Page 75 of 115 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 1144

Thread: The Blatantly Corrupt And Grievously Flawed NWT

  1. #741
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,949
    Thanks
    491
    Thanked 1,779 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Rather, Jesus was the Word who became flesh, and still is the Word. (Rev 19:13)


    It's like you're saying the scriptures say X... do you believe X? Of course I believe X, because the scriptures say X. The Word of God is one of Jesus' many titles. It means he is God's main spokesman. John 1:14 isn't talking about a literal spoken word (or group of words) that literally became flesh and dwelled among us, S. It is talking about the person who bears the title "The Word of God" becoming flesh and dwelling on earth with us for a short time.
    What I posted was....John says the word became flesh and dwelt in us. Do you believe the word itself, that which is eternal, actually/literally became flesh, when we are told that all flesh is as grass? The word is eternal, yet the flesh of Yeshua was put to death. Do you believe John had the word dwelling in him?

    Monogenes = only begotten. Who ever dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten, S? If you can answer that question, you will have figured out the identity of the Word who was made flesh.
    I do not believe that monogenes translates to only begotten.

    ONLY BEGOTTEN
    KJV alternate rendering of the Greek monogenes (John 1:14,John 1:18; John 3:16,John 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Elsewhere the KJV rendered the term “only” (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The phrase “only begotten” derives directly from Jerome (340?-420 A.D.) who replaced unicus (only), the reading of the Old Latin, with unigenitus (only begotten) as he translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome's concern was to refute the Arian doctrine that claimed the Son was not begotten but made. This led Jerome to impose the terminology of the Nicene creed (325 A.D.) onto the New Testament.
    http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hb...i?number=T4718


    Yes, the Word of Life (Jesus) had indeed been made manifest in the flesh.
    If you would have said, Yes, the Word of Life had indeed been made manifest in the flesh, I would have agreed.

  2. #742
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,625
    Thanks
    1,023
    Thanked 421 Times in 339 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    It says, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

    1 John 4:13 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν,
    1 John 4:13 in this we know that in Him we do remain, and He in us,
    That is not John 1
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  3. #743
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,625
    Thanks
    1,023
    Thanked 421 Times in 339 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    Right, he created all things.


    Right again.
    Thank you

    So YHVH God alone is worthy to receive glory and honor and power; for he alone created all things.
    All things is the question of the hour. DID God create absolutely everything?
    Ta Panta carries an absolute sense in this text.




    So in the verses you quoted above it is already established that it is God alone who created all things, the heavens, the earth, and all things therein. So here it says, by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
    I agree! However He created all things Through JESUS CHRIST.

    You have touched on my original question and I agree with much of what you have posted. WE are not however in total concord.

    Ta Panta in the verses that you touched on carry an absolute sense.

    When the context shows what was created in any given scripture it is then to be understood as an absolute in the case of the use of "Ta Panta". If the text says Heaven and Earth then that it is absolutely included in the writers understanding of creation and that Absolutely everything in the text in question is absolute.

    If I were to say, "all the water is in the Bucket" I would not use "ta panta" unless that was all the water left in the world. That would make all water an absolute.

    IF I were to say all the water is in the bucket and the context showed that the water being discussed was all that was left in the well then I would use "Ta Panta"

    If the Verse in the Bible does not give a clear referent and Ta Panta is used then it carries an absolute sense. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS. No exceptions.

    Thank you for your post

    JohnB
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  4. #744
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,625
    Thanks
    1,023
    Thanked 421 Times in 339 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    What I posted was....John says the word became flesh and dwelt in us. Do you believe the word itself, that which is eternal, actually/literally became flesh, when we are told that all flesh is as grass? The word is eternal, yet the flesh of Yeshua was put to death. Do you believe John had the word dwelling in him?



    I do not believe that monogenes translates to only begotten.

    ONLY BEGOTTEN
    KJV alternate rendering of the Greek monogenes (John 1:14,John 1:18; John 3:16,John 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Elsewhere the KJV rendered the term “only” (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The phrase “only begotten” derives directly from Jerome (340?-420 A.D.) who replaced unicus (only), the reading of the Old Latin, with unigenitus (only begotten) as he translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome's concern was to refute the Arian doctrine that claimed the Son was not begotten but made. This led Jerome to impose the terminology of the Nicene creed (325 A.D.) onto the New Testament.
    http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hb...i?number=T4718




    If you would have said, Yes, the Word of Life had indeed been made manifest in the flesh, I would have agreed.
    Here is that quote in full.

