Demonism and the Watchtower

[Shiwiii]

10 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him

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.

15 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

OH NO IT DOESN'T

This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................

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. 

 

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

wt had this teaching prior to Gerber

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries.

13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

He quoted perfectly, but changed the meaning to trick

Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.

"The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. You will guard them, O Jehovah; you will protect each one of them from this generation forever." Ps 12:6-7

[Shiwiii]

8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries

 

On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

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

 

8 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.

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.  

[Evacuated]

 

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof.

The idea seems to have been around earlier than the first WT

"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ' and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such."
Quote from Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible p.54.   Robert Young - 1865

Selection of WT quotes reflecting "a god" as an appropriate rendering of John 1:1

Quote : WT Nov 15 1913:

"Accurately translated it reads, "The Logos was with the God and the Logos was a god; the same was in the beginning with the God"

Quote: WT Dec 15 1913:

"St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."

Quote: WT Jan 1 1922: 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1., 2)"

Quote: WT Nov 15 1925:

"..it is not to be expected otherwise than that John would speak of this one who was in the beginning with God as being a god, a mighty one." 

Quote from Greber's rendering of John 1:1

 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1

Quote from The New Testament, A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts’’ Johannes Greber. 1937.

Greber (1874–1944) seems considerably behind on this matter.  His spiritistic activity appears to have begun in 1923, with his Bible Translation not started until after 1929, published in 1937. (according to Wikipedia).

On 9/11/2017 at 5:45 PM, Shiwiii said:

Can you provide proof that the wt had this teaching prior to Gerber

Seems that the WT did use this rendering prior to Greber, and, of course, the idea preceded the WT anyway.

Was this really so obscure??

[Shiwiii]

14 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it? Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now. 

[Evacuated]

 

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it?

Es macht nichts!

Just to end off this little sub-thread:

Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT. The pre WT view of this text, along with pre-Greber references in the WT attest to this conclusion..

The KJV remains an excellent translation of the Scriptures, despite it's errors, archaic vocabulary, and embarrasing insertions, (paticularly 1John 5:7). I frequently use it as it still has currency in many quarters. 

I suppose it underlines one of the lessons in the account at Matt 19:25-26:

“Who really can be saved?” Looking at them intently, Jesus said to them: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Bye for now!

[Shiwiii]

1 minute ago, Gone Fishing said:

Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT.

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

[Evacuated]

 

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

yes they were and were used in publications as support. 

You just cant leave it can you even though from at least 1865 this idea has been batted around? Unless you believe Greber was a reincarnation?? Maybe he was???

I don't know!! Even though this so-called support has long been discarded (1983), and even though the critics huff and they puff continuously , this house just won't fall down will it? Somebody has the issue round their neck it looks like. 

Anyway, thanks for the spar. I never had to look at the detail on the Greber stuff before. I have a study interested in this subject so it's been useful.

I'm really off now. Have fun.

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

As much as I have enjoyed the argument on Bible translation and spiritism? I find the argument, lacking in facts and substance. I believe someone asked to show one instance of a bible rendering of John 1:1 that has “a god” prior to GerberÂ’s NT in 1937.

 

The New Testament: in an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory Newcome, William, 1729-1800; Belsham, Thomas, 1750-1829; Wait, Thomas Baker, 1808-1809AD

Johannes Gerber New Translation and Explanation 1937

 

 

Das Neue Testament

 

Mit Hilfe der Geisterwelt Gottes um 1930, in modernen Stiel der heutigen Sprache angepaßt.

 

Aus dem Altgriechischen neu übersetzt von

 

 Johannes Greber

 

1 Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott; und ein 'Gott' war das Wort. 2 Dies war im Anfang bei Gott. 3 Alles ist durch das Wort entstanden, und ohne es trat nichts Geschaffenes ins Dasein.

 

 

The new Testament

 

With the help of the spirit world of God around 1930, adapted in modern stalk of today's language.

 

Translated from the Ancient Greek by

 

 Johannes Greber

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and a 'God' was the Word. 2 This was in the beginning with God. 3 Everything has been created by the Word, and without it there was nothing created into existence.

 

The argument on Greek translation can be seen with two sub functors. One, henotheism even though it has a shortcoming, two, monetarism that doesn’t. It’s only the misbelief of the opposition to argue a nonargument of “a god” to the Trinitarianism “Is, The, was God” which Gerber himself identified as 2 separate beings in the article” is the trinity doctrine divinely inspired.

One only needs to understand the Greek, usage of, the definite article but has no indefinite article. So, when the definite article is left off, it is implied to be indefinite. So, when dealing with "God" himself, there is the definite article 'ho' (i.e. The, as in The God). But in reference to the Word in John 1:1, it has no definite article, making it 'a god', not 'the God'.

So, the argument that the Watchtower was influenced by a spiritualist is just speculation to enhance the “false” claims perpetrated by opposers that saw a similar interpretation of John 1:1 in Geber’s NT, that is NOT comparable, to the Watchtower since Gerber’s NT also suggest that Jesus was “the God” in reverse (the Word). This has been going on for at least, 15 years now! The Watchtower has made many “open” articles about Pastor Gerber since 1955. That denounces, spiritualism.

This is why Jesus words are expressed, clearly in John 17:1-5

John 17:1-5New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Prays to Be Glorified

17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. ^2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. ^3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. ^4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. ^5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

This also shows that Jesus divinity was elevated as a higher being. The problem with trinity can be identified with one simple conclusion. JESUS NEVER CREATED! As people wish for him to have done so. ThatÂ’s why, Jesus himself Glorified the one true God, NOT himself.

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The New Testament: in an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory

Great example.

This headed the list on p27 in the 1989 brochure, Should You Believe in The Trinity?:

[Cos]

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? <><

 

[Cos]

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. <><