If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

Ask one of Jehovah's witnesses, would imagine they can answer that for you.

Yes you hear me right I believe the Bible to be a self interpreting book.

You mean like in the KJV at 1 John 5:7 where the second half is spurious and seems to have been added to try to give support to the trinity?

Since that no where in the Bible is it indicated that God's name was to be used only on very special occasions, it would seem that thinking so, was a tradition of men rather than something God asked for.

Thanks, I had never heard that before, it does kind of sound that way. Interesting.

 

"Did god speak to moses in english?"
At the time that God spoke to Moses, I don't believe English existed as a language.

"The two pronunciations are of distinctly different tonal characteristics. One has two syllables, the other, three and niether is close to "the tetragrammaton".
When the Bible was written the Hebrew language was written with only consonants, the reader being familiar with the word would add the vowels as he read. Later vowel points were added under the consonants so the reader would know how to pronounce the words. Then when the Jews superstitiously stopped pronouncing God's name they substituted the vowel points for another word so that the reader would read that word rather than God's name. Thus the correct pronunciation is one of several "conjugations" of the tetragrammaton with the vowels but which is unknown.

"Seems to me if god is so attached to his name, if this is an important point toward salvation, or an important criteria for worship, then this point would be terribly problematic if the correct pronunciation is unknown."
I would seem to me that those who love him would make the attempt.

"I understand what you are pointing out. When moses asked when they ask me what is his name, whom shall I say has sent me. God gives one complete answer tell them I am has sent you. Then he gives a different answer to the same question, God also said. It is both."
If that is what you want to believe but to me it is interesting that tetragrammaton is called God's name several times but "I am" is only called his name this one time and I would debate that.

"And what of the suffixes that are added to the tetragrammaton?"
I am unsure of what you are asking could rephrase it?

 

First, the Hebrew I am and the Greek I am are two different words so it is highly unlikely that Jesus was referring back to what was said in Exodus.

As for Jesus' eternal existence, Jesus did have a pre-human existence but the fact that he is called the first born of creation and God's only begotten Son, would seem to indicate that he hasn't always existed.

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI

 

:smilielol5:Thanx

 

You've just dismissed a standard interpretation of the Bible and parts of a gospel in the Christian canon as erroneous (I'd go along with you on that) and you accept the New World version of the Bible which consistently departs from standard translations and accepted Greek and Hebrew grammar to conform to the preconceived doctrines of a cult. The Witnesses won't reveal the names of the translators-- in deference to their alleged modesty, they say, but critics say it's because of their limited knowledge of the relevant Biblical languages. Reported members of the translation committee were Frederick W.Franz, (then vice President of the Witnesses), Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Witnesses), Albert D. Schroeder, George D. Gangas and Milton Henschel--none with impressive grounding in biblical languages.

Since the meaning of their translation differs markedly from that of other Christian scholars, which bible do you say is interpreting itself? If the Bible interprets itself, you seem to be saying that every Christian who comes to different conclusions from you and the Jehovah's Witnesses somehow got it wrong or is being perverse or didn't read it. In other words, you're right and everybody else is wrong and you know this because it seems obvious to you, since that's the way you see things. Forgive me if I entertain the alternative explanation: that like so many of us, you think your opinions are right and everybody else is wrong. This is certainly a common human failing, but some are more fanatical about it than others.

 

for the record, there's a lot of sheep-shepherd imagery in the bible, so calling a believer a "sheep" is very much correct.:biggrinjester:
as for other types of groupthinkers, they're more like cattle.

 

Jesus has two statuses,,as the "only begotten", and as the "firstborn from the dead". His status as "the only begotten" is eternal in nature. His status as the "firstborn from among the dead" relates to His resurrection, when He became "the firstborn, among many brothers" (Romans 8:29). This is verified in Acts 13:33.

