correlating this with English understanding? If you do not mind, this statement alone I will save, to show those in the Hermeneutics forums, for they themselves will joyfully get a quick out of this, so even there they will immortalize this. All that said, this mentality of yours befits the fact you deemed nakedness of a certain Biblical person as literal.... It is no wonder when it comes to the Bible, such ones as yourself are lacking, for you even claim in the past you lack understanding.

The the Greek word epi, translates to “over, on, upon, above, etc” anything pertaining to that Strong's and it's grammatical structure. The funny thing is there is no way on God's green earth you can refute the fact that this is a different Strong's number because any honest Bible reader, as seen by nearly ALL the commentary on Biblehub and elsewhere, they can understand the context of this verse.

If you think as such and convey in such a manner, as you exposed yourself to present here, it begs question, do you even not just read your Bible, but understand what God's Inspired Word is saying?

That being said, God's Word is inspired, the only true thing you have said thus far, but apparently, The inspired Word cannot be understood by you at all if you think if the Strong's or the manuscript as incorrect when transliterated without any credible proof of mistranslated, This is the same thing you have done with the term "nakedness" thinking a follower of Christian had done the literal when the Bible points to the actual true.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But it seems to me that SM is saying that everyone seeking to serve God needs to study Strong's. 

Clearly no, the Strong's helps the reader understand the literal Hebrew to Greek, and it's move to the Modern English speaking Language. God's Word is understood by what the verse and or passage is conveying, so in this instance, you applied your own understanding of the verse rather than what God's Word is telling you, which is evident in the very beginning of this thread.

The irony here is I stated context many times before, so this claim of yours was only said to commit to another appeal to motive, but instead, it shows your ignorant nature and the fact you have nothing whatsoever to back yourself up, therefore, you are but a mere man standing alone here. You only speak when you deviate.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I do not agree with that. 

And yet our Apostles study by means of Hermeneutics and the like. Do your research on the Gospel of Matthew, I agree with how that came to be, and thank you for showing that if this was with Matthew, you would also disagree.

Share this post


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

Hello Space! 

Hello.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I can notice how You and @Arauna thinking differently about "past, history".

You mentioned the verse about sharpens elsewhere, a few days ago actually. I even told you, one who sharpens dwells in what is true, but one who dwells on misinformation as is with doing negative things, will only dull him or herself.

When one sharpens, they become willful and strong, just even, but on the other side of the spectrum, when one becomes dull, they it will take some time for them, if they want to, to sharpen themselves, for the latter tends to refuse to sharpen themselves.

That is why I conveyed that context of the verse in question to you when you misapplied it.

Do you want me to quote you, if that is what you are asking because if I do so now, not only it will go away from the verse being talked about, well you always want to deviate of course, you will try to focus on that and not the verse in question.

You did this before when you deemed God an approver of brazen conduct in terms of altering the one's body to another sex, when God detests these things, you later said otherwise compared to your original statement.

That is why, you as a misguided soul, can be very contradicting, and that is just one of many examples.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Arauna don't want to bother herself about WTJWorg history, and not about my history on this forum.

But it never stopped you for doing the same. I told you every time, I am from CSE, we bring up things said to pose example in discussion and or debate, so what did you expect? You did so several times bring up my statements, I do not stop you, and yet when I bring up anything regarding your statements, you take it as a threat.

So you tell me, you think Witness and 4Jah2me agrees with your notion of Abraham being selfish? Or do you think they agree with you on God being an approver of brazen conduct? Clearly no, but they will agree with you here when someone else does it, but they won't when you do it.

Mind you this has nothing to do with JWs, those examples were you using the Bible to speak some insane narratives that are more fit for The Twilight Zone.

That being said, every time when it is about a subject, be it about the Bible, as I said to you, do so without holding the hands of a JW, but you continue to do so, you remain on them because without them, you cannot hold your own when it comes to the Bible alone, likewise with the others, even the Trinitarians, who they themselves are more capable despite the fact the Theology being incorrect.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But you do save "records" about other people, what is for praise. :)))) 

Christians and those who solely study the Bible on CSE, both current and former, always keep record [

    Hello guest!
] and [
    Hello guest!
]
. It is not for praise, it is for a call back and or refutation, even mistake made by the people, me included, I make note of, for mistakes are made if further research is necessary. I even said I am a debater, and a person who response to something that is incorrect and or confusing, etc.

