Cos
-
Posts
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Cos
-
-
On 11/2/2017 at 9:05 PM, Gone Fishing said:
Anyway, I am looking forward to your opinion
Gone fishing,
In John 4:22 Jesus is telling the Samaritan woman that salvation comes from the Jews in that the Messiah is from the tribe of Judah, that is, from the Jewish people (Romans 9:5), and as a result (verse 23) the true worshippers will worship properly.
There are a few variations regarding the view on the passage of Romans 3:1-2, for example some take the passage to refer to God’s promises to the Jews, others to the promises of salvation through the Messiah which they say is implied by their unbelief in verse 3, but without getting to technical let’s just say that the reference here is the Old Testament Scriptures which were given to Jews to write and to preserve.
You know, I once had a Sabbatarian use Romans 3:1-2 to try to justify the reason for their system of belief revolving around the seventh day Sabbath observance. His argument totally fell apart in the light of the New Testament witness. It seems that you seek to do a similar undertaking by quoting this verse to sure up your stance, yes?
I remember an old rhyme that I was taught regarding the two Testaments, and it goes something like this:
The New is in the Old Concealed,
The Old is in the New Revealed.
The New is in the Old Contained,
The Old is in the New Explained.
You should be able to get where I’m going with this?
Anyway, you quote two articles, the first from a Roman Catholic, Lea Sestieri, with whom I have to say I don’t agree, because he makes this comment that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit “is never presented as a person”. This statement is not quite correct and is disputed by a number of scholars; here also are a few of the many Scriptures which demonstrate otherwise:
· 2 Samuel. 23:2, “The {S}pirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue (NWT emphasis mine); in this verse it is the Holy Spirit who spoke through David to inspire the glorious Psalms which only a self-conscious living Person can do.
1 Kings 22:24, “And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Where did the Spirit of Jehovah pass over from me to speak with you?” Implies dialogue by the fact that Zedekiah had no problem believing that the Spirit spoke to the prophets. Micaiah does not object to this concept, but only to the issue of whether the Spirit had spoken to him or to Zedekiah.
In Isaiah 63:10 it clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has emotion; “But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit”. Only a person can be grieved. E.J. Young comments, “The Spirit is here distinguished as a Person by the fact that He can be grieved.” (Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3, page 482).
Nehemiah 9:30 “But many years you had patience with them, and testified against them by your Spirit, by Your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. And you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands” Only a person can “testify”. The Hebrew word translated “testified against” means to bear witness, testify, or protest against someone. The word is used of God in Psalms 50:7; 81:8 and also for man in Gen. 43:3; Deut. 8:19 (just to name a few examples). An impersonal force cannot bear witness, testify or protest anything.
You also quote from Richard E. Averbeck, who in his study article mentions how the Jews regard the Holy Spirit; note the phrases “Jewish tradition” and the “Jewish view”, and “according to the Rabbis” and with which he does not concurrence. The article by Richard E. Averbeck, I believe, gives a far better account than the one present by Lea Sestieri. In fact I would highly recommend studying Richard E. Averbeck article over the other for detail and clarity.
Gone fishing, I’ll be on hiatus for the next few weeks and will not be able to respond to you as my office is being converted into sleeping quarters for my brother-in-law and his wife’s who are coming for a visit, sorry. <><
-
On 11/3/2017 at 11:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:
Another habit, your stereo-typical prefix "all JWs" this or that, has an offensive effect also.
Gone fishing,
Let me try to get my head around this, I said that when you see the word “fill” you “automatically apply the Watchtower teaching” and you got offended because you take from that comment that I’m stereo-typing you as a JW, which you are, so that offends you, why?
To tell you the truth I can’t see how that would cause you offence, but I will try and remember that you are overly sensitive to when I refer to your interpretive method as characteristic of how the Watchtower teaches. <><
-
On 11/3/2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:
to state something in an articulate manner means that the statement must be unequivocally understood by the hearer
Gone fishing,
I only abide by the dictionary definition on how articulate is defined, if you believe it is otherwise then you should write to the dictionaries and take it up with them.
