Demonism and the Watchtower

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Mr. Wilson never studied biblical Greek and therefore his renderings are slanted to his doctrinal bias.

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

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Cos said:

After Archbishop Newcome's death a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text

 

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.)

11 hours ago, Cos said:

Archbishop Newcome certainly never said the Word was "a god"

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.

11 hours ago, Cos said:

a person named Thomas Belsham (a Unitarian) altered Newcome's text

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.

11 hours ago, Cos said:

Greber’s translation for support

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

[Shiwiii]

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

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

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

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

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.

[Shiwiii]

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

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.

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? 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding?

Good question!

Even better answer:

2 Thess.2:9-11

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

[Evacuated]

9 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

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

Good to keep in mind that WT was using Greber's rendering as a support, not "Greber and his demons". 

[Cos]

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? <><

[Cos]

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.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

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?

Misjudgement again. Greber's rendering is quite acceptable. Greber and his demonic associates are not. 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

should have been made known to the readers of the Watchtower when they quote Mr. Belsham’s rendering for support,

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.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

conform to his Unitarian perspective.

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

[Shiwiii]

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Good question!

Even better answer:

2 Thess.2:9-11

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

So you must believe that the "man of lawlessness has been revealed already? verses 1-8