Therefore, unlike you, I do not believe rocks can literal speak, the Bible states this as something figurative, not literal. So clearly when it comes to Scripture, I will call back this notion of yours if need be when it comes to Biblical Understanding, and let's not forget, your favorite topic [Biblical Facts], that one really buttered your croissant.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are not like JW elders who must destroy all notes and records about past cases they handled while were dealing with people. :))

Last I checked, the ExJW, I cited said otherwise, both you and Witness stated you do not wish to learn more although the very source of yours proved you wrong, I rather not link said topics here to which can backfire on you.

As we can see here, you are again deviating to a subject to which you were spoken to about, several times.

So, I suggest you adhere to what is being asked of you regarding Revelations 5:10, so I ask you again, if they are in the wrong, cite what they have stated about Revelations 5:10, if you must, you can also cite Biblehub as I have, if the latter is incorrect, regarding context, as 4Jah2me has stated.

Granted I even told you before you cannot hold your own with the Bible alone, I gave you a handicap to cite. It is not as difficult as 4Jah2me is making it out to be.

So to this - I wait. You deviate, I can make a remark on what you conveyed just to further prove my case about the verse you mentioned a few days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Outta Here said:

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

What I see here is that they make a claim, for example the verse in question, Revelations 5:10, the ones present here, specifically 4Jah2me, states that the wording is different, but when it comes to anyone with even the most elementary literal Hebrew/Greek backing, they can see that there is no word violation in this verse, for G#1909 is no other word outside of that Strong's. 4Jah2me's case would have been stronger IF he mentioned verses such as 1 Timothy 3:16, Revelations 1:11, and other examples because there are violations in these verses that can result is not just a mistranslation but a misunderstanding of the verse, other interesting ones would be such as Titus 2:13 whereas you have the involvement of the Grandville's Sharp Rule that can negate in a misunderstanding.

The thing is, even outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, the facts and evidence is there. It is obvious that all 3 of them refuse to go to Biblehub, 4Jah2me only quoted 5 verses to fit his notion, when if one looks at the verse and the context on Biblehub, it, in of itself, backfires on 4Jah2me, as with Witness who also cited the literal Greek. As for context, it is very obvious, so obvious that a child can see it. It is the very reason as to why none of them want to go to the commentary for the context on Biblehub, and it is the very reason as to why 4Jah2me and Srecko refuse to cite the Jehovah's Witnesses view because it mirrors the commentary on Biblehub. In Christianity, concerning this verse, there is only ONE VIEW that differs, that is, if the person believes that Jesus is Yahweh God, THEN, there is a massive different in context. It is obvious that 4Jah2me knows that Jesus is the Son of God, but because the verse on Biblehub and the JWs community, it was too afraid to even bring up the context even though I told him to cite it several times, then I had to do it, which was expected. And to Witness' case, who claims to be chosen, should have pointed out the context, but said nothing, so to this alone I agree with others who called her chosen status into question several times.

What is the reality is that Facts stand forth against the personal. For in a different term, Biblical Understanding is far above Man's understanding, granted 4Jah2me is mostly John Butler, he even points this out, but chooses to commit to Man's understanding instead. JWInsider pointed this out to me, should have seen it when 4Jah2me mentioned Billy and called him a Parrot, which Butler deemed me after I hit him facts.

In short, they are bibical ignorant, for God commits no confusion. I can see that too, but you know what they say - clowns will continue to be clowns despite the camera is not rolling, especially those who are willfully ignorant.

That being said, I did not want to use 1 John 4:1, but they pushed it, so they buried their own hands in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Anything else is putting trust in men.

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

By the way, do you have problem with people's "own version" about this and that?

No. Only when "people" assume that their "version" is my "version". To that I have an "aversion".

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you consider them (GB) better than any other human here or elsewhere?

No. That not my "version".

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Does GB using Bible hub for their meditation and Bible study?

Who cares? It is only a portal, like a public library. There are many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 9:58 PM, 4Jah2me said:

In most translations I have looked at it reads as  'on the earth'.   Why do the GB / Writing Dept translate it as Over the earth ? 

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10.

The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com).

Just my "version", of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Space Merchant if you are not able or not willing to concentrate, canalized your thoughts in  few words and few sentences than i have no need nor motivation to have conversation with You!  

You speaking about my "deviation" but you done nothing to change Your attitude toward people who don't accept your "faith" and stand for your "the truth" and your Bible hub or what ever.  

