Cos

Mr. Ewing When studying Latin, I was struck with the directness of the language. Google translate is good only to a point, not something I would use or rely upon. You cannot translate the Latin of John 1:1 with “a” at the end as you suggest. “Deus erat Verbum” translates directly to, “Word was God” It cannot in anyway translate to “Word was [a] God”. <><

Certainly can’t be "Arian Greek" because that all made-up!

Mr. Ewing, It was you who brought up the Watchtower’s usage of Thomas Belsham’s version. All I was doing is expressing the fact that Mr. Belsham altered Archbishop Newcome's text to conform with his own perspective, even Gone fishing grasped this. Now you want to jump to “the example provided above”. I have never noticed that the Watchtower ever cited Edward Harwood “Liberal Translation” but I might be wrong, so please refer me to where they utilized this translation? Anyway, note if you will, the footnote Edward Harwood provides where he speaks against “the Platonist” philosophical view that the Logos is somehow an inferior person to God. Also, I believe that the term “divine” in biblical theology means nothing other than God. <><

Gone fishing, Yes it is “easily obtainable” in today’s world but not back when the Watchtower started using Belsham’s version for support. <><

Gone fishing, I told you that I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs; it is the “go to”, the knee jerk reaction, that JW’s appeal to when confronted with the passage on the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel. Your denial that that was not your intent was contradicted by you when you later admitted that it was for that purpose that you appealed to Proverbs. You can call it what you like but it is the truth, like it or not. Are you say that the phrasing from the Watchtower where they say that the Holy Spirit is “not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, but elsewhere where they say that the Holy Spirit is “identified as God’s power”, that that is not a contradiction? I just want to make sure that this is exactly what you are saying, because as the example above and from the other thread demonstrate you tend do say one thing and then say the opposite later. So bear with me as I just want to make sure that this is what you are saying. <><

Come Now Mr. Ewing The obvious reason Mr. Belsham altered the original was to conform to his Unitarian perspective.

Gone fishing, You have generously given some quotes from Thomas Belsham’s title page. One would think that this information on how Mr. Belsham made alteration to Bishop Newcome’s text should have been made known to the readers of the Watchtower when they quote Mr. Belsham’s rendering for support, yes? And of course the obvious reason Mr. Belsham altered the original was to conform to his Unitarian perspective. Also, now you admit that the Watchtower did use Greber occult inspired NT as support for their own rendering, when previously you were alleging that this was not the case? <><

Gone fishing, Let’s examine how you contradict. Here is what I said on Friday the 8th of Sept. “Now it is clear to me that you only take those passages in John’s Gospel to be a personification, as does Otto.” Your response on Friday the 8th of Sept “Your clarity is very easily assumed?” “I only applied the technique you demonstrated with regard to Jesus words about Holy Spirit to another passage of scripture and asked you to share your view or opinion. I don't recall I said anything about what my understanding of Proverbs 8 is as it is not the topic under discussion. I was more interested in the application of your technique to that passage and what you felt it might reveal.” Then on Saturday the 9th of Sept. I said; “you then asked me what I thought about the poetic passage in Proverbs as though that’s the ‘sense’ you understand John Gospel.” On Sunday the 10th of Sept. you said “This is a pure presumption on your part I'm afraid” I said on Sunday the 10th of Sept. “Please, if it is “pure presumption” explain the reason you brought the passage up?” You then said on Sunday the 10th of Sept. , “I wanted to know what you thought of it and what the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs.” NOTE; this is where you applied the phrase that you later claim to not know what it means! Then again on Sunday the 10th of Sept. I said, “Come on…the passage from Proverbs had nothing to do with the context of the thread. You and I know full well why you brought it up; you even emphasized certain portions indicating your intention.” You then said on Sunday the 10th of Sept. “You are still presuming, and now it seems indulging in some mentalism it appears? I said Sunday the 10th of Sept “You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage that has nothing to do with the thread, and you even emphasized certain portions of the passage; for what reason did you emphasize those portion if you want to know my “analysis technique” on the passage?” You then said, and here is the contradiction, “I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post.” Do you see your contradiction? First it was that you want me to share my “view or opinion…and what [ I ] felt it might reveal” But here you say that you already “demonstrated” my so called “analysis technique” on the passage of Proverbs “in the earlier post” which is what I said you were doing all along! Now quoting encyclopedia’s out of context by leaving portion out seems to be a favorite ploy by the Watchtower, JW’s and others. Sadly now it seam that Otto is not joining in anymore, although I hope he still paying attention. Anyway, let me point out to you, as I point out to Otto, one of the many Watchtowers contradictions: In the Watchtower publication “Insight on the Scriptures” they say that the Holy Spirit “It is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”. Yet on the Watchtower web page they say; “In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245 We have on the one hand, a Watchtower article that says that your idea of holy spirit “IS NOT Jehovah’s power”. Then in another article the Watchtower says that your idea of holy spirit “IS IDENTIFIED AS” Jehovah’s “power in action”. One place they say “is not” Jehovah’s power and another they say “is identified as” Jehovah’s "power". Contradiction! <><

