Cos

Mr. Ewing,
 
You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.
 
What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!
 
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. <><

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

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”. <><

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 
This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament.
Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.
   
who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. 
 
you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.   

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar?
You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

This is only within your own mind, which is ok.  Numerous scholars disagree with you. F Franz was a very educated man, but...
According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)
 
Two years of Greek does not compare in the slightest to the Greek scholars who disagree with Franz and the nwt. It really doesn't matter too much, as I'm sure you have convinced yourself otherwise. I'm just not wired that way, I choose to search and see for myself if things are true or not. 

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 
What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 
 
You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

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”. <><

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about? Do you mean to tell me that God Himself allowed misunderstanding from 100 ad until the 1500's for the world to be in confusion? Really? Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding? Isn't it your belief that the Word of God is in fact complete? Why does it take a group of men to change the meaning of the Bible from what gods people, ANYONE WILLING TO READ THE BIBLE AND ACCEPT IT, to what the wt says it means? 

just a drop of poison won't hurt will it? 

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

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? <><
 

It is not irrelevant. Based upon your statements, you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof. If there is no proof, then the wt used Gerber to support what they might have been thinking, but the support is from the occult/spiritism. The teaching is not in harmony with what was actually written in John's gospel. It is only a play of tricks on wording that the wt inserted their influence onto the gospel. Your dismissal of those facts is a part of the actual problem, people seems to think that because the wt says its true, but the fact of the matter is that they use Gerber to insert their doctri
 
you can think so, but I've already given you scripture that shows that satan misleads by use of quoting scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. JUST LIKE THE WT.  

Can you provide proof that the wt had this teaching prior to Gerber, and merely used him as support? I seem to think that the NWT wasn't even in existence until the 40's/50's? Prior to then the wt used the KJV and the KJV does not have the same teachings as Gerber.
Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it so. The real evidence is the Bible itself: 
Genesis 3:1, John 8:44, Matt 4:5-7
Satan may quote scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. Just as we see with Eve and Jesus. He quoted perfectly, but changed the meaning to trick. So it does matter the source, because there are motives behind the source which do not align with the Word of God. 
 

YES IT DOES, because Satan quoted out of context just as the wt does. 

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.<><   

Yes, and even if they distance themselves from it now, it is still the basis of the nwt.

I rest my case ....

They used an occultist to uphold their false teachings (1 Tim. 4:1).

I would suggest, everyone read this. It is written by a former bethelite who was disfellowshipped for calling out Rutherford on the use of spirit healing and Ouija boards, it also goes into detail about how one of the original Awake (golden age) writers was demon possessed and later wrote the finished mystery. 
demonism_and_the_watch_tower.pdf
Rutherford has also been quoted as saying that one of the 24 elders of Revelation revealed to him the identity of the great crowd. Before this he made claims that Russell was leading the watchtower from beyond the veil. Then he later stated that the 1/24 elder who revealed to him the identity of the great crowd was Russell himself, which means the resurrection had to have happened some time before 1935. The fool went as far as to say that even demons tell the truth. I am not making this up, these are Rutherford's words. Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has. 

Hello Mr Joyce,
 
Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make some interesting claims that are not altogether true.
 
First they make a statement that:
“Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: ‘The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.'”
 
True, but not the whole truth, because the full quote from Barnes is as follows:
“The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2Co_1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1Pe_1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Act_2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Act_9:14; Act_22:16; Rom_10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed – in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him.” (emphasis mine)
 
If they accept Barnes on the fact that God should not be in the text they should also accept Barnes when he informs us that Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus and that Scripture indicates we can do it too. But no, they simply take the first part and ignore the rest. They then talk about the Greek word used:

“Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting the original Greek word, epikaleo, means: ‘To call upon, invoke; … to appeal to a authority.”
 