You are so ready to fight for "the truth", for your view on truth, for your version of truth here and now. Also here and now is right place and time to express not only your praise how WTJWorg teaching is wonderful, your "version" of their doctrines (and your version of own Faith, Organization, Church that you belong too), but to give Critical observation and speak against all, even minor detail that is not good and correct according to your inner sensitivity and intellectual    objectivity, about/in both Institutions. 

If you said how there is not nothing wrong in your Church and in WTJWorg OR just skip to speak up about it, to stay deaf and dumb, as you done every time when somebody ask you this same thing, you will show your true face....once again.

Have a good day :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10.

The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com).

Just my "version", of course.

It looks how you are right about existence of several "versions" of doctrines inside JW members body, congregants.

But to use your vocabulary: "Who cares". :))

This testimony of yours defeats completely @Space Merchant "version" of his view on WTJWorg. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

@Space Merchant if you are not able or not willing to concentrate, canalized your thoughts in  few words and few sentences than i have no need nor motivation to have conversation with You!  

I am focused on the topic, but you are deviating. You were told to cite regarding Revelations 5:10, but you did not. Bringing up your errors relating to Understanding a Bible verse fits The Fable that is Srecko "of birds" Sostar.

You say this yet the question was presented to the subject matter, you are and wanting to deviate because you have no evidence.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You speaking about my "deviation" but you done nothing to change Your attitude toward people who don't accept your "faith" and stand for your "the truth" and your Bible hub or what ever. 

This is a subject of Bible understanding of the verse in question, NOT about faith. Thank you for trying to commit to deviation again.

Nowhere have I stated accepting faith, for my focus was the context and Strong's of the Bible verse in question.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are so ready to fight for "the truth", for your view on truth, for your version of truth here and now.

My version? The Bible speaks of Jesus as King of God's Kingdom and he has those ruling with him over the earth from the heavenly Kingdom. Tell me Srecko Sostar, how does this constitutes to speaking of Faith vs. speaking of what the Bible says?

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Also here and now is right place and time to express not only your praise how WTJWorg teaching is wonderful, your "version" of their doctrines (and your version of own Faith, Organization, Church that you belong too), but to give Critical observation and speak against all, even minor detail that is not good and correct according to your inner sensitivity and intellectual    objectivity, about/in both Institutions. 

This no praise of anything. It is about the context and the Strong's of Revelations 5:10.

Oh, the Deviation is strong with you, proving my point again and again. Amuse me some more.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If you said how there is not nothing wrong in your Church and in WTJWorg OR just skip to speak up about it, to stay deaf and dumb, as you done every time when somebody ask you this same thing, you will show your true face....once again.

Where have I said this? Last I recall, my focus was on the viewpoint of Revelations 5:10, whereas the context is no different from others, expect if the person believes that Jesus is God, THAT IS WHERE the difference is.

How so, here we see either you are not making sense, or the birds of yours did not take care of your bandwidth which results in you jumbling about.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Have a good day :))

Please cite your sources if you deem your claim for Revelations 5:10 to be true in terms of them being wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This testimony of yours defeats completely @Space Merchant "version" of his view on WTJWorg. :))

To correct you, my commentary sources were ALL pulled from Biblehub, Biblegateway and the Bible Study website; identical to Outta Here's responses.  Therefore you created your own lie granted my responses. Therefore, no defeat here. Very obvious in my responses from yesterday.

Thank you very much.

That being said, prove it wrong, cite Biblehub and cite the JWs, show us as to where the difference is, which will be unfounded because the latter is not Trinitarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Please cite your sources if you deem your claim for Revelations 5:10 to be true in terms of them being wrong.

 

32 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10.

The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com).

Just my "version", of course.

You don't need me to cite any of my sources, because i believe how Outta Here is JW member. And he has his "version" about your asking. In another word that is how he understand official doctrine :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

You don't need me to cite any of my sources, because i believe how Outta Here is JW member. And he has his "version" about your asking. In another word that is how he understand official doctrine :))

What @Outta Here  stated is identical to what I said, which is quite obvious on this thread alone, I quoted myself several times too. lol 🤣you can't be this serious. Are you? So now you backed yourself into a corner, what will you do now in this regard?

Restorationist are not Trinitarians by the way, so clearly Outta Here does not believe Jesus to be God, therefore, the actual view of the common Anti-Trinitarian are 100% the same vs the latter, so now you just exposed yourself some more.