On 11/3/2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:his phrase describing "the spirit of God" mentioned at Gen 1:2 as "divine operative energy".
Here you go again, Ellicott does not “describe” the Holy Spirit in Gen. 1::2 as “divine operative energy”!
On 11/3/2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:So, I reject your assertion that these two phrases represent a contradiction on my part.
To assert, as you do, that “based on what [you] have read” of Ellicott, which would include Gen. 1:2, that Ellicott’s “literary skills of expression” are “both erudite and articulate”, but then to go on to say that where I had differentiated his meaning to your own which you still clearly want to align with, that that is when you made the claim that you “can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. Now regardless of what you were responding to, your claim that Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” is in clear opposition to your other claim. <><
-
16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
You are not the arbiter of articularcy,
Gone fishing,
Dictionaries define “articulate” as the ability to expressing the meaning fluently and coherently, even the Collins English Dictionary you quoted from explains this.
“If you describe someone as articulate, you mean that they are able to express their thoughts and ideas easily and well.” (Collins English Dictionary)
You said Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” but then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”...so I’m sorry to say but the dictionaries are the arbiter on this one.
16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:As long as we are clear.
As I said, I base my opinion on my observation, so then if my observation is not correct then so too would be my opinion; therefore the question is whether my observation is correct?
16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Anyway, I am looking forward to your opinion on the two quotes I posted
Firstly, I have asked that you explain why you accused me of being offensive on one of the posts, but you have repeatedly ignored my request. So, to be fair, if you answer me on this then I will respond to your request, is that a deal? <><
-
17 hours ago, Cognitionis said:
I believe the error lies with you. Mr. Smith interpretation of your conclusion is correct.
Cognitionis
Sir, if the error “lies with” me, as you accuse, maybe you should ask the person with whom I was in discourse with at the time on whether what Mr. Smith alleges is the correct conclusion, for nowhere do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3 as Mr. Smith contends.
17 hours ago, Cognitionis said:Why would you say otherwise, out of anger?
Did you not you read what I said? I was responding to what Mr. Smith alleges, what would you have me say, that he was correct in his allegation when he was not?
Interestingly how you just joined this forum and then at the same time just jumped in on this conversation...you know what that looks like? But hey, whatever motive moves you to do what you do is not my concern. <><
-
20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
In your opinion
Gone fishing,
Your contradiction is a fact, trying to make out that is just my opinion, ignores the dictionary definition.
20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I remain unconvinced
My dear deluded friend, you say one thing and then another, and on top of that you try to deny the meaning of what you said. Like it or not you have contradicted yourself which seems to be a pattern. I don’t say this to offend, it is just an observation of mine (and that definitely is my opinion). <><
-
21 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
People just like to play with words
Mr. Smith,
Do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3? NO!
Yet you give the impression that for some reason you think that I did. You are wrong!
Please try and read what I say a little more carefully then you might avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. <><
-
Gone fishing,
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Maybe not.
Sorry, but it is a contradiction.
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:my considered opinion
The contradiction is not whether you “share all his views” or whether you agree or disagree, it is you claiming that his comments are “both erudite and articulate” and then saying “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”.
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:The word "articulate" actually has a broader pallette of meaning
The denotation vocabulary related definition for “articulate” in any dictionary, as I have said before, is the ability to express the meaning fluently and coherently; so when you say, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” this is a contradiction to you saying his comments are “both erudite and articulate”.
No matter how you want to align yourself with some phrase taken out of context and used against the intended meaning of the author, your contradiction is in claiming to not being “sure of Ellicott’s meaning” when also claiming that he is “both erudite and articulate”.
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Thanks for your input.
You’re welcome. <><
-
20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
Yes. That has nothing to do with his articulacy.
