Queruvim

[Matthew9969]

Is anyone familiar with this guy?

https://sites.google.com/view/mensageiro-tj/joao-1-1-um-deus

[xero]

6 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

Is anyone familiar with this guy?

https://sites.google.com/view/mensageiro-tj/joao-1-1-um-deus

No but this might help...

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftraducaodonovomundodefendida.wordpress.com%2F2020%2F12%2F29%2Fe-daniel-muito-velho-segundo-a-cronologia-baseada-em-607%2F

 

[JW Insider]

@Matthew9969 I have never heard of him. He uses an odd-sounding Twitter handle, which supports JWs but delves uncomfortably into politics, for most JWs. Also, it's easy to link the "life coach" promoted on the same site (Valdir Camilo) to JWs through Facebook and Watchtower artwork. It disturbs me that the author of the site is trying to monetize his work.

And he has evidently fallen for some popular conspiratorial ideas ideas that have yet to be evidenced anywhere.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, xero said:

No but this might help...

That article about Daniel was a terrible example of a strawman argument. It makes a lot out of an argument with no sources cited. I doubt that one in ten thousand apostates have heard such a silly argument, or give that example any significance. I don't think any Witnesses have heard it either. I have never seen it. It's possible that the author has merely misunderstood the focal point of a more common argument that the Watchtower chronology would make Daniel as much as 100 to 120 years old by 539 BCE depending on whether one understands Daniel's chronology to be literal, or if it is reinterpreted according to the way some 19th century religions understood it (including the Bible Students).

This would be similar to the age-related argument about the old men mentioned here:

(Ezra 3:11-13) . . .Then all the people shouted with a loud shout of praise to Jehovah because the foundation of the house of Jehovah had been laid. 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.

Is it likely that these old men are 95-100 years and older whose weeping is drowning out those shouting joyfully at the top of their voice, or is it more likely they are about 75-80 years and older -- the only two choices according to Biblical chronology? Based on Psalm 90, the Biblical answer appears to work better for those 75-80 and older.

(Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong. But they are filled with trouble and sorrow; They quickly pass by, and away we fly.

Similarly, this author focuses on a minor difference in age when Daniel was taken as a minor. It looks suspiciously like a a way to purposely miss the point about whether Daniel would have been near 60 or 70 at the time of Cyrus' conquest, or as old as 90 according to the Watchtower's chronology. Either way, it has almost nothing to do with the argument about 607 and 587, yet the author presumes (or pretends) that it does.

[Matthew9969]

He supposedly shows 137 different translations that insert the 'a' in John 1:1, but that link is blocked. It definitely seems like a shady website.

[JW Insider]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:42 AM, Matthew9969 said:

He supposedly shows 137 different translations that insert the 'a' in John 1:1, but that link is blocked.

The number of current translations that insert the "a" in John 1:1 would not be as important as those translations that were made back when koine "NT" Greek was still a spoken and living language. For that we would look to early Latin, Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic translations. Unfortunately some of these languages, just like NT Greek, didn't use the word "a." You could choose to put a "the" in front of a noun or entity, or you could leave off the "the" on purpose, and that could sometimes (not always) imply the word "a."

For example, if you were pointing to a rock, you could say "This is the rock" or "This is rock." If you didn't use the "the" you might mean:

1. "this is the rock" or
2. "this is a rock" or
3. "this is rock [not wood, not just a clod of dirt, not styrofoam, not paper, not scissors -- but it is made up of the substance we identify with rock/rockiness/rocky"].

All three of those choices are possible linguistically in NT Greek when the "the" is left off. And it would have been was very easy in NT Greek to repeat the word "the" which had already appeared just before it in "the word was with the god." (No capitalization in the Greek text.) In English, the phrase "the god" is simply translated as God, not "the God." But then you lose the differentiation between "the god" and "god." Adding an "a" to "god," and a capital "G" to "the god" is one way to do this.

Fortunately there is an early translation from the time that NT Greek was still a living language in speech and writing. And that language did make use of a word equivalent to the word "a." It's the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1:

https://www.scribd.com/document/14960597/Coptic-John-1-1

https://www.scribd.com/document/25496486/Translating-Sahidic-Coptic-John-1-1

The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje

1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute

1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje

Literally, the Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word

1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god

1. c. And a god was the word