Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

I have a computer to translate for me.

That's a little besides the point though. You always tend to attack me rather than the claim. You're the infinite Ad hominem logical fallacy. The fact remains, these guys translate their greek wrong to get their agendas through. It's the truth. Check it moose.

So, no, you do not read greek... and you have to rely on someone else's translation.. filtered through a computer.

In this case your claim has something to do with you, as you are asserting as a fact something you can't actually do yourself.

I don't really care how they you or anyone else translate anything in the bible. I find arguing theology, at least christian theology to be more boring than watching paint dry.

look dude. when you learn greek, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR PROFESSOR. YOU'RE HOPING HE'S SPEAKING PROPER GREEK. PEOPLE DON'T MAKE 600 DOLLAR SOFTWARE ON TO SCREW WITH YOUR HEAD.

Which tells me you have never studied a single language other than english for more than a semester or two.

to graduate at all, you're required a certain amount of units studying another language......so you're wrong basically. but this serves as a great example of you're constantly terrible assumptions.

And yet in another thread you call making accusations and then waiting for correction the best way to learn things about people.

Also... which language, and how many credits? I'm guessing 2 classes in the same language... likely French, Spanish, or German.

Originally posted by:paradelights

hey sharps, I just want you to know that JW's are actually notorious for twisting the bible to mean what they want. That's why you never seen JW scholars in the secular world....ever. it's because anyone who actually reads greek knows these guys are out of their minds. they will literally eat up anything the "watchtower" feeds them because the "watchtower" is their idea of god's voice on earth.

He is not a Christian and what he says, is not what the bible teaches.

yea sharplimb, jdubs are notorious for twisting the Bible to mean what we want, but matt won't give you any examples.

and yea sharplimb, why would any true christian not want to be part of the secular world and be an all important "scholar".

believe matt i don't care.

matt has trouble acknowledging one of the basics of the Bible and that is the use of God's name Jehovah. hopefully he's not representative of the other christian "scholars".

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

I thought I would draw you an illustration

So.. he threw a big rock at us.. and expects us to get away... but only in his rocket car... but we can only use it if we worship him and are his servants.

um....getting closer.

the rock was rolling that way, and we happen to get in front of it, so in an effort to save us from the rock, he decided to give us a sweet ride that would get us out of the way. It cost him alot of money, more than anything else.

But we actually have to get in the car on our own free will. It's not really that we are supposed to worship him with it because he thinks he's cool, it's just that the truth is, he really is cool and to deny that would pretty much be the biggest lie in the universe. I mean, anyone who can make the soft grass you can walk through and the beauty in nature for you, and wants to save you from a giant rock rolling towards you is cool. If you're going to deny that it's not cool and want to take the giant rock without the sweet ride.....believing he's not cool for trying to get you out of the way in his sweet ride is the big lie.

You know what, Matt... I'm college educated, am far more intelligent than you (despite what you might want to think), and have had a bit more life experience than you... so try to talk like a grownup, please. Yeah, yeah.. I know.. yYOU think people are just too stupid to understand your simplistic analogies and explanations just because they don't agree with you.

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

I have a computer to translate for me.

That's a little besides the point though. You always tend to attack me rather than the claim. You're the infinite Ad hominem logical fallacy. The fact remains, these guys translate their greek wrong to get their agendas through. It's the truth. Check it moose.

So, no, you do not read greek... and you have to rely on someone else's translation.. filtered through a computer.

In this case your claim has something to do with you, as you are asserting as a fact something you can't actually do yourself.

I don't really care how they you or anyone else translate anything in the bible. I find arguing theology, at least christian theology to be more boring than watching paint dry.

look dude. when you learn greek, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR PROFESSOR. YOU'RE HOPING HE'S SPEAKING PROPER GREEK. PEOPLE DON'T MAKE 600 DOLLAR SOFTWARE ON TO SCREW WITH YOUR HEAD.

Which tells me you have never studied a single language other than english for more than a semester or two.

to graduate at all, you're required a certain amount of units studying another language......so you're wrong basically. but this serves as a great example of you're constantly terrible assumptions.

And yet in another thread you call making accusations and then waiting for correction the best way to learn things about people.

Also... which language, and how many credits? I'm guessing 2 classes in the same language... likely French, Spanish, or German.

why should I tell you? all you need to know is I don't like learning other languages. I will be learning greek because of my major, but I prefer to just stick with the things I enjoy.

Originally posted by:jdubit

Originally posted by:paradelights

hey sharps, I just want you to know that JW's are actually notorious for twisting the bible to mean what they want. That's why you never seen JW scholars in the secular world....ever. it's because anyone who actually reads greek knows these guys are out of their minds. they will literally eat up anything the "watchtower" feeds them because the "watchtower" is their idea of god's voice on earth.