Here's a footnote that gives a better explanation:

Christ was the only begotten Son of God from eternity (John
1:18). When He was sent by God into the world, He was still the
only begotten Son of God (1·John 4:9; John 1:14; 3:16). By His
passing through death and entering into resurrection, His humanity
was uplifted into His divinity. Thus, in His divinity with His
humanity that passed through death and resurrection, He was born
in resurrection as God's firstborn Son (Acts 13:33). At the same
time, all His believers were raised together with Him in His
resurrection (1·Pet. 1:3) and were begotten together with Him as
the many sons of God. Thus they became His many brothers to
constitute His Body and be God's corporate expression in Him.
As the only begotten Son of God, Christ had divinity but not
humanity; He was self-existing and ever-existing, as God is. His
being the firstborn Son of God, having both divinity and humanity,
began with His resurrection. With His firstborn Son as the base,
pattern, element, and means, God is producing many sons, and the
many sons who are produced are the many believers who believe into
God's firstborn Son and are joined to Him as one. They are exactly
like Him in life and nature, and, like Him, they have both
humanity and divinity. They are His increase and expression in
order that they may express the eternal Triune God for eternity.

Regarding His being the "firstborn of all creation",,

* (2)(c)Firstborn
# Re 3.14
Christ as God is the Creator. However, as man, sharing the
created blood and flesh (Heb. 2:14a), He is part of the creation.
Firstborn of all creation refers to Christ's preeminence in all
creation, because from this verse through v.·18 the apostle
stresses the first place that Christ has in all things.

 

Why yes I have. Just because something is considered standard does not make it correct.

I guess that depends on who you ask.

I said I like it for a number reasons, just like I've said I like the KJV for it's prose but I don't think I ever said I "accept" any translation.

What are you getting at? Do you even know who these people are that you dismiss so easily?
How do you even know what their "grounding in biblical languages" was? Personally I would think that a person's standing with God would be more important than a impressive grounding in biblical languages. After all weren't Jesus disciples called "unlettered and ordinary" and some of them wrote the very books that were translated.

Really, please tell me how the meaning "differs markedly", seeing as it "differs markedly", that should be easy to do.

The truth can be found in all translations of the Bible, even the KJV.

Is that the conclusion you have come to, is it?

I guess you've missed the hundred or so times, I've said in these forums that no one should take my word for it but should look it up in the Bible for themselves.

Of course I would like to think am right about what I'm saying, who wouldn't? But I've admitted that I've made mistakes and said I was wrong and apologized, how is that being fanatical. I would say that being fanatical about it, is more your field of expertise.

 

Other than "the "firstborn from among the dead" relates to His resurrection", I have no clue what you are talking about.

Quite simply first born of all creation means that Jesus was the first thing that Jehovah created. Only begotten means that Jesus was the only thing directly created by God, Jehovah used Jesus to created all the rest.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

The stridency of some anti-Christians is similar to that of - you guessed it - some fundamentalist/exclusionary Christians.

I like the part about, In my Father's house there are many mansions (John 14:2).

All this chitter-chatter back and forth don't mean shit (Mr. Natural, speaking to Flakey Foont).

Anyway, let's all go forth, be we Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, something that can't really quite be described, or whatever and see can we tranceform ourselves and maybe even our culture into something more beautiful, so desperately needed in this often harsh and mean world ... http://psypressuk.com/2011/06/07/a-psychedelic-christianity/

 

:iagree: you said it brother.

 

Translating the same word as "worship" and "do obeisance" when in reference to Jesus or the Father (which when expressed as Lord becomes Jehovah with no reason to except for an agenda)

 

The word translated "mansions" in the KJV is misleading. The word "abodes" suits the context. Read the following, as well as the context of the entire chapter. Chapter 15 also speaks of our being abodes of Christ, being "branches in the Vine", organically joined to Him:

2 In My Father's house are many abodes; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you

(Keep in mind that in this chapter, He is speaking of going to the Father, not some other destination. The Father IS the destination.)