Again, instead of tap dancing on ice and glitter, cite your sources,

show us where the difference is regarding the context of Revelations 5:10

Also you are well en route to the realm of contradiction, I can already see that.

 

I mean, you DID agree with 4Jah2me when he quoted some information from Biblehub, but you, and the others, why this terrified of commentary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I will go for a beer :))  Also, suggest you to buy one for yourself too.

Evading? Understandable, better than deviating. You can go for your drink, therefore you can login to still answer the question posed to you granted you agreed and backed the claim of "Different viewpoint" as is "Different Doctrine". when the context speaks for itself, as with the Strong's.

That being said, I do not drink, never have, never will. As for I have reasons for such.

The question will be waiting for you when you get back, so I will quote it again granted you see what you agreed with, and to what you must answer to the claim you side with:

 

45 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Please cite your sources if you deem your claim for Revelations 5:10 to be true in terms of them being wrong.

45 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

cite Biblehub and cite the JWs, show us as to where the difference is

 

15 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

show us where the difference is regarding the context of Revelations 5:10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I am not evading beer, you misunderstand something :)) 

You were asked several times to state the claims of which you acknowledged and stated yourself.

  • Evade [Verb] - escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.; avoid giving a direct answer to (a question).

Also you were sure of yourself when you said I am a debater, to which I am. You even quoted methods of debate and as to how we see things, here is one for you to add to your list:

  • Evading/Evasion (Question dodging) in ethics - Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.

You can always come back to attest to your agreements and claims, instead of misfire statements and remarks, next time provide what is being asked of you.

Go have your beer, answer when ready.

Or, it can be made easier for you.

Regarding context, point out how they or what is wrong with how they see the context of the vs. version what the true context actually is, by your word. This I'd like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SM is actually worse than TTH for writing books. I just could not be bothered to read it all. I glanced over bits. There is nothing spiritual there to be learnt. I did notice SM accuse me of something to do with picking quotes from Biblehub to suit myself. But in fact i had picked the two different examples 'on' and 'above'. SM I cannot be bothered with your domineering attitude. YOU think YOU are right. That's good enough for YOU.  As for me I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM is actually worse than TTH for writing books. I just could not be bothered to read it all. I glanced over bits. There is nothing spiritual there to be learnt.

All my sources are both fact and true.

Nothing to be learnt? You do realize what Conveying Scripture is, if it were not for my conveying of the verse, you would not know what God's Kingdom location is, for I pointed this out.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I did notice SM accuse me of something to do with picking quotes from Biblehub to suit myself.

After the ESV you skipped over, there is an order to which Biblehub cites all translations. Therefore, you have suited yourself granted the other ones that does not correlate with what you stated previous are mentioned there. Regardless, that is what 1909 is, those words, nothing you can do can change this notion for this is true to all who are learning the literal Greek.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

But in fact i had picked the two different examples 'on' and 'above'.

The later statement you picked 5, I quoted you. I merely put all 23.

If you wanted to focus on the first two, then you would not have a need to cite the others.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

SM I cannot be bothered with your domineering attitude.

Because you do not know anything about the Bible context as is with the wording itself from literal to English? It is right in front of you.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

YOU think YOU are right.

Because I am, as is with my sources.

God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong?

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

That's good enough for YOU. 

Granted everything even the context is right?

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

As for me I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 

These are not my opinions, this is primarily Bibical Hermeneutics. And it takes literally 5 minutes of hermeneutics to realize the context of this verse alone, but for you, it must need to take the discovery of the Lost City of Atlantis to find out the meaning of a somewhat short verse.

Also

  • An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  • Bible hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

I consider the context of the verse as - both FACT and TRUE

That being said, as you claimed this, to which Srecko sided with you.

If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made.

If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us?

The truth of the matter is JWs, as with all Restorationist and Non-Trinitarians believe and apply the same context of Revelations 5:10. The doctrine only changes if the individual is a Trinitarian.

The simple change to bleieving that Jesus is God spins Revelations 5:10 into something else.

 

I like this statement of yours

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 

The spotlight is on you, Butler.

Share this post


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

If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made.

If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us?

In Rev 5:10, the verb “epi” commonly translated as “over” by the WT, supports their doctrine that the 144,000 will be found ruling over the earth, from “heaven”.  If it was translated as “on” the earth, it would blow their doctrine to pieces. 

