Cos

20 hours ago, Otto said:

It's what the holy spirit means to God and the authority it possesses as granted by him that means we can blaspheme it.

Otto

I’m sorry but this makes no sense, and how can a “force” possess authority?

20 hours ago, Otto said:

A spirit ruach is such because the wind produces effect seen by man...evil spirit produces evil effects Gods HOLY Spirit produces HOLY acts from God...blashemed by being denied by man..its not a person.

Are the evil spirits you refer to here person? <><

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is done because you often do it. Nobody really knows what names are genuine here.

Gone fishing,

As I said, my intention is not to cause offence, but you were condescending in your reply simple because you didn’t like what I said. I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t (genuine or not), and I address them respectfully, and for this I am mocked yet I never said anything until your condescending reply which was uncalled for. If you had noticed I did qualify my comments, with a bracketed statement.  

In the shot time I’ve been on this forum I’ve noticed a lot of people disrespect others, and there is no excuse for that.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This particullar male religious teacher was an RC priest. This term was used in answer to any question connected with probing the relationship between God and Christ which, on my part incidentally, had no connection with any other religious persuasion, but was merely a natural product of the learning process, albeit in a Catholic scholastic environment.

I am not Roman Catholic, so I cannot speak for their methods or terminologies, what I do know is that their system of belief is quite complex, so it’s not surprising that a “questioning youth” would be hard pressed to grasp what they are going on about. Having said that, there must be some who do grasp their system, after all, there is a lot of practicing Roman Catholics. Maybe you had a teacher who was unsuitable for role, I don’t know.

You stated three questions that you say you asked your religious teacher, and where he replied “We do not understand this in human terms”. This to me confirms that he was not suitable because he just dismissed your questions with a nonspecific response. The Bible does supply the answers and does so in reasonable and understandable terms.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The change was really from ignorance as I don't think I had any understanding of Jesus teaching on the "helper" prior to reading the passages. So there wasn't a change that took place in respect of his teaching.

I don’t get this; you say you had no understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit, because the problem was due to you not seeing a actual Bible till you were in your 20’s…and that’s when you read Genesis 1:2 so you wanted to know more, but that does not explain why the change in your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter.” What part of the Bible made you change your understanding which you say you did not?

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I don't fully understand what you are driving at here,

As has been shown in Scripture, (even the Scriptures you cite) dynamei is identified as power in action. So when you couple the JW idea about the Holy Spirit in sentences with dynamei (power in action) it makes the JW concept on the Holy Spirit redundant. <><

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Dear dear Cos. you are fond of these rather demeaning responses aren't you? Is this how you were taught?

Gone fishing,

It is not my intention to cause offence for I have always tried to used respect towards everybody – unlike some who will mock my use of the term “mister” when I address someone by addressing me “Mr. Cos” (you included). But, even thought Cos is not my surname, I have said nothing in response to this very demeaning and insulting way that this is done.

I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t, and I address them respectfully, for this I am mocked. So please don’t be condescending.

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

"mystical" eh? Now that's a word my Trinitarian religious teacher used in answer to questions I had on the Trinity doctorine at school!

I’ve had JW’s use this in trying to dismiss the Trinity. One of my dictionaries has “is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence”. I’ve never heard of a religious teacher opting to use the expression to explain the Trinity. But as I was not present can you tell me how he/she used the expression to answer you?

And, by the way, I’d be more than happy to answer any of those questions that you say you asked your religious teacher.

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

With regard to your request, it is the entire discussion provided by Jesus on the subject. His words for me stand alone without any need for me to amplify or explain.

Yes you keep saying this, but what factor made you change your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter”?

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I'm quite happy with your definition. Although I would add that Jehovah's power does not cease to exist when it is not in action.

