Discussion:
The way of false prophets.
Add Reply
Michael Christ
2020-09-10 08:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!

Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!

You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!

Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!

(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.

Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.

You fuckin' assholes!

Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-10 13:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
And Jehovah as your God. Notice:

"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths


The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
They Lean On Founding Fathers' Misunderstanding
2020-09-10 16:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What's the original hebraic version of the tetagrammon. And If it is removed from the Bibke does this remove the Hebrews from the surfaçe of the earth?
How come they don't care so much about the tetagrammon?
You are all superstitious If you think you can live a polluted life, an adulterous life style and just pronounce a phony name and you will please God.
servant
2020-09-10 18:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Friend james I'm happy beyond mention you raised this topic.

Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with KyŽri·os, Lord or The·osŽ, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.

Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.

I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.

The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.

The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H

The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.

Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".

So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?

This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
totally invented excuse. The greek for "God" and "Lord" are:

The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.

Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.

The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Pat Barker+
2020-09-10 19:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Friend james I'm happy beyond mention you raised this topic.
Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.
Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.
I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.
The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.
The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H
The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.
Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".
So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?
This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.
Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.
The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Excellent Post.
I've tried to tell this to james many times in the past, but perhaps
you said it best.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-11 13:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:41:01 -0400, Pat Barker+
Post by Pat Barker+
Post by servant
Friend james I'm happy beyond mention you raised this topic.
Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.
Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.
I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.
The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.
The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H
The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.
Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".
So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?
This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.
Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.
The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Excellent Post.
I've tried to tell this to james many times in the past, but perhaps
you said it best.
See my answers to his posting.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-11 13:49:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Friend james I'm happy beyond mention you raised this topic.
Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.
Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.
What you made up didn't effect me. Jehovah is not racist, and neither
am I. There are many Jewish JW's. If you call me a racist, then Jesus
was one also. He called the JEWISH scribes and Pharisees serpents,
blind guides, offspring of vipers etc. So do you call Jesus a racist?
Post by servant
I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Because of the virus, JW's are now not going to the hall for meetings.
They are attending meetings through Zoom in their homes.

The rest of what you said, I have no idea what you are talking about
other than some kind of opinions.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.
I either answer from the Bible, or from research done on it. Rote
answers should be accepted if they are true. But other than opinions,
you have proven hardly any of your statements.

Did you save all my conversations with you? Or do you have a
photographic memory and can recite word for word what you call my
rote?
Post by servant
The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version
I always said the name Jehovah is of Latin-English origin. And that a
closer name to the original is Yahweh. (which is published in the JW
literature)
Post by servant
of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.
The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H
The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.
"Jehovah" is a translation, not a transliteration like "Yahweh". God's
name is found as different translations in different languages. For
example:

In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"

So do you chop on all those languages because they don't meet your
personal expectations?

No one alive today knows the exact name of God. And God has not
revealed it at this time. When He reveals it, we will all likely
change to that name.
Post by servant
Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".
You are so wrong. Here is some proof you are wrong. From the NWT
Bible:

God:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1)

"So God dealt well with the midwives, and the people kept increasing
and becoming very mighty." (Ex 1:20)

" Now after John was arrested, Jesus went into Gal´i·lee, preaching
the good news of God" (Mark 1:14)

"May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father." (Col
1:2)

Lord:

"‘O Sovereign Lord Jehovah, you have begun to show your servant your
greatness and your mighty arm, for what god in the heavens or on the
earth performs such mighty deeds as you?" (Deut 3:24)

"The true God is for us a God who saves;
And Jehovah the Sovereign Lord provides escape from death." (Ps 68:20)

"I am sending you to sons who are defiant and hardhearted, and you
must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says.’"
(Ezek 2:4)

"The king said to Daniel: “Truly your God is a God of gods and a Lord
of kings and a Revealer of secrets, because you were able to reveal
this secret." (Dan 2:47)

"At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from
the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young
children." (Mt 11:25)

"What, then, is A·pol´los? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom
you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one." (1 Cor 3:5)

"Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the
works of your hands." (Heb 1:10)

Now for the finale. The word "God" in the NWT is found 10904 times.
The word "Lord" is the NWT is found 2228 times.

You need to correct your errors.
Post by servant
So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?
Because it's true. The Tetragrammaton (Jehovah; Yahweh) is not found
in later copies of the Septuagint. But they discovered an older
fragment of the Septuagint THAT DID CONTAIN THE TETRAGRAMMATON. Thus
the Jewish Scribes cut out the divine name, and inserted "God" and
"Lord" instead. See the Septuagint fragment info:

"A total of 117 fragments of LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in
Études de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. A
photographic edition of all the fragments of this papyrus was
published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen under the title Three Rolls of
the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, in the series
“Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen,” Vol. 27, Bonn, 1980.

(2) LXXVTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written
in ancient Hebrew characters (??) in the following places: Jon 4:2;
Mic 1:1, 3; 4:4, 5, 7; 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14;
2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the
Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the
first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXXIEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in
ancient Hebrew characters (??) in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment,
found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the
end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration
Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXXVTS 10b

(NWT, 1984, Appendix 1A, The Divine Name in Ancient Greek Versions, p.
1563)
Post by servant
This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.
Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.
If as you say "thay had zero greek scholars doing the jw
'translation",", then why praises from many Bible scholars? If you
want a list, just ask.
Post by servant
The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Your opinion of us is noted.

Facts are true. Opinions may or may not be true.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Siri Cruise
2020-09-11 16:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Jehovah" is a translation, not a transliteration like "Yahweh". God's
name is found as different translations in different languages. For
It's a translation that's been sound shifted. In latin 'j' = ' i'
= /y/ and 'w' = 'v' = /w/. In the hebrew root YHWH are
semivowels or silent /y^h^w/. So latin stem /yehow/ vs hebrew
root /y^h^w/. Excepting possible vowel difference, latin
transliterates hebrew. /dzh/ for /y/ and /v/ for /w/ are sounds
shifts in french that english inheritted; they weren't until late
in latin to early romance languages.

Old english christianity was from old french and late latin
missionaries. What religious latin they got directly was replaced
by norman french into middle english. Very little prechristian
old english religious vocabulary survived into old english and
modern english. 'god'? 'cerce'?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-13 17:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Jehovah" is a translation, not a transliteration like "Yahweh". God's
name is found as different translations in different languages. For
It's a translation that's been sound shifted. In latin 'j' = ' i'
= /y/ and 'w' = 'v' = /w/. In the hebrew root YHWH are
semivowels or silent /y^h^w/. So latin stem /yehow/ vs hebrew
root /y^h^w/. Excepting possible vowel difference, latin
transliterates hebrew. /dzh/ for /y/ and /v/ for /w/ are sounds
shifts in french that english inheritted; they weren't until late
in latin to early romance languages.
Old english christianity was from old french and late latin
missionaries. What religious latin they got directly was replaced
by norman french into middle english. Very little prechristian
old english religious vocabulary survived into old english and
modern english. 'god'? 'cerce'?
So like I said, the word "Jehovah" is from a Latin-English derivative.
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-11 22:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post, read and decide for yourself.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with KyŽri·os, Lord or The·osŽ, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.
Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.
What you made up didn't effect me. Jehovah is not racist, and neither
am I. There are many Jewish JW's. If you call me a racist, then Jesus
was one also. He called the JEWISH scribes and Pharisees serpents,
blind guides, offspring of vipers etc. So do you call Jesus a racist?
Correction, as clearly derived from my remark, it was another thread, the
remark was something to the effet "you cann't trust the jews".>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Because of the virus, JW's are now not going to the hall for meetings.
They are attending meetings through Zoom in their homes.
Shrug, whatever makes it possible, raise the point for uss so we can see a
jw plugin being invented before our eyes. Of course, the local hall likely
must pass it up the line to new york for a "correct" jw vatican "new light"
version.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The rest of what you said, I have no idea what you are talking about
other than some kind of opinions.
What don'tn you understand? Happy to explain it for as long as it takes.

Or, is it an easy dodge to avoid facing the info?>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.
I either answer from the Bible, or from research done on it. Rote
answers should be accepted if they are true. But other than opinions,
you have proven hardly any of your statements.
Good golly miss molly, friend james just confessed he uses jw plugin
answers, not his understanding from scripture.>

"From the bible, correction; the take on scripture as invented by the jw.
Which is likely to change any time has it has in past.

Thus scripture is not eternal in its truth, the jw are free at any time to
change its "truth" by messing with what it says.

The classic exaple, until 1954 jw were told to worship Christ, then one day
they were told to stop worshiping Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Did you save all my conversations with you? Or do you have a
photographic memory and can recite word for word what you call my
rote?
I do in fact have a near photographic memory. Not to mention you and I
have covered this and other jw issues many times to impress on my memory.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version
I always said the name Jehovah is of Latin-English origin. And that a
closer name to the original is Yahweh. (which is published in the JW
literature)
Smile, friend james it made a distinct effect in my memory when you
claimed otherwise. I gave the name you just used to correct your previous
statements.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.
The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H
The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.
"Jehovah" is a translation, not a transliteration like "Yahweh". God's
name is found as different translations in different languages. For
Ah, very good, in past you scolded me and others for not wanting
the "real" name of God used in scripture, even saying it was disrespectful
not to use His "real" name. .
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".
You are so wrong. Here is some proof you are wrong. From the NWT
Examples snipped.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The word "Lord" is the NWT is found 2228 times.
You need to correct your errors.
∑fragment

I stand corrected by over stating the replacements, here an example of
what the replacements were

"There is another question that would need to be answered if the original
writers of the New Testament had used the Hebrew name of God. We would need
to ask how many times (and in what verses) the Hebrew name of God was used.
The translators of the New World Translation say that
the Hebrew name of God was used 237 times in the New Testament. But when
we read the New World Translation, it is obvious that the selection of
these 237 verses has more to do with what the verses were saying than with
what was written in ancient manuscripts. The verses that were most
frequently changed from Lord to Jehovah were those verses that identify a
quality that could only be true of God. "

They go on to say, most any possible use of "God and Lord" which support
Christ being God got the replacement treatment, unless it would contridict
the jw line.
Here is one that did not get the name of God "correction": because it would
defeat the core jw claim, Christ was not God

In their "translation" John 20:24 has Thomas saying "my Lord and my God".
why was that one left out? Because if the name of God were used there
there is no wiggle room to claim He was not God.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?
Because it's true. The Tetragrammaton (Jehovah; Yahweh) is not found
in later copies of the Septuagint. But they discovered an older
fragment of the Septuagint THAT DID CONTAIN THE TETRAGRAMMATON. Thus
the Jewish Scribes cut out the divine name, and inserted "God" and
Smile, a few single 1st century fragmentsdoes not the jw claim support
wholesale changes in the NT. There were multiple copies of the greek OT in
use in 1st century palistine and all over the roman empire.

Just how did the jews get their hands on the many many independent and
isolated books in many copies of the NT being sent all over the roman
empire?

No jw invented tempest in a teapot can change the reality that all greek OT
and NT copies in the 1st century could in 100 years be changed.
Btw, the above is an example of a jw plugin answer, friend james has
absoluety reason from his own indepentent experience to confirm the jw
claim, it was in the jw watchtower etc. so it is as good as scripture.

The bits from academic sources snipped for the sake of space describeing
the 3 or 4 fragments.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.
Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.
If as you say "thay had zero greek scholars doing the jw
'translation",", then why praises from many Bible scholars? If you
want a list, just ask.
Oh happy days, I have seen such a list. The jw are well known for out of
context cherry picked bits and downright fraud by stiching bits to make it
appear is one statement to make it appear the porson is supporting jw
"scholarship". 100 examples of that do not one jw greek scholar create.
The jw " non-scholars" use english standard greek reference sources for
their "greek" scholarship. Then they go to work, search for bits from
others that can with a push and crossed fingers support their "sound
translation". All of the many parts that would refute never see the light
of day.

Friend james used to use a real greek scholar. He stopped because that
person very publically scouldedd the jw for the misuse and
misrepresentation of his work. It is on youtube and other places.

That jw plugin is now retired.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Your opinion of us is noted.
Correction, not "opinion" but sound conclusions based on the facts gathered
over years.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Facts are true. Opinions may or may not be true.
Very good, who are the greek scholars who did the
translation, in other editions now?>

Either they existed or they did not, that is a "fact" you can provide, no
opinion in the least.

Facts are such stubborn things, no?
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-14 19:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
Post by servant
read and decide for yourself.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Someone spoke of "God", for which friend james had a rote jw plugin
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
In past when friend james used this juicy excuse, I asked for the
historical evidence. The jw rote memory of plugin topics does not cover
that point being raised apparently.
Now wait for it, friend james said the jw version of "God" is not there so
it had to have been removed. He said "jews" not "scribes" then, perhaps
because I recently scolded him for using anti-semitic language in an
answer.
What you made up didn't effect me. Jehovah is not racist, and neither
am I. There are many Jewish JW's. If you call me a racist, then Jesus
was one also. He called the JEWISH scribes and Pharisees serpents,
blind guides, offspring of vipers etc. So do you call Jesus a racist?
Correction, as clearly derived from my remark, it was another thread, the
remark was something to the effet "you cann't trust the jews".>
You forgot the context. You can't trust the Scribe and Pharisee Jews
of the 1st century. You quoted something those lying Jews said about
Jesus, as the truth. Don't count on it.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I do hope friend james takes this question to the "hall" soon so a even
remotely relevant plugin can be invented to avoid such glaring circular
logic and embarrassing answers.
Because of the virus, JW's are now not going to the hall for meetings.
They are attending meetings through Zoom in their homes.
Shrug, whatever makes it possible, raise the point for uss so we can see a
jw plugin being invented before our eyes. Of course, the local hall likely
must pass it up the line to new york for a "correct" jw vatican "new light"
version.
Pass what, up the line? You know almost nothing about JW's.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
The rest of what you said, I have no idea what you are talking about
other than some kind of opinions.
What don'tn you understand? Happy to explain it for as long as it takes.
Go for it.
Post by servant
Or, is it an easy dodge to avoid facing the info?>
What info?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
.(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
Jehovah. Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
Friend james and I have trodden this path many times, every one with the
same jw rote plugin answer.
I either answer from the Bible, or from research done on it. Rote
answers should be accepted if they are true. But other than opinions,
you have proven hardly any of your statements.
Good golly miss molly, friend james just confessed he uses jw plugin
answers, not his understanding from scripture.>
Yes, plugins like: What is God like? God is love. (1 John 4:8) Great
plugin or rote or whatever you want to call it. I would answer that
every time.

No doubt, you use plugins and/or rote as well.
Post by servant
"From the bible, correction; the take on scripture as invented by the jw.
Which is likely to change any time has it has in past.
Each religion has its own doctrines. Why don't you criticize them for
inventing their own doctrines, like the 4th century post-Biblical
Trinity doctrine?
Post by servant
Thus scripture is not eternal in its truth, the jw are free at any time to
change its "truth" by messing with what it says.
And your not TWISTING the truth about JW's? The true religion keeps
adding to its doctrines, as time goes on until the individual
Christian encounters the "full day":

- Revised Standard
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of
dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.

Sorry about my rote or plugin. It just fit your comment so well.
Post by servant
The classic exaple, until 1954 jw were told to worship Christ, then one day
they were told to stop worshiping Him.
This must be one of your plugins. I remember you saying that once
before.

Like to live in the past, do you? I can't find anything in the
1950-1953 Watchtowers about worshipping Jesus. Please show your
evidence.

If it is a quotation from the 19th century, that is ancient history.
The light has gotten brighter since then, (Pr 4:18)

Are you a member of a church? (if you told me before, please tell me
again. (brain cells not what they used to be)
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Did you save all my conversations with you? Or do you have a
photographic memory and can recite word for word what you call my
rote?
I do in fact have a near photographic memory.
Congratulations. You are blessed. I am doing good to remember my name
each day:) Thank God for computers and data bases.
Post by servant
Not to mention you and I
have covered this and other jw issues many times to impress on my memory.>
I don't doubt it.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
The name "Jehovah" is a rcc medieval latin version
I always said the name Jehovah is of Latin-English origin. And that a
closer name to the original is Yahweh. (which is published in the JW
literature)
Smile, friend james it made a distinct effect in my memory when you
claimed otherwise. I gave the name you just used to correct your previous
statements.
Need facts. What did I CLAIM otherwise?
Need facts. What statement did I allegedly make so as to correct it?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
of a guess as to the
sound in the hebrew event where God gave his name to Moses, the "I am". In
ancient hebrew only consonants were written sometimes making translation
almost impossible.
The hebrew 4 consonants for "I am" are rendered in english as " "YHW"H
The initial "j" sound did not exist in greek or hebrew of the 1st century.
On that basis alone "Jehovah" can be tossed as a possible translation.
"Jehovah" is a translation, not a transliteration like "Yahweh". God's
name is found as different translations in different languages. For
Ah, very good, in past you scolded me and others for not wanting
the "real" name of God used in scripture, even saying it was disrespectful
not to use His "real" name. .
You got me mixed up with someone else. Nobody knows the real personal
name of God, thus I would never say that.

Give me proof I said otherwise. You can't can you.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Every use of "God" and "Lord" in the jw "translation" are willy nilly
replaced by, you guessed it - "Jehovah".
You are so wrong. Here is some proof you are wrong. From the NWT
Examples snipped.
Yes, snip the facts that proves your statement wrong.

I will admit when I am wrong. Will you?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
The word "Lord" is the NWT is found 2228 times.
You need to correct your errors.
∑fragment
I stand corrected by over stating the replacements, here an example of
what the replacements were
"There is another question that would need to be answered if the original
writers of the New Testament had used the Hebrew name of God. We would need
to ask how many times (and in what verses) the Hebrew name of God was used.
The translators of the New World Translation say that
the Hebrew name of God was used 237 times in the New Testament. But when
we read the New World Translation, it is obvious that the selection of
these 237 verses has more to do with what the verses were saying than with
what was written in ancient manuscripts. The verses that were most
frequently changed from Lord to Jehovah were those verses that identify a
quality that could only be true of God. "
They go on to say, most any possible use of "God and Lord" which support
Christ being God got the replacement treatment, unless it would contridict
the jw line.
Nonsense. If the NT quoted the OT verse that contained the
Tetragrammaton, they would logically insert God's name in the NT.

For example, -- American Standard
Deuteronomy 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and him shalt thou
serve, and shalt swear by his name.

Luke 4:8, "(Luke 4:8) In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It
is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must
render sacred service.’”

"him alone" means no worship of Jesus.
Post by servant
Here is one that did not get the name of God "correction": because it would
defeat the core jw claim, Christ was not God
In their "translation" John 20:24 has Thomas saying "my Lord and my God".
Actually it doesn't say that. John 20:24 in the NWT reads:

"But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who was called the Twin, was not with
them when Jesus came."

What you are saying is in vs 28. ": “My Lord and my God!”

GREAT CAESARS GHOST! JESUS MARY AND JOSEPH! HOLY COW!

Thus the MY LORD AND MY GOD! is an exclamatory remark of amazement.
That is all it is. Now let's hear one of your "JW's are twisting the
Scriptures" statements.
Post by servant
why was that one left out? Because if the name of God were used there
there is no wiggle room to claim He was not God.
Negative. It is only an expression of great surprise. It is doubtful
the original writing had "Jehovah" there.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
So why the silly claim of "jews" later replaceing the greek words?
Because it's true. The Tetragrammaton (Jehovah; Yahweh) is not found
in later copies of the Septuagint. But they discovered an older
fragment of the Septuagint THAT DID CONTAIN THE TETRAGRAMMATON. Thus
the Jewish Scribes cut out the divine name, and inserted "God" and
Smile, a few single 1st century fragmentsdoes not the jw claim support
wholesale changes in the NT. There were multiple copies of the greek OT in
use in 1st century palistine and all over the roman empire.
Give me some examples, if the claim you make is true.