For those who make appeal to Archbishop Newcome's New Translation ‘with a Corrected Text’... After Archbishop Newcome's death a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text! This altered text by the Unitarian Belsham, dishonors Archbishop Newcome's careful scholarship. Archbishop Newcome certainly never said the Word was "a god". Then there is the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson. Mr. Wilson never studied biblical Greek and therefore his renderings are slanted to his doctrinal bias. <><

Gone fishing, If it’s any conciliation…your contradictions still don’t come close to the many contradictions of the Watchtower Society! <><

Here is what the Watchtower said about Greber’s translation when they lied about not knowing of his occult practices. “This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings… as given in the New World Translation” (The Watchtower 1983 April 1 p. 31 Questions From Readers). Whoever says that the Watchtower didn’t use Greber’s translation for support is completely wrong? <><

Gone fishing, You say one thing then say something else, contradicting what you originally said. I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs and told you as much, you said its “pure presumption”, but then later you admit that it was for that very reason. You also bring up phrases and then you say that you don’t understand what they “actually mean”. Either you are faking your ignorance or you have some really bad memory problems. You quoted from John Skinner, I’ll quote from the renowned Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; “The Spirit of Jehovah” is the Spirit which moved upon the waters at the creation, and by which chaos was reduced to order.” And from the Jewish Targums; "who hath directed the Holy Spirit…” Scholars’ can and do have different opinions, as for me, I have studied this verse and will maintain what I originally said. <><

Gone fishing The fact that the Watchtower lied about not knowing of Greber’s occultism should worry you…what other lies are they telling you…? I showed you your contradiction. You called what I said about the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings a “false accusation”, but then you go on to support that they did agree with Greber. Look, if you want I can show how the Watchtower teachings, which are in line with demon teachings, are false. Let me know and we can look at them closely. Sure the Devil can quote Scripture, I never said he can’t, but he distorts what he quotes and falsely applies it, read it for yourself.<><

Gone fishing, You claimed that it was “pure presumption” on my part when I said that you just do what every other JW does when confronted with the clear text that goes against your belief system and that is by appealing to Proverbs. I’m sorry to say but once again you contradict yourself… Now you allege that you were “demonstrating” what you call my “analysis technique” to the passage of Proverbs…now that’s exactly what I said you were doing. But you were asserting otherwise. By the way, make sure you understand a passage of Scripture before you quote them; I will contend that the pronouns ‘him” and “his” in Isa. 40:13 are referring to the Spirit Himself! <><

Gone fishing, You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage that has nothing to do with the thread, and you even emphasized certain portions of the passage; for what reason did you emphasize those portion if you want to know my “analysis technique” on the passage? <><

Gone fishing, Come on…the passage from Proverbs had nothing to do with the context of the thread. You and I know full well why you brought it up; you even emphasized certain portions indicating your intention. <><

Gone Fishing, Why ask me what I thought on the poetic passage in Proverbs if that was not where you were leading? Please, if it is “pure presumption” explain the reason you brought the passage up? <><

Gone Fishing, You claim my comment "Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings" is a “false accusation”, but then you contradict yourself by saying “Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable…demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths”. That is a contradiction sir and no wonder, just like the Watchtower, that warned its readers about Greber demon inspired NT, then goes and quotes it for support. Despite knowing full well that Greber was a occultist, the Watchtower Society continually cited Greber as an authority in support for their own false teachings. And in the end the Society lied outright by claiming that they were unaware of Greber’s occult association. <><

Gone Fishing, When I gave you my perspective on the Holy Spirit you made repeated comments like “to you” and then said, “to me it is not strange, and makes perfect sense”, you then asked me what I thought about the poetic passage in Proverbs as though that’s the “sense” you understand John Gospel. Isn’t that where you were leading with what you said? It is what all JWs do when confronted with the clear text that goes against their belief. So, isn’t that where you were going? You then say that you have no “idea of what the Holy Spirit is" maybe that’s because you reject the obvious. <><