I agree Jehovah’s power (dynamei) will not “cease”. I was pointing to this mistaken idea you have about the Holy Spirit being “active force” or “power in action”, take for example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" when you guys read this then it must go along these lines, "anointing with power in action and power in action". <><

3 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Thanks for the offer

Hi Gone fishing,

That’s a shame for it is a very interesting study; nonetheless as the passage in question is as you claim based on “one’s understanding of Scripture” I can’t help but think that it was just another "knee jerk" reaction (for lack of a better term) appealing to that passage in response to me question?

3 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I now differ as to my understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter

Please, Gone fishing, can you show me where in John Gospel when Jesus explains about the coming of the Holy Spirit that makes you now “understand” that Jesus was not referring to a person but instead to a mystical “force” of some kind?

3 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Now, "power in action"  is synonomous with the word "force" however, and these can be substituted for each other.

This idea of “power in action”, which you identify with “force” is the meanings given for dynamei (or dunamis).

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek Testament states that δύναμις (dynamei) is “not merely power capable of action, but, power in action”

Also when you looking up the word δύναμις (dynamei Strong 1411) this word signifies “force”, see Strong’s Dictionary.

In fact Paul mostly uses the word δύναμις (dynamei) for divine force in action. (Rom 1:16. 9:22, 1 Cor. 4:20 etc).

Abbot-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT lists among the meanings for δύναμις “of power in action”

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says that δύναμις is also that “which a person or thing exerts and puts forth"

Therefore, in Luke 1:35 where it says “power of the Most High” is this “power” (dynamei) in action as it “overshadows Mary? Is action ascribed to “power of the Most High” in Luke 1:35?

Either the “power of the Most High” is in action, or it’s not?

Also, is dynamei (power) in Acts 10:38, as in Luke 1:35, in action? <><

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

 Your opinion is interesting, but not one I share.

Gone fishing,

Maybe you would like to study Rev. 13:6? I’d be willing to go through this with you in more detail if you like?

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing creates a contradiction.

It is quite amusing how quoting exactly from the Watchtower, on what they say regarding the Holy Spirit, is turned around to be my “selective phrasing” that somehow makes the contradiction.

Power is power whether it is in use or not. For example the power stored in a battery (potential) is the same power when the battery is in use. Yes or no?

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Basically, we disagree on the definition of Holy Spirit and I remain as unconvinced of your view as you do of mine.

You once told me that you wouldn’t have known of the Holy Spirit “had not Jesus explained the matter” in John’s Gospel and that you are “happy with what he said”. Yet it is quite definite from those passages that Jesus does not explain the Holy Spirit as some kind of power! <><

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Rev.13:4. How can you blaspheme a name or residence?

Gone fishing,

I think you are referring to Rev. 13:6?

“Blaspheme His name”, implies a mocking of God’s character because the blasphemy is directed at a Person.

Also the verse does not mean blaspheme of the “residence” but to those persons that reside there.

“And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell (Greek skēnoō, tabernacle) in heaven” (Rev. 13:6).

And so, my question still stands; how can you blasphemy “a force” or a “field of energy” (Matt. 12:31)?

Also Gone fishing, my other question to you is still pending an answer; is there a contradiction when in one place the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, yet elsewhere the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is identified as God’s power”? <><

Mr Rook,

You don’t appreciate the warning I gave that’s your prerogative; my question is how can you blasphemy “a force” or a “field of energy”?

You know, you go on about “common sense truth” but to date you have not provided any, and your excuse for appealing to a Hollywood film to “bend scripture” to support your agenda does not comprise of “reason” or “logic” and certainly NOT “common sense”!

All you have done is use worldly terminologies, applied your misguided reasoning to them and then say that that is common sense, more like circular reasoning.

I am willing to discuss any Bible teaching with you, but don’t try to excuse your reading back worldly terminology into Bible words or using Hollywood films as some trustworthy “frames of references” because that claim is just plain ridiculous.