But words have been missed out from the Vine’s quote which put a different light on the issue:
 
“in the Middle Voice, to call upon for oneself (i.e., on one’s behalf), Acts 7:59”
 
Clearly Stephen called upon, invoked, prayed to the Lord Jesus. The Society, albeit seemingly reluctantly admit this was happening but want to show that you cannot do it today.
 
“Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.'”
 
What this has to do with praying to Jesus I am not sure. We Christians make a distinction between  God the Son and God the Father but we can still pray to Jesus in His own right.
 
Next they say:
“Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision. – Revelation 22:16,20”
 
No clear reason is given as to why, if Stephen prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, and John prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, you and I cannot pray to Jesus and it will be accepted!
 
They end the article with this:
“Although Christians today direct, all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.”
 
This refers back to an earlier paragraph where they stated:
“He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.”
 
Not according to other parts of the New Testament where the same Greek word, δέχομαι, is used.
 
"whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)
 
Heaven actually received Him and Jesus was in heaven.
 
"So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast." (John 4:45)
 
The Galileans actually received Jesus and He was in Galilee.
 
"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt 10:14)
 
They were literally received into the home and stayed there.
 
"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed (literally received) the spies in peace." (Heb 11:31)
 
Rahab actually received the spies into her home.
 
"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (Acts 7:59)
 
Stephen was asking Jesus to actually receive his spirit and so he would be with Jesus in heaven; nothing to do with safeguarding for a future day.
 
There is nothing to stop us praying to Jesus, indeed the teaching is that we should be praying just as Stephen did. <><

Hello Mr Joyce,
 
Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make some interesting claims that are not altogether true.
 
First they make a statement that:
“Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: ‘The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.'”
 
True, but not the whole truth, because the full quote from Barnes is as follows:
“The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2Co_1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1Pe_1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Act_2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Act_9:14; Act_22:16; Rom_10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed – in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him.” (emphasis mine)
 
If they accept Barnes on the fact that God should not be in the text they should also accept Barnes when he informs us that Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus and that Scripture indicates we can do it too. But no, they simply take the first part and ignore the rest. They then talk about the Greek word used:

“Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting the original Greek word, epikaleo, means: ‘To call upon, invoke; … to appeal to a authority.”
 
But words have been missed out from the Vine’s quote which put a different light on the issue:
 
“in the Middle Voice, to call upon for oneself (i.e., on one’s behalf), Acts 7:59”
 
Clearly Stephen called upon, invoked, prayed to the Lord Jesus. The Society, albeit seemingly reluctantly admit this was happening but want to show that you cannot do it today.
 
“Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.'”
 
What this has to do with praying to Jesus I am not sure. We Christians make a distinction between  God the Son and God the Father but we can still pray to Jesus in His own right.
 
Next they say:
“Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision. – Revelation 22:16,20”
 
No clear reason is given as to why, if Stephen prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, and John prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, you and I cannot pray to Jesus and it will be accepted!
 
They end the article with this:
“Although Christians today direct, all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.”
 
This refers back to an earlier paragraph where they stated:
“He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.”
 
Not according to other parts of the New Testament where the same Greek word, δέχομαι, is used.
 
"whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)
 
Heaven actually received Him and Jesus was in heaven.
 
"So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast." (John 4:45)
 
The Galileans actually received Jesus and He was in Galilee.
 
"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt 10:14)
 
They were literally received into the home and stayed there.
 
"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed (literally received) the spies in peace." (Heb 11:31)
 
Rahab actually received the spies into her home.
 
"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (Acts 7:59)
 
Stephen was asking Jesus to actually receive his spirit and so he would be with Jesus in heaven; nothing to do with safeguarding for a future day.
 
There is nothing to stop us praying to Jesus, indeed the teaching is that we should be praying just as Stephen did. <><

The letter to Hitler would have been WW2.  The quote I posted is WW1 and they do single out the USA where they say "to the people of this country", and though that's followed by "and of the whole world of mankind", they didn't mention another specific country.  But if their prayers were for countries that didn't win the war, one might wonder what country would that be.