* (1)(a)My
# Joh 2.16, 21 1Ti 3.15 Heb 3.6 1Pe 2.5 Eph 2.21-22
According to the interpretation in 2:16, 21, My Father's house
refers to the temple, the body of Christ, as God's dwelling place.
At first the body of Christ was only His individual body. But
through Christ's death and resurrection, the body of Christ has
increased to be His corporate Body, which is the church, including
all His believers, who have been regenerated through His
resurrection (1·Pet. 1:3). In Christ's resurrection the church is
the Body of Christ, which is the house of God (1·Tim. 3:15; 1·Pet.
2:5; Heb. 3:6), God's habitation (Eph. 2:21-22), God's temple
(1·Cor. 3:16-17).
* (2)many
The many abodes are the many members of the Body of Christ
(Rom. 12:5), which is God's temple (1·Cor. 3:16-17). This is
adequately proven by v.·23, which says that the Lord and the
Father will make an abode with the one who loves Him.
* (b)abodes
# Joh 14.23
* (3)(c)go
# Joh 14.12, 28, 7.33, 13.3
This book has two main sections. The first section, chs. 1--13,
points out how Christ, as the eternal Word, came through
incarnation to bring God into man that He might be the life and
life supply to man. The second section, chs. 14·--21, unveils how
Christ, as the man Jesus, went through death and resurrection to
bring man into God for the building of God's habitation, which is
the building of the church (Matt. 16:18) and which is related to
the building of the New Jerusalem (Heb. 11:10; Rev. 21:2). In the
entire universe God has only one building, that is, the building
of His living habitation with His redeemed people.

 

Only the JW leadership knows for sure, since they won't disclose the names to the public--leaving their qualifications to our faith or imagination. But the names were leaked in two sources: William Cetnar, who worked at the International Headquarters at the time, and Raymond Franz, nephew of the committee chair. At a court trial in Scotland, Uncle Fred Franz was unable to translate a passage from Genesis into Hebrew. The academic records of the others show little or no formal academic background in biblical languages.

You missed my point. I said I agreed with you about KJV. The point was that your position on this is inconsistent with the notion that the Bible interprets itself or that it is easily understood by "babes". First of all, what translation of the Bible? As you know, there are lots of Christians who are adamant about KJV being the only correct translation. If you're saying that generations of bible scholars got it wrong, it must not be that straightforward.

So what it comes down to is your faith in a group of men. If they have a version of the Bible that differs from that of scholars learned in Biblical languages, they must be right and the scholars wrong, because they have "standing with God," and the others presumably don't. Did God tell you this? Can't you see what a circular and nonsensical argument it is, if you're arguing that a book, rather than a group of men, is the ultimate source of authority/ You've put your faith in the Witnesses, much as Catholics put their faith in the Magisterium.

The fact that they were unlettered is one of the reasons most scholars think that they did not write (in impeccable Greek, no less) the books that were attributed to them.

I'm thinking of the instances in which the New World Translation differs from all other translations, in using language that happens to correspond to Jehovah's Witness doctrine but not that of any other Christian translation:eg.,John 15:4,5; John 17:26; Galatians 1:16; Romans 8:10; Colossians 1:27 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 , which paraphrase Scripture to deny the indwelling of Christ in believers ("in him", "in you"). In both verses cited one finds the word "other" added. (Christ created all "other" things, meaning he is also a creature, a created being.) Divine attributes of Jesus are removed: that He is the creator of all things, that He possesses the name that is above every name. The NWT provides language to conclude that Jesus was created by the father (and is the Archangel Gabriel); that there is no Trinity, hell, or lake of fire and eternal suffering after death; that the dead did not rise after Jesus death and visit people in Jerusalem, etc. Are these differences important? Traditional Christian fundamentalists think at least the first two are. The New World translation "speaks" to its readers in a way that other translations don't.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth? Then why, earlier, did you dismiss those passages
1 John 5:7 as not being true?

The difference is that you've said so often that things are not just your opinion but the word of God in a self-interpreting book that even babes can understand, implying that those who don't share your reading of Scripture haven't read it, are more ignorant than babes, have been led astray or are perverse. If you said it was just your informed opinion, no one could accuse you of being fanatical.

 

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you getting at, could explain further? Maybe what Scripture(s) you 're taking about? The Post seems like a shorthand that has left some things out.