Gone fishing
Sorry, but maybe you just don’t grasp English; to claim that you considered Ellicott’s comments “both erudite and articulate” and then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” is a contradiction. <><
-
On 10/29/2017 at 3:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:
I just don't think you understand the meaning of the word
Gone fishing,
Dictionary definition for articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness”
Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively”
According to you Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate”, but then came “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”.
On 10/29/2017 at 3:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:Thank you for explaining
You’re welcome.<><
-
Gone fishing,
I‘d like to remind you, AGAIN, that you accused me of being offensive but you still won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:whilst communicating their meaning clearly, articulate expression of opinions does not require that the hearer agrees with that meaning.
Your claim was, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”; so this statement then was not factual because now you admit that if the writer is articulate then you do know his/her meaning regardless if you agree or not?
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:the absence of Mr Ellicott allows no room for discussion on his understandings,
If this is the case then he was not articulate in conveying his meaning, so why do you say that he was?
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Complicated question
Not really, although your response is.
Instead of jumping all over Scripture to try to make out that the last part of Jer.23:24 is figurative, the context should be enough to show that the three rhetorical questions in Jer. 23:23–24 emphasize Jehovah’s presence everywhere because He fills everything.
Jehovah’s question in verse 24b, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” expects a positive answer. How do you respond?
Jehovah can and does “fill” everything, and still that is not enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) because God is infinite. <><
-
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
I see Jeremiah's words as inspired as I do those recorded in 1Kings 8:27, and with no contradiction.
Gone fishing,
Let me put this to you again, do you agree that when Jehovah says He can “fill” everything there is (Jer. 23:24), and yet that still would not be enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) is because He is infinite?
Or do you still make the assumption that Jehovah’s words in Jer. 23:24 are “figurative”? Is it only the last part of verse 24 that you think is “figurative” or do you think the whole of the verse is ‘figurative”, and what about verse 23 is that “figurative” too?
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Of course it is. In a metaphorical sense.
See my above questions.
I ‘d like to remind you that you have accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Still do. Is there a language issue here?
Must be, for I have learnt that when a person is articulate it is because they can communicate the meaning clearly.
One dictionary has for the word articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness”
Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively”
To say that Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate” and then claim as you did, that you cannot know what he meant is saying one thing and then another, sorry but that is what you were doing.
Thanks for the links, I have saved them and I will take a look at them as time allows. <><
-
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
It is now no issue. You understand my meaning, which you didn't before. Move on!
Gone fishing,
I have always understood your meaning; it’s was your outrageous allegation that was in total variance with the statement that you made where you considered Ellicott’s comments to be “both erudite and articulate”.
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I've forgiven you
You accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:this is exactly what happened.
Just another example which depicts the mistake of your claim.
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:If Peter, by divine assistance, was able to read into the heart of Ananias, why did he not reveal that Satan was literally there (if he was)?
He did in verse 3!
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Because of Solomon's inspired words at 1 Kings 8:27
What about Jehovah’s own words in Jeremiah 23:24?
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:In your opinion.
Here is why I say your evidence, in my opinion, is superficial; “poured out” can be used for persons as you acknowledge, as well as non-persons, so this is not a good phrase to base a teaching around. Being “filled” can and is used for persons, but I do understand why you feel the need to dismiss the passages that show this and call them “not literal” and “figurative” as they are detrimental to your whole idea that the Holy Spirit is not a real Person.
21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I am posting separately on this because I am interested in your opinion on a question if you care to answer.
Without having the context of these quotes I must refrain from speculating on what they said. Maybe you can scan them like you did for your Challoner Bible so that I could peruse the context? <><
-
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
So for me no issue.
Gone fishing,
If that was “no issue” for you why then did you carry on about not know what Ellicott meant?
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Just think about your reasons for making these kind of remarks.
I don’t know why you find my linking what you were asserting about Exodus 31:1-5 to the Watchtower teaching on the use of the word “fill” when it comes to the Holy Spirit. I explained to you the reason I did so, why would that be offensive?
