Cos

9 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You don’t have to go to all that trouble of finding it on the internet. The simplest thing you can do is use google translate from any Latin Vulgate Bible, and use this little trick that many publishers use.

 

In, beginning existed the word with God and the Word was as (a) god, existed the word.

 

No definite article

The paradigm here is the usage of the word “both” as in God, and Christ as it was originally read. Then you can play with whatever words or vowels like, is, a, was, etc.

So, my personal rendering is the example above, but I prefer the Watchtower as a clear, concise and grammatic rendition of the original script.

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”. <><

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:18 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

What is "biblical Greek?" Are you sure that is not just "Trinitarian Greek?"

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

18 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Come! Come! Mr. COS

 

 

You first accuse the Watchtower of spiritualism, and now you have shifted to Unitarianism. How about the example, provided above, prior to Archbishop Newcome? Was that rendition Unitarian? I guess “all” translations with the edaphus of “a” is Unitarian. Please!

 

 

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. <><

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture.

Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.

Gone fishing,

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

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Hi Cos

Only 2 things in response this time. 

1.

I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it.

What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means.

And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John.

You responded by stating your opinion (in essence)  that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion."

 

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.

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. Power is potential.  Power in action is something else, the demonstration of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

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. <><

12 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

It's interesting that opposers argue a misguided theme between Archbishop Newcome William to that of Belsham, Thomas that “accepted” Newcome translation of the New Testament as scholarly and authoritative to continue to build upon that authority.

 

 

 

 

The same argument made by opposers when suggesting the same thing between BISHOP JAMES USSHER, and JOHN LIGHTFOOT.

 

 

This Trinitarian rebuttal is self-evident when attempting to distract people from their own ill-conceived notions, of unscholarly understanding in the Greek language, that is best suited for a true linguist.

 

 

A Liberal Translation of the New Testament: Being an Attempt to Translate 1768 Edward Harwood page 281

 

 

The beginning of the Holy Gospel according to John:

 

 

Before the origin of this world existed the LOGOS — who was then with the Supreme God — and was himself a divine person.

 

 

Come Now Mr. Ewing

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

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good to clarify this regarding the editions.

In fairness, the title page of the 1809 edition makes it clear that that the edition is BASED on Newcome's new translation. Also the Introduction, whilst acknowledging value of Newcome's work, lays out the principle that "no alteration should be made in the Primate'sTranslation, but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error or inaccuracy in the text, the language, the construction, or the sense,". And that, where an alteration was made to the text, "where it was thought necessary" , along with Newcome's rendering, "a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." Also in connection with additional items of explanantion included, "that where it was thought necessary, a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory."

So, the revision is more honestly handled by this commitee than perhaps those who were responsible for introducing the Comma Johanneum earlier. (which Archbishop Newcome, admirably, omitted from his translation, albeit without a footnote comment.)

Certainly he did not, and the cross references provided in the footnote presumably are there to reinforce his view: 

Was God.] Isai. vii. 14. ix.6. Matth. i. 23. John x. 33— 36. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii.6. Hebr. 1.3, 8.

But not without a clear and explanatory foot note:
"and the Word was a god.] "was God," Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to men as God that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See John x. 30, compared with xvii. 8, II, 16; iii. 34; v. 23; xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true reading was ***, the Word was God's, q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commission from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority."

The readers must decide for themselves.

Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

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? <><

23 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. 

Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case.

Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference.

This was a good one:

the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 :

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard"

This one I didn't know:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976:

"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit:

Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020:

Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

 

Gone fishing,

Let’s examine how you contradict.

Here is what I said on Friday the 8^th 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 8^th 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. <><

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Your choice

???

I don't understand what you actually mean. Your grammar mystifies me.

Who indeed?

John 20:22 "After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit."

John 14:25 "the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name"

The same one.

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? <><

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not  understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant.

I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault.

You really have lost me here I'm afraid.

Interesting.

The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II):

"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues.

or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit."

He seemed to explain it quite well there.

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. <><

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:32 PM, Gone Fishing said:

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.

Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 

So there is no contradiction ...sir.

However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":

"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

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.<><   

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:02 PM, Gone Fishing said:

I don't understand this statement really, but I think you are referring to my earlier response explaining that I wanted to apply your analysis technique, (demonstrated in some passages you quoted from John's gospel), to the passage in Proverbs 8.