One more thing I’d like to point you to Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29.<><

Mr. Rook,

The absurdity of your comments is a farce; you read back into Scriptural words using modern worldly terminology in an effort to try and explicate what you can’t even explain rationally, and then you try to justify that ridiculous nonsense by liken your efforts to Hebrew parallelism. In fact you would do well to learn Scripture instead of relying on a Hollywood musical to support your wacky ideas. Better hope that your ridicule of the Holy Spirit is not considered blasphemy (Matt. 12:31)…good luck with that. <><

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:02 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Most people are wrong about almost everything they believe.

You may find one of Jehovah's Witnesses somewhere,  that believes the Holy Spirit is a giant tree frog, and expound on that at length, so your reference proves NOTHING.

I once met a very fine, theocratic Sister, who believed that demons came into her house over the cable TV line, into her television set.

Infinite variety among all humans ... most are NOT troubled by insanity ... they rather ENJOY it.

I agree that "pneuma means wind ... irregardless of gender. ( The song from the movie "Paint your Wagon: "They Call The Wind Mariah", comes to mind.).

I would expound more, but I have bronchitis, which may become PNEUMONIA, and I have to re-inflate one of the PNEUMATIC tires in the hand truck I carry concrete in.

In case you missed it ... that was a common sense HINT.

.

Mr. Rook,

In John 4:24 God is referred to as “pneuma” using your tunnel vision logic this would mean that God is wind.

But let’s apply this “wind” idea into practice using the Scriptures and see if it stand the test;

“…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy [wind].” (Matt. 28:19)

“David himself said by the Holy [wind]. (Mark 12:36)

“And the [wind] said to Philip, ‘Approach and join this chariot.’” (Acts 8:24)

“And while they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy [wind] said,…” (Acts 13;2)

“For it seemed best to the Holy [wind] and to us to place on you no greater burden except these necessary things” (Acts 15:28)

“He who searches the heart knows what is in the mind of the [wind], since the [wind] pleads before God for the saints.” (Romans 8:27)

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy [wind] be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13)

I could go on, but this should be enough to show the absurdity of your position. It is clear that only someone completely unacquainted with Scripture would constantly apply worldly terminology to try and support a faulty idea! So many differing ideas just to avoid the most obvious. <><

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that the Holy Spirit is a person and don’t like it when they are shown how their reasoning is wrong. I once had a JW contend that because the noun for “spirit” in the Greek Scriptures is “pneuma” which is neuter so the Spirit is rendered as “it” instead of “he”.

Let me point out that in Koine Greek there is no necessary connection between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply false to say that since the Greek noun “pneuma” is neuter the Spirit must be an “it.”

There abound many lines of evidence in the Bible which prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. For example, Jesus said he would send “another” in His place (John 14:16). The word for another is “allos” in Greek and refers to another just like Jesus. It is therefore logical to conclude from this that the Spirit is a person since Jesus is clearly a person. Further, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “Parakletos” which requires that He be a person since the functions of “Parakletos” are personal (Jesus is also referred to as “Parakletos” in 1 john 2:1). <><

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.

Hi JW Insider,

I don’t see the connection, just because some JW’s  now conclude this about your late president, it’s not correct to group Greber’s practices with what you JWs now believe, remember you said, “Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence...”

I would say you can definitely bank on the fact that it was not your late president in communication with the Watchtower Society after his death, but that’s not to say that something else wasn’t.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 

The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.

What you say only confirms that the Watchtower would use any means, no matter what, to promote an idea or theory irrespective of where or who it comes from…that’s not very good stewardship.

It is also plausible that they still continue in this manner.

There still is the problem with this idea that the Watchtower “lost sight of” the fact about Greber’s occult practices. It seem unimaginable that the then president and the rest of the governing body ALL totally miss this…don’t they even read their own magazine aren’t they supposed to have their fingers on the pulse as is claimed about what’s being put into the magazine and books publish by the Watchtower?