We do have the FACT that the Septuagint fragment contained the
Tetragrammaton before the later ones. To debunk it is too ignore the
facts.
Post by servant
Just how did the jews get their hands on the many many independent and
isolated books in many copies of the NT being sent all over the roman
empire?
They probably didn't.
Post by servant
No jw invented tempest in a teapot can change the reality that all greek OT
and NT copies in the 1st century could in 100 years be changed.
Btw, the above is an example of a jw plugin answer, friend james has
absoluety reason from his own indepentent experience to confirm the jw
claim, it was in the jw watchtower etc. so it is as good as scripture.
Where in the Watchtower? Please list the year and page# etc.
If you find it, I will admit I was wrong.
Post by servant
The bits from academic sources snipped for the sake of space describeing
the 3 or 4 fragments.
What "space"? Is that "outer"?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
This bit from the wiki provides the "new light" to understand the jw
The essential uses of the name of God the Father in the New Testament are
Theos (theo'*s the Greek term for God), Kyrios (i.e. Lord in Greek)
and Pater (paty%r i.e. Father in Greek).^[8]^[10] Btw, the greek
translation of the hebrew "OT" the jews of the 1st century used has the
same greek names as in the greek NT; where ""YHWH" is written.
Why do the jw make such basic mistakes, simple; thay had zero greek
scholars doing the jw 'translation", they just rehashed other english
translations. Many used "Jehovah" from the latin tradition; so the circus
began.
If as you say "thay had zero greek scholars doing the jw
'translation",", then why praises from many Bible scholars? If you
want a list, just ask.
Oh happy days, I have seen such a list. The jw are well known for out of
context cherry picked bits and downright fraud by stiching bits to make it
appear is one statement to make it appear the porson is supporting jw
"scholarship". 100 examples of that do not one jw greek scholar create.
The jw " non-scholars" use english standard greek reference sources for
their "greek" scholarship. Then they go to work, search for bits from
others that can with a push and crossed fingers support their "sound
translation". All of the many parts that would refute never see the light
of day.
Do you want to see the list or not? Yes, I will even list the Bible
scholar who changed his mind. Because at first he was sincere at
praising the NWT.
Post by servant
Friend james used to use a real greek scholar. He stopped because that
person very publically scouldedd the jw for the misuse and
misrepresentation of his work. It is on youtube and other places.
That jw plugin is now retired.
At that time he praised the NWT. So his original words are valid. If
he changed his mind later, he shouldn't have used such praises in the
first place.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
The jw were forced to invent "the jews" did it or admitt their greek
scholarship did not exist and even their name was a rcc latin mistake..
Your opinion of us is noted.
Correction, not "opinion" but sound conclusions based on the facts gathered
over years.
What "facts". Please list the publications.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Facts are true. Opinions may or may not be true.
Very good, who are the greek scholars who did the
translation, in other editions now?>
They don't want praise for their works. Instead they give all praise
to Jehovah God. And since the NWT was praised by many Bible scholars,
the translators must have been very knowledgeable.
Post by servant
Either they existed or they did not, that is a "fact" you can provide, no
opinion in the least.
See above the reason they were not named. They serve God, not the
public for human praises like most Bibles do.
Post by servant
Facts are such stubborn things, no?
No. Facts and reasoning to go with them, can be truths.

You are too opinionated and not enough facts to support your
allegations.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-14 21:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-15 18:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
I am always sincere. You can write whatever you want. Just provide
proof for the facts given.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-15 20:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
I am always sincere. You can write whatever you want. Just provide
proof for the facts given.
Likewise, jw plugins in and of themselves are not "proof" absent
independent evidence in scripture and/or history.

To start the discusssion, the classic, perhaps among the very first plugin
mr. russel invented.

I have in mind the only "144000" jws going to heaven. Be sure to include
the history of that plugin and how exactly it was presented in the early
years.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-16 21:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
I am always sincere. You can write whatever you want. Just provide
proof for the facts given.
Likewise, jw plugins in and of themselves are not "proof" absent
independent evidence in scripture and/or history.
It is better than just opinions, like you provide.
Post by servant
To start the discusssion, the classic, perhaps among the very first plugin
mr. russel invented.
There you go again with ancient history. This is 2020, can't you find
something to discuss more recent?
Post by servant
I have in mind the only "144000" jws going to heaven.
Was Matthew a JW?
Was Mark a JW?
Was Mary a JW?
Was John a JW?
Was Luke a JW?
Was Paul a JW?

Obviously, not all going to Heaven are JW's.
Also those JW's that claim they are going to Heaven are rare. Most
congregations don't have any. We had one in the last congregation
before the present one.
Post by servant
Be sure to include the history of that plugin and how exactly it was presented in the early
years.
I don't care if the JW founder was a serial killer. What counts is
NOW; TODAY; PRESENT DAY; THESE MOMENTS:

-- Revised Standard
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of
dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-17 18:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Before getting into this interchange, I suggest again hat friend james give
seerious consideration to a previous admonition.

To have a response, any response just to have a response does not add to
itss truth or relevancy. Let'skeep that in mind with friend jame's
responses here. Also keep in mind:

1 Peter 3:15:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an
answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you
have.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
I am always sincere. You can write whatever you want. Just provide
proof for the facts given.
Likewise, jw plugins in and of themselves are not "proof" absent
independent evidence in scripture and/or history.
It is better than just opinions, like you provide.
Ah ha, a responce that is the "proof" I suggested need be present to
support jw vatican plugins, no? We await still that evidence.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
To start the discusssion, the classic, perhaps among the very first plugin
mr. russel invented.
There you go again with ancient history. This is 2020, can't you find
something to discuss more recent?
I chose it because if it cann't be supported in scripture and/or history
because it is core to jw doctrine from its invention by mr. russell to this
very second, the entire jw vatican crumbles.>

It is as 'ancient" as the last jw hall meting.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have in mind the only "144000" jws going to heaven.
Note here the response and my admonition about empty responses above.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Was Matthew a JW?
Was Mark a JW?
Was Mary a JW?
Was John a JW?
Was Luke a JW?
Was Paul a JW?
Obviously, not all going to Heaven are JW's.
The jw vatican teaching is that any person in the NT has the possibility of
being among the 144000, my answer, given jw vatican teaching they might not
be among them.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Also those JW's that claim they are going to Heaven are rare. Most
congregations don't have any. We had one in the last congregation
before the present one.
Ah, that is very good, the jw vatican has a record of those claiming to be
so, by which we can determine the number. Read here this point and the
entire jw claims of the details of the 144000:

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php

Note to any readers, friend james will *not* look at the evidence on that
page by people with direct personal knowledge of jw teachings.

Ee will follow the jw vatican warning that to do so is to face a certain
start on the pathto expulsion if he is caught doing it.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Be sure to include the history of that plugin and how exactly it was presented in the early
years.
I don't care if the JW founder was a serial killer. What counts is
Very good, the 144000 plugin is as uptodate "today" as the last jw hall
meetting.

Indeed, the jw vatican can at any moment completely> reverse and refute
what is now an absolute doctrine.

In 1954 people were told to and did worship Christ.

Then the next day they were told on one day to stop because He is not
worthy of worship, the sheeple did so at once.

Here is the infamous jw vatican rational to make this possible, see how
handy what this new light excuse allows", friend james offeres without
Post by z***@windstream.net
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of
dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.
Using a plain understanding of the above, where in that does the jw vatican
find a possoble excuse for u-turns in core doctrines?

Get it, the jw vatican is by self serving definition the "righteous", handy
ain't it for u-turns?

Two things, the above is a perfect example of how the jw vatican picks bits
of an insertion for a rationalization into which to pour backward willy
nilly their doctrines and u-turns.

Second, friend james has done an admirable job of perfectly illustrating
the weakness of "a response, any response" above

In fact, did he for any item raised provide a relevant response? I leave
it to the reader.

In his defence, he is greatly handicapped because he can *only* use a jw
vatican rotely learned plugins when topics are raised, and he has none to
use for the above. This is the case in many recent interchanges. where he
stumbles around trying to find relevant and valid responses.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-24 17:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Before getting into this interchange, I suggest again hat friend james give
seerious consideration to a previous admonition.
To have a response, any response just to have a response does not add to
itss truth or relevancy. Let'skeep that in mind with friend jame's
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an
answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you
have.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james just bragged of his great success in refuting my contributions
to the thread in this post,
Yes I have an answer for Bible questions or statements. Is there
something wrong with that?
In my view, absolutely there is, the failure of the plugins that make up
those ."answers/statements".. If you are sincere I will be happy to discuss
this failure of the jw plugin system and practices.
I am always sincere. You can write whatever you want. Just provide
proof for the facts given.
Likewise, jw plugins in and of themselves are not "proof" absent
independent evidence in scripture and/or history.
It is better than just opinions, like you provide.
Ah ha, a responce that is the "proof" I suggested need be present to
support jw vatican plugins, no? We await still that evidence.
Be more specific. What evidence do you need?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
To start the discusssion, the classic, perhaps among the very first plugin
mr. russel invented.
There you go again with ancient history. This is 2020, can't you find
something to discuss more recent?
I chose it because if it cann't be supported in scripture and/or history
because it is core to jw doctrine from its invention by mr. russell to this
very second, the entire jw vatican crumbles.>
It is as 'ancient" as the last jw hall meting.
(you need a spelling program) They once thought that the pyramids in
Egypt had some Bible connection. Thus when first starting out they
were off base with somethings. But as the years progressed, they
upgraded untill we are almost at the perfect day:

-- American Standard
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the righteous is as the dawning light,
That shineth more and more unto the perfect day.


James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have in mind the only "144000" jws going to heaven.
Note here the response and my admonition about empty responses above.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Was Matthew a JW?
Was Mark a JW?
Was Mary a JW?
Was John a JW?
Was Luke a JW?
Was Paul a JW?
Obviously, not all going to Heaven are JW's.
The jw vatican teaching is that any person in the NT has the possibility of
being among the 144000, my answer, given jw vatican teaching they might not
be among them.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Also those JW's that claim they are going to Heaven are rare. Most
congregations don't have any. We had one in the last congregation
before the present one.
Ah, that is very good, the jw vatican has a record of those claiming to be
so, by which we can determine the number. Read here this point and the
https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php
Note to any readers, friend james will *not* look at the evidence on that
page by people with direct personal knowledge of jw teachings.
Ee will follow the jw vatican warning that to do so is to face a certain
start on the pathto expulsion if he is caught doing it.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Be sure to include the history of that plugin and how exactly it was presented in the early
years.
I don't care if the JW founder was a serial killer. What counts is
Very good, the 144000 plugin is as uptodate "today" as the last jw hall
meetting.
Indeed, the jw vatican can at any moment completely> reverse and refute
what is now an absolute doctrine.
In 1954 people were told to and did worship Christ.
Then the next day they were told on one day to stop because He is not
worthy of worship, the sheeple did so at once.
Here is the infamous jw vatican rational to make this possible, see how
handy what this new light excuse allows", friend james offeres without
Post by z***@windstream.net
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of
dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.
Using a plain understanding of the above, where in that does the jw vatican
find a possoble excuse for u-turns in core doctrines?
Get it, the jw vatican is by self serving definition the "righteous", handy
ain't it for u-turns?
Two things, the above is a perfect example of how the jw vatican picks bits
of an insertion for a rationalization into which to pour backward willy
nilly their doctrines and u-turns.
Second, friend james has done an admirable job of perfectly illustrating
the weakness of "a response, any response" above
In fact, did he for any item raised provide a relevant response? I leave
it to the reader.
In his defence, he is greatly handicapped because he can *only* use a jw
vatican rotely learned plugins when topics are raised, and he has none to
use for the above. This is the case in many recent interchanges. where he
stumbles around trying to find relevant and valid responses.
Michael Christ
2020-09-10 21:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.

Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.




Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."
John Locke
2020-09-10 21:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
...there's no truth in religion thus your "foundation" is in an
advanced state of decay and in imminent danger of collapse.
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
...there's nothing clear about religion...it's rat's maze of delusion
and deception.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Christ
2020-09-10 22:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
....there's no truth in religion thus your "foundation" is in an
advanced state of decay and in imminent danger of collapse.
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
....there's nothing clear about religion...it's rat's maze of delusion
and deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John, your conscience bears a protestation that is excessive!

Let the light bulb go on.




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".
John Locke
2020-09-12 20:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:46:58 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
....there's no truth in religion thus your "foundation" is in an
advanced state of decay and in imminent danger of collapse.
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
....there's nothing clear about religion...it's rat's maze of delusion
and deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John, your conscience bears a protestation that is excessive!
Let the light bulb go on.
..that is only your clouded perception form the delusional bubble
of LaLa Land. Extricate yourself before you go bonkers !


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert
2020-09-10 23:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Words like resonance.
Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 02:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...


Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!

Thanks.






Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".
Rod
2020-09-11 03:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
Mikey.
--
"Be ready to do anything you can to further the happiness of any given
sentient being that you meet and to engage in this kind of conduct with
a heart of joyfulness, cheerfulness and delight."
❖ 17th Karmapa
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 08:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And here
is the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
   You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
  except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
  the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
  Mikey.
Sorry, self-righteous sinners are not my judge! Maybe you could try
again tomorrow? :-).

Above is the clear evidence of a total fraud, a liar, an asshole
religionist pretending to represent God, and you attack me??

You are not bothered because you don't love God, Rod. May the Lord not
reward you for your contempt for the truth!



Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".
Rod
2020-09-11 21:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And here
is the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is
not your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
    You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
   except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
   the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
   Mikey.
Sorry, self-righteous sinners are not my judge!  Maybe you could try
again tomorrow?  :-).
Above is the clear evidence of a total fraud, a liar, an asshole
religionist pretending to represent God, and you attack me??
You are so filled with self righteousness that you describe yourself
only, heretic.
You are not bothered because you don't love God, Rod.  May the Lord not
reward you for your contempt for the truth!
You are not the truth Michael. The truth does not have
a home with you.
--
"Be ready to do anything you can to further the happiness of any given
sentient being that you meet and to engage in this kind of conduct with
a heart of joyfulness, cheerfulness and delight."
❖ 17th Karmapa
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 21:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And
here is the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is
not your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
    You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
   except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
   the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
   Mikey.
Sorry, self-righteous sinners are not my judge!  Maybe you could try
again tomorrow?  :-).
Above is the clear evidence of a total fraud, a liar, an asshole
religionist pretending to represent God, and you attack me??
  You are so filled with self righteousness that you describe yourself
  only, heretic.
You are not bothered because you don't love God, Rod.  May the Lord
not reward you for your contempt for the truth!
   You are not the truth Michael. The truth does not have
  a home with you.
Did I raise myself up??!! It appears the Lord disagrees with your
opinion.
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord
it is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
There is no foundation of truth but God alone!

You hold the truth in contempt, Rod, because it is not formed in your
image...just like with that Robert liar!!




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Rod
2020-09-11 23:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And
here is the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is
not your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
    You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
   except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
   the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
   Mikey.
Sorry, self-righteous sinners are not my judge!  Maybe you could try
again tomorrow?  :-).
Above is the clear evidence of a total fraud, a liar, an asshole
religionist pretending to represent God, and you attack me??
   You are so filled with self righteousness that you describe yourself
   only, heretic.
You are not bothered because you don't love God, Rod.  May the Lord
not reward you for your contempt for the truth!
    You are not the truth Michael. The truth does not have
   a home with you.
Did I raise myself up??!!  It appears the Lord disagrees with your opinion.
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord
it is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
There is no foundation of truth but God alone!
This alone is true.
You hold the truth in contempt, Rod,
No I do not liar Michael. I hold many of your statements in contempt
including the one right above and your remarks about Robert




because it is not formed in your
image...just like with that Robert liar!!
Another lying accusation?
Michael Christ
--
"Be ready to do anything you can to further the happiness of any given
sentient being that you meet and to engage in this kind of conduct with
a heart of joyfulness, cheerfulness and delight."
❖ 17th Karmapa
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 23:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel.  And
here is the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is
not your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
    You truly are ignorant, out there in the bush alone
   except for the dingos, and your very hairy friend
   the yowee. Having the spirit of contention is a sin,
   Mikey.
Sorry, self-righteous sinners are not my judge!  Maybe you could try
again tomorrow?  :-).
Above is the clear evidence of a total fraud, a liar, an asshole
religionist pretending to represent God, and you attack me??
   You are so filled with self righteousness that you describe yourself
   only, heretic.
You are not bothered because you don't love God, Rod.  May the Lord
not reward you for your contempt for the truth!
    You are not the truth Michael. The truth does not have
   a home with you.
Did I raise myself up??!!  It appears the Lord disagrees with your opinion.
 > You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord
 > it is all for naught.
 > YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR
 > LORD!!!
There is no foundation of truth but God alone!
  This alone is true.
You hold the truth in contempt, Rod,
   No I do not liar Michael. I hold many of your statements in contempt
   including the one right above and your remarks about Robert
Then, be it on you own head, you are a stubborn fool and you will face
the severity of his lie with that of your own.
 because it is not formed in your
image...just like with that Robert liar!!
  Another lying accusation?
Have you folly then, Rod. Bon appetite.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Robert
2020-09-11 06:35:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 08:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.

People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.

Mat_23:15  Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...

Joh_16:2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.



Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Robert
2020-09-11 17:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.
Of course not. You get drunk with your 'in laws" lest you offend them, cough, cough.
Post by Michael Christ
People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.
Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...
Joh_16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Sounds like your persecuting the Believers.
Post by Michael Christ
And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.
I have no excuses, I read the word of God and harbor it in my heart.
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 20:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.
Of course not. You get drunk with your 'in laws" lest you offend them, cough, cough.
Post by Michael Christ
People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.
Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...
Joh_16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Sounds like your persecuting the Believers.
Post by Michael Christ
And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.
I have no excuses, I read the word of God and harbor it in my heart.
You float your own boat, Buddy.

False is false...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
You are spiritually in error, the spirit of error, confirmation (for
you) that you are not in Christ Jesus.

You've been told and shown. Clearly, and many times.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Robert
2020-09-11 23:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.
Of course not. You get drunk with your 'in laws" lest you offend them, cough, cough.
Post by Michael Christ
People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.
Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...
Joh_16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Sounds like your persecuting the Believers.
Post by Michael Christ
And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.
I have no excuses, I read the word of God and harbor it in my heart.
You float your own boat, Buddy.
False is false...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
You are spiritually in error, the spirit of error, confirmation (for
you) that you are not in Christ Jesus.
You've been told and shown. Clearly, and many times.
Michael Christ
The Jews had a foundation of truth, yet like some here they walked away, and this is well known by all. Well....except you.
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 23:53:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.
Of course not. You get drunk with your 'in laws" lest you offend them, cough, cough.
Post by Michael Christ
People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.
Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...
Joh_16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Sounds like your persecuting the Believers.
Post by Michael Christ
And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.
I have no excuses, I read the word of God and harbor it in my heart.
You float your own boat, Buddy.
False is false...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
You are spiritually in error, the spirit of error, confirmation (for
you) that you are not in Christ Jesus.
You've been told and shown. Clearly, and many times.
The Jews had a foundation of truth, yet like some here they walked away, and this is well known by all.
Well....except you.
Show me the righteous man here, Buddy! :-).

All you have is your deluded selfish opinion, here the Lord is showing
you...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
...proof, you walk away from the truth.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Robert
2020-09-12 01:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Post by Michael Christ
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Evil bastards like you make the name of the Lord putrid in all the
earth, so don't expect me to sipping on a pina colada in the Caribbean,
Buddy Boy.
Of course not. You get drunk with your 'in laws" lest you offend them, cough, cough.
Post by Michael Christ
People like you who pretend to represent my Lord are well known in
spiritual places.
Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, religionists and bible bangers, hypocrites! for
ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
And nothing ever changes, you are so deluded, you...
Joh_16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Sounds like your persecuting the Believers.
Post by Michael Christ
And the evidence of these realities is you wipe your arse on the truth
in your own name, occurring in this very post...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR
LORD!!!
Liar. No excuses, you were told.
I have no excuses, I read the word of God and harbor it in my heart.
You float your own boat, Buddy.
False is false...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
You are spiritually in error, the spirit of error, confirmation (for
you) that you are not in Christ Jesus.
You've been told and shown. Clearly, and many times.
The Jews had a foundation of truth, yet like some here they walked away, and this is well known by all.
Well....except you.
Show me the righteous man here, Buddy! :-).
All you have is your deluded selfish opinion, here the Lord is showing
you...
Post by Robert
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
...proof, you walk away from the truth.
Never will, he is ingrained in me and I in the Lord.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-12 07:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On your man made religious bike, fallen.




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
Lucifer
2020-09-11 08:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Your are a proven liar, a fraud, a pretender to the gospel. And here is
the proof...
Robert wrote:> You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not
your Lord it> is all for naught.
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Now piss off!
Thanks.
Michael Christ
Are you hot under your collar and need cooling off?
Piss off poofter.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-11 13:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-11 21:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.

God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One. The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.



Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-13 17:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
Find in the Bible:

--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit

Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Stay out of their stinking filthy self-righteous self-serving sinner
whorehouse churches!
(The Message Bible - Lord Jesus speaking)
Mat 23:13 "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion
scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's
kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either.
Mat 23:15 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees!
Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you
get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.
You fuckin' assholes!
Have a nice day on Sunday, and remember be 'nice clean sinners'.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-13 21:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.

You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.

And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!

(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')

Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!

You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!

Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-14 20:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
what it is like:

-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-14 23:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).

Of.

Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.

I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.

I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.

Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!

Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.

There are no sinners in Christ Jesus. With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.




Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination". What do you
think sin is? Just a word??
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-15 19:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:29:29 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).
No, it comes from the words of uninspired men who read about the 4th
century Trinity doctrine. Its by men, and not in the Holy Bible. If
you think it is, show it to me. I challenge you.
Post by Michael Christ
Of.
Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.
I never said is was of the JW religion. It is a Bible command. (Mt
28:19,20)
Post by Michael Christ
I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
The Bible is not a "game", but a serious direction on how to know God
and Jesus, and gain eternal life, whether in Heaven or on the earth.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.
I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
I never said he was.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.
Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God
His body and life was given as the ransom. To take it back is to
nullify the ransom:

-- Revised Standard
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any
one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I
shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Notice, Jesus gave "my flesh" in behalf of the world.
Post by Michael Christ
and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!
I know nothing as compared to the whole Bible.
Post by Michael Christ
Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.
So are you and everyone else on the planet.
Post by Michael Christ
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.
There are no sinners in Christ Jesus.
Then what does this mean? 1 John 10:8-10,

8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
Post by Michael Christ
With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.
Yes, God can save us even though we sin all the time. See 1 John
10:8-10 above.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-15 22:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:29:29 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).
No, it comes from the words of uninspired men who read about the 4th
century Trinity doctrine. Its by men, and not in the Holy Bible. If
you think it is, show it to me. I challenge you.
Post by Michael Christ
Of.
Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.
I never said is was of the JW religion. It is a Bible command. (Mt
28:19,20)
Post by Michael Christ
I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
The Bible is not a "game", but a serious direction on how to know God
and Jesus, and gain eternal life, whether in Heaven or on the earth.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.
I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
I never said he was.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.
Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God
His body and life was given as the ransom. To take it back is to
-- Revised Standard
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any
one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I
shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Notice, Jesus gave "my flesh" in behalf of the world.
I am not talking about his flesh, His physical body, the Lord Jesus was
talking Spirit of Truth...

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall
live for ever.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!
I know nothing as compared to the whole Bible.
But you do a hellva lot of talking about it, Buddy, that is the point.
You're a sinner preaching away there as though all your ways and all
your thoughts are perfect, unbridled pure and holy coming down the train
of His glory! :-).

A sinner is in opposition to God, all the time, James.

Like Saul on the road to Damascus yet thinking He was doing God's work!

In heaven, all will be God. That is what I got out of this little
discussion from the Lord. Just as a family enjoys the whole of what is
theirs/ours. Very exciting, but I don't care, my treasure is Him, with
or without the stuff.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.
So are you and everyone else on the planet.
No, I was. With God all things are possible. There is no dark in the
light, there are no sinners in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in Him
is no darkness at all.

Joh_17:26  And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it:
that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

You need to start believing in God and not your sinner accommodating
religion propaganda.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.
There are no sinners in Christ Jesus.
Then what does this mean? 1 John 10:8-10,
8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
I know I confessed my sin, that all I was was sin, and the Lord who is
able to do all things, cleansed me of all unrighteousness. With God all
things are possible. Regardless of what you think.

Did you think the Lord wants to hear people repenting all the days of
their lives and then do nothing?? Not that you all do repent every day
of your lives! :-). Do you think a sinner should, or only if it suits
the sinner?? :-).

Sin is not what you do, it is what you are, that is why you need to find
out from God what you need to do in your daily life and do it so that He
can crucify you/that old nature. Your bible dogma or your religion is
not the Saviour, He is. He's a Person.

All the religions are a lie and I am going to post why that is so, and
by now it should be clear to you. If you turn away from that truth you
will never embrace the Lord, seeking only to establish your own sinner
religion which is headed for the fire/or whatever you want to call it,
the Kaput.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.
Yes, God can save us even though we sin all the time. See 1 John
10:8-10 above.
Oh isn't that a lovely thing to sin, and sin not be the wages of death!
Hey win, win!

Don't kid yourself with...religious sinner accommodating satanic
deception. Like the Pharisees (bible so-called believers) in the time
of Jesus, they too believed they had the way all mapped out for
themselves, but they didn't even see Whom they had in their midst.






Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
But God Himself is Truth.
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination". What do you
think sin is? Just a word??
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-17 01:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:10:30 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:29:29 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).
No, it comes from the words of uninspired men who read about the 4th
century Trinity doctrine. Its by men, and not in the Holy Bible. If
you think it is, show it to me. I challenge you.
Post by Michael Christ
Of.
Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.
I never said is was of the JW religion. It is a Bible command. (Mt
28:19,20)
Post by Michael Christ
I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
The Bible is not a "game", but a serious direction on how to know God
and Jesus, and gain eternal life, whether in Heaven or on the earth.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.
I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
I never said he was.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.
Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God
His body and life was given as the ransom. To take it back is to
-- Revised Standard
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any
one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I
shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Notice, Jesus gave "my flesh" in behalf of the world.
I am not talking about his flesh, His physical body, the Lord Jesus was
talking Spirit of Truth...
Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him.
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall
live for ever.
Right.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!
I know nothing as compared to the whole Bible.
But you do a hellva lot of talking about it, Buddy, that is the point.
You're a sinner preaching away there as though all your ways and all
your thoughts are perfect,
No human thoughts are perfect. We were all born imperfect. Our mothers
were imperfect which makes us imperfect:

-- Revised Standard
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not
one.
Post by Michael Christ
unbridled pure and holy coming down the train
of His glory! :-).
A sinner is in opposition to God, all the time, James.
That's why we needed Jesus' fleshly body given as our ransom.
Post by Michael Christ
Like Saul on the road to Damascus yet thinking He was doing God's work!
In heaven, all will be God. That is what I got out of this little
discussion from the Lord. Just as a family enjoys the whole of what is
theirs/ours. Very exciting, but I don't care, my treasure is Him, with
or without the stuff.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.
So are you and everyone else on the planet.
No, I was. With God all things are possible. There is no dark in the
light, there are no sinners in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in Him
is no darkness at all.
Then what does this mean?

-- Revised Standard
1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.
Post by Michael Christ
that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
You need to start believing in God and not your sinner accommodating
religion propaganda.
The truth is never propaganda.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.
There are no sinners in Christ Jesus.
Then what does this mean? 1 John 10:8-10,
8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
I know I confessed my sin, that all I was was sin, and the Lord who is
able to do all things, cleansed me of all unrighteousness. With God all
things are possible. Regardless of what you think.
Did you think the Lord wants to hear people repenting all the days of
their lives and then do nothing?? Not that you all do repent every day
of your lives! :-). Do you think a sinner should, or only if it suits
the sinner?? :-).
The Bible calls imperfection sin:

-- Revised Standard
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did
my mother conceive me.

Unless you were made perfect like Jesus, your imperfection makes you
sinful.
Post by Michael Christ
Sin is not what you do, it is what you are, that is why you need to find
out from God what you need to do in your daily life and do it so that He
can crucify you/that old nature. Your bible dogma
-- Revised Standard
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness,
Post by Michael Christ
or your religion is
not the Saviour, He is. He's a Person.
But not a 4th Century Trinity.
Post by Michael Christ
All the religions are a lie and I am going to post why that is so, and
by now it should be clear to you. If you turn away from that truth you
will never embrace the Lord, seeking only to establish your own sinner
religion which is headed for the fire/or whatever you want to call it,
the Kaput.
Can you roast marshmallows and weenies over the fire?
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.
Yes, God can save us even though we sin all the time. See 1 John
10:8-10 above.
Oh isn't that a lovely thing to sin, and sin not be the wages of death!
Hey win, win!
Don't kid yourself with...religious sinner accommodating satanic
deception. Like the Pharisees (bible so-called believers) in the time
of Jesus, they too believed they had the way all mapped out for
themselves, but they didn't even see Whom they had in their midst.
Yes, Jesus called them "blind guides", which is exactly what they
were.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
But God Himself is Truth.
Michael Christ
2020-09-17 03:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:10:30 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:29:29 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).
No, it comes from the words of uninspired men who read about the 4th
century Trinity doctrine. Its by men, and not in the Holy Bible. If
you think it is, show it to me. I challenge you.
Post by Michael Christ
Of.
Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.
I never said is was of the JW religion. It is a Bible command. (Mt
28:19,20)
Post by Michael Christ
I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
The Bible is not a "game", but a serious direction on how to know God
and Jesus, and gain eternal life, whether in Heaven or on the earth.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.
I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
I never said he was.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.
Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God
His body and life was given as the ransom. To take it back is to
-- Revised Standard
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any
one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I
shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Notice, Jesus gave "my flesh" in behalf of the world.
I am not talking about his flesh, His physical body, the Lord Jesus was
talking Spirit of Truth...
Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him.
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall
live for ever.
Right.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!
I know nothing as compared to the whole Bible.
But you do a hellva lot of talking about it, Buddy, that is the point.
You're a sinner preaching away there as though all your ways and all
your thoughts are perfect,
No human thoughts are perfect. We were all born imperfect. Our mothers
Oh be still by beating heart! Thou hast spoken perfect words in thy
sight!! :-).
Post by z***@windstream.net
-- Revised Standard
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not
one.
That is why God sent a Saviour...Himself.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
unbridled pure and holy coming down the train
of His glory! :-).
A sinner is in opposition to God, all the time, James.
That's why we needed Jesus' fleshly body given as our ransom.
"A sinner is in opposition to God [Truth], all the time".

You are a sinner, a sinner's natural disposition.

Join the dots.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Like Saul on the road to Damascus yet thinking He was doing God's work!
In heaven, all will be God. That is what I got out of this little
discussion from the Lord. Just as a family enjoys the whole of what is
theirs/ours. Very exciting, but I don't care, my treasure is Him, with
or without the stuff.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.
So are you and everyone else on the planet.
No, I was. With God all things are possible. There is no dark in the
light, there are no sinners in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in Him
is no darkness at all.
Then what does this mean?
-- Revised Standard
1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.
It means if you don't repent with your whole life...all...of...you, you
are denying the sin in you. A sinner is corrupt to his very core and it
is out of that core that you are trying to 'advise' me on what is
righteous!

1 John 1:8...if you have your 'core' sinner way, you are demanding a man
walks in truth if he sins!!! Hey, can I be a JW and have the truth in
me because I sin?? :-).

Become a believer in God! With God all things are possible, hey, but
not with sinner James religion!!
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
You need to start believing in God and not your sinner accommodating
religion propaganda.
The truth is never propaganda.
Enlightening, thanks.

You are a bunch of religious sinners pretending you have command over
the truth while you live a huge lie, a hypocrisy. A sinner sins!
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.
There are no sinners in Christ Jesus.
Then what does this mean? 1 John 10:8-10,
8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
I know I confessed my sin, that all I was was sin, and the Lord who is
able to do all things, cleansed me of all unrighteousness. With God all
things are possible. Regardless of what you think.
Did you think the Lord wants to hear people repenting all the days of
their lives and then do nothing?? Not that you all do repent every day
of your lives! :-). Do you think a sinner should, or only if it suits
the sinner?? :-).
No man in Christ Jesus is imperfect. He is a new creature.

2Co_5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old
things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I know, dump the verse, it doesn't suit the James sinner theology! :-).
Post by z***@windstream.net
-- Revised Standard
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did
my mother conceive me.
Unless you were made perfect like Jesus, your imperfection makes you
sinful.
You won't make it being less than perfect before the Lord. All or
nothing. With God all things are possible, but with sinner
accommodating religion...forget it!
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Sin is not what you do, it is what you are, that is why you need to find
out from God what you need to do in your daily life and do it so that He
can crucify you/that old nature. Your bible dogma
-- Revised Standard
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness,
What about 17?? Not in the JW religion??

That is where the Lord takes you if you surrender your life to Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
or your religion is
not the Saviour, He is. He's a Person.
But not a 4th Century Trinity.
Post by Michael Christ
All the religions are a lie and I am going to post why that is so, and
by now it should be clear to you. If you turn away from that truth you
will never embrace the Lord, seeking only to establish your own sinner
religion which is headed for the fire/or whatever you want to call it,
the Kaput.
Can you roast marshmallows and weenies over the fire?
You're a compromiser.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.
Yes, God can save us even though we sin all the time. See 1 John
10:8-10 above.
Oh isn't that a lovely thing to sin, and sin not be the wages of death!
Hey win, win!
Don't kid yourself with...religious sinner accommodating satanic
deception. Like the Pharisees (bible so-called believers) in the time
of Jesus, they too believed they had the way all mapped out for
themselves, but they didn't even see Whom they had in their midst.
Yes, Jesus called them "blind guides", which is exactly what they
were.
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
All sinners proselytizing a religion are blind guides. Hypocrites,
snakes, fucked up self-righteous blind men pointing their finger at
others who strain at a gnat and swallow their own sin like it was nothing.

James, why don't you take your hypocrite sinful state religion that you
abuse your neighbour with and dump it somewhere else?? Like in a hole
in your backyard.

Thanks.

You're a compromiser and there are no compromisers in God.





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination". What do you
think sin is? Just a word??

"Compromise will condemn you."
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-22 16:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:05:48 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:10:30 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:29:29 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:04:11 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 07:08:40 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:02:50 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:56:17 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”"
(All Scripture is Inspired of God, 1D The Divine Name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures
“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH))
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
The second and third century is AFTER the Bible was written. Thus the
Tetragrammaton (latinized English; Jehovah) would have been in the
original documentes.
God is God, Jesus is God, no matter to me. Same result, you can't have
a foundation of truth without God being God in and of your life.
God is "Jehovah" (Yahweh), Jesus is "God's Son" (John 10:36), the Holy
Spirit is what God pours out to accomplish his will. (Acts 2:17)
I know you have your Jehovah/Yahweh thing. It doesn't matter to me.
The JW thing is the Bible.
Your religion thing is not the bible, it is a sinner man interpretation
version of it, unless your religion contains the length, breadth and
depth of the bible?? Does it?? No.
My religion has studied deep into the Bible to understand it. And
understand it does.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God is God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, all
One.
--God the Father
--God the Son
--God the Holy Spirit
Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here.
Then it must be from another universe! :-).
No, it comes from the words of uninspired men who read about the 4th
century Trinity doctrine. Its by men, and not in the Holy Bible. If
you think it is, show it to me. I challenge you.
Post by Michael Christ
Of.
Baptizm is of God, not of JW theology.
I never said is was of the JW religion. It is a Bible command. (Mt
28:19,20)
Post by Michael Christ
I am not interested in going down rabbit holes of your theology. You
have a world of that within your own religion for that sort of game to
entertain you.
The Bible is not a "game", but a serious direction on how to know God
and Jesus, and gain eternal life, whether in Heaven or on the earth.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
No 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit" here either.
Post by Michael Christ
You are missing the point, there is no end to arguing over theology.
Can't you even see that??
The Bible says we should reason on it. The Bibles' theology is
factual. There is no need to argue when the Bible facts are given.
You're a sinner with sinner glasses trying to have your way.
I am not interested.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Look as you may, you will not find ANY of those phrases in the Holy
Bible. I challenge you to find any of them.
Post by Michael Christ
The point was, you can't have a foundation of truth without God!
In religion, yes.
God is not religion.
"re·li·gion
/r?'lij?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion""
God is not a religion.
I never said he was.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
And He is much much more than a bible that a sinner thinks he is master
over.
God want us to be mastery over the Bible.
God wants you to love Him with all your heart, soul and mind.
Anything less is an abomination, even if it is 'every learning' a bible.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by John Locke
Post by Michael Christ
Simple and crystal clear, but not to a liar and an enemy of God. They
always stumble in their humanist words.
Like what?
There is an example above. Remember, the Subject Title and the original
post.
If you don't want to answer, you don't need to.
'The way of false prophets'...
Post by z***@windstream.net
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
(In other words, 'You can't have a foundation of truth without God as
your God in all things')
Plain and simple! Crystal clear!!
You see, all the bible quoting in the world will not save or make them
of the truth!!!
Don't waste my time in rabbit holes arguing over what is obvious.
Yes, JW's put Jehovah first, and Jesus second. And in Heaven, that is
-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.
Then His body is God
His body and life was given as the ransom. To take it back is to
-- Revised Standard
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any
one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I
shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Notice, Jesus gave "my flesh" in behalf of the world.
I am not talking about his flesh, His physical body, the Lord Jesus was
talking Spirit of Truth...
Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you.
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him.
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall
live for ever.
Right.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
and those in Christ Jesus are God and family, just
the way He wanted it. :-). How?? Well, you know it all, James. Good luck!
I know nothing as compared to the whole Bible.
But you do a hellva lot of talking about it, Buddy, that is the point.
You're a sinner preaching away there as though all your ways and all
your thoughts are perfect,
No human thoughts are perfect. We were all born imperfect. Our mothers
Oh be still by beating heart! Thou hast spoken perfect words in thy
sight!! :-).
Just sharing the Bible with you
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
-- Revised Standard
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not
one.
That is why God sent a Saviour...Himself.
The God of the whole universe has better things to do than come down
to the earth as a human. zillions of Galaxies would collide, zillions
of suns would go supernova and burn up their planets. Gravity would
cease, as well as all other natural laws. No, God never came down
here. If He did, we would all be dead, vaporized, poof, out of
existence. Thank God He hasn't.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
unbridled pure and holy coming down the train
of His glory! :-).
A sinner is in opposition to God, all the time, James.
That's why we needed Jesus' fleshly body given as our ransom.
"A sinner is in opposition to God [Truth], all the time".
You are a sinner, a sinner's natural disposition.
Join the crowd. According to the Bible, we are all sinners.
Post by Michael Christ
Join the dots.
Just remember, Tums spelled backwards is smut.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Like Saul on the road to Damascus yet thinking He was doing God's work!
In heaven, all will be God. That is what I got out of this little
discussion from the Lord. Just as a family enjoys the whole of what is
theirs/ours. Very exciting, but I don't care, my treasure is Him, with
or without the stuff.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Theology never saved anybody and the proof of that, you are still a sinner.
So are you and everyone else on the planet.
No, I was. With God all things are possible. There is no dark in the
light, there are no sinners in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in Him
is no darkness at all.
Then what does this mean?
-- Revised Standard
1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.
It means if you don't repent with your whole life...all...of...you, you
are denying the sin in you. A sinner is corrupt to his very core and it
is out of that core that you are trying to 'advise' me on what is
righteous!
I don't advise, the Bible does.
Post by Michael Christ
1 John 1:8...if you have your 'core' sinner way, you are demanding a man
walks in truth if he sins!!! Hey, can I be a JW and have the truth in
me because I sin?? :-).
All JW's are sinners. So are you, unless you lie and say not so.
Post by Michael Christ
Become a believer in God! With God all things are possible, hey, but
not with sinner James religion!!
Jesus ransomed his body for ALL of mankind.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
You need to start believing in God and not your sinner accommodating
religion propaganda.
The truth is never propaganda.
Enlightening, thanks.
You are a bunch of religious sinners pretending you have command over
the truth while you live a huge lie, a hypocrisy. A sinner sins!
As do you. Or is the Bible 'lying' at 1 John 1:8?
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
===>>> YET <<<=== sinners, Christ died for us.
There are no sinners in Christ Jesus.
Then what does this mean? 1 John 10:8-10,
8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
I know I confessed my sin, that all I was was sin, and the Lord who is
able to do all things, cleansed me of all unrighteousness. With God all
things are possible. Regardless of what you think.
Did you think the Lord wants to hear people repenting all the days of
their lives and then do nothing?? Not that you all do repent every day
of your lives! :-). Do you think a sinner should, or only if it suits
the sinner?? :-).
No man in Christ Jesus is imperfect. He is a new creature.
Then all men on earth are not in Jesus since they are all imperfect.
Post by Michael Christ
2Co_5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old
things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
I know, dump the verse, it doesn't suit the James sinner theology! :-).
That Scripture means the person sheds his old ways, and starts to obey
Jesus and God the best he can.

Even Paul could not stop from sinning. Are you more righteous than
Paul?
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
-- Revised Standard
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did
my mother conceive me.
Unless you were made perfect like Jesus, your imperfection makes you
sinful.
You won't make it being less than perfect before the Lord. All or
nothing. With God all things are possible, but with sinner
accommodating religion...forget it!
Do you ever get sick? Then you are imperfect.
Have you ever made a mistake? Then you are imperfect.
Have you ever accidentally cussed? (like dropping a brick on your big
toe) Then you are imperfect.

There has only been 3 perfect humans on the earth: Adam, Eve, and
Jesus. You are not number 4.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Sin is not what you do, it is what you are, that is why you need to find
out from God what you need to do in your daily life and do it so that He
can crucify you/that old nature. Your bible dogma
-- Revised Standard
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness,
What about 17?? Not in the JW religion??
As you well know, the JW religion IS the Bible.
Post by Michael Christ
That is where the Lord takes you if you surrender your life to Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
or your religion is
not the Saviour, He is. He's a Person.
But not a 4th Century Trinity.
Post by Michael Christ
All the religions are a lie and I am going to post why that is so, and
by now it should be clear to you. If you turn away from that truth you
will never embrace the Lord, seeking only to establish your own sinner
religion which is headed for the fire/or whatever you want to call it,
the Kaput.
Can you roast marshmallows and weenies over the fire?
You're a compromiser.
All JW's are. For example, we hear about the Trinity, but compare it
to the Bible, and then relinquish that false doctrine.
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
With God all things are possible,
with man and his self-righteous religion (no saying words that we as
sinners don't agree with now!), :-), nothing is possible.
Yes, God can save us even though we sin all the time. See 1 John
10:8-10 above.
Oh isn't that a lovely thing to sin, and sin not be the wages of death!
Hey win, win!
Don't kid yourself with...religious sinner accommodating satanic
deception. Like the Pharisees (bible so-called believers) in the time
of Jesus, they too believed they had the way all mapped out for
themselves, but they didn't even see Whom they had in their midst.
Yes, Jesus called them "blind guides", which is exactly what they
were.
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
All sinners proselytizing a religion are blind guides. Hypocrites,
snakes, fucked up self-righteous blind men pointing their finger at
others who strain at a gnat and swallow their own sin like it was nothing
JW's follow the Bible. That of course means Mt 28:19,20 as well as all
other followable Scriptures. JW's are the only ones fulfilling Mt
24:14. Do you know what God's kingdom is?

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by Michael Christ
James, why don't you take your hypocrite sinful state religion that you
abuse your neighbour with and dump it somewhere else?? Like in a hole
in your backyard.
Thanks.
You're a compromiser and there are no compromisers in God.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
2020-09-22 21:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Take your natural sinner disposition that you are so contemptuously
clever with and go away.

Thank you.

Without the Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour, you haven't got a hope. God
indeed did come down!





Michael Christ
--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory".

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything".

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are".

"What makes the bible the truth?" "The resonance of God".

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination". What do you
think sin is? Just a word??

"Compromise will condemn you."
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-25 17:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 07:50:23 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Take your natural sinner disposition that you are so contemptuously
clever with and go away.
Thank you.
Without the Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour, you haven't got a hope.
Then JW's have hope, since they accept Jesus, the Son of God, as their
Savior.
Post by Michael Christ
God
indeed did come down!
Michael Christ
Lucifer
2020-09-25 23:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 07:50:23 +1000, Michael Christ
Post by Michael Christ
Take your natural sinner disposition that you are so contemptuously
clever with and go away.
Thank you.
Without the Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour, you haven't got a hope.
Then JW's have hope, since they accept Jesus, the Son of God, as their
Savior.
If you trusted God you would have certainty, but you know God
did not ask your approval before downgrading you.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
God
indeed did come down!
God
did not correct his errors.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
servant
2020-09-14 23:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One jw vatican taught learned by rote plugin is this when the topic of why
the jw replaced some greek terms for God and Lord in their translation with
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with KyŽri·os, Lord or The·osŽ, God."
Greek Scriptures
Hmm, what an interesting take on history, let us consider some facts to
test the theory.

The plugin has some fatal flaws of factthe jw vatican apparently did not
know when it was invented. The Tetragrammaton refers to one of the names
in hebrew for God.

First, by that time there were many scores of copies of copies of copies of
the individual books making upthe the greek OT and NT all over much of
europe, into the persion area including india, and into the whole of n.
africa..

Exactly how did the scribes in their conspiracy track down and make those
many many changes to eachseperate individual book without many christians
knowing it in such a large area?

It would also take many ,many centrally directed scribes knowing the
location of all copies to pull off the theory of what happened.

How did the obvious hand writen changes in frequently consulted completely
hand written scrolls go unnoticed under the noses of christians?

Second, there was no OT or NT in one bound book as we know them. Each
seperate book in our bound versions were seperate scrolls. That would make
the alledged scribe conspiracy vastly more complicated to track down all
of them.

Single bound books of the scriptures containing all the individual books
began to appear only in the 4th century. The OT and NT were bound
seperatly.

Third, worst of all the scribes were not around since 70 AD. They were
attached to the temple and jewish legal system. Both of those functions
disappeared from history when the temple waas destroyed in 70 AD, along
with some other related jewish groups and practices mentioned in the NT.

After that time the synagogue took the central place in jewish worship
headed by local leaders in that system of worship. There was no centrral
governing body to form and direct

the alledged conspiracy over vast areas. under the very noses of christians
. The alledged conspiracy theory of scribes gos poof up in smoke when the
facts are considered. And needless to say, the jw vatican plugin answer
above along with it.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-15 11:31:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
One jw vatican taught learned by rote plugin is this when the topic of why
the jw replaced some greek terms for God and Lord in their translation with
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
Greek Scriptures
Hmm, what an interesting take on history, let us consider some facts to
test the theory.
The plugin has some fatal flaws of factthe jw vatican apparently did not
know when it was invented. The Tetragrammaton refers to one of the names
in hebrew for God.
It is the personal name of God. See Ps 83:18 in the KJV. Also
consider:

- American Standard
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations.

-- Living Bible
Exodus 3:15 Yes, tell them, `Jehovah, the God of your ancestors
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you.' (This is my eternal
name, to be used throughout all generations.)

- Transliterated, Pronounceable
Exodus 3:15 Wayo'mer `owd 'Elohiym 'el- Mosheh, Koh- to'mar 'el-bneey
Yisraa'eel: Yahweh 'Eloheey 'boteeykem -- 'Eloheey'Abraahaam 'Eloheey
Yitschaaq wee-'Eloheey Ya`qob -- shlaachaniy'leeykem. Zeh- shmiy
l`olaam wzeh zikriy ldor dor.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Exodus 3:15 God further said to Moses, "You are to tell the
Israelites, `Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my
name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to
come.

-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
Exodus 3:15 God also said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the
Israelites, "The Lord, {The word "Lord" when spelled with capital
letters stands for the divine name, [YHWH,] which is here connected
with the verb [hayah,] "to be"} the God of your ancestors, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you':
This is my name forever,
and this my title for all generations.

-- Young's Bible
Exodus 3:15 And God saith again unto Moses, 'Thus dost thou say unto
the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God
of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this [is] My name -
to the age, and this My memorial, to generation - generation.

-- Darby's Bible
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel: Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations.
Post by servant
First, by that time there were many scores of copies of copies of copies of
the individual books making upthe the greek OT and NT all over much of
europe, into the persion area including india, and into the whole of n.
africa..
How do you know?
Post by servant
Exactly how did the scribes in their conspiracy track down and make those
many many changes to eachseperate individual book without many christians
knowing it in such a large area?
I have already showed you the evidence that they changed things.
Post by servant
It would also take many ,many centrally directed scribes knowing the
location of all copies to pull off the theory of what happened.
I have already showed you the evidence.
Post by servant
How did the obvious hand writen changes in frequently consulted completely
hand written scrolls go unnoticed under the noses of christians?
It didn't. As that early fragment of the Septuagint that I showed you
shows, the CORRECT translation was around and before the first
century. It was changed after that.
Post by servant
Second, there was no OT or NT in one bound book as we know them. Each
seperate book in our bound versions were seperate scrolls. That would make
the alledged scribe conspiracy vastly more complicated to track down all
of them.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Post by servant
Single bound books of the scriptures containing all the individual books
began to appear only in the 4th century. The OT and NT were bound
seperatly.
What is important is the words written, not the form they were in.
Post by servant
Third, worst of all the scribes were not around since 70 AD.
And your proof?
Post by servant
They were
attached to the temple and jewish legal system. Both of those functions
disappeared from history when the temple waas destroyed in 70 AD, along
with some other related jewish groups and practices mentioned in the NT.
Again, your evidence?
Post by servant
After that time the synagogue took the central place in jewish worship
headed by local leaders in that system of worship. There was no centrral
governing body to form and direct
the alledged conspiracy over vast areas. under the very noses of christians
. The alledged conspiracy theory of scribes gos poof up in smoke when the
facts are considered. And needless to say, the jw vatican plugin answer
above along with it.
But you have no proof for your words. Proof would make them more
believable. Otherwise it is just your opinion.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-15 14:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
One jw vatican taught learned by rote plugin is this when the topic of why
the jw replaced some greek terms for God and Lord in their translation with
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with KyŽri·os, Lord or The·osŽ, God."
Greek Scriptures
Hmm, what an interesting take on history, let us consider some facts to
test the theory.
The plugin has some fatal flaws of factthe jw vatican apparently did not
know when it was invented. The Tetragrammaton refers to one of the names
in hebrew for God.
It is the personal name of God.
Yes, but there are several names used in the NT for God, the remark is not
relevant to the topic.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
First, by that time there were many scores of copies of copies of copies of
the individual books making upthe the greek OT and NT all over much of
europe, into the persion area including india, and into the whole of n.
africa..
How do you know?
Because I have studied church history for years. The jw do not as this
very topic and friend janes' constantly inadequate responses are in this
post ample evidence.

When the typical jw see the jw vatican make such pronouncements and
plugins; it is as good as gospel, no questions need or can be asked.

Friend james is severly limited here as the jw have little to no grasp of
church history. In the below he is limited to asking "how do you know" as
a best effort . Evidence to the contrary is completely missing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Exactly how did the scribes in their conspiracy track down and make those
many many changes to eachseperate individual book without many christians
knowing it in such a large area?
I have already showed you the evidence that they changed things.
Correction, you showed some 3 examples in the greek OT, among many many
copies of the time that did not contain any change.


From this an entire fanciful theory was invented to excuse ajw example of
really making changes to the greek scriptures to fit their agenda.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
It would also take many ,many centrally directed scribes knowing the
location of all copies to pull off the theory of what happened.
I have already showed you the evidence.
No, as above.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How did the obvious hand writen changes in frequently consulted completely
hand written scrolls go unnoticed under the noses of christians?
It didn't. As that early fragment of the Septuagint that I showed you
shows, the CORRECT translation was around and before the first
century. It was changed after that.
A fine bit of circular logic. See above again. In fact the greek OT
translations before the 1st century use the same greek NT terms for the
hebrew name. The english translations for them are easily found on the
web.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Second, there was no OT or NT in one bound book as we know them. Each
seperate book in our bound versions were seperate scrolls. That would make
the alledged scribe conspiracy vastly more complicated to track down all
of them.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Sorry friend james, you have *no* rellevant evidence that is not easily
accounted for, you have the jw vatican plugin so it must be correct, right?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Single bound books of the scriptures containing all the individual books
began to appear only in the 4th century. The OT and NT were bound
seperatly.
What is important is the words written, not the form they were in.
That showed the point of the compounding multiple schrolls problem was the
case of what the scribes would have to know about their location in a vast
area.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Third, worst of all the scribes were not around since 70 AD.
And your proof?
Years of study, what happened after 70 AD and in what form is a very
common topic.>

Read on.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They were
attached to the temple and jewish legal system. Both of those functions
disappeared from history when the temple waas destroyed in 70 AD, along
with some other related jewish groups and practices mentioned in the NT.
Again, your evidence?
As above.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
After that time the synagogue took the central place in jewish worship
headed by local leaders in that system of worship. There was no centrral
governing body to form and direct
the alledged conspiracy over vast areas. under the very noses of christians
. The alledged conspiracy theory of scribes gos poof up in smoke when the
facts are considered. And needless to say, the jw vatican plugin answer
above along with it.
But you have no proof for your words. Proof would make them more
believable. Otherwise it is just your opinion.
Friend james, when faced with commonly known facts of history you like to
dismiss it as opinion.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-15 18:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
One jw vatican taught learned by rote plugin is this when the topic of why
the jw replaced some greek terms for God and Lord in their translation with
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
Greek Scriptures
Hmm, what an interesting take on history, let us consider some facts to
test the theory.
The plugin has some fatal flaws of factthe jw vatican apparently did not
know when it was invented. The Tetragrammaton refers to one of the names
in hebrew for God.
It is the personal name of God.
Yes, but there are several names used in the NT for God, the remark is not
relevant to the topic.
The Bible says what God's PERSONAL name is. And it's not "God" or "I
am" or "Lord"etc. God makes it clear at Ex 3:15,

"-- American Standard
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations. "

Of course, the TRANSLITERATION name is "Yahweh" or something like it.
"Jehovah" is a Latin-English TRANSLATION. Many cultures have their own
name for God. (I think I already showed you some. If not, just ask for
them.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
First, by that time there were many scores of copies of copies of copies of
the individual books making upthe the greek OT and NT all over much of
europe, into the persion area including india, and into the whole of n.
africa..
How do you know?
Because I have studied church history for years. The jw do not as this
very topic and friend janes' constantly inadequate responses are in this
post ample evidence.
The Bible says there are millions of books, and the reading of them
can get you 'weary'. If I need to look up some church history for a
discussion I am having, I will look it up. Notice:

-- Revised Standard
Ecclesiastes 12:12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making
many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the
flesh.
Post by servant
When the typical jw see the jw vatican make such pronouncements and
plugins; it is as good as gospel, no questions need or can be asked.
Questions are asked all the time for JW publications. I just research
them out.

Yes, some brothers will not question JW publications. I generally do
not either because I USUALLY AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN. The JW
'Vatican' almost always gives the Scriptural research behind it, or
the non-Biblical evidence. They want to be truthful to stop opposers.
So they make sure what they write is the absolute truth as they know
it.
Post by servant
Friend james is severly limited here as the jw have little to no grasp of
church history.
There is probably a ton of church history published by JW's over the
years. I will do a search of my JW library on "Methodist", and see
what comes up. I will not come back a change anything I wrote here. If
there is nothing, I will tell you.

I also am somewhat limited in that my JW library of the Watchtower and
Awake! magazines only go back to 1950. Well, here goes; Methodist:

It came up with the 1930 to 1985 index. Here are the headings:

Churches
Clergy
Courts
Divorce
Field Service
Great Britain
Homosexuality
Marriage
Methodist Church
Moral Breakdown
Preaching Tobacco
United Methodist Church
Wesley, John
Wesleyan Church
Witnessing

The next reference is the index 1986 to 2014:

It has only 3 of them:

Homosexuality
Methodist Church
Religion

Now if I want to go on the net for more info, it lists 89,800,000.
Plenty of material to write about.
Post by servant
In the below he is limited to asking "how do you know" as
a best effort . Evidence to the contrary is completely missing.
Yes, if you make a claim, I would like to see some evidence to support
your allegations. Isn't that fair?

I usually provide something as evidence for my assertions. It can be a
Scripture or something else.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Exactly how did the scribes in their conspiracy track down and make those
many many changes to eachseperate individual book without many christians
knowing it in such a large area?
I have already showed you the evidence that they changed things.
Correction, you showed some 3 examples in the greek OT, among many many
copies of the time that did not contain any change.
And what examples do you have, or are you guessing?
Post by servant
From this an entire fanciful theory was invented to excuse ajw example of
really making changes to the greek scriptures to fit their agenda.
Historical facts fit our agenda.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
It would also take many ,many centrally directed scribes knowing the
location of all copies to pull off the theory of what happened.
I have already showed you the evidence.
No, as above.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How did the obvious hand writen changes in frequently consulted completely
hand written scrolls go unnoticed under the noses of christians?
It didn't. As that early fragment of the Septuagint that I showed you
shows, the CORRECT translation was around and before the first
century. It was changed after that.
A fine bit of circular logic. See above again. In fact the greek OT
translations before the 1st century use the same greek NT terms for the
hebrew name. The english translations for them are easily found on the
web.
Not according to the Septuagint fragment Papyrus Fouad 266. This was
dated as 1st century B.C.E. It has the divine name in Hebrew
characters in it.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Second, there was no OT or NT in one bound book as we know them. Each
seperate book in our bound versions were seperate scrolls. That would make
the alledged scribe conspiracy vastly more complicated to track down all
of them.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Sorry friend james, you have *no* rellevant evidence that is not easily
accounted for, you have the jw vatican plugin so it must be correct, right?
They write the truth as they know it. And it is usually researched and
correct. Isn't that fair?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Single bound books of the scriptures containing all the individual books
began to appear only in the 4th century. The OT and NT were bound
seperatly.
What is important is the words written, not the form they were in.
That showed the point of the compounding multiple schrolls problem was the
case of what the scribes would have to know about their location in a vast
area.
The words are there. All you have to do is verify them.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Third, worst of all the scribes were not around since 70 AD.
And your proof?
Years of study, what happened after 70 AD and in what form is a very
common topic.>
Read on.
If it is that common, then you must have some proof to present me. Or
do you want me to take just your word for it?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They were
attached to the temple and jewish legal system. Both of those functions
disappeared from history when the temple waas destroyed in 70 AD, along
with some other related jewish groups and practices mentioned in the NT.
Again, your evidence?
As above.>
Same comment.

Isn't it fair to ask for proof? Many people would think so. But you
rarely provide it. It is usually just your word or opinion, and then a
chop about the JW's.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
After that time the synagogue took the central place in jewish worship
headed by local leaders in that system of worship. There was no centrral
governing body to form and direct
the alledged conspiracy over vast areas. under the very noses of christians
. The alledged conspiracy theory of scribes gos poof up in smoke when the
facts are considered. And needless to say, the jw vatican plugin answer
above along with it.
But you have no proof for your words. Proof would make them more
believable. Otherwise it is just your opinion.
Friend james, when faced with commonly known facts of history you like to
dismiss it as opinion.
Only when the facts are not supported by evidence. You may ask my
evidence anytime you want. I have nothing to hide and trust the JW
publications Just about all the time.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-15 19:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Friend james I look forward to yourr info that the jw vatican has an
extensive knowledge of church history they take into account when coming up
with new plugins..


That church history would be n unbroken constant documented witness of the
church theachings these 2020 years. I have spent years studying that
history.

I gave for example 3 related early church fathers of the 1st and 2nd
centuries who had direct connnections with John who gave wrriten witness
that Christ is God.

Because 2 of them were direct disciples of John and the 3rd a disciple of
one of the 2; it is reasonable to conclude they reflected the teachings of
John. The same thing that John was teaching in his gospel if one accepts
the plain reading of it as has been constant teaching in church history.

It is that level of detail I ask you demonstrate from jw watchtower etc.
sources.

I really don't care what opinion the jw vatican might of a given church,
that is not what I mean by church history..
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-16 11:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Friend james I look forward to yourr info that the jw vatican has an
extensive knowledge of church history they take into account when coming up
with new plugins..
That church history would be n unbroken constant documented witness of the
church theachings these 2020 years. I have spent years studying that
history.
I gave for example 3 related early church fathers of the 1st and 2nd
centuries who had direct connnections with John who gave wrriten witness
that Christ is God.
Show me in the Bible where Jesus said he was God. Look as you may, you
just won't find it. That is because Jesus is NOT God. Notice Jesus
already in Heaven:

-- New American with Apocrypha
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ.

If Jesus is God, and Jesus is in Heaven, please explain the meaning of
1 Cor 11:3. (if you say you already discussed it with me, please humor
me and repeat it. (Repetition is the candy for learning)
Post by servant
Because 2 of them were direct disciples of John and the 3rd a disciple of
one of the 2; it is reasonable to conclude they reflected the teachings of
John. The same thing that John was teaching in his gospel if one accepts
the plain reading of it as has been constant teaching in church history.
Your reasoning is flawed. See 1 Cor 11:3.
Post by servant
It is that level of detail I ask you demonstrate from jw watchtower etc.
sources.
I really don't care what opinion the jw vatican might of a given church,
that is not what I mean by church history..
They mention the churches as per the Bible. See Rev 18:4.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-16 15:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james I look forward to yourr info that the jw vatican has an
extensive knowledge of church history they take into account when coming up
with new plugins..
That church history would be n unbroken constant documented witness of the
church theachings these 2020 years. I have spent years studying that
history.
I gave for example 3 related early church fathers of the 1st and 2nd
centuries who had direct connnections with John who gave wrriten witness
that Christ is God.
And friend james ignores the question of examples in church history
directly associated with the apostiles and offers a tired jw vatican set of
plugins.

Btw, those 3 witnessess were bishops in the church, those titled
"overseeres" in the NT. to add to their credability of evidence.

If today there is disagreement with some understanding of a point in
scripture,., see what the first christians said they were taught on that
point as a direct and powerful witness and resolution of the point in
scripture.

So friend james a jw vatican plugin some 2000 years distant from those
first christian witnesses is given. Who has more creadibility when it
comes to understanding scripture?

Saying the plugin is in scripture is not an answer, many diferent ideas on
the same point brings great doubt to the jw vatican claim only; when all
claim the same scripture as "proof", no?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Show me in the Bible where Jesus said he was God. Look as you may, you
just won't find it. That is because Jesus is NOT God.
Ah, friend james has just confirmed the jw vatican can not point to a 2000
year unbroken witness to confirm their 2000 year after the fact plugin, no?

The best the jw vvatican can offer is " we said it 2000 years later, our
plugin is correct, end of discussion", no?

Friend james, I would be happy to entertain an answer to my original
request, has the jw vatican a 2000 year unbroken witness on the meaning of
scripture?
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-17 21:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james I look forward to yourr info that the jw vatican has an
extensive knowledge of church history they take into account when coming up
with new plugins..
That church history would be n unbroken constant documented witness of the
church theachings these 2020 years. I have spent years studying that
history.
I gave for example 3 related early church fathers of the 1st and 2nd
centuries who had direct connnections with John who gave wrriten witness
that Christ is God.
And friend james ignores the question of examples in church history
directly associated with the apostiles and offers a tired jw vatican set of
plugins.
Another opinion. You are welcome to'em.
Post by servant
Btw, those 3 witnessess were bishops in the church, those titled
"overseeres" in the NT. to add to their credability of evidence.
I really don't understand your point.
Post by servant
If today there is disagreement with some understanding of a point in
scripture,., see what the first christians said they were taught on that
point as a direct and powerful witness and resolution of the point in
scripture.
I really don't understand your point again.
Post by servant
So friend james a jw vatican plugin some 2000 years distant from those
first christian witnesses is given. Who has more creadibility when it
comes to understanding scripture?
The Bible is truths. (2 Tim 3:16)
Post by servant
Saying the plugin is in scripture is not an answer, many diferent ideas on
the same point brings great doubt to the jw vatican claim only; when all
claim the same scripture as "proof", no?
Jesus said to hate your father and mother. How do you explain that?

Jesus said unless to eat himself, you won't get eternal life. How do
you explain that?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Show me in the Bible where Jesus said he was God. Look as you may, you
just won't find it. That is because Jesus is NOT God.
Ah, friend james has just confirmed the jw vatican can not point to a 2000
year unbroken witness to confirm their 2000 year after the fact plugin, no?
You got away from my question again. Can you answer my question? Or
are you going to change the topic again. Can you show me in the Bible
where Jesus said he was God?
Post by servant
The best the jw vvatican can offer is " we said it 2000 years later, our
plugin is correct, end of discussion", no?
Friend james, I would be happy to entertain an answer to my original
request, has the jw vatican a 2000 year unbroken witness on the meaning of
scripture?
If you answer my question, I will answer yours.


James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-17 18:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
One jw vatican taught learned by rote plugin is this when the topic of why
the jw replaced some greek terms for God and Lord in their translation with
Post by z***@windstream.net
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed
the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek
Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, Lord or The·os´, God."
Greek Scriptures
Hmm, what an interesting take on history, let us consider some facts to
test the theory.
The plugin has some fatal flaws of factthe jw vatican apparently did not
know when it was invented. The Tetragrammaton refers to one of the names
in hebrew for God.
It is the personal name of God.
Yes, but there are several names used in the NT for God, the remark is not
relevant to the topic.
The name from the Tetragrammaton is God's personal name. He even says
so at Ex 3:15:

-- American Standard
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
First, by that time there were many scores of copies of copies of copies of
the individual books making upthe the greek OT and NT all over much of
europe, into the persion area including india, and into the whole of n.
africa..
How do you know?
Because I have studied church history for years. The jw do not as this
very topic and friend janes' constantly inadequate responses are in this
post ample evidence.
When the typical jw see the jw vatican make such pronouncements and
plugins; it is as good as gospel, no questions need or can be asked.
Friend james is severly limited here as the jw have little to no grasp of
church history. In the below he is limited to asking "how do you know" as
a best effort . Evidence to the contrary is completely missing.
I heard your opinions, but no facts.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Exactly how did the scribes in their conspiracy track down and make those
many many changes to eachseperate individual book without many christians
knowing it in such a large area?
I have already showed you the evidence that they changed things.
Correction, you showed some 3 examples in the greek OT, among many many
copies of the time that did not contain any change.
What copies?
Post by servant
From this an entire fanciful theory was invented to excuse ajw example of
really making changes to the greek scriptures to fit their agenda.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
It would also take many ,many centrally directed scribes knowing the
location of all copies to pull off the theory of what happened.
I have already showed you the evidence.
No, as above.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How did the obvious hand writen changes in frequently consulted completely
hand written scrolls go unnoticed under the noses of christians?
It didn't. As that early fragment of the Septuagint that I showed you
shows, the CORRECT translation was around and before the first
century. It was changed after that.
A fine bit of circular logic. See above again. In fact the greek OT
translations before the 1st century use the same greek NT terms for the
hebrew name. The english translations for them are easily found on the
web.
Show me.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Second, there was no OT or NT in one bound book as we know them. Each
seperate book in our bound versions were seperate scrolls. That would make
the alledged scribe conspiracy vastly more complicated to track down all
of them.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Sorry friend james, you have *no* rellevant evidence that is not easily
accounted for, you have the jw vatican plugin so it must be correct, right?
I believe the JW organization for their extensive research and truths.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Single bound books of the scriptures containing all the individual books
began to appear only in the 4th century. The OT and NT were bound
seperatly.
What is important is the words written, not the form they were in.
That showed the point of the compounding multiple schrolls problem was the
case of what the scribes would have to know about their location in a vast
area.
So?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Third, worst of all the scribes were not around since 70 AD.
And your proof?
Years of study, what happened after 70 AD and in what form is a very
common topic.>
Read on.
And your proof??
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They were
attached to the temple and jewish legal system. Both of those functions
disappeared from history when the temple waas destroyed in 70 AD, along
with some other related jewish groups and practices mentioned in the NT.
Again, your evidence?
As above.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
After that time the synagogue took the central place in jewish worship
headed by local leaders in that system of worship. There was no centrral
governing body to form and direct
the alledged conspiracy over vast areas. under the very noses of christians
. The alledged conspiracy theory of scribes gos poof up in smoke when the
facts are considered. And needless to say, the jw vatican plugin answer
above along with it.
But you have no proof for your words. Proof would make them more
believable. Otherwise it is just your opinion.
Friend james, when faced with commonly known facts of history you like to
dismiss it as opinion.
Without evidence, there is no way to tell the difference.
I don't think all opinions are false, but it helps to know the facts.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-17 20:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To make the jw vatican "translation" work in which God and Lord were
replaced with "Jehovah" in places. Those places and not others appear to
be selected to make it appear Christ was not God, a jw vatican heresy.

They make the claim the NT and Ot were modified by "scribes" as late as the
3rd century to remove the "Jehovah" where the greek God appears. There is
absolutely *no* uses of that name in ancient times, how it was invented is
another story.

Here for friend james bedtime reading is a discussion of the NT greek use
of God. Almost certainly he will not read, being prohibited by the jw
vatican to do outside reading on jw vatican plugins valitity:

Does the New Testament use the divine name "Yahweh"?

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7454/does-the-new-testament-use-the-divine-name-yahweh

Afew bits of relevant info from it:

Currently there are not any extant Greek texts containing the
Tetragrammaton-even in the oldest manuscripts from the 2nd century. If it
was there and then removed, then

how? The early church was persecuted and scattered. They made copies of
copies and these scattered as well. How would someone or some group have
gathered all of these letters and copies and changed them all? It would
have had to happen almost immediately after they were written.

And if that was changed, what else was changed? We would have no reason to
believe the validity of the texts if we believe that they have been
altered.

...

John's Revelation is the only New Testament text to use the name of
'Yahweh' outside of transliterations of theophoric names. The abbreviated
form 'Yah' appears four times in Revelation 19, embedded in the Greek word
hallylouj (hallelou-Ia), from the Hebrew phrase H+a L+ L+W+u J+o H+u
(halelu-Yah).
We await friend jame's close examination of the info.
laim

Given he NT alone, what proof of the wholesale changes the jw vatican
claims? The related but not directly relevent few examples of variant OT
uses of the greek and/or transliteration of the hebrew text in the greek OT
notwithstanding.

For the latter documents, the claimed wholesail change was a failure, there
are many,the vast majority in fact, do not have greek transliteration from
the hebrew for the name of God.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-19 10:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
To make the jw vatican "translation" work in which God and Lord were
replaced with "Jehovah" in places. Those places and not others appear to
be selected to make it appear Christ was not God, a jw vatican heresy.
You need to change your anti-JW's pills.
Post by servant
They make the claim the NT and Ot were modified by "scribes" as late as the
3rd century to remove the "Jehovah" where the greek God appears. There is
absolutely *no* uses of that name in ancient times, how it was invented is
another story.
I already told you, it was the Tetragrammaton they removed, not the
literal word "Jehovah". Just how various countries translate the
Tetragrammaton can vary country to country. If you want a list I will
give you one.
Post by servant
Here for friend james bedtime reading is a discussion of the NT greek use
of God. Almost certainly he will not read, being prohibited by the jw
Does the New Testament use the divine name "Yahweh"?
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.

When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Post by servant
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7454/does-the-new-testament-use-the-divine-name-yahweh
I already discussed this topic above. I have no prohibition from
reading this link. But for time sake, I'll skip it.
Post by servant
Currently there are not any extant Greek texts containing the
Tetragrammaton-even in the oldest manuscripts from the 2nd century. If it
was there and then removed, then
how? The early church was persecuted and scattered. They made copies of
copies and these scattered as well. How would someone or some group have
gathered all of these letters and copies and changed them all? It would
have had to happen almost immediately after they were written.
And if that was changed, what else was changed? We would have no reason to
believe the validity of the texts if we believe that they have been
altered.
See above where I explained it. Also, all those early 'copies' are not
available today. But what we do have, does not contain the
Tetragrammaton.
Post by servant
...
John's Revelation is the only New Testament text to use the name of
'Yahweh' outside of transliterations of theophoric names. The abbreviated
form 'Yah' appears four times in Revelation 19, embedded in the Greek word
hallylouj (hallelou-Ia), from the Hebrew phrase H+a L+ L+W+u J+o H+u
(halelu-Yah).
We await friend jame's close examination of the info.
laim
True, those scribes didn't change the shortened version of God's name.
That's probably is because tampering with the NT was because of the
Jewish superstition of pronouncing the divine name. The shortened form
does not say the divine name, so they let it through.
Post by servant
Given he NT alone, what proof of the wholesale changes the jw vatican
claims? The related but not directly relevent few examples of variant OT
uses of the greek and/or transliteration of the hebrew text in the greek OT
notwithstanding.
The proof is common reasoning. quoting the OT with the Name should be
revealed in the NT as well. This is only logical.
Post by servant
For the latter documents, the claimed wholesail change was a failure, there
are many,the vast majority in fact, do not have greek transliteration from
the hebrew for the name of God.
Yes, like I said above. See above.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-19 18:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.

In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?

We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.

Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?

Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4 letters and
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".

Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.

They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.

Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.

Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?

The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?

Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?

How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.

Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?

hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .

How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.

I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-20 10:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate. (they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
they based their NT on:

Armenian Version
Coptic Versions
Syriac Versions-Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
23 Hebrew Versions (14th-20th centuries), translated either from the
Greek or from the Latin Vulgate, using Tetragrammaton for divine name"

They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
personal name in:

In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4 letters and
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Jesus showed he used God's personal name:

- Revised Standard
John 17:26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known,
that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in
them."

-- Revised Standard
Matthew 6:9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.

Do you make His name hallowed? You are commanded to.

- Revised Standard
John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me
out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and
they have kept thy word.
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
You already asked that. See above.
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"

Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.


James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Pat Barker+
2020-09-20 12:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate. (they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
Stop lying.
The JW bible was re=interpretted to floow your corrupt beliefs.
Tou added words that were never there, and you removed or changed
other verses and phrases to follow your beliefs, which were based on
some snake oil salesman who you no longer even discuss.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-21 09:47:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 08:18:36 -0400, Pat Barker+
Post by Pat Barker+
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate. (they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
Stop lying.
The JW bible was re=interpretted to floow your corrupt beliefs.
Tou added words that were never there, and you removed or changed
other verses and phrases to follow your beliefs, which were based on
some snake oil salesman who you no longer even discuss.
All your opinions are noted.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-21 17:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?

Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
corruption is found there, John 1:1 in varius translations:

(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.

(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.

(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.

These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4 letters and
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.

Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring to the
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.

Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.

'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'

https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses

3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.

1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."

2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Ted
2020-09-21 17:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds
friend james
Post by servant
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is.
Watch out
Post by servant
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically
wrong. But
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the
Tetragrammaton,
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply
regardless
Post by servant
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote
response and the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw
vatican
Post by servant
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language
sources
Post by servant
listed, nuff said.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a
transsliteration of
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4 letters and
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple
rituals.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish
scribes" took it
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent
research on the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's
religious
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st
century jews,
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's
personal
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of
speaking the
Post by servant
Tetragrammaton.
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring to the
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the
question.
Post by servant
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into
consideration
Post by servant
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the
Watchtower to
Post by servant
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set
before us,
Post by servant
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should
meekly go
Post by servant
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's
channel
Post by servant
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
servant
2020-09-21 19:50:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
That is what they used before mid 20th century.


The kjv did not support their corrupted ideas of Christ not being God.

What to do? Oh yes, we will do our own "translation" without a single
greek scholar, so we can make the original greek we can not read come out
as we want it to..


In the end they used the kjv heavnly anyway, just "correcting" bits here
and there to define the godhead as we wish it.
Ted
2020-09-21 20:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by Ted
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
That is what they used before mid 20th century.
The kjv did not support their corrupted ideas of Christ not being God.
What to do? Oh yes, we will do our own "translation" without a single
greek scholar, so we can make the original greek we can not read come out
as we want it to..
In the end they used the kjv heavnly anyway, just "correcting" bits here
and there to define the godhead as we wish it.
I agree that was wrong, as the KJV is the original Bible and should
be the only one used by anybody.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-25 13:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds
friend james
Post by servant
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to
him or
Post by servant
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is.
Watch out
Post by servant
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name.
Thus
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically
wrong. But
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the
Tetragrammaton,
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend
james
Post by servant
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge
if he
Post by servant
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply
regardless
Post by servant
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was
done in
Post by servant
place of direct answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote
response and the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics
that arise.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some
places
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the
proper
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek
scholar to
Post by servant
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Yet the NWT got compliments from Bible scholars.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read
them?
You are just guessing.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican
person can
Post by servant
read *any* of them, period.
You must like to guess.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw
vatican
Post by servant
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word
himself
Post by servant
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the
Word; and
Post by servant
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning,
and that
Post by servant
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a
greek
Post by servant
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations
use
Post by servant
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
Still guessing I see.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
The first word of that sentence should be IF.
Post by servant
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language
sources
Post by servant
listed, nuff said.
Anti-JW propaganda.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt,
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a
transsliteration of
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
It is a Latinized-English translation. A typical transliteration is
Yahweh or even Yehwah, etc. No one knows 100% where the vowels go.
Since God hasn't revealed that yet, we use whatever has been in use
for centuries; Jehovah.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is
known to be a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is
God's
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw
vatican
Post by servant
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for
places
Post by servant
they appeared?>
They were based on the source documents. In the OT, YHWH is found
around 7000 times. (more than any other name)

In the NT, if it quotes YHWH in the OT, it should be found in the NT
as well. BUT MOST BIBLES HAVE CHOPPED IT OUT. EVEN IN THE OT.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4
letters and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it
is
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the
vowles
Post by servant
above included.
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple
rituals.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the
2nd century
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish
scribes" took it
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We
know
Post by servant
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did
those
Post by servant
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not
there now.
Negatrons. They are not there now because translators chopped them
out.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration
of the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent
research on the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The
first 4
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe
name of God?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because
only 4
Post by servant
did not?
The copies we have today have had the Tetragrammaton removed.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names
for God and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If
you
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I already told you I weigh too much.
Post by servant
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot
was the
Post by servant
question.
You are right. There are no YHWH (Jehovah) in the source NT
manuscripts. But as said before a zillion times, when the NT quotes an
OT YHWH, it should appear in the NT. If not, the translators don't
want you to see what is called the divine name.

If you wrote an autobiography, and the publisher removed your name
from all of its occurrences, would you not feel upset? Or if a person
quoted much of your book, but cut out your name whenever he came upon
it, would you again not be upset?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
The Jews had the OT. Who do you think would do it?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's
religious
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew
which is
Post by servant
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
Sometime you have to reason on the Bible like Paul did: Acts 17:2,3,

" 2. and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three
sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3. opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and
to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I
proclaim unto you, is the Christ. " (ASV)

And Acts 18:19,

"And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he himself
entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews"
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st
century jews,
They likely knew the exact pronunciation of God's name:

-- Living Bible
Psalms 45:17 "I will cause your name to be honored in all
generations; the nations of the earth will praise you forever.''

As did Jesus:

-- Revised Standard
John 17:26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known,
that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in
them."
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's
personal
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it
was
Post by servant
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every
day
Post by servant
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of
speaking the
Post by servant
Tetragrammaton.
there names used in place of
Koine Greek was the common language used then. Look it up.
Classical Greek was for the highly educated.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring
to the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the
question.
Post by servant
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked
"who" not
Post by servant
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no
jw
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is
a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into
consideration
Post by servant
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Are you a consultant of that magazine?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime
unpaid
Post by servant
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to
support
Post by servant
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes they do volunteer and they are unpaid. All members of the
congregation are also not paid. Not like many churches who give their
preacher a salary, a place to live, and a nice car, etc.

All JW money goes to activities involved with the kingdom preaching.
(Mt 24:14) Not in JW pockets. Like Paul, they work for what they have
of material things.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he
did and
Post by servant
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
I read web pages. You are wrong about me. I don't volunteer to read
anti-JW web pages. But if someone wants me to in order to answer a
question, I will.
Post by servant
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Just like the Bible doesn't CONTROL your thinking but guides you, so
does the Watchtower organization,
Post by servant
Post by servant
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the
Watchtower to
Post by servant
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Yes, at times that will happen. I am glad they research difficult
Scriptures. I would do the same.
Post by servant
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set
before us,
Post by servant
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should
meekly go
Post by servant
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms
and
Post by servant
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision
of
Post by servant
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's
channel
Post by servant
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to
God's
Post by servant
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that
submission
Post by servant
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching
that
Post by servant
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
JW's have independent thoughts all the time. For example, an elder was
giving a talk from the platform, and the subject was Satan being
destroyed. And he said that I am sure that God would be effected by
the death of one of His sons, Satan. The Bible never said that. That
was his own independent thought about the situation.
Post by servant
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
On the contrary, it would confuse many. If you read the introduction,
King James was praised to the height of mountains. While God received
a little praise.

The KJV would confuse people thinking "Easter" is in the Bible. Thus
they would think it is OK to color eggs and eat chocolate rabbits etc.
But that is a mistranslation for the word Passover. (Acts 12:4)

The actual word "Easter" comes from the ancient word "Ashtoreth"
(Astarte, Greek; Eostre,Ango-Saxon) who was the goddess of sensual
love. Perhaps now you can see connection to eggs and rabbits.

KJV also uses outdated language such as to "sod pottage". (Gen 25:29)
But it did use God's name in a few places such as at Ps 83.18:

- American Standard
Psalms 83:18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is
Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Ted
2020-09-25 14:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds
friend james
Post by servant
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to
him or
Post by servant
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is.
Watch out
Post by servant
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name.
Thus
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically
wrong. But
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the
Tetragrammaton,
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend
james
Post by servant
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge
if he
Post by servant
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply
regardless
Post by servant
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was
done in
Post by servant
place of direct answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote
response and the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for
topics
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
that arise.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some
places
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the
proper
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek
scholar to
Post by servant
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Yet the NWT got compliments from Bible scholars.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read
them?
You are just guessing.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican
person can
Post by servant
read *any* of them, period.
You must like to guess.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw
vatican
Post by servant
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word
himself
Post by servant
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the
Word; and
Post by servant
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning,
and that
Post by servant
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a
greek
Post by servant
scholar, translation into english of course. English
translations
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
use
Post by servant
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
Still guessing I see.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
The first word of that sentence should be IF.
Post by servant
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language
sources
Post by servant
listed, nuff said.
Anti-JW propaganda.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without
doubt,
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a
transsliteration of
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
It is a Latinized-English translation. A typical transliteration is
Yahweh or even Yehwah, etc. No one knows 100% where the vowels go.
Since God hasn't revealed that yet, we use whatever has been in use
for centuries; Jehovah.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is
known to be a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is
God's
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw
vatican
Post by servant
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for
substituting
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for
places
Post by servant
they appeared?>
They were based on the source documents. In the OT, YHWH is found
around 7000 times. (more than any other name)
In the NT, if it quotes YHWH in the OT, it should be found in the NT
as well. BUT MOST BIBLES HAVE CHOPPED IT OUT. EVEN IN THE OT.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4
letters and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it
is
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the
vowles
Post by servant
above included.
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple
rituals.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the
2nd century
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish
scribes" took it
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used.
We
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
know
Post by servant
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did
those
Post by servant
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not
there now.
Negatrons. They are not there now because translators chopped them
out.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a
transliteration
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
of the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent
research on the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries.
The
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
first 4
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe
name of God?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that
because
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
only 4
Post by servant
did not?
The copies we have today have had the Tetragrammaton removed.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek
names
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
for God and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If
you
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I already told you I weigh too much.
Post by servant
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot
was the
Post by servant
question.
You are right. There are no YHWH (Jehovah) in the source NT
manuscripts. But as said before a zillion times, when the NT quotes an
OT YHWH, it should appear in the NT. If not, the translators don't
want you to see what is called the divine name.
If you wrote an autobiography, and the publisher removed your name
from all of its occurrences, would you not feel upset? Or if a
person
Post by z***@windstream.net
quoted much of your book, but cut out your name whenever he came upon
it, would you again not be upset?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
The Jews had the OT. Who do you think would do it?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's
religious
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew
which is
Post by servant
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
Sometime you have to reason on the Bible like Paul did: Acts 17:2,3,
" 2. and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three
sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3. opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and
to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I
proclaim unto you, is the Christ. " (ASV)
And Acts 18:19,
"And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he himself
entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews"
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st
century jews,
-- Living Bible
Psalms 45:17 "I will cause your name to be honored in all
generations; the nations of the earth will praise you forever.''
-- Revised Standard
John 17:26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known,
that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in
them."
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's
personal
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it
was
Post by servant
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every
day
Post by servant
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of
speaking the
Post by servant
Tetragrammaton.
there names used in place of
Koine Greek was the common language used then. Look it up.
Classical Greek was for the highly educated.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ
referring
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
to the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the
question.
Post by servant
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked
"who" not
Post by servant
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no
jw
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is
a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into
consideration
Post by servant
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Are you a consultant of that magazine?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few
fulltime
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
unpaid
Post by servant
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to
support
Post by servant
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes they do volunteer and they are unpaid. All members of the
congregation are also not paid. Not like many churches who give their
preacher a salary, a place to live, and a nice car, etc.
All JW money goes to activities involved with the kingdom preaching.
(Mt 24:14) Not in JW pockets. Like Paul, they work for what they have
of material things.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he
did and
Post by servant
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
I read web pages. You are wrong about me. I don't volunteer to read
anti-JW web pages. But if someone wants me to in order to answer a
question, I will.
Post by servant
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's
Witnesses
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
thinking?'
Just like the Bible doesn't CONTROL your thinking but guides you, so
does the Watchtower organization,
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the
Watchtower to
Post by servant
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Yes, at times that will happen. I am glad they research difficult
Scriptures. I would do the same.
Post by servant
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set
before us,
Post by servant
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should
meekly go
Post by servant
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for
further
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a
thought
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our
criticisms
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and
Post by servant
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's
provision
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
of
Post by servant
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's
visible
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's
channel
Post by servant
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to
God's
Post by servant
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that
submission
Post by servant
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching
that
Post by servant
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower
Organization.
Post by z***@windstream.net
JW's have independent thoughts all the time. For example, an elder was
giving a talk from the platform, and the subject was Satan being
destroyed. And he said that I am sure that God would be effected by
the death of one of His sons, Satan. The Bible never said that. That
was his own independent thought about the situation.
Post by servant
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
On the contrary, it would confuse many. If you read the
introduction,
Post by z***@windstream.net
King James was praised to the height of mountains. While God
received
Post by z***@windstream.net
a little praise.
The KJV would confuse people thinking "Easter" is in the Bible. Thus
they would think it is OK to color eggs and eat chocolate rabbits etc.
But that is a mistranslation for the word Passover. (Acts 12:4)
The actual word "Easter" comes from the ancient word "Ashtoreth"
(Astarte, Greek; Eostre,Ango-Saxon) who was the goddess of sensual
love. Perhaps now you can see connection to eggs and rabbits.
KJV also uses outdated language such as to "sod pottage". (Gen
25:29)
Post by z***@windstream.net
- American Standard
Psalms 83:18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is
Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Thanks for the info, James. Btw, negatrons is a (very seldom used)
synonym for electrons.
John Ritson
2020-09-25 18:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds
friend james
Post by servant
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to
him or
Post by servant
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is.
Watch out
Post by servant
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name.
Thus
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically
wrong. But
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the
Tetragrammaton,
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend
james
Post by servant
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge
if he
Post by servant
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply
regardless
Post by servant
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was
done in
Post by servant
place of direct answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote
response and the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics
that arise.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some
places
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the
proper
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek
scholar to
Post by servant
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Yet the NWT got compliments from Bible scholars.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read
them?
You are just guessing.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican
person can
Post by servant
read *any* of them, period.
You must like to guess.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw
vatican
Post by servant
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word
himself
Post by servant
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the
Word; and
Post by servant
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning,
and that
Post by servant
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a
greek
Post by servant
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations
use
Post by servant
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
Still guessing I see.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
The first word of that sentence should be IF.
Post by servant
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language
sources
Post by servant
listed, nuff said.
Anti-JW propaganda.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt,
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a
transsliteration of
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
It is a Latinized-English translation. A typical transliteration is
Yahweh or even Yehwah, etc. No one knows 100% where the vowels go.
Since God hasn't revealed that yet, we use whatever has been in use
for centuries; Jehovah.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is
known to be a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is
God's
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw
vatican
Post by servant
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for
places
Post by servant
they appeared?>
They were based on the source documents. In the OT, YHWH is found
around 7000 times. (more than any other name)
In the NT, if it quotes YHWH in the OT, it should be found in the NT
as well. BUT MOST BIBLES HAVE CHOPPED IT OUT. EVEN IN THE OT.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4
letters and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it
is
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the
vowles
Post by servant
above included.
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple
rituals.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the
2nd century
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish
scribes" took it
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We
know
Post by servant
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did
those
Post by servant
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not
there now.
Negatrons. They are not there now because translators chopped them
out.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration
of the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent
research on the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The
first 4
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe
name of God?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because
only 4
Post by servant
did not?
The copies we have today have had the Tetragrammaton removed.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names
for God and
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If
you
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I already told you I weigh too much.
Post by servant
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot
was the
Post by servant
question.
You are right. There are no YHWH (Jehovah) in the source NT
manuscripts. But as said before a zillion times, when the NT quotes an
OT YHWH, it should appear in the NT. If not, the translators don't
want you to see what is called the divine name.
If you wrote an autobiography, and the publisher removed your name
from all of its occurrences, would you not feel upset? Or if a person
quoted much of your book, but cut out your name whenever he came upon
it, would you again not be upset?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
The Jews had the OT. Who do you think would do it?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's
religious
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew
which is
Post by servant
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
Sometime you have to reason on the Bible like Paul did: Acts 17:2,3,
" 2. and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three
sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3. opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and
to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I
proclaim unto you, is the Christ. " (ASV)
And Acts 18:19,
"And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he himself
entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews"
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st
century jews,
-- Living Bible
Psalms 45:17 "I will cause your name to be honored in all
generations; the nations of the earth will praise you forever.''
-- Revised Standard
John 17:26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known,
that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in
them."
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's
personal
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it
was
Post by servant
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every
day
Post by servant
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of
speaking the
Post by servant
Tetragrammaton.
there names used in place of
Koine Greek was the common language used then. Look it up.
Classical Greek was for the highly educated.
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring
to the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT
changes
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the
question.
Post by servant
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked
"who" not
Post by servant
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no
jw
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of
the
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is
a
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into
consideration
Post by servant
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Are you a consultant of that magazine?
Post by servant
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime
unpaid
Post by servant
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to
support
Post by servant
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes they do volunteer and they are unpaid. All members of the
congregation are also not paid. Not like many churches who give their
preacher a salary, a place to live, and a nice car, etc.
All JW money goes to activities involved with the kingdom preaching.
(Mt 24:14) Not in JW pockets. Like Paul, they work for what they have
of material things.
And when JW leader Rutherford predicted that Abraham, Moses, etc. would
be returning to Earth in 1925 (yet another failed prediction, he used
church funds to build them a mansion in California called Beth Sarim.
And when they failed to arrive, he used it as his winter home.
How convenient.
"we may expect 1925 o witness the return of those faithful men of Israel
from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to
perfect humanity and made the visible legal representatives of the new
order of things on earth."

The Governing Body fly first class everywhere. When they arrive there
are luxury houses kept in readiness for them. Some of them flaunt gold
Rolex watches when they broadcast. Tony Morris was filmed buying
hundreds of dollars worth of Scotch whiskey in a battle store.

Exactly like the churches "who give their preacher a salary, a place to
live. and a nice car etc."
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he
did and
Post by servant
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
I read web pages. You are wrong about me. I don't volunteer to read
anti-JW web pages. But if someone wants me to in order to answer a
question, I will.
Post by servant
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Just like the Bible doesn't CONTROL your thinking but guides you, so
does the Watchtower organization,
Post by servant
Post by servant
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the
Watchtower to
Post by servant
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Yes, at times that will happen. I am glad they research difficult
Scriptures. I would do the same.
Post by servant
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set
before us,
Post by servant
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should
meekly go
Post by servant
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms
and
Post by servant
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision
of
Post by servant
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's
channel
Post by servant
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to
God's
Post by servant
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that
submission
Post by servant
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching
that
Post by servant
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
JW's have independent thoughts all the time. For example, an elder was
giving a talk from the platform, and the subject was Satan being
destroyed. And he said that I am sure that God would be effected by
the death of one of His sons, Satan. The Bible never said that. That
was his own independent thought about the situation.
Post by servant
You guys should just stick to the original KJV. It would clear up a
lot of argument.
On the contrary, it would confuse many. If you read the introduction,
King James was praised to the height of mountains. While God received
a little praise.
The KJV would confuse people thinking "Easter" is in the Bible. Thus
they would think it is OK to color eggs and eat chocolate rabbits etc.
But that is a mistranslation for the word Passover. (Acts 12:4)
The actual word "Easter" comes from the ancient word "Ashtoreth"
(Astarte, Greek; Eostre,Ango-Saxon) who was the goddess of sensual
love. Perhaps now you can see connection to eggs and rabbits.
KJV also uses outdated language such as to "sod pottage". (Gen 25:29)
- American Standard
Psalms 83:18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is
Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
--
John Ritson
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-22 11:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".

He said,

“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)

Because he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,

"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".

"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since
the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses.”" (www.jw.org)

And how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? “And the Word was a
god.”

Also other than the Jehovah's Witness Bible (NWT), here are some
others:

"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).
"The Word was deity." (Simple English)

Repetition is a commodity of learning.
Post by servant
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the OT have the vowls included in the 4 letters and
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
are being mislead:

"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Post by servant
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Post by servant
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
Post by servant
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.

I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
Post by servant
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.

Jesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.

God is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.


James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-22 17:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".
He said,
I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious
learning, as I
Post by z***@windstream.net
can testify.Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)
Very good, now consider this evidence why this smells:

'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said

http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed

However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity
of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written
signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed
(to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second,
though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an
endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several
very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more
controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own
translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.
Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed
actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to
endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
'>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Because he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
I have made *no* mention of the iq of the jw vatican people involved, a
red herring remark.>
I have said that *no* jw vatican person was a greek scholar for the
"translation" from greek sources.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Smile, and exactly how "wrong"? Consult in english, no problem at all; but
a significant difference and misleading as to scholarship ability. .

Smle, another circular lolgic bit, if the jw vatican has a list of
translations consulted in other languages they must be able to read them.

No, "consult" means only to use, just as friend james "consults" the nwt as
the jw vatican directts. He also does not read greek but does none the
less "consult" a book.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Neither where you, but jw vatican inside sources said the 5 "translators"
had no greek scholar among them. One had 2 years of university, the
others none.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
Weeds of diversion snipped. Tell us what *any* rcc translation uses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses." (www.jw.org)
Very good, the above aramaic bible, with the english translations,was the
original source be fore being translated into greek.l It is in the everyday
every day language of 1st century palistine. l

There is a group of churches in the middle east, iran, and inda who use it
as their bible. They say it came from the hands of the apostles with the
original words Christ poke in the gospels.
Post by z***@windstream.net
And how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? And the Word was a
Given the above claims, it is irrelevant because it is the original and
thrugh greek translation was translated into coptic 3rd hand.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Correction, see above the jw vatican first hand info that confirms it.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Using the goodspeed example above, read what people who kmew him an his
work said as to the jw vatican claim..>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Very ood, in the NT some but not all uses of God and Lord are not changed,
why not?

In the OT the names the hebrews used instead of he 4 letters for God and
Lord had the jw vatican substitution, why when the hebrews did not use it?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the
OT have the
vowls in the 4 letters and
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
Smile, and you are not,? Who should we believe, a jewish scholar with
knowledge of hebrew or the jw vatican?
Post by z***@windstream.net
"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Very good, "avoided" not unused. Also, the substitution mentioned is by
jews who wanted the correct full name to be know.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
"Superstition", it said nothing of the sort. Why then would the jw vatican
make very questionable changes to support a "superstition"? The wiki does
not in the least refute my points tht ovr 1000 exmples with the vowls, not
the ones mentioned in the wiki, and that temple priests knew and used the
full spoken name. .
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Thanks for being frank. What it means in practice is the jw vatican has no
canned plugin as an answer. They took 4 examples and made a sweeping
unsupported conclusion. That's crack scholarship, no?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Weds snipped, friend james just reposts the original bit which is *not* an
relevant answer to the question. The question was about NT not OT info. >
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Sad, you are happy to repeat what is not known to you as "facts", if the
jw vatican said, it is true, no?

One would think *you* would want confirmation by asking them, no?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Correction, only those jews living outside palistine used it, those in
palistine used quite another language.>

Did someone say "homework"?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
No, it is the irrelevant unresponsive bits of diversion snipped.

Sad you are forced to post such bits to leave an image your remarks are
creadible, "homework" notwithstanding

. The jw vatican has left you very vulnerable in their narrow canned
plugin "bible study" and cherry picked historical info.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
You should know better then that childish remark, I have provided ample
ample evidence in many threads of my borad knowledge of the topic, and more
inportant when you are tap dancing just to attempt diversion bcause of
your
info limitations. Say someting, anything to appear informed is the reality
here.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Bingo, you know nothing about the motivations and lack of limitations
among archaeologists. No, absolutely no research they make is relevant to
jw vatican corruptions of scripture, the topic remember?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Smile, a confession the jw vatican makes scripture changes then looks for
support after the fact, no? You have *no* independent way to know how
relevant and/or cherry picked their "research" is, no?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
Post by servant
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Bingo, I will only look to jw vaican info.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.
I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
That's hilarious, you repeat thepoint. Even if one questions something,
keep it to yourrself and they will correct it if required as they see fit
only.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.
Ah ha, a mind reader too among your jw vatican allowed methods, no?>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Jesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.
Yes, he "discreat slave" a title that is jw vatican self rewarded and self
defined . It helps them keep the "opposers and others "in line at the
"hall" don't you know?>
Post by z***@windstream.net
God is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.
Hmm, why did He wait 1900 years to put it into effect?>

Does it replace the church Christ established and said "the gates of hell
would not prevail" against it? Or did He lie?
servant
2020-09-22 17:46:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Friend james has recently claimed the jw vatican allows independent reading
of web material. I would like to know the reaction he gets when reporting
on this at the next "bible study".

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/using-the-new-world-translation-john-1-1
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-23 12:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Friend james has recently claimed the jw vatican allows independent reading
of web material. I would like to know the reaction he gets when reporting
on this at the next "bible study".
They would probably say it is up to our conscience. Some JW's don't
want to bother with false religious ideas, but just stick with the
Bible. I choose otherwise. I like the REASONS why a religious doctrine
is practiced. And if it goes against the Bible, I like to tell why.

If you read JW literature occasionally, you will see that the
headquarters does "independent reading of web material" also. They
prefer to backup with proof what they write and sometimes that means
quoting out of worldly publications.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Post by servant
https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/using-the-new-world-translation-john-1-1
servant
2020-09-23 19:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The web page of the title:
0
https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/using-the-new-world-translation-john-1-1
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james has recently claimed the jw vatican allows independent reading
of web material. I would like to know the reaction he gets when reporting
on this at the next "bible study".
They would probably say it is up to our conscience. Some JW's don't
want to bother with false religious ideas, but just stick with the
Bible.
Ah, as far too often, frined james tries to skirt and spin questions and
respond to something not asked of him.

Let's rephrase it, friend james makes an extensive review of the web page.
and he provides a detailed report at the "hall".

He encouragess open and free wheeling discussion of its pros and cons witnh
no feedback or leader retribution at all. He says there are sound points
raised.

In his assessment will the elders or others in power take him aside or in
some other way make known their displeasure for bringing the content of the
page?for open individual evaluation with no strings attached?

I choose otherwise. I like the REASONS why a religious doctrine
Post by z***@windstream.net
is practiced. And if it goes against the Bible, I like to tell why.
Really?> How many sources that you know have sound evidence that brings
informed question on jw vatican doctrine you consult?

For example, did you read the web page above on the nwt as to its quality?
You can then use jw scripture to evaluate the jw scripture on the grounds
discussed, no?


That is different then reading general sources which review various
religions as to their faith and practice.

Then you can "test" them based on jw vatican declarations of what the bible
"really" says. They ain't jw, then they flunk, no? What is the score when
doing the same using their use and understanding of the bible without
considering jw vatican use and understanding??
Post by z***@windstream.net
If you read JW literature occasionally, you will see that the
headquarters does "independent reading of web material" also. They
prefer to backup with proof what they write and sometimes that means
quoting out of worldly publications.
Yes, they have fulltime unpaid "volunteers" who live at the jw vatican.

They scour sources seeking cherry picked bits and/or stiched together bits
not in the originall which on the face support jw vatican claims.

As well documented, this provides a distorted impresssion the jw vatican
wants to falslely exploit to their benefit.

Indeed, I do read jw vatican material. That is why I'm in a position to
evaluate their claimes.

By making a point of combining that with other sources which bring serious
documented question to the same, not personal opinion but the evidence for
their logic and conclusions, often academic sources.

That includes jw who no longer are active but excellent sources from
personal experience, not opinion but the independent facts.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-25 09:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
0
https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/using-the-new-world-translation-john-1-1
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james has recently claimed the jw vatican allows independent reading
of web material. I would like to know the reaction he gets when reporting
on this at the next "bible study".
They would probably say it is up to our conscience. Some JW's don't
want to bother with false religious ideas, but just stick with the
Bible.
Ah, as far too often, frined james tries to skirt and spin questions and
respond to something not asked of him.
Is it a sin to make a comment?
Post by servant
Let's rephrase it, friend james makes an extensive review of the web page.
and he provides a detailed report at the "hall".
We don't go to the hall right now. We have our meetings in our homes
with zoom.
Post by servant
He encouragess open and free wheeling discussion of its pros and cons witnh
no feedback or leader retribution at all. He says there are sound points
raised.
exactly
Post by servant
In his assessment will the elders or others in power take him aside or in
some other way make known their displeasure for bringing the content of the
page?for open individual evaluation with no strings attached?
I choose otherwise. I like the REASONS why a religious doctrine
Post by z***@windstream.net
is practiced. And if it goes against the Bible, I like to tell why.
Really?> How many sources that you know have sound evidence that brings
informed question on jw vatican doctrine you consult?
Many, and it all depends on the subject matter.
Post by servant
For example, did you read the web page above on the nwt as to its quality?
You can then use jw scripture to evaluate the jw scripture on the grounds
discussed, no?
Your not making any sense.
Post by servant
That is different then reading general sources which review various
religions as to their faith and practice.
The Watchtower brings out such things occasionally. And if I see
something in the news, I may comment on it.
Post by servant
Then you can "test" them based on jw vatican declarations of what the bible
"really" says.
Yes, JW publications and outside sources.
Post by servant
They ain't jw, then they flunk, no? What is the score when
doing the same using their use and understanding of the bible without
considering jw vatican use and understanding??
The Bible agrees with JW teachings.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
If you read JW literature occasionally, you will see that the
headquarters does "independent reading of web material" also. They
prefer to backup with proof what they write and sometimes that means
quoting out of worldly publications.
Yes, they have fulltime unpaid "volunteers" who live at the jw vatican.
Yes. But they have all their needs taken care of.
Post by servant
They scour sources seeking cherry picked bits and/or stiched together bits
not in the originall which on the face support jw vatican claims.
Your OPINONS of the activities of JW's is noted.
Post by servant
As well documented, this provides a distorted impresssion the jw vatican
wants to falslely exploit to their benefit.
They dedicate their lives to Jehovah and the Bible. Period
Post by servant
Indeed, I do read jw vatican material. That is why I'm in a position to
evaluate their claimes.
Reading material from what source? Should you be reading such terrible
material? Does your church approve of it?
Post by servant
By making a point of combining that with other sources which bring serious
documented question to the same, not personal opinion but the evidence for
their logic and conclusions, often academic sources.
They dedicate their lives to Jehovah and the Bible. Period
Post by servant
That includes jw who no longer are active but excellent sources from
personal experience, not opinion but the independent facts.
Disfellowshipped JW's don't always tell the truth. Just look at your
source, one who is prejudiced against JW's for disfellowshipping him.
Go to their website to get the REAL information.


James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-24 02:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".
He said,
I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious
learning, as I
Post by z***@windstream.net
can testify.Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)
'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed
However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity
of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written
signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed
(to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second,
though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an
endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several
very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more
controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own
translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.
Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed
actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to
endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
What the Watchtower printed was the truth at the time. It is there in
Goodspeed's own words. If he later changed his mind, that doesn't stop
the truthfulness of what he originally wrote.

Goodspeed even agrees that Yahweh was replaced by "the Lord" in his
translation:

The editor of An American Translation (1923, by Smith-Goodspeed)
wrote: “In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish
tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh".

Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed wrote to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses
in regard to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and
its worldwide scope, and am much pleased with the free and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”

The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and,
although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it
been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the
most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New
Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in
regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his
preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed
the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every
scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which
the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”

Westcott and Hort was used by the NWT Bible.

No parts of the Bible have been rewritten in this New World
Translation to fit the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, as you
blatantly assert. The Translation Committee did not construct its own
Greek text of the Christian Scriptures. No; but on page 8 of the
Foreword it notifies us that the Committee used the 1948 Macmillan
Company edition of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, besides S. C.
E. Legg’s editions of Matthew and Mark, and that it also took into
consideration “other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard
Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar José María
Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk”. Concerning the
same Greek text mainly used by the Committee, E. J. Goodspeed says in
his Preface in “An American Translation” (1939): “I have closely
followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted.
Every scholar knows its great superiority to the late and faulty Greek
texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the
Authorized Version were made.”
Post by z***@windstream.net
'>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Because he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
I have made *no* mention of the iq of the jw vatican people involved, a
red herring remark.>
Not really. Were they morons of the Greek texts?
Post by z***@windstream.net
I have said that *no* jw vatican person was a greek scholar for the
"translation" from greek sources.
See above
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Smile, and exactly how "wrong"? Consult in english, no problem at all; but
a significant difference and misleading as to scholarship ability. .
Smle, another circular lolgic bit, if the jw vatican has a list of
translations consulted in other languages they must be able to read them.
No, "consult" means only to use, just as friend james "consults" the nwt as
the jw vatican directts. He also does not read greek but does none the
less "consult" a book.
Where are you getting these falsehoods?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Neither where you, but jw vatican inside sources said the 5 "translators"
had no greek scholar among them. One had 2 years of university, the
others none.>
And your proof?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
Weeds of diversion snipped. Tell us what *any* rcc translation uses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses." (www.jw.org)
Very good, the above aramaic bible, with the english translations,was the
original source be fore being translated into greek.l It is in the everyday
every day language of 1st century palistine. l
That was Koine Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
There is a group of churches in the middle east, iran, and inda who use it
as their bible. They say it came from the hands of the apostles with the
original words Christ poke in the gospels.
Post by z***@windstream.net
And how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? And the Word was a
Given the above claims, it is irrelevant because it is the original and
thrugh greek translation was translated into coptic 3rd hand.
There are no extant original Bible books existing today that we know
of.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Correction, see above the jw vatican first hand info that confirms it.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
Post by servant
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Using the goodspeed example above, read what people who kmew him an his
work said as to the jw vatican claim..>
Goodspeed wrote it and the Watchtower printed it. End of story.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Very ood, in the NT some but not all uses of God and Lord are not changed,
why not?
Because they were not quoting from the OT Tetragrammaton.
Post by z***@windstream.net
In the OT the names the hebrews used instead of he 4 letters for God and
Lord had the jw vatican substitution, why when the hebrews did not use it?
They did use it, nearly 7000 times.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the
OT have the
vowls in the 4 letters and
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
Smile, and you are not,? Who should we believe, a jewish scholar with
knowledge of hebrew or the jw vatican?
Do you want a listing of the OT sources the NWT used?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Very good, "avoided" not unused. Also, the substitution mentioned is by
jews who wanted the correct full name to be know.
Negative. They were afraid to pronounce the divine name, so they
ripped it out of their manuscripts and substituted Lord or God.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
"Superstition", it said nothing of the sort. Why then would the jw vatican
make very questionable changes to support a "superstition"?
The JW's condemned their superstition.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The wiki does
not in the least refute my points tht ovr 1000 exmples with the vowls, not
the ones mentioned in the wiki, and that temple priests knew and used the
full spoken name. .
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Thanks for being frank. What it means in practice is the jw vatican has no
canned plugin as an answer.
There is probably an answer somewhere in the thousands of pages of the
Watchtower.
Post by z***@windstream.net
They took 4 examples and made a sweeping
unsupported conclusion. That's crack scholarship, no?
Refresh my memory. What 4 examples?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
Post by servant
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Weds snipped, friend james just reposts the original bit which is *not* an
relevant answer to the question. The question was about NT not OT info. >
So what was your question again?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Sad, you are happy to repeat what is not known to you as "facts", if the
jw vatican said, it is true, no?
Yes, I believe what the Watchtower prints and supports their claims.
Post by z***@windstream.net
One would think *you* would want confirmation by asking them, no?
Not really. I have plenty of JW literature to research for answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century
jews,
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Correction, only those jews living outside palistine used it, those in
palistine used quite another language.>
The higher up and educated in society used the classical Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Did someone say "homework"?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped.  It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
No, it is the irrelevant unresponsive bits of diversion snipped.
Sad you are forced to post such bits to leave an image your remarks are
creadible, "homework" notwithstanding
. The jw vatican has left you very vulnerable in their narrow canned
plugin "bible study" and cherry picked historical info.
What you call plugins we call credible information. What you call
cherry picked, we call research.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
You should know better then that childish remark, I have provided ample
ample evidence in many threads of my borad knowledge of the topic, and more
inportant when you are tap dancing just to attempt diversion bcause of
your
info limitations. Say someting, anything to appear informed is the reality
here.
Your evidence is skimpy at best.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Bingo, you know nothing about the motivations and lack of limitations
among archaeologists. No, absolutely no research they make is relevant to
jw vatican corruptions of scripture, the topic remember?
What about the latest evidence on the Exodus?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Smile, a confession the jw vatican makes scripture changes then looks for
support after the fact, no? You have *no* independent way to know how
relevant and/or cherry picked their "research" is, no?
I have researched Watchtower articles of their evidence. I have never
found a contradiction.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
Post by servant
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
Post by servant
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Bingo, I will only look to jw vaican info.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.
I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
That's hilarious, you repeat thepoint. Even if one questions something,
keep it to yourrself and they will correct it if required as they see fit
only.
Not at all. It should be spread around to all the brothers so they
won't be mislead by it.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.
Ah ha, a mind reader too among your jw vatican allowed methods, no?>
I don't have to read your mind. Just your writings.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Jesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.
Yes, he "discreat slave" a title that is jw vatican self rewarded and self
defined . It helps them keep the "opposers and others "in line at the
"hall" don't you know?>
Yes, if we didn't have the "slave" class there would be anarchy in the
hall.
People would rip the microphones from the stage. Tear up the rug. Yank
the toilets from the floor. Break all the windows. Slice all the
seats. Break the overhead lights. Pip up all the literature and throw
it around. Yes, thank God for the slave class:)
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
God is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.
Hmm, why did He wait 1900 years to put it into effect?>
He has His own time table. Ask Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Does it replace the church Christ established and said "the gates of hell
would not prevail" against it? Or did He lie?
No. The graves of men would not last forever. Jesus would end death.

I'll say it this time: Thank you (or do I have it mixed up with
someone else?)

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Robert
2020-09-24 04:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".
He said,
I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious
learning, as I
Post by z***@windstream.net
can testify.Letter, December8, 1950, from Edgar J.Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)
'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed
However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity
of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written
signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed
(to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second,
though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an
endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several
very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more
controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own
translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.
Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed
actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to
endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
What the Watchtower printed was the truth at the time. It is there in
Goodspeed's own words. If he later changed his mind, that doesn't stop
the truthfulness of what he originally wrote.
Goodspeed even agrees that Yahweh was replaced by "the Lord" in his
The editor of An American Translation (1923, by Smith-Goodspeed)
wrote: “In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish
tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh".
Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed wrote to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses
in regard to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and
its worldwide scope, and am much pleased with the free and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”
He is eating those words now.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and,
although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it
been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the
most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New
Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in
regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his
preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed
the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every
scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which
the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”
Westcott and Hort was used by the NWT Bible.
Westcott and Hort was well known as corrupted text when it was released. It was proven to be corrupted at that time. It was pushed out prematurely because another translations was about to be released and they wanted to be first.
Post by z***@windstream.net
No parts of the Bible have been rewritten in this New World
Translation to fit the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, as you
blatantly assert. The Translation Committee did not construct its own
Greek text of the Christian Scriptures. No; but on page 8 of the
Foreword it notifies us that the Committee used the 1948 Macmillan
Company edition of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, besides S. C.
E. Legg’s editions of Matthew and Mark, and that it also took into
consideration “other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard
Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar José María
Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk”. Concerning the
same Greek text mainly used by the Committee, E. J. Goodspeed says in
his Preface in “An American Translation” (1939): “I have closely
followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted.
Every scholar knows its great superiority to the late and faulty Greek
texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the
Authorized Version were made.”
Which was proven to be a lie.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
'>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Because he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
I have made *no* mention of the iq of the jw vatican people involved, a
red herring remark.>
Not really. Were they morons of the Greek texts?
Post by z***@windstream.net
I have said that *no* jw vatican person was a greek scholar for the
"translation" from greek sources.
See above
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Smile, and exactly how "wrong"? Consult in english, no problem at all; but
a significant difference and misleading as to scholarship ability. .
Smle, another circular lolgic bit, if the jw vatican has a list of
translations consulted in other languages they must be able to read them.
No, "consult" means only to use, just as friend james "consults" the nwt as
the jw vatican directts. He also does not read greek but does none the
less "consult" a book.
Where are you getting these falsehoods?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Neither where you, but jw vatican inside sources said the 5 "translators"
had no greek scholar among them. One had 2 years of university, the
others none.>
And your proof?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
Weeds of diversion snipped. Tell us what *any* rcc translation uses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses." (www.jw.org)
Very good, the above aramaic bible, with the english translations,was the
original source be fore being translated into greek.l It is in the everyday
every day language of 1st century palistine. l
That was Koine Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
There is a group of churches in the middle east, iran, and inda who use it
as their bible. They say it came from the hands of the apostles with the
original words Christ poke in the gospels.
And the Orthodox also clam many erroneous teachings.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
And how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? And the Word was a
Given the above claims, it is irrelevant because it is the original and
thrugh greek translation was translated into coptic 3rd hand.
There are no extant original Bible books existing today that we know
of.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Correction, see above the jw vatican first hand info that confirms it.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Using the goodspeed example above, read what people who kmew him an his
work said as to the jw vatican claim..>
Goodspeed wrote it and the Watchtower printed it. End of story.
Beginning of lies.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Very ood, in the NT some but not all uses of God and Lord are not changed,
why not?
Because they were not quoting from the OT Tetragrammaton.
Post by z***@windstream.net
In the OT the names the hebrews used instead of he 4 letters for God and
Lord had the jw vatican substitution, why when the hebrews did not use it?
They did use it, nearly 7000 times.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the
OT have the
vowls in the 4 letters and
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
Smile, and you are not,? Who should we believe, a jewish scholar with
knowledge of hebrew or the jw vatican?
Do you want a listing of the OT sources the NWT used?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Very good, "avoided" not unused. Also, the substitution mentioned is by
jews who wanted the correct full name to be know.
Negative. They were afraid to pronounce the divine name, so they
ripped it out of their manuscripts and substituted Lord or God.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
"Superstition", it said nothing of the sort. Why then would the jw vatican
make very questionable changes to support a "superstition"?
The JW's condemned their superstition.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The wiki does
not in the least refute my points tht ovr 1000 exmples with the vowls, not
the ones mentioned in the wiki, and that temple priests knew and used the
full spoken name. .
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Thanks for being frank. What it means in practice is the jw vatican has no
canned plugin as an answer.
There is probably an answer somewhere in the thousands of pages of the
Watchtower.
Post by z***@windstream.net
They took 4 examples and made a sweeping
unsupported conclusion. That's crack scholarship, no?
Refresh my memory. What 4 examples?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Weds snipped, friend james just reposts the original bit which is *not* an
relevant answer to the question. The question was about NT not OT info. >
So what was your question again?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Sad, you are happy to repeat what is not known to you as "facts", if the
jw vatican said, it is true, no?
Yes, I believe what the Watchtower prints and supports their claims.
Post by z***@windstream.net
One would think *you* would want confirmation by asking them, no?
Not really. I have plenty of JW literature to research for answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century
jews,
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Correction, only those jews living outside palistine used it, those in
palistine used quite another language.>
The higher up and educated in society used the classical Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Did someone say "homework"?
Post by z***@windstream.net
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped. It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
No, it is the irrelevant unresponsive bits of diversion snipped.
Sad you are forced to post such bits to leave an image your remarks are
creadible, "homework" notwithstanding
. The jw vatican has left you very vulnerable in their narrow canned
plugin "bible study" and cherry picked historical info.
What you call plugins we call credible information. What you call
cherry picked, we call research.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
You should know better then that childish remark, I have provided ample
ample evidence in many threads of my borad knowledge of the topic, and more
inportant when you are tap dancing just to attempt diversion bcause of
your
info limitations. Say someting, anything to appear informed is the reality
here.
Your evidence is skimpy at best.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Bingo, you know nothing about the motivations and lack of limitations
among archaeologists. No, absolutely no research they make is relevant to
jw vatican corruptions of scripture, the topic remember?
What about the latest evidence on the Exodus?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Smile, a confession the jw vatican makes scripture changes then looks for
support after the fact, no? You have *no* independent way to know how
relevant and/or cherry picked their "research" is, no?
I have researched Watchtower articles of their evidence. I have never
found a contradiction.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Bingo, I will only look to jw vaican info.
Post by z***@windstream.net
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.
I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
That's hilarious, you repeat thepoint. Even if one questions something,
keep it to yourrself and they will correct it if required as they see fit
only.
Not at all. It should be spread around to all the brothers so they
won't be mislead by it.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.
Ah ha, a mind reader too among your jw vatican allowed methods, no?>
I don't have to read your mind. Just your writings.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Jesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.
Yes, he "discreat slave" a title that is jw vatican self rewarded and self
defined . It helps them keep the "opposers and others "in line at the
"hall" don't you know?>
Yes, if we didn't have the "slave" class there would be anarchy in the
hall.
People would rip the microphones from the stage. Tear up the rug. Yank
the toilets from the floor. Break all the windows. Slice all the
seats. Break the overhead lights. Pip up all the literature and throw
it around. Yes, thank God for the slave class:)
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
God is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.
Hmm, why did He wait 1900 years to put it into effect?>
He has His own time table. Ask Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Does it replace the church Christ established and said "the gates of hell
would not prevail" against it? Or did He lie?
No. The graves of men would not last forever. Jesus would end death.
I'll say it this time: Thank you (or do I have it mixed up with
someone else?)
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Do not bother responding. You are both steeped in traditions and lies.
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-24 10:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
From time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Post by z***@windstream.net
No. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".
He said,
I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious
learning, as I
Post by z***@windstream.net
can testify.Letter, December8, 1950, from Edgar J.Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)
'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed
However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity
of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written
signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed
(to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second,
though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an
endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several
very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more
controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own
translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.
Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed
actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to
endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
What the Watchtower printed was the truth at the time. It is there in
Goodspeed's own words. If he later changed his mind, that doesn't stop
the truthfulness of what he originally wrote.
Goodspeed even agrees that Yahweh was replaced by "the Lord" in his
The editor of An American Translation (1923, by Smith-Goodspeed)
wrote: “In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish
tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh".
Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed wrote to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses
in regard to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and
its worldwide scope, and am much pleased with the free and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”
He is eating those words now.
On the contrary, I stand by them.
Post by Robert
Post by z***@windstream.net
The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and,
although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it
been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the
most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New
Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in
regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his
preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed
the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every
scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which
the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”
Westcott and Hort was used by the NWT Bible.
Westcott and Hort was well known as corrupted text when it was released. It was proven to be corrupted at that time. It was pushed out prematurely because another translations was about to be released and they wanted to be first.
And others praise Westcott and Hort.
Post by Robert
Post by z***@windstream.net
No parts of the Bible have been rewritten in this New World
Translation to fit the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, as you
blatantly assert. The Translation Committee did not construct its own
Greek text of the Christian Scriptures. No; but on page 8 of the
Foreword it notifies us that the Committee used the 1948 Macmillan
Company edition of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, besides S. C.
E. Legg’s editions of Matthew and Mark, and that it also took into
consideration “other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard
Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar José María
Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk”. Concerning the
same Greek text mainly used by the Committee, E. J. Goodspeed says in
his Preface in “An American Translation” (1939): “I have closely
followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted.
Every scholar knows its great superiority to the late and faulty Greek
texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the
Authorized Version were made.”
Which was proven to be a lie.
Not every body agrees do they?
Post by Robert
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
'>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Because he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
I have made *no* mention of the iq of the jw vatican people involved, a
red herring remark.>
Not really. Were they morons of the Greek texts?
Post by z***@windstream.net
I have said that *no* jw vatican person was a greek scholar for the
"translation" from greek sources.
See above
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Smile, and exactly how "wrong"? Consult in english, no problem at all; but
a significant difference and misleading as to scholarship ability. .
Smle, another circular lolgic bit, if the jw vatican has a list of
translations consulted in other languages they must be able to read them.
No, "consult" means only to use, just as friend james "consults" the nwt as
the jw vatican directts. He also does not read greek but does none the
less "consult" a book.
Where are you getting these falsehoods?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Alist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Neither where you, but jw vatican inside sources said the 5 "translators"
had no greek scholar among them. One had 2 years of university, the
others none.>
And your proof?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
Weeds of diversion snipped. Tell us what *any* rcc translation uses.
Post by z***@windstream.net
the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses." (www.jw.org)
Very good, the above aramaic bible, with the english translations,was the
original source be fore being translated into greek.l It is in the everyday
every day language of 1st century palistine. l
That was Koine Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
There is a group of churches in the middle east, iran, and inda who use it
as their bible. They say it came from the hands of the apostles with the
original words Christ poke in the gospels.
And the Orthodox also clam many erroneous teachings.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
And how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? And the Word was a
Given the above claims, it is irrelevant because it is the original and
thrugh greek translation was translated into coptic 3rd hand.
There are no extant original Bible books existing today that we know
of.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
These were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Correction, see above the jw vatican first hand info that confirms it.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
They were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
I have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Using the goodspeed example above, read what people who kmew him an his
work said as to the jw vatican claim..>
Goodspeed wrote it and the Watchtower printed it. End of story.
Beginning of lies.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
We will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Very ood, in the NT some but not all uses of God and Lord are not changed,
why not?
Because they were not quoting from the OT Tetragrammaton.
Post by z***@windstream.net
In the OT the names the hebrews used instead of he 4 letters for God and
Lord had the jw vatican substitution, why when the hebrews did not use it?
They did use it, nearly 7000 times.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Some hebrew exambles of the
OT have the
vowls in the 4 letters and
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
the name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
Smile, and you are not,? Who should we believe, a jewish scholar with
knowledge of hebrew or the jw vatican?
Do you want a listing of the OT sources the NWT used?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Very good, "avoided" not unused. Also, the substitution mentioned is by
jews who wanted the correct full name to be know.
Negative. They were afraid to pronounce the divine name, so they
ripped it out of their manuscripts and substituted Lord or God.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Btw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Let's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
"Superstition", it said nothing of the sort. Why then would the jw vatican
make very questionable changes to support a "superstition"?
The JW's condemned their superstition.
Post by z***@windstream.net
The wiki does
not in the least refute my points tht ovr 1000 exmples with the vowls, not
the ones mentioned in the wiki, and that temple priests knew and used the
full spoken name. .
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
They present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Thanks for being frank. What it means in practice is the jw vatican has no
canned plugin as an answer.
There is probably an answer somewhere in the thousands of pages of the
Watchtower.
Post by z***@windstream.net
They took 4 examples and made a sweeping
unsupported conclusion. That's crack scholarship, no?
Refresh my memory. What 4 examples?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Are all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
That reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Weds snipped, friend james just reposts the original bit which is *not* an
relevant answer to the question. The question was about NT not OT info. >
So what was your question again?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Sad, you are happy to repeat what is not known to you as "facts", if the
jw vatican said, it is true, no?
Yes, I believe what the Watchtower prints and supports their claims.
Post by z***@windstream.net
One would think *you* would want confirmation by asking them, no?
Not really. I have plenty of JW literature to research for answers.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Likewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century
jews,
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Correction, only those jews living outside palistine used it, those in
palistine used quite another language.>
The higher up and educated in society used the classical Greek.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Did someone say "homework"?
Post by z***@windstream.net
there names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
and what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped. It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
No, it is the irrelevant unresponsive bits of diversion snipped.
Sad you are forced to post such bits to leave an image your remarks are
creadible, "homework" notwithstanding
. The jw vatican has left you very vulnerable in their narrow canned
plugin "bible study" and cherry picked historical info.
What you call plugins we call credible information. What you call
cherry picked, we call research.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
hint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
You should know better then that childish remark, I have provided ample
ample evidence in many threads of my borad knowledge of the topic, and more
inportant when you are tap dancing just to attempt diversion bcause of
your
info limitations. Say someting, anything to appear informed is the reality
here.
Your evidence is skimpy at best.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
I know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Bingo, you know nothing about the motivations and lack of limitations
among archaeologists. No, absolutely no research they make is relevant to
jw vatican corruptions of scripture, the topic remember?
What about the latest evidence on the Exodus?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Another JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Smile, a confession the jw vatican makes scripture changes then looks for
support after the fact, no? You have *no* independent way to know how
relevant and/or cherry picked their "research" is, no?
I have researched Watchtower articles of their evidence. I have never
found a contradiction.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Friend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
https://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Bingo, I will only look to jw vaican info.
Post by z***@windstream.net
1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.
I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
That's hilarious, you repeat thepoint. Even if one questions something,
keep it to yourrself and they will correct it if required as they see fit
only.
Not at all. It should be spread around to all the brothers so they
won't be mislead by it.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.
Ah ha, a mind reader too among your jw vatican allowed methods, no?>
I don't have to read your mind. Just your writings.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
Jesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.
Yes, he "discreat slave" a title that is jw vatican self rewarded and self
defined . It helps them keep the "opposers and others "in line at the
"hall" don't you know?>
Yes, if we didn't have the "slave" class there would be anarchy in the
hall.
People would rip the microphones from the stage. Tear up the rug. Yank
the toilets from the floor. Break all the windows. Slice all the
seats. Break the overhead lights. Pip up all the literature and throw
it around. Yes, thank God for the slave class:)
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by z***@windstream.net
God is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.
Hmm, why did He wait 1900 years to put it into effect?>
He has His own time table. Ask Him.
Post by z***@windstream.net
Does it replace the church Christ established and said "the gates of hell
would not prevail" against it? Or did He lie?
No. The graves of men would not last forever. Jesus would end death.
I'll say it this time: Thank you (or do I have it mixed up with
someone else?)
James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
Do not bother responding. You are both steeped in traditions and lies.
Then this is not for you, but for other readers.

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-24 17:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Which jw vatican scholars did the "translation" from greek and hebrew

Wiki entry is enlightening:

Former high-ranking Watch Tower staff have identified various members of
the translation team. Former governing body member Raymond Franz
listed Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George D.
Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel as members of the translation team,
adding that only Frederick Franz had sufficient knowledge in biblical
languages.^[35]^[36]

Referring to the identified members, evangelical minister Walter Ralston
Martin said, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known
translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or
translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz,
who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate
degree." Franz had stated that he was familiar with not only Hebrew, but
with Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French for the purpose
of biblical translation.^[37]^[38] sources.

Me again:

Frederick Franz who later became the jw pope was under oath in a scotish
court. He confirmed he alone checked for accuracy of translations and
claimed a reading knowledge of hebrew.

Short info, he failed a simple translation of biblical hebrew.

http://pocketanswers.net/JW_Fred_Franz_Trial.htm

The jw vatican canned response learned by rote is that a few scholars said
the "translation" is fine.

An example of one; in followup I found goodsspeed's supposed endorsment is
said to be bogus by scholars who knew him and his work. The genuineness of
a supposed letter containing his claimed remarks also has problems they
say.

I have also read a jw vatican bit to support the reality of greeek
scholars.

The new world translaion exists, therefore the "translaters" must have
known greek.

Such crude circular logic is not unknown in jw circles.
Timothy Sutter
2020-09-24 19:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
your 'friend's' mission is to bring people to the -bible-


The Apostolic Church's mission is to bring people to Christ

and the indwelling Nature of Holy Spirit...


sort of a 'cart-before-the-horse' problem.


The Acts of the Apostles is replete with
bringing people to the Living Jesus Christ
and arranging for the Holy Spirit to fall on them.


"what must we do?"

"be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

of course, Cornelius and family received the Spirit
and then sampled water...but that's beside the point...


the point is, that many most of the encounters in The Acts


are with people who were already familiar with 'scripture'


and yet, were foundering or had no 'faith' at all



-sort- of like the appearance of "the secular christian'

after The Roman Emperor declared by Fiat that 'Christianity"

was to be The State Religion,.



The Apostolic Church was not a 'secular religion'

but a re-attachment of people with teh Living God

who embued these same people with the Power to Live their Faith...


not -just- /read/ about it...


OF COURSE, -i- consider that the scrittures are Holy
and to be A significant instrument OF building on
and maintaining this Faith


Paul plants Apollos waters but Christ gives the growth


the newborn needs milk

not to be directed towards the various heretical ideations of Man...


but i can just hear;


"we bring you to the Bible, and then tell you HOW to read it"


meanwhile "Twister" becomes a harmful child's game

and not a nourishing bowl of Truth


"Get Wisdom"


get teh Holy Ghost...


FIRST


etc.
Timothy Sutter
2020-09-24 19:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
"we bring you to the Bible, and then tell you HOW to read it"
what you DON'T want is; for a bunch of MEN

to make an attempt at directing -unsaved- people's -behavior-

by pointing their noses at the bible.


NO, you want Christ to come in and have supper with saved people

and God will direct the reclamation

and then various other saved people can help and be helped


is the distinction obvious or /subtle/?
Timothy Sutter
2020-09-24 22:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by Timothy Sutter
"we bring you to the Bible, and then tell you HOW to read it"
what you DON'T want is; for a bunch of MEN
to make an attempt at directing -unsaved- people's -behavior > by pointing their noses at the bible.
NO, you want Christ to come in and have supper with saved people
and God will direct the reclamation
and then various other saved people can help and be helped
is the distinction obvious or /subtle/?
then, of course, insert;

what you DON'T want is; for a bunch of =UNsaved= MEN
to make an attempt at directing -unsaved- people's -behavior-
by pointing their noses at the bible.


then it becomes some sort of insidious plot to defame
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-25 08:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by servant
Which jw vatican scholars did the "translation" from greek and hebrew
Former high-ranking Watch Tower staff have identified various members of
the translation team. Former governing body member Raymond Franz
listed Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George D.
Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel as members of the translation team,
adding that only Frederick Franz had sufficient knowledge in biblical
languages.^[35]^[36]
Referring to the identified members, evangelical minister Walter Ralston
Martin said, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known
translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or
translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz,
who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate
degree." Franz had stated that he was familiar with not only Hebrew, but
with Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French for the purpose
of biblical translation.^[37]^[38] sources.
Frederick Franz who later became the jw pope was under oath in a scotish
court. He confirmed he alone checked for accuracy of translations and
claimed a reading knowledge of hebrew.
Short info, he failed a simple translation of biblical hebrew.
http://pocketanswers.net/JW_Fred_Franz_Trial.htm
The jw vatican canned response learned by rote is that a few scholars said
the "translation" is fine.
An example of one; in followup I found goodsspeed's supposed endorsment is
said to be bogus by scholars who knew him and his work. The genuineness of
a supposed letter containing his claimed remarks also has problems they
say.
I have also read a jw vatican bit to support the reality of greeek
scholars.
The new world translaion exists, therefore the "translaters" must have
known greek.
Such crude circular logic is not unknown in jw circles.
That's not JW logic.

But what is , is all the Bible scholars who praised the NWT. That is
not circular logic, but is the straight facts. Whether or not they
knew Greek, they must have did something right to get the praises.

And Goodspeed wrote a lot about the NWT. Much of it was facts. Notice:

“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)


"Notice this about Doctor Goodspeed:

"Edgar Johnson Goodspeed (1871–1962) was an American theologian and
scholar of Greek and the New Testament. He taught for many years at
the University of Chicago, whose collection of New Testament
manuscripts he enriched by his searches. The University's collection
is now named in his honor.

He is widely remembered for his translations of the Bible: The New
Testament: an American Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis
Smith) "The Bible, An American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed
Bible". He is also remembered for his translation of the Apocrypha,
and that translation was included in The Complete Bible, An American
Translation (1939). Finally, Harper & Brothers issued his widely
heralded The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation (1950).

Edgar J. Goodspeed was born in Quincy, Illinois. He graduated from
Denison University in 1890 (where he also received a doctorate in
Divinity, 1928) and the University of Chicago (Ph.D. 1898)."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_J._Goodspeed)

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-25 19:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by servant
Which jw vatican scholars did the "translation" from greek and hebrew
Former high-ranking Watch Tower staff have identified various members of
the translation team. Former governing body member Raymond Franz
listed Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George D.
Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel as members of the translation team,
adding that only Frederick Franz had sufficient knowledge in biblical
languages.^[35]^[36]
Referring to the identified members, evangelical minister Walter Ralston
Martin said, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known
translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or
translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz,
who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate
degree." Franz had stated that he was familiar with not only Hebrew, but
with Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French for the purpose
of biblical translation.^[37]^[38] sources.
Frederick Franz who later became the jw pope was under oath in a scotish
court. He confirmed he alone checked for accuracy of translations and
claimed a reading knowledge of hebrew.
Short info, he failed a simple translation of biblical hebrew.
http://pocketanswers.net/JW_Fred_Franz_Trial.htm
The jw vatican canned response learned by rote is that a few scholars said
the "translation" is fine.
An example of one; in followup I found goodsspeed's supposed endorsment is
said to be bogus by scholars who knew him and his work. The genuineness of
a supposed letter containing his claimed remarks also has problems they
say.
I have also read a jw vatican bit to support the reality of greeek
scholars.
The new world translaion exists, therefore the "translaters" must have
known greek.
Such crude circular logic is not unknown in jw circles.
That's not JW logic.
Come now my friend, the jw vvatican claims the NT does not contain their
choice of the name for God, thus this "proves" "jwish scribes" found and
changed the original NT uncounted copies over a large area..

If you want to discuss that, start another thread.>
Post by z***@windstream.net
But what is , is all the Bible scholars who praised the NWT. That is
not circular logic, but is the straight facts. Whether or not they
knew Greek, they must have did something right to get the praises.
My friend reposts what he is alleged to have written, it was subjective
description, no "facts" included, see it below.

Here the rebuttal to that claim by those who knew hin and his work, first
his "letter":

Edgar J. Goodspeed "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and
in its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank, and
vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning,
as I can testify."

- Awake! (March 22, 1987). This is reported to be a quote from a personal
letter from Goodspeed to the WTB&TS

Now the rebuttal, this page on the web is not alone in questioning all jw
vatican's list of "supporters". It gives first the bits the jw vatican
uses from them and then the info that refutes the list when the usually
cherry picked bits are exposed for what they are by the author's writings.

The observation of the first person below alludes to their often dubious
morality in their practices. Remember, there are other such pages looking
at the lisst of "supporters" and why it is not as the jw vatican says the
authors said.

'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said'

http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed

However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the
authenticity of Goodspeed's letter.

The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of
the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a
signed original).

Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as
an endorsement of the NWT until 1982.

Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but
none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem
odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT
in several key texts.

Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958.

Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT;
there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews
Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve
of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.

Hmm, why if the lletter is real would he say such things? To avoid
appearing hostile and to be kind as far as he could subjectively remark,
his kindness flows right off the page in my reading.

If he had said, I will forgo my own translation in favor of this one and
encourage all other translaters to reconsider their workk in light of the
jw superior greek "translation", then we would have someting to hang the
jw vatican claims on..
Servant
2020-09-24 19:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.

It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.

I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.

Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
Pat Barker+
2020-09-24 19:45:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
A question I have asked your friend james many times.
%
2020-09-24 19:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pat Barker+
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
A question I have asked your friend james many times.
critical

why don't you do your own homework
Pat Barker+
2020-09-24 21:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Pat Barker+
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
A question I have asked your friend james many times.
critical
why don't you do your own homework
His claim is bogus. I merely want to know how he came up with some
bogus claim.
Miloch
2020-09-24 20:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
Just a guess, but it sounds like there's a hell of a lot of people who are
shit-out-of-luck.





*
Ted
2020-09-24 20:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Miloch
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
Just a guess, but it sounds like there's a hell of a lot of people who are
shit-out-of-luck.
LOL. Like ten billion minus 144,000?
z***@windstream.net
2020-09-25 07:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Rev 14:1 and 7:4.

Not only JW's go to Heaven. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. All
went to Heaven. Were they JW's?
Post by Servant
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
My JW library only runs back in the Watchtower to 1950. For example,

"Although fully clothed with power and authority as King when he
ascended into heaven, Jesus the King must wait to begin his reign
until Jehovah selected the 144,000 body members of his royal
organization from among men, and when that is finished the enemy shall
be put down. So Satan" (1950 Watchtower, 8/1, p.236)

James
www.jw.org
The Bible is truths
servant
2020-09-25 18:07:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Servant
A core idea of the first jw pope, then having a different name, is that
144000 will reach heaven, all jw of course; this includes granting some
individuals in scripture honorary jw status 1879 years after the fact.
It was a criticle marketing point, get your heaven train ticket punched
now, any second the train will leave. If you miss it, you can only have
a second best spiritual place in the new earth not heaven.
I would like my friend james to disclose where in scripture that exact
144000 teaching is found and how it applies to jw only? I'm not interested
in the new earth second best part.
Rev 14:1 and 7:4.
Indeed, let's look at them in the order they appear: and see if any items
poin to the 1879 jw only claim:

7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed
an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of
Israel.

After which a list of the tribes, each with 12000. 12k*12k=144000; get it?

14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an
hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their
foreheads.

After which 14:3 which says more about the group generally, then:

14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These
were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the
Lamb.


There are 3 big problems now.

1. Rev. has mentions of for example "saints" in one place and mention of
others already in heaven in John's vision.

So even if valid, the jw vatican claim already does not add up,ie. 144k
plus others, no?

2. also in Rev. right after the 7:4:

7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could
number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before
the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands

The jw vatican 144k is obviously no limiting number, as we have "uncounted
multitudes" also in heaven before the throne.

3. Given the two examples of the 144k provided, who are those
defined as
to their group membership?

Virgin jewish men only.

What does this say about the grandfathered in honorary jw? figures in
scripture ?

Mary and all women, married or not mentioned are out. Peter, James and
other unnamed apostles were married, virgins no more even if jewish men .
Overseers, bishops, are directed to be the husband of one wife, nope; them
neither. Among the thousands baptised at pentecost, many would be women
and children and married, "housolds" as a famimly unit is mentioned among;
them. Nope, them neither.

Any others before 1897 either women or married or not virgins and;
including mentioned in the OT;are not among the 144k, no?

The jw vatican says *all* 144k heaven train tickets are already punched.
How many jw jewish virgin men only in that time can be counted?

All others, the vast majority of jw men and women and childrenin the time
period are still waiting on the heaven train platform for a train already
departed, no?
Post by z***@windstream.net
Post by Servant
Include please; if ever in the preceeding 1879 years *any* mention was made
of this idea by others in church history? If none exist, why not for such
a core doctrine?
My JW library only runs back in the Watchtower to 1950.
My friend james finds the oldestt modern item, 1950 in the jw vatican,
which is treated almost as scripture; "watchtower" publication online
searchable archive mentioning the 144k..

That leaves the great bulk of church history *absolutely* silent on the
idea one way or another;until mr. russel invented it in 1879.

Taken as a whole, the support in scripture and church history adds up to
exactly *zero*.

As a critical core vital idea for the jw vatican and not replaceable by way
of "new light", that foundation on sand is moving under their very feet,
no?
Yap Honghor
2020-09-10 14:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
You can have a foundation of truth, but if Jesus is not your Lord it
is all for naught.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
The absolute truth is:: THERE IS NO FUCKING JESUS OR ANY OTHER STUPID LORD!!

The delusion of both of you are truly mental in nature!
Davej
2020-09-10 16:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Unless you are a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu or a...
John Locke
2020-09-10 16:41:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by Michael Christ
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS AS YOUR LORD!!!
Unless you are a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu or a...
...I'm doing just fine and dandy with the FSM ! No need whatsoever for
the Jesus wanker !


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Loading...