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Still feel that is the case.
Your rejection “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” is based, not on Scripture, but on your opinion. And you explain away the passages that refute your opinion. Here is another Scriptural example; in Acts 5:3 the Devil is said to have “filled” the heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Spirit (note, for some reason the NWT did not translate this passage properly, check and see and let me know what you think).
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Your quotes are puzzling? Probably you mean Eph 1:23 and 4:10?
Typo error...or more likely, eye to hand fail. So are you saying that these two Scriptures are not literal? The reason I ask is because you cite other passages which certainly indicate that they are literal.
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I said that it is Jer:23:24 that is figurative, not 1Ki. 8:27.
The way you worded your comment gave the impression that you were referring to 1 Kings 8:27 as figurative, anyway why do you think that Jehovah’s rhetorical questions are figurative in Jer. 23:24? Note in the passage the definiteness of Jehovah’s words.
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:The use of "pouring" as a metaphor is quite validly done in connection with both Peter and holy spirit,
I’m just saying that the phrase “poured out” can be used for persons as well because you were so adamant that this phrase confirmed for you that the Holy Spirit, in your words “is not a literal person”.
15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:but only if this alone comprised the evidence.
Please by all means present any further evidence because as I said, so far what you have provided is very superficial. <><
-
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
Just to be crystal clear, in connection with his phrase "divine operative energy", it is his word choice I am delighted by, not his opinion.
Gone fishing,
This is the real crux of the issue; you are “delighted” with his “word choice”, which I will remind you, is taken out of context from the way he obviously intended.
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Your remark, as quoted above, is unecessary and, quite frankly, offensive. This is the second time I have asked you to drop the Watchtower litany. However, on to the subject matter.
I’m sorry that you got offended when I mentioned the Watchtowers link to your assertion. I’m just stating how I came to realise what you were claiming…now I am curious to know why that would be offensive. Can you explain?
You state that it is your opinion “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” yet we have in Ephesians how our Lord does just that. Maybe you think that Eph 1:12 and 4:10 are not literal? If you do, can you show why?
I would like to note also that there is no contradiction between Jeremiah 23:24 and 1 Kings 8:27. If you think that Solomon meant his prayer to be understood figuratively that is your opinion, and not one that I share, so please expand on why you say this.
What then becomes even more strange is how you later say, “It is a fact that ‘the heaven of the heavens cannot contain’ Jehovah.” First you say that 1 Kings 8:27 “can only be figurative” but then you say “it is a fact”? Do you want to explain why you say one thing and then another?
Anyway, please notice the nature of the rhetorical questions that Jehovah is making in Jer. 23: 23-24 which confirms the point I made earlier, real Persons can “fill” everything without that impinging on their personhood.
I appreciate you showing how the word “fill” in used differently in diverse contexts, but you then go on to say that “it is not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not” even though you do conclude on this for the Holy Spirit in Ex. 31:1-5.
You move on to Acts 2:17 were it says that the Holy Spirit is “poured out” and that to you shows how the Spirit is not a person. If this were valid evidence then the apostle Paul would not be a person either, because he wrote about himself, “I am being poured out…” (Phil 2:17) and “…I am already being poured out…” (2 Tim 4:6). Your line of reasoning with regard to the Holy Spirit being “poured forth” can hardly be used as proof against the Holy Spirits personality. I hope that you can see this? I can tell that you are an intelligent person, but I have to say that so far your evidence is very superficial, sorry. <><
-
On 10/22/2017 at 3:12 PM, Gone Fishing said:
The Scriptures make it clear to me that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's operative energy. Every Scriptural reference that I have seen confirms this. My favourite reference (at the moment) is at Exodus 31:1-5:
Gone fishing,
I went through the passage of Exodus 31:1-5 a number of times, in a number of translations trying to figure how you get the idea that the Holy Spirit in this passage means “operative energy”...then it came to me...when you JW’s see the word “fill” or “filled” you automatically apply the Watchtower teaching found in their publications which claim that because people can be filled with the Holy Spirit, then He can’t be a Person.