Scriptures support the use of “on” for Rev 5:10, since God’s word declares the anointed BRIDE “coming down from heaven” with Jesus Christ.  The Temple of God is not a fixed place.  It is like a “tabernacle”; mobile, built with “living stones”. 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17 “New Jerusalem” is not a fixed place in heaven.  If it was, we wouldn’t find it coming to earth, “prepared as a bride for her husband”. 

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.  Rev 21:1-3

“After this I looked, and I saw in heaven the temple—that is, the tabernacle (tent) of the covenant law—and it was opened.”  Rev 15:5

“This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”  Heb 8:10

The priests cannot teach God’s laws to His people, if they are stuck in heaven. 

“And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses.”  Lev 10:11

“For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,
And people should seek the law from his mouth;
For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”  Mal 2:7

Can WT’s literal 144,000 priests remain in heaven and teach God’s laws to the people on earth?  That would take a huge bullhorn that each one must keep in a drawer of their literal green throne.  Maybe cell phones will still be in use. What the WT concocts ridicules God's Word.  

“Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”  Luke 17:20-21

The called, chosen and faithful "144,000", ARE the Bride of Christ, who will be found on the earth with Jesus.

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels (messengers) of God worship Him.”  Heb 1:6

 

Jacob's Ladder

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


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

The example of 1975 is a good one. 

You can no longer profane 1975. The fact that it has been misapplied by many here that one article in 1974 put to rest, is the case in point. 

Also, At what point did anyone decide, the 144,000 kings weren't coming from earth to rule with Christ in Heaven, That's the point. To have someone that understands humanity throughout it's history. Therefore, just like the apostles were invented into heaven, did they not live on earth? Matthew 19:28

Does that mean Christ won't use faithful servants on earth? All who make it over Armageddon will be those faithful servants. Within those servants, a heavenly structure of self-discipline will be made, as it is in heaven! 

Where in scripture does it state, immediately after Armageddon, earth will automatically and instantly become perfect? So, NO! Those Kings will NOT be on earth. Another reason to have all the 144,000 in heaven, ready to cleanse the earth.

That makes for a righteous government, a heavenly government that leads everyone back to a sinless state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Outta Here said:

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

I trusted my father.  Everyone in my town trusted my father and there was nothing wrong in doing that.  

The scriptures point to a certain type of man we shouldn’t trust - the arrogant ones, those who love their riches and the organization those riches produced. We don't trust those who put their organization before God.  It is these men among “Jacob”, that we are not to trust.

Isaiah, chapter 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:
7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

YOU think YOU are right.

Because I am, as is with my sources.

God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong?

No you are not wrong because of fact how all this you numbered is your FAITH and BELIEVES. This is your version, based on text and based on versions of text. And based on particular interpretations of text and versions that are sourced in you or sourced in other people and organizations.

You can stop this agony with just one word, to say: Yes. :))  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

you would not know what God's Kingdom location is

WTJWorg GB know. :)) They said they are living in Spiritual Paradise now and here. According to this claim people could conclude how Kingdom is on Earth, because Jesus as King is coming in 1914 to visit the Earth. Obviously he stay and spread his Kingdom around the globe with a little help and by means of WT Society.

Perhaps GB source for this knowledge is also in Bible hub? 

Also you said how WTJWorg speak the truth. Well we have Two Witnesses for same claim: You and WTJWorg GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
    Hello guest!

And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”
    Hello guest!

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
    Hello guest!

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

    Hello guest!

“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”

On 6/11/2020 at 10:08 PM, 4Jah2me said:

If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

There is a fault in the logic here.

The statement itself could be true. BUT, the list of cited scriptures preceding this statement, for which it is presented as a conclusion, refer to rulership, not domicile. The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there.

So, there is actually a disconnect between the conclusion and the citations presented as the supporting evidence. The citations merely indicate that different translators have decided on what they consider to be a contextually appropriate rendering for the preposition epi.

The end result of the rendering serves either to clarify or slightly obscure the meaning, which itself still remains apparent either way. It is just a question of reasoning effort on the part of the reader which is reduced by the translator  rendering epi  "over" as opposed to "on". Either rendering is acceptable as the meaning itself is not altered.

On 6/8/2020 at 9:58 PM, 4Jah2me said:

In most translations I have looked at it reads as  'on the earth'.   Why do the GB / Writing Dept translate it as Over the earth ? 