He is not a Christian and what he says, is not what the bible teaches.

yea sharplimb, jdubs are notorious for twisting the Bible to mean what we want, but matt won't give you any examples.

and yea sharplimb, why would any true christian not want to be part of the secular world and be an all important "scholar".

believe matt i don't care.

matt has trouble acknowledging one of the basics of the Bible and that is the use of God's name Jehovah. hopefully he's not representative of the other christian "scholars".

Ok so it's jehovah....who cares. even if it is, stop saying his name. The ancient jewish people refrained from the use of his name because it was to holy. If you respect God at all, stop using his name out of respect for his greatness.

oh yes and...example:

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

sorry it does not say "a" God.

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:jdubit

Originally posted by:paradelights

hey sharps, I just want you to know that JW's are actually notorious for twisting the bible to mean what they want. That's why you never seen JW scholars in the secular world....ever. it's because anyone who actually reads greek knows these guys are out of their minds. they will literally eat up anything the "watchtower" feeds them because the "watchtower" is their idea of god's voice on earth.

He is not a Christian and what he says, is not what the bible teaches.

yea sharplimb, jdubs are notorious for twisting the Bible to mean what we want, but matt won't give you any examples.

and yea sharplimb, why would any true christian not want to be part of the secular world and be an all important "scholar".

believe matt i don't care.

matt has trouble acknowledging one of the basics of the Bible and that is the use of God's name Jehovah. hopefully he's not representative of the other christian "scholars".

Ok so it's jehovah....who cares. even if it is, stop saying his name. The ancient jewish people refrained from the use of his name because it was to holy. If you respect God at all, stop using his name out of respect for his greatness.

Let me ask you, do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer.

If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.

True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.

Exodus 3:15 "God said... to Moses: 'This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, "Jehovah the God of your forefathers... has sent me to you." This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation."

Isaiah 12:4 "Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high."

Ezekiel 38:17, 23: "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, '... And I shall certainly magnify myself and snctify myself and make myself known before the yes of many nations; and they will have to konw that I am Jehovah."

Malachi 3:16 "Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept pay attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name."

John 17:26 "[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

Acts 15:14 "Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."

So, sure matt, sounds like we aren't suppose to use it

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

sorry it does not say "a" God.

i explained this to you before, but i'll walk you through it again...

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads : In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God."

Is the rendering "a god" consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." But not all agree. In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.

They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." He suggests: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'" (Journal of Biblical LIterature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the-os' in its second occurrence is without the definite article(ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as "a devil," and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet."

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the god [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" - (Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.)

In harmony with the above, AT reads: "the Word was divine"; Mo, "the Logos was divine"; NTIV, "the word was a god." In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: "God of a sort the Word was." Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as "a god" is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as "gods" because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

Now, which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... we have beheld his glory."

Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Fathers divine qualities.

sorry matt, the Bible doesn't teach the trinity!

Exodus 3:15 "God said... to Moses: 'This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, "Jehovah the God of your forefathers... has sent me to you." This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation."

Isaiah 12:4 "Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high."

Ezekiel 38:17, 23: "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, '... And I shall certainly magnify myself and snctify myself and make myself known before the yes of many nations; and they will have to konw that I am Jehovah."

Malachi 3:16 "Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept pay attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name."

John 17:26 "[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

Acts 15:14 "Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."

So, sure matt, sounds like we aren't suppose to use it

All those verses are from your own weirdo religions own translation. The "watchtower" publishers, the guys who put out every scrap of paper that you all believe, just replaces every word mentioning the "Lord" "God" or "Father" with Jehovah. Furthermore they extend the verses for your own religions benefit and chop out anything they don't want.

example being:

Real version
Isaiah 12:4 In that day you will say:"Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.

Your version
Isaiah 12:4 "Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high."

Very similar, but not the same. You can see the differences. I am simply telling you that saying God's literal name (that no one really knows because it was lost in ancient Jewish culture because no one said it) might not be as reverent as you think.

Let me ask you, do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer.

If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.

True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.

No, I don't believe you should find God as an impersonal force. Actually I have a very close relationship with God. Do you pray twice a day morning and night and study the bible that much? I doubt it. You should not judge me like you have already so constantly. I call on God, my true Father, and as the Jews would say, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As you can see, even the Jews found a way around not saying his name but making sure they are addressing God.

However, I don't presume to know God's actual name since it was lost thousands of years ago. The Jews made of a name to call him so they didn't have to say his real name. God being so holy and all....I hope some of this is sinking in. You don't know God's real name.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

Oh yes, I agree completely. It's always good to have context. But I'll address you're lack of context a in a few responses down.

