Demonism and the Watchtower

[Shiwiii]

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

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

Like I stated earlier in this thread, even satan uses scripture but is wrong by means of context. So if Gerber received his information from evil sources, then it is not to be trusted as being accurate.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Come Now Mr. Ewing

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

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!

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

14 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about?

This is the many Christian Bible Versions, accepted, translation from the old Vulgate by which the majority of modern bibles are based on.

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1

The Gospel According To John

 

 Chapter 1

 

The incorrect translation of Latin into English:

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.   The Correct translation of Latin into English:     In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word     With this subtle transfer of words, allowed for Trinity to exist. Therefore, the “error” is on the early church fathers to claim their argument was correct, thus eventually giving power to the Vatican under a “false” premise.    The same argument that was being made back then, on how to identify Jesus Divinity status, reignited with the reformation of Martin Luther in 1517AD

 

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

if Gerber received his information from evil sources

The big if.......again.

[Shiwiii]

Just now, Gone Fishing said:

The big if.......again.

the wt has already admitted it, so from the stance of the wt he did and from Gerber himself he said he did, but YOU.....you're not too sure. 

ok

[Shiwiii]

53 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

This is the many Christian Bible Versions, accepted, translation from the old Vulgate by which the majority of modern bibles are based on.

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1

The Gospel According To John

 

 Chapter 1

 

The incorrect translation of Latin into English:

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.   The Correct translation of Latin into English:     In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word     With this subtle transfer of words, allowed for Trinity to exist. Therefore, the “error” is on the early church fathers to claim their argument was correct, thus eventually giving power to the Vatican under a “false” premise.    The same argument that was being made back then, on how to identify Jesus Divinity status, reignited with the reformation of Martin Luther in 1517AD

 

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up:

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Clay tablets were too heavy?

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up

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 principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum / without the period, answer!

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum. /with the period, answer!

This is how modern deception is achieved with Latin translations.

But if you’re up to the task, then the below scale from Norte Dame with the highlights is a start as an example. Just keep in mind, there are many propositions with scales, and this is just from Latin to English. You still need Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek, and then interpret those to Latin and then to English.

 

 

(1)in (2)principio (3)erat (4)Verbum (5)et (6)Verbum (7)erat (8)apud (9)Deum (10)et (11)Deus (12)erat (13)Verbum

(1)in                   PREP   ABL                        

in PREP ABL [XXXAX] 

in, on, at (space); in accordance with/regard to/the case of; within (time);

in                   PREP   ACC                        

in PREP ACC [XXXAX] 

into; about, in the mist of; according to, after (manner); for; to, among;

 

(2)principio           N      2 4 DAT S N                

principio           N      2 4 ABL S N                

principium, principi(i) N N [XXXAX] 

beginning;

principio           V      1 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 1 S   

principio, principiare, principiavi, principiatus V [EXXFS] Later veryrare

begin to speak; begin to peak (medieval);

 

(3)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(4)verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                 

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

(5)et                   CONJ                              

et CONJ [XXXAX] 

and, and even; also, even;(et ... et = both ... and);

 

verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

(6)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(7)apud                 PREP   ACC                         

apud PREP ACC [XXXAO] 

at, by, near, among; at the house of; before, in the presence/writings/view of;

 

(8)deum                N      2 1 ACC S M                

(9)Deus, Dei N M  [XEXAO] 

God (Christian text); god; divine essence/being, supreme being; statue of god;

*

(10)et                   CONJ                              

et CONJ [XXXAX] 

and, and even; also, even; et ... et = both ... and);

 

(11)deus                 N      2 1 VOC S M                

deus X [XEXCX] 

god; God!: Oh God;

de.us                N      2 1 NOM S M                

Deus, Dei N M [XEXAO] 

God (Christian text); god; divine essence/being, supreme being; statue of god;

 

(12)erat                V      5 1 IMPF ACTIVE  IND 3 S   

sum, esse, fui, futurus V [XXXAX] 

to be, exist; also used to form verb perfect passive tenses with NOM PERF PPL

 

(13)verbum              N      2 2 NOM S N                

verbum              N      2 2 VOC S N                

verbum              N      2 2 ACC S N                

verbum, verbi N N [XXXAX] 

word; proverb; [verba dare alicui => cheat/deceive someone];

*

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.

[Cos]

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. <><

[Cos]

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. <><

[Cos]

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!

[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”. <><