 

Don't mind if I chime in please. I don't pretend to be an intellectual or intelligent for that matter but I'll say some things on this.

I am not a Jehovah's Witness myself but I personally found much of their doctrine to be compelling. It could all be wrong. What I know is that there are some things I disagree with, such as Jesus not indwelling within believers or the invisible return of Jesus, although I do give that doctrine a chance in my mind.

Much of the issues of the Bible is with translation errors. Many of these errors are brought on through personal agenda such as the 1 John 5:7 fiasco. We can see just by reading what is written that adding in that the holy spirit, Jesus, and God as one does not match with the logical flow of the surrounding text (check it out yourself). Even without knowing that it was an interpolation, a person with even limited knowledge can figure out that something is amiss. Even so, there are numerous other ways to get at what the letters are speaking of.

As for the writers weren't those unlettered and ordinary, perhaps the time they took to begin writing what they wrote they learned, perhaps supernatural help, or perhaps they had a penmen write for them what they told the penmen to write. I would go with the penmen option myself. Even with the help, these unlettered and ordinary men ended up having written down some of the most influential and imo greatest writings ever written.

 

I'm still some what puzzled at your constant bringing JW's into this discussion, are you looking into becoming one?

You, yourself said the Witnesses didn't say who did the translation, so really talking about these men and their qualifications is pointless as they may not have done any of the translating. Next as I've pointed out to you before, you seem to have a soft spot for anything that smacks of academics, the point being that a person does not have to "go to College" to learn what they need to know. Many people have learned several languages and have learned how to translate from one language to another without having a "formal academic background" in them and this in particularly evident in Bible translation.

(Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:19)

Once again, seem to be assuming that my worship is based only on one translation of the Bible and as I've said while do like the NWT, I have never said it was The Translation of the Bible.

And yes, I have faith that God inspired a group of men to write what is found in God's word the Bible. Does that mean you don't?

Let's see if I have this right, are you really saying that if you lived in Jesus' day, that you would have preferred what the Scribes and Pharisees said over what Jesus said because they were "highly educated" and Jesus was an unlettered carpenter and the only thing he had going for him was his "standing with God"? Yeah, I see your point that it would be "nonsensical" to go with Jesus.

Did any of those "scholars" stop to think that these men had the backing of God? (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:19)

 

Yes. I agree with you. But note what you're doing. The passage you cite is as much a part of the Christian canon as any other, but since something about it seems fishy to you, you question it. (Good for you!) Some fundamentalists don't. OWB questions it (Good for him!) but for the most part does not question the many other passages that seem equally fishy in both the Old and New Testaments. Bart Ehrman has written several books documenting instances in which the New Testament seems to have been mistranslated, accidentally or deliberately: Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted,The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,Forged. If that is so, how do we pick and choose which ones to accept literally and which ones to be critical about?

That is possible, but is it plausible? Take for example 1 & 2 Peter. Peter was a fisherman from the town of Caepurnaum in Galilee when Jesus recruited him. He and his companion John are described in Acts as agrammatoi (unlettered). Only about 1 percent of the population in Galilee at the time is believed to have been literate, they would have been the upper class urbanites, and would be mostly literate in Hebrew, not Greek. Their first language was Aramaic. It is possible, but unlikely, that after Jesus' resurrection he mastered Greek so that he could write eloquently in it, while at the same time carrying on his active ministry spreading the good news. Your hypothesis about the scribe-editor or ghost writer is more plausible, but there are indications that the epistles of Peter were written after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, which happened in 70 AD. Peter is believed to have been martyred by Nero in 64 CE. Supernatural help is always possible, but I tend to think it reasonable to believe in miraculous explanations only when non-miraculous ones are unavailable. Give the large number of works attributed by Peter which are known to have been forged (the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel; of Peter, etc.) and were rejected for the canon, and given the fact that,as you and OWB acknowledge, fishy writings made it into the New Testament, it seems plausible to me and many scholars that 1 & 2 Peter might have been forgeries.