Is the rendering "a god" consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." But not all agree. In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.

When you say "not all agree" what you really mean is, no one but other JW's agree. Let me walk you through it....
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Look how it says "God was the word." This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
1. "In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
a) A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

2. "and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
a) This same Word was with God.

3. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
a) This same Word was God.


So my question to you would be, what makes you think there is more than one god? what kind of "true Christian" are you if you think there is another god who is "a god." Why would you change the bible to mean that? After that word for word translation, I'm pretty sure anything you have to say regarding this means nothing.

Now, which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... we have beheld his glory."

Lets just finish that verse shall we?
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, BUT God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Also....
John 10:38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

John 14:7
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Besides these verses, Jesus was crucified in the first place for claiming he was equal to God. But let me ask you something, why do you believe your sins are forgiven if Jesus is not God?

Originally posted by:jdubit

sorry matt, the Bible doesn't teach the trinity!

yes it does actually. just not your religions version of the bible. you guys twist the words up as I've discussed already. also there is no need to mention to me the word "trinity" isn't in the bible. I know that argument.

hey jdub,
Just to set things straight, I don't want to get in some sort of debate if this will make you mad or make no progress. Sometimes I sound cranky but really, this is all just fun to me. It's like mental stimulation for me. I really just like to debate things and talk them over. You can believe what you want if you don't want to talk. There is no way I can turn your mind, only Jehovah can do that anyways huh?

So just to let you know, I will let you be if you want...so long as you don't make ridiculous judgments about where God is going to send me or defame God and His word, I'm cool bro. Either way, I'm fine to continue discussing so long as you won't get mad. I wanted to let you know where I stand.

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Originally posted by:paradelights

I have a computer to translate for me.

That's a little besides the point though. You always tend to attack me rather than the claim. You're the infinite Ad hominem logical fallacy. The fact remains, these guys translate their greek wrong to get their agendas through. It's the truth. Check it moose.

So, no, you do not read greek... and you have to rely on someone else's translation.. filtered through a computer.

In this case your claim has something to do with you, as you are asserting as a fact something you can't actually do yourself.

I don't really care how they you or anyone else translate anything in the bible. I find arguing theology, at least christian theology to be more boring than watching paint dry.

look dude. when you learn greek, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR PROFESSOR. YOU'RE HOPING HE'S SPEAKING PROPER GREEK. PEOPLE DON'T MAKE 600 DOLLAR SOFTWARE ON TO SCREW WITH YOUR HEAD.

Which tells me you have never studied a single language other than english for more than a semester or two.

to graduate at all, you're required a certain amount of units studying another language......so you're wrong basically. but this serves as a great example of you're constantly terrible assumptions.

And yet in another thread you call making accusations and then waiting for correction the best way to learn things about people.

Also... which language, and how many credits? I'm guessing 2 classes in the same language... likely French, Spanish, or German.

why should I tell you? all you need to know is I don't like learning other languages. I will be learning greek because of my major, but I prefer to just stick with the things I enjoy.

Why should you not tell me?

because I don't trust you mostly. you would take anything you can learn about me to question if I'm a valid human being. you're pretty much the most judgemental person on the net. I don't feel like allowing you the pleasure.

Originally posted by:paradelights

because I don't trust you mostly. you would take anything you can learn about me to question if I'm a valid human being. you're pretty much the most judgemental person on the net. I don't feel like allowing you the pleasure.

Well, when you start making claims about things I ask about your education and experience with the topic. You tend to fall far short, yet believe you know far better than anyone else.. which is ludicrous.

It has NOTHING to do with your value as a human being. That is inherent to all of us... you, dick cheney, george Bush, Osama Bin Laden, and everyone else in the world I dislike and/or oppose as well as those I like and/or support.

I don't question your value as a human.. only the value of your input and statements on academic subjects.

as far as language goes, I rely on strong sources.
as far as religion goes, I know my stuff
as far as identifying cults, I know my stuff all the better.
JW's are notorious for twisting the bible into their own view point of the world. that isn't me talking. That's every greek scholar in the business.

Originally posted by:paradelights

Originally posted by:crunkmoose

Okay.. I am going to go out on a limb here and say I don't htink Christ would give two shits about the details and politics of universal healthcare. What he would care about is that humans are taking care of each other and treating each other with love, charity, and understanding in his name (and not in his name).

I agree. I just believe that handing our money over to government programs is not doing that. The only one who has my best interests in mind for the poor is me.

you are a doctor? you can treat poor people with medical problems more efficiently on your own? you have billions of dollars of buying power at your disposal to demand discounts from pharmaceutical companies?