You admit to have been privy to a lot of the goings on at Watchtower H.Q. which the average JW would not be aware of, my question is, do you just accept all those things? <><

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I have the advantage over you, Cos, if you are less than 50 years old.

In 7th Grade English they taught us to diagram sentences to be able to determine EXACTLY what was being said in written communications.  It has proved valuable to me my entire life.

My wife tells me that in High School now-days  no one can understand script writing ... how to read an analog clock,  or Roman numerals. It is not taught in public schools anymore.  She teaches High School Algebra, and Calculus.

Neither is how to diagram sentences, and that has not been taught for apparently many decades.

The sentence structure determines what is actually being said ... the BOLD type is used for visual emphasis, much like spiking a football AFTER the touchdown, therefore ...

The sentence structure determines what is actually being said.

 

Mr. Rook,

The only “advantage” you may think you have is a figment of your imagination! <><

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return.

Hello JW Insider,

It is good to speak with you again. At least someone else can see the absurdity of Mr. Ewing’s claim, however, the other JW’s here are not going to like that from you, even Mr. Ewing when speaking of you as an “ex-bethelite” does so with such venom in his tone.

I must thank you for a very detailed description of some of the “goings on” in WT H.Q., some of which I have heard about before.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated,

Over the many years that the Watchtower quoted Greber for support does constitute a “steady relationship”, there was no other way for me to say it. Also, I can understand, due to your obvious background, how you would think that I exaggerated by using the words “how often”, it’s just a way of saying more than once.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else.

Greber mentions that the ‘spirits’ directed him to alter what they said were “many erroneous doctrines that had subsequently crept into the Christian faith” and it was these that he changed under the their guidance. 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.

I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.

There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?

I notice that you make some further interesting comments in other posts that I’d like to discuss with you some other time, I’ll have to end this post here as I have other pressing matters that I need to attend to for now. <><

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

It APPEARED to me at that point in time that you were lying ... I did NOT call you a liar, a point you missed in avoiding making a legitimate focused reply.

A reasonable person analyzing your foggy unfocused and choppy replies would conclude ....

YOU DID.

 

Mr. Rook,

To say that I ‘lied” using bold lettering is the same as calling me a liar, or has that type of labeling changed? You do this all the time, I say something which you don’t like and then you accuse me of dishonesty. If what I say to you is “foggy” have you ever thought that maybe it’s you that has “blinkers” on causing you jump to false conclusions? <><

18 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Mr.COS

Well, the good thing people can decide and see for themselves how disingenuous your argument is. The “facts” speak for themselves. Your arrogance has become your Achilles' heel, therefore rendering your experiment meaningless.

Did I suggest using a simple tool like google translate to come up with a deception publisher of the “Bible” have been using for decades? Yes! Don’t start twisting my word!

As for knowing Latin, keep studying junior, you have ways to go. Include Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic before making a pompous retort.

As you stated, your observation is irrational and incoherent for a scholarly review. To them, it means as you project, zilch!

Mr. Ewing,

 

I really donÂ’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you donÂ’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them. <><

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

You are trying to shift the burden to me, because it is YOU that lacks reading comprehension, and do not THINK about what is actually being said

For your convenience, I quote my original post you take umbrage with ... I don't know if you even understand what a "qualifying statement" IS, now. The only alternative I see is that you have a complete lack of reading comprehension skills so I will isolate it for you, thusly ..... (ahem!) ... and highlighted in RED, from your quote of my post.

You could ask the Greek speaking village idiot, and that would have no value whatsoever.

Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that you LIED about having asked anyone at all from the Greek speaking community about this.

You avoided the actual issue.

I look forward to your complete, rational and comprehensive details of the experiment YOU ALLEGEDLY ran, if you really did .... which I currently doubt almost to the point of certainty ... and I am being generous.

 

Mr. Rook,

You have already falsely accused me of dishonesty when you doubted that the Watchtower appealed to an occultist for support on their renderings until I showed the proof, but then, to hide your ignominy, you made a most outrageous comment, which I very much doubted, but hey that’s what you needed to do to avoid the implication of the Watchtower Society’s association with an occultist.

Now you again falsely accuse me of lying. There is no way that I can verify to your satisfaction that I spoke with this person no matter what I say as you have already made your mind up. One thing, don’t you think that if I lied I would have said something more along the lines like “Yeah, we discussed all about anarthrous predicate nouns …blah blah blah.” But no, none of that was discussed, he told me how he understood the verse and that was all. <><

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

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

 

Mr. Ewing,

At least I acknowledge to Mr. Rook my reason and apologized…you on the other hand make excuses and change the allegation to “I was only referring to the ‘mental’ state”.

Wow I would have to be a mind reader to have known that that was what you meant, since you specifically said “you or your alter ego Shiwiii”.

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

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

Google and others, according to you, are in cahoots with “publisher’s” (who are these “publisher’s” you refer to, and who you claim “get the results they wish”?). Now if that were even true, and it’s not, then they could have programmed translate to do both, that is with, and without the period, wow maybe these “publishers” never thought of that! That by the way is me being sarcastic to the claims you make.

And you know why this wild theory of yours fails? Because of those of us who have taken the time to learn Latin, maybe that is something you should do.

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Your Bias!!! You only include those ideologies that affirm your claim of “oneness”.

And you not bias?

By the way, I do not adhere to “oneness” theology. So you got that wrong as well!

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Why didn’t you bring up the Coptic Version if it fails with its rendering? Why hide something that opposers have known for over 70 years now. Why the mystery? Why the deception?

 

As I showed the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns. When translated to English this article is not required. You JW’s want to ignore the linguistic of the Coptic so that it fits in with your erroneous rendering, that’s not “sound judgment” now is it? Why didn’t I bring up the Coptic version, because there is no problem with it, only the wild misconception some have!

The rest of what you say is a mix of disjointed sentences which would require me to use my powers of mind reading to know what you even mean, the only bit that is a bit coherent  is the quotes you use at the end which mean absolutely zilch! <><

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

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

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

 

Mr. Rook,

Originally when you said “native Greek educated person” there was no mention of a “qualifying criteria”. He told me how he understood the verse when he reads it, which is exactly the way I do. <><

16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is SILLY .....

you are both arguing about someone's OPINION.

It is like arguing that Jesus' mother, Mary, looks like Catholic Statuary, or a female Danny DiVito.

Why not approach the problem from what makes common sense ... then see if your theological theory agrees with what is rational, and makes sense.

To paraphrase "Opinions are like posterior body orifices, everybody has some".

May the FORCE be with you!

Mr. Rook,

There is nothing wrong in gauging a person perspective. I remember that you at the start of this thread put forward your own quite readily. <><

11 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

Mr. COS

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

 

Mr. Ewing,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

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

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

Doubleplusungood.

Mr. Rook,

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

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

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

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

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ewing,

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

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

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

 

 

 

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

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

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

 

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

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

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

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

To find out who knows what ... ask him (or her) if they understand what a greek anarthrous predicate is. If they do ... show them the scripture.

All else is fibrillation for delusion.

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

13 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

in view of the tone of your responses, I will leave you to surmise on what that might be. 

 

Gone fishing

Why is it that every time the truth is mentioned you JW’s get all defensive and evasive?  

13 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

"It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force."
 

I’m sorry but it amuses me how you said, when I asked you to explain your idea on the Holy Spirit, you alleged that you didn’t have one, and in so doing, brushed my question aside. But that seems to have all changed. Now it appears that you are “towing the party line” so to speak.

That aside, all I’d like to know is, are you asserting that there is no contradiction when in one place the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, yet elsewhere they say that the Holy Spirit “is identified as God’s power”? <><

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

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

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

Hi Shiwiii

These sites are in Latin.

http://www.maxmet.com/vulgate/Ioannem.html

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

http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html

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