I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post. What it indicates is clearly visible in that post, so my curiosity, (the reason for asking), is satisfied on that count. 

You have also shared your view on the passage (quoted earlier) in Proverbs 8 as being allegorical, poetic, and having no connection with this thread. Thank you for that also.

I think this statement from Isaiah 40:13 is definitely relevant to any discussion on Holy Spirit:

"Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah, and who can instruct him as his adviser?"

And also this reassuring encouragement at Luke 11:13:

"Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!"
 

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! <><

20 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

 You are still presuming, and now it seems indulging in some mentalism it appears? 

"whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things." Ph 4:8

 

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? <><

18 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Why not ask you? 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. 

Your presumption is that I was leading somewhere. Where did you presume I was leading? Better to let God's Spirit do the leading don't you think? No need to be so cagey and suspicious then: 

"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit is good; may it lead me on level ground" Ps 143:10.

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. <><

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

This is a pure presumption on your part I'm afraid.

You asked me to describe what my "idea" of the Holy Spirit is. I assumed (maybe wrongly) that  you meant what is my understanding of what the Holy Sprit is. Anyway, I will try to clarify my answer for you.

My understanding of what the Holy Spirit is is best expressed by Jesus who distributes it (John 20:22). I do not see how I could add to what he said at John 14:16-17, 26; 16:13-14 quoted below. The bold highlights hopefully add clarity to what my understanding comprises.

(John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
(John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.

My comment which you reference (quoted above) in context was to indicate that I have no "idea" other than the teaching of Jesus on this matter which, for me, provides adequate clarity on what the Holy Spirit is.

However, in case your question addresses the standard definitions of the word "idea" in connection with the Holy Spirit, I will try and align my thinking with these.

The word "idea" is defined as:

1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

2. the aim or purpose.

With regard to these definitions of the word " idea" in connection with the Holy Spirit:

I suppose my thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action would include to work with ithe Holy Spirit's direction in producing the fruitage of the Spirit; take care not to put out the fire of the Spirit; avoid blasphemy against the Spirit;  (Gal.5:22; 1Thess.5:19; Matt.12:31 ). That would seem to address also the second definition suggested in connection with my aim or purpose in connection with the Holy Spirit.

Taking issue with these kind of remarks, whilst tempting, I find counter-productive so excuse me if I do not take the bait and try to stick to the factual elements of your postings.

 

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? <><

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.

The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.

Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

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. <><

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Thank you.

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.

I do not have an  "idea" of what the Holy Spirit is. I would not even know that there was Holy Spirit had not Jesus explained the matter. So for me to add, expand, or interpolate on Jesus words seems rather impertinent. I am happy with what he said and that is why I quoted him in answer to your question. Not enough for you?

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. <><

19 hours ago, Otto said:

But still nowhere is the HS referred to God the Holy Spirit and I would say that the personification of sin, wisdom and death shows the bible is no stranger to the personification of concepts in order to help us comprehend them...the Holy Spirit is no different, just as the sin is not a person nor death neither is the HS.

Regarding the use of poetic language, if we look at Genesis where God says to Cain "sin is crouching" where exactly is the rest of the poem that you seem to think proves that this is not personification of a concept and...

 

also these things are not personified by JWs but by God.

 

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.

What verse would you use to show the "oneness" of the HS

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. <><

19 hours ago, Otto said:

It seems many people misunderstand what Witnesses say about the Holy Spirit, I notice confusion regarding what they say about spirit and power...please note their understanding...

 

Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

 

As you see they already understand this.

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? <><

10 minutes ago, Otto said:

I know you said that but to compare to the trinity you have to be separate and the same person at the same time....which you cannot be hence my highlight of that fact

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. <><

19 hours ago, Otto said:

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, to religious or holy persons or sacred THINGS, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable

 

SO AS YOU SEE YOU CAN BLASPHEME A "THING" ITS NOT FOR PEOPLE ONLY

 

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. <><

19 hours ago, Otto said:

COS.....

 

Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the masculine personal pronoun to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26;16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17,21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·raʹkle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneuʹma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuʹma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·raʹkle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

Lacks personal identification. Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—CompareAc 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52;19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, Int and other interlinear translations

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. <><

21 hours ago, Otto said:

At NO point are you and your wife the same person

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. (?)