So, in answer to the OP, a translator is perfectly at liberty to make a choice between words in their rendering a text into another language where such choice is extended by the nature of the original language. In answer to "Why?", then for the sake of clarity of  the meaning of the text is the reason. In this case, the translator's word choice is quite acceptable according to the various dictionary definitions cited. The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered. Either rendering epi as "on" or "over" does not change the meaning of the text. It is just that "over" is a better word choice for the sake of style and economy of the effort to comprehend.

 

Share this post


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

Exactly! Why do you keep bringing it up? Therefore, it's not the date but your own action. That way Srecko can laugh at commonsense. 😏

If that would make you smiling too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Outta Here said:
On 6/11/2020 at 11:08 PM, 4Jah2me said:

If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)

There is a fault in the logic here.

Yes it is. :))) @4Jah2me is not in position to rule over but to live over something, someone...  like me and many other people. 

I live over a musician, and he's constantly keeping me awake with his practicing. :)))))

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there.

Now I can see logic in WTJWorg GB interpretations about 1914 Kingdom and Spiritual Paradise where JW members living till today ...... All is in their heads because, The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered.

The understanding was enhanced with progressive clarifications and changed approach to Bible text, according to WT study magazine. Nothing was altered, nothing :)))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now wondering if Outta Here and SM are one and the same person .

They have the same way of talking rubbish. 

I am now sat ON my chair. I am not sat over my chair. To be ON something means touching it or resting on it.  To be over something means to be above it.  

Move on ..........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.

In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I am now sat ON my chair. I am not sat over my chair. To be ON something means touching it or resting on it.  To be over something means to be above it.  

You might need to check some basic rules on the use of the English language as well as for the Greek prepositions, then try and discern what Rev 5:10 is referring to. I am sure you will get there in the end one way or another, bit like SS did. 

Thinking of your astute observation re SM,  about those who appear to be one and the same, you wouldn't have a twin would you? Or maybe a doppelganger or even a clone? I am sure I recognise something in your cut an' run style of argument from somewhere...........🤔

BTW, @Anna has pipped me to the post with her excellent doctrinal/contextual points above. So much so, there is really no need to elaborate further on this question.  🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Witness And yet Biblehub correlates with the same thing, as is with EVERY KNOWN SOURCE, even Blueletter. The other problem is you pointed out to fit their belief, show us what you are conveying.

I ask you, 4Jah2me and Srecko to point out as to how their view of Revelations 5:10 differs from nearly 100% of Non-Trinitarians. It is quite simple because even you stated they are incorrect, so according to the view of the common Non-Trinitarian, how are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not even Trinitarians, differ when within Christianity itself there are only 2 views, 2 beliefs, 2 viewpoints regarding this same verse?

You told me 2 times before, you are among the Chosen Ones, yet Kosenen and I thought otherwise, and even those out there who were confused at the information you post from that website you tend to use. So it is quite baffling as to how you yourself do not fully know well of what this specific verse means concerning people like you, that is, if you are indeed one because now the brow has been raised.

As a side note, I have mentioned several times the one I admire, Solider of God, a Chosen One among those who is to serve with the Christ, knew fully well what Revelations is all about, when he became Christian, he started from Revelations because, although he is not the best speaker, let alone not too great to put things together to explain, he himself, when he was alive, knew what Revelations was about, even all of chapter 5, to him, it was no more as a puzzle, when put together shows spiritual context of the matter. If he were still alive right now, he'd be saying the same thing I am saying to you right now.

Share this post


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

WTJWorg GB know. :))

The irony here is the Bible tells us, as with all other sources, for there is but 1 view for God's Kingdom. You can't be this Biblically dense, Srecko....

On 6/12/2020 at 1:40 PM, Space Merchant said:

You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right?

God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom.

God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise.

Amazing how the latter few agreed with you when the context says otherwise regarding God's Heavenly Kingdom. Even the JWs know that, as is with the majority. How on God's green earth you did not know this as is with 4Jah2me, who did not know this either?

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

They said they are living in Spiritual Paradise now and here. According to this claim people could conclude how Kingdom is on Earth, because Jesus as King is coming in 1914 to visit the Earth. Obviously he stay and spread his Kingdom around the globe with a little help and by means of WT Society.

Perhaps GB source for this knowledge is also in Bible hub?