However the Bible informs us that Jehovah fills “heaven and the earth” Jer. 23:24, and Eph. 4:10 speaks of the Lord Jesus filling all things. Ephesians 1:23 speaks of the Lord as the one who “fills all in all”.
The simple fact that our Lord can fill all things does not mean He is not a Person, does it?
God the Father and the Lord Jesus are Person and the Scriptures say that they "fill" everything, then why can not the Holy Spirit have this same ability?
Notice also how in Exodus 31:1-5 Jehovah speaks of the Spirit of God as distinct to Himself, you will find that throughout the Scriptures.
Nothing in the passage even hints that the Spirit is “power in action/active force” or as you like to coin the phrase “operative energy”, that idea you have to read into the passage.
On 10/22/2017 at 3:12 PM, Gone Fishing said:However, I retain my opinion that it is not possible for me to verify with absolute certainty what his views were because he is not at liberty to comment on my understanding of them being, as he is, dead.
I’m sorry to say but you claim one thing about Ellicott, how you consider his comments “both erudite and articulate” only when it comes down to what he says which you like and want to align yourself with, but when it comes down to the things you don’t like about his “opinions” you say that you can’t understand nor verify his meaning because he is dead and can’t ask him, even though the context of his work is very clear as to what he means.
Instead of just taking the little bit you like out of context, to align yourself with, why don’t you read why he say what he does? <><
-
10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
?????
Gone fishing,
What can’t you understand? You claimed that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, even though you don’t “share” his “opinions”. This is what you said, right? How can you claim to not share his opinion when you now say that there is no way to verify what his opinion was?
10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:Ah yes. Thanks for your view on what I must have done.
Ok, I’m sorry, you don’t actually interpret Scripture, how then do you arrive at an idea that lacks any biblical verification... also, you seem to like to quote Scripture, so tell me please why you don't accept what the Scriptures states regarding the Holy Spirit? <><
-
14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
You believe interpretation of a dead man's writings does not require verification for certainty. Thank you for your opinion.
Gone fishing,
Your welcome, but it’s odd how you said you acknowledge that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, but it would seem that that now this is not the case.
14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:However you chose to interpret the scriptures I cited, it doesn't change the fact that I see and credit the fruitage of the spirit as an evidence of the spirit's operation in my life.
You must have also interpreted Scripture to arrive at the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person; and to which you will accredit this so-called “power in action/active force” as the thing for the “operation in [your] life” this idea is not exegetically possible. <><
-
18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
But we cannot change the fact that the writings of dead men will only ever be open to interpretation, as those men are not alive to verify our understanding of their words.
Gone fishing,
I’m sorry but I totally disagree, to claim that we cannot really know the meaning of anything writing after an author is dead regardless even of the context, is very poor logic.
18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I would cite the words of the apostle Paul
In the three passages you cite, the referent in each is a Person. <><
-
17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
I can't be sure of Ellicott's meaning as he is long dead.
Gone fishing
You are mistaken; we can be “sure”, from the context, exactly what Ellicott meant.
17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:What else?
I don’t know what you accredit as “operation in [your] life” to mean, but what I do know is that you need biblical verification for that claim to be justifiable. <><
-
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
In any case, my use of Ellicott's expression serves as MY endorsement of HIS excellent choice of words.
Gone fishing,
To quote Ellicott’s commentary and say that you endorse his “excellent choice of words” shows that you somehow want to align his meaning with your own and that plainly is not the case.
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:the genuine enquirer can always seek clarification.
I will try to remember the next time you quote something to ask you if the authors’ meaning is the same as yours.
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:It's operation in my life.