    KJV alternate rendering of the Greek monogenes (John 1:14,John 1:18; John 3:16,John 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Elsewhere the KJV rendered the term “only” (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The phrase “only begotten” derives directly from Jerome (340?-420 A.D.) who replaced unicus (only), the reading of the Old Latin, with unigenitus (only begotten) as he translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome's concern was to refute the Arian doctrine that claimed the Son was not begotten but made. This led Jerome to impose the terminology of the Nicene creed (325 A.D.) onto the New Testament.

    Monogenes is used for an only child (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The writer of Hebrews used monogenes of Isaac with full knowledge that Isaac was not Abraham's only child (Hebrews 11:17-18). Here monogenes designates Isaac as the special child of promise through whom Abraham's descendants would be named.

    KJV, NAS render monogenes as “only begotten” when referring to Jesus. NIV renders the term “One and Only” (Compare the NAS margin, “unique, only one of His kind.”) Other translations (REB, NRSV, TEV) render monogenes consistently as “only.” John used monogenes to designate the unique relationship which Jesus shares with God. John is careful to reserve the term Son for Jesus; believers are children (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2; 1 John 5:2). As unique Son of God, Jesus makes God's glory known in a unique way (John 1:14,John 1:18). As the One and Only Son, Jesus is the unique gift of God, the giving of God's own self for salvation (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9). Because Jesus is the unique representative of God, rejection of Jesus is tantamount to rejection of God. Such rejection results in swift condemnation (John 3:18).
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  5. #745
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,101
    Thanks
    1,517
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 1,002 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Beowulf View Post
    Mashiyach is rendered "anointed" 37 times in the Hebrew scriptures to include the scripture you quoted. It is rendered 2 times as Messiah and that was only for Jesus.
    Let's review...

    1. The Hebrew word is "mashiyach".

    2. The English transliteration of the word is "messiah".

    3. The definition/translation of the word is "anointed one".

    Are you really saying that because English translators choose to transliterate the word in some verses, and define/translate the word in others, the word itself is somehow different? As if transliterating it as "messiah" makes the actual Hebrew word mean something completely different than if they had defined it as "anointed one"?

    The first verse on that NET Bible list I linked for you yesterday is...

    1 Chronicles 16:22 NET
    “Don’t touch my anointed ones! Don’t harm my prophets!”


    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says about this verse...

    Mine anointed (ones).—Plural of Messiah

    So the word in that verse is the plural form of mashiyach, and could either be transliterated as "messiahs", or translated as "anointed ones". The translator's decision to translate mashiyach in this verse instead of transliterating it doesn't make the Hebrew word actually mean anything different. It is just a personal choice.

    1 Chr 16:22 could just as faithfully be rendered as, “Don’t touch my messiahs....
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  6. #746
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,101
    Thanks
    1,517
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 1,002 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    John says the word became flesh and dwelt in us.
    "Among us" is a better translation. You wouldn't say the Spirit of God became flesh and then dwelled in us, right? So if your understanding is that the logos is some spirit word type thing, then it would make sense to say it dwelled in us. But it makes no sense to say it first became flesh and then dwelled in us.

    Do you believe the word itself, that which is eternal, actually/literally became flesh, when we are told that all flesh is as grass?
    I don't believe the Word is from eternity. I believe the Word is Jesus, who was created as the first of God's works, and who was later sent by God into the world as a flesh human being. Ie: The Word (Jesus) literally became flesh. Flesh is like grass, and just like grass, Jesus the flesh human being was here today, gone tomorrow.

    Do you believe John had the word dwelling in him?
    In a spiritual sense, just like he had the Spirit dwelling in him. Not in any flesh sense, as if some separate flesh entity invaded John's flesh body like a virus or something.

    I do not believe that monogenes translates to only begotten.
    It does.

    ONLY BEGOTTEN
    KJV alternate rendering of the Greek monogenes (John 1:14,John 1:18; John 3:16,John 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Elsewhere the KJV rendered the term “only” (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The phrase “only begotten” derives directly from Jerome (340?-420 A.D.) who replaced unicus (only), the reading of the Old Latin, with unigenitus (only begotten) as he translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome's concern was to refute the Arian doctrine that claimed the Son was not begotten but made. This led Jerome to impose the terminology of the Nicene creed (325 A.D.) onto the New Testament.
    http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hb...i?number=T4718
    If you look at the verses where the term is rendered "only", it still refers to an only begotten child of someone. Only child = only begotten child. The Greek word literally means "only generated", from "monos" and "ginomai".