Otto, Personification is a rhetorical figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with personal qualities. As you show, personification are found throughout the Scriptures, But in all these examples we know by way of life experience that they are not really persons. Not so with the Holy Spirit, that is an opinion you JWs have. No one can know the Holy Spirit is a thing (and not a person) the way we can know a mountain is not a person from life experience. We can prove something is personification by finding places in the Bible that outright states it is not a person but a thing. We can do this with sin, death, hills, wisdom, stars etc. When a passage that ascribes personal characteristics or action to a thing cannot be interpreted literally, then the passage is using personification. Personification is an example of poetic license: saying something that ordinary logic tells us is impossible. If this ordinary signal is absent, it stands to reason that the passage is not using personification. For example, death does not literally rule as king, nor does sin literally rule as king, a martyr’s blood does not literally cry out from the ground. Tongues do not literally strut. Rivers do not literally clap their hands. Light and truth are not literal travel guides to a sacred site. Money is not a literal god and so on. When we turn to the Scriptures that describe the person and work of the Holy Spirit, however, this ordinary signal is absent. There is nothing in the descriptions of the Holy Spirit that cannot be true of an actual spiritual being. For example: “If I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John16:7); “The Spirit intercedes for us” (Rom.8:26); “The Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” (1Cor.2:10). None of these passages states any personal characteristic or action that is impossible for a spiritual entity to possess or to perform. The usual signpost that says “personification” is absent. There is nothing in these passages that puts them into the company of valleys that sing (Ps.65:13) and stones that cry out (Hab.2:11). There is a second principle that also comes into play: does personification fit the context? When we try to interpret the descriptions of the Holy Spirit as mere figures of speech, the attempt fails. The contexts of the passages do not fit the premise that the Holy Spirit is not a person. You say, “The HS is constantly sandwiched in among concepts like faith, Joy Mat 3v11 and Cor 6v6 puts it in with purity, knowledge, patience, Holy spirit, and love...all of them NOT PEOPLE, The NT does this a lot maybe that's poetic in nature also when it describes the HS like that.” Otto, this type of argument you raise does not hold any substance for the Bible regularly associates and connects persons with impersonal things. Using the SAME reasoning you employ for Matthew 3:11 and 2 cor. 6:6 you would have to conclude that because death is not a person, then Jesus is not a person. And the same would apply in Galatians 3:27. Do these comparisons disprove the personality of Christ? Let’s take a look at the many times Jesus, a person, is associated with impersonal things; but these do not argue against HIS PERSONALITY. Jesus refers to Himself as the vine (John 15:1), the door (John 10:17), bread (John 6:35) etc,. Because these terms are used in association with Jesus they do not cancel out His personality, right? Is it legitimate to say that Jesus is not a person because HE is often associated in Scripture with impersonal things such as a vine, a door, bread? Please provide an answer. <><

Otto, The quote you supplied from a Watchtower publication makes this comment about the Holy Spirit; “It is not Jehovah’s “power” Yet on their web page they say; “In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245 We have on the one hand, a Watchtower article that says that your idea of holy spirit “IS NOT Jehovah’s power”. Then in another article the Watchtower says that your idea of holy spirit “IS IDENTIFIED AS” Jehovah's “power in action”. One place they say “is not” Jehovah’s power and another they say “is identified as” Jehovah’s power. Do you notice the obvious contradiction? <><

Otto, What you say shows a lack of understanding. Nowhere are the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit the same person. You are confusing Oneness with the Trinity. <><

Otto, Maybe I should have qualified what I said by inserting “in the Bible”. Sure other worldly religion would count as blasphemy towards a cow, a rock, Mohammad etc. I thought you would have realized that I was referring to in the Bible, but I guess not. <><

Otto, As I mentioned to Gone fishing, you JW’s want it both ways with wisdom in the Book of Proverbs; you would have it merely personified to help you explain away the passages in John’s Gospel because they go against your teaching about the Holy Spirit, but then also make wisdom an actual person to try and verify your idea that Christ was a created person. Proverbs is written in poetic and allegorical form, there is nothing in John’s Gospel to indicate that such is the case. <><

Otto, I think you are mistaken, I said my wife and I “are distinct persons”, I don’t know where you get your allegation from. (?)