Surely there must be some biblical verification that supports your view that the “operation in [your] life” is an effect of what you call “power in action/active force” and not something else (1 Thess. 5:21). <><
-
On ?10?/?16?/?2017 at 7:31 PM, Gone Fishing said:
So let's hope you have corrected that misunderstanding now.
Gone fishing,
Â
Please try not to be ambiguous when quoting, for some who might be completely naïve and unacquainted with Ellicott, could take what you quote as some sort of endorsement when clearly it is not. You don’t want to be guilty of having someone falsely believe something when it’s not the truth, do you?
Â
On ?10?/?16?/?2017 at 7:31 PM, Gone Fishing said:I think we have established that we both have an understanding of what the holy spirit is and that this understanding differs.
If you want to present aspects of your understanding and the reasons for why it is so, that's fine with me. I am quite happy to credit you with control of your own mind on matters, if you are prepared to reciprocate. I cannot see a basis for discussion otherwise.
I have given you some evidence already demonstrating  that the Holy Spirit is a Person which you just deny without giving a reason, so I’d like to ask on what basis do you arrive at your understanding, or more specifically, what backing do you have for your understanding that the Holy Spirit is “power in action/active force”? <><
-
On 10/15/2017 at 3:28 PM, Gone Fishing said:
I can quote anything I like when I like especially as this material is public domain. I am not saying anything about Ellicott's teachings or beliefs
Gone fishing,
Of course you can quote whatever you want to quote; it’s just that the quote from Ellicott’s Commentary come on the heels of where you just said that “passage and context” determines your understanding, then that quote came across as though you were claiming that Ellicott was in some way endorsing the JW idea. So I thought, wow this guy says one thing and then does another, which I stated in my post.
On 10/15/2017 at 3:28 PM, Gone Fishing said:No need to guess on that one. However, it might save you some frustration if you concentrate on the subject matter rather than waste effort in attacking the Watchtower.
The subject matter is related to how the Watchtower wants you to understand the Holy Spirit. They promote the idea of “power in action/active force” which JW’s adhere to even though, as we have seen, that idea in Scripture is not exegetically possible. <><
-
13 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
Ellicott's Commentary speaks of it as "Divine operative energy" which I found quite appealing, and which is the most readily remembered description I have in my mind.
Gone fishing,
It is very misleading to quote three words out of context from Ellicott’s Commentary and then say you find them “appealing” but when put back in context I very much doubt that you really find what is meant “quite appealing”.
You had just told me that “passage and context” is something that determines your “understanding” (even though you are referring to biblical situations) but will quote from Ellicott and completely disregard the actual context. Why?
14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:I would think any rendering of a Bible expression is executed by a translator with a view to making the text understandable to the reader
I guess the Watchtower wants you to “understand” that the Holy Spirit is some sort of “power in action/active force” but not actually use those very words throughout their translation, even though that is what they say is meant; this all comes across as not being very transparent with the translation approach as it does not really convey the “thought” of what they claim is being expressed. <><
JW's mistaken claim...
in Topics
Posted
Ms Fofana,
Thank you for your reply, and I’m sorry that it has taken me a long period to reply, many things have, and still do, occupy my time, but your reply was a “must respond to” which I marked in my calendar.
Your language is somewhat strange you use “izz” instead of “is” a few times, please explain why? You say also that in your many years of “churchgoing” you never heard anyone claim that “Jesus IS God”. Can I ask which church you attended during that time?
Now, the Jehovah’s Witness I spoke to said that the Trinity began to be taught (invented) in the fourth century. Try this simple test, ask one of your JW friends when they say that the Trinity “began”.
I noticed the Watchtower broacher on the Trinity was brought up. It is interesting that in that broacher on page seven the Watchtower conveys the idea that "the Trinity was unknown throughout biblical times and several centuries thereafter." (Emphasis mine). That statement implies a fourth century ‘invention” and that statement is incorrect! In fact many things in that Watchtower broacher are incorrect, which, I believe, explains why the Watchtower pulled it from circulation. <><