    Some who don't like the idea that Jesus was begotten have tried to muddy the waters, but the word still means "only generated", ie: "only begotten".

    What if we work this discussion back to front?

    Revelation 19:13
    He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.


    Who does the title "Word of God" refer to in the above verse?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  7. #747
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,625
    Thanks
    1,023
    Thanked 421 Times in 339 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Let's review...

    1. The Hebrew word is "mashiyach".

    2. The English transliteration of the word is "messiah".

    3. The definition/translation of the word is "anointed one".

    Are you really saying that because English translators choose to transliterate the word in some verses, and define/translate the word in others, the word itself is somehow different? As if transliterating it as "messiah" makes the actual Hebrew word mean something completely different than if they had defined it as "anointed one"?

    The first verse on that NET Bible list I linked for you yesterday is...

    1 Chronicles 16:22 NET
    “Don’t touch my anointed ones! Don’t harm my prophets!”


    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says about this verse...

    Mine anointed (ones).—Plural of Messiah

    So the word in that verse is the plural form of mashiyach, and could either be transliterated as "messiahs", or translated as "anointed ones". The translator's decision to translate mashiyach in this verse instead of transliterating it doesn't make the Hebrew word actually mean anything different. It is just a personal choice.

    1 Chr 16:22 could just as faithfully be rendered as, “Don’t touch my messiahs....
    I am inclined to believe that there is a big difference between anointed and the anointed one
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  8. #748
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 264 Times in 220 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    It is just a personal choice.

    1 Chr 16:22 could just as faithfully be rendered as, “Don’t touch my messiahs....
    Hebrew words often have more than one meaning, especially when translating into another language. If this particular one is nothing more than a personal choice, can you provide ONE translation that renders 1 Chron. 16:22 as Messiahs? Or do we only have a commentary from Ellicott and Mikeboll64's personal opinion?

    I emailed a Rabbi this question:

    "Can the word "mashiyach" as used in 1 Chronicles 16:22 be translated as Messiahs like it is in Daniel-
    according to Ellicott's Commentary which claims "Mine Anointed Ones" is the plural of Messiahs?"

    When he responds I will post his comment- should be a day or two. In the meantime, if you find a translation that uses the word messiah(s) in this verse please provide it to show if you have any support for your claim.
    Last edited by -Beowulf; 02-17-2017 at 04:01 PM.
    "Ignorance Can Be Educated And Crazy Can Be Medicated But There's No Cure For Stupid."

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to -Beowulf For This Useful Post:

    JohnB (02-17-2017)

  10. #749
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 264 Times in 220 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post

    1 Chr 16:22 could just as faithfully be rendered as, “Don’t touch my messiahs....
    Something you should consider when you try and interpret translation the way you do, since words can convey different meanings they have been given significant attention as to application- not personal opinion.

    "malak" is a term used for angel. It is also translated as messenger, envoy, etc. That does not mean all messengers are angels. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4397.htm

    Just like when the term "mashiyach" is used it does not mean that it is automatically refering to messiah. The NET bible showed that to be the case in only two instances.

    Question: Are you trying to put together your own translation? Your casual approach seems to emulate the NWT writers. Maybe why you started this thread...commonality?
    "Ignorance Can Be Educated And Crazy Can Be Medicated But There's No Cure For Stupid."

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to -Beowulf For This Useful Post:

    JohnB (02-17-2017)

  12. #750
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    8,569
    Thanks
    2,142
    Thanked 1,266 Times in 1,095 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    What I posted was....John says the word became flesh and dwelt in us. Do you believe the word itself, that which is eternal, actually/literally became flesh, when we are told that all flesh is as grass? The word is eternal, yet the flesh of Yeshua was put to death. Do you believe John had the word dwelling in him?



    I do not believe that monogenes translates to only begotten.

    ONLY BEGOTTEN
    KJV alternate rendering of the Greek monogenes (John 1:14,John 1:18; John 3:16,John 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Elsewhere the KJV rendered the term “only” (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). The phrase “only begotten” derives directly from Jerome (340?-420 A.D.) who replaced unicus (only), the reading of the Old Latin, with unigenitus (only begotten) as he translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome's concern was to refute the Arian doctrine that claimed the Son was not begotten but made. This led Jerome to impose the terminology of the Nicene creed (325 A.D.) onto the New Testament.
    http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hb...i?number=T4718




    If you would have said, Yes, the Word of Life had indeed been made manifest in the flesh, I would have agreed.


    http://www.alltheinternet.com/texis/...02172017183329

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to solver For This Useful Post:

    JohnB (02-17-2017)

Page 75 of 115 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •