Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 59 of 69 FirstFirst ... 949555657585960616263 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 681
  1. #581
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hi David:
    To the point the Holy Spirit as Dove do you think that is NOT GOD too? You act like GOD cannnot be in two places at once! You are limiting GOD if you say that the Spirit of GOD is NOT GOD apart from the presence of HVH in heaven. Which is why you insist that Jesus is NOT GOD! GOD as Holy Spirit IS morphing all the time!

    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Hello Mystykal

    The Holy Spirit as I understand it is God's power by God operates. Exactly how God's power operates is beyond our understanding. God's power might be able to operate in the sense of a network or a distributed power system where God has complete knowledge of how and when and where his power is used. To pursue your line of thinking, I can think of a number of questions for you.

    Q1. Can God be divided or less than one?

    Q2. Was God's Holy Spirit given to separate individuals and did those individuals become God?

    Q3. Why was the Holy Spirit given in different measures to different people?

    Q4. Why did God use Angels to do his work, when God could have done everything himself directly without any middlemen?

    In as much as my mind struggles to comprehend infinity, I do not limit God's power to do what his purpose requires. To say all things are possible for God, then all things, which are are impossible for man, might well be possible for God. To say that nothing is impossible for God, is not a valid argument to support the idea that God can be two or three persons at the same time.

    God cannot be less than he is. God cannot die. God cannot sin. God cannot be flesh and blood. Therefore, it is impossible for God to be and do certain things, because it is not possible by his nature. If you think God can do all these things, then you lessen God and reduce him to that of a man in the image of yourself.

    All the best
    David

  2. #582
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411

    Answer the Question!

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Mystykal

    The Holy Spirit as I understand it is God's power by God operates. Exactly how God's power operates is beyond our understanding. God's power might be able to operate in the sense of a network or a distributed power system where God has complete knowledge of how and when and where his power is used. To pursue your line of thinking, I can think of a number of questions for you.

    Q1. Can God be divided or less than one?

    Q2. Was God's Holy Spirit given to separate individuals and did those individuals become God?

    Q3. Why was the Holy Spirit given in different measures to different people?

    Q4. Why did God use Angels to do his work, when God could have done everything himself directly without any middlemen?

    In as much as my mind struggles to comprehend infinity, I do not limit God's power to do what his purpose requires. To say all things are possible for God, then all things, which are are impossible for man, might well be possible for God. To say that nothing is impossible for God, is not a valid argument to support the idea that God can be two or three persons at the same time.

    God cannot be less than he is. God cannot die. God cannot sin. God cannot be flesh and blood. Therefore, it is impossible for God to be and do certain things, because it is not possible by his nature. If you think God can do all these things, then you lessen God and reduce him to that of a man in the image of yourself.

    All the best
    David
    Hi David:

    I love how you did not answer my question! I asked you - If the Holy Soirit can be in the FORM of a dove and be present at the baptism of Jesus AND GOD be SPEAKING at the same time... is not that GOD in TWO different forms at the same time? NOW please answer the question!


    Namaste,


    Mysytkal
    Mystykal

  3. #583
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Mystykal
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hi David:

    I love how you did not answer my question! I asked you - If the Holy Soirit can be in the FORM of a dove
    I see the Dove as a sign and not necessarily the actual Holy Spirit. It does not have to be the Holy Spirit. The text says; "like a dove". It was not necessarily an actual dove. God's power we know works invisibly, so this was just a visible sign to signify that Jesus was given (or had access to) God's power. When the Holy Spirit operates, do you see it in operation or just the end result?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    and be present at the baptism of Jesus AND GOD be SPEAKING at the same time... is not that GOD in TWO different forms at the same time? NOW please answer the question!
    I have no doubt God's power can be working in more than one place at a time. His Angels can all operate independently having the Holy Spirit. This is why I made the comment at the start about networking and a distributed power system. Whether God works in serial mode or in parallel mode is something we shall not know for definite. Serial interfaces are much faster these days than the old parallel interfaces, but maybe parallel interfacing offers the fastest possible speeds.

    Now for you to answer my questions.

    All the best
    David

  4. #584
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411

    The Godhead Bodily...

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Mystykal
    I see the Dove as a sign and not necessarily the actual Holy Spirit. It does not have to be the Holy Spirit. The text says; "like a dove". It was not necessarily an actual dove. God's power we know works invisibly, so this was just a visible sign to signify that Jesus was given (or had access to) God's power. When the Holy Spirit operates, do you see it in operation or just the end result?

    I have no doubt God's power can be working in more than one place at a time. His Angels can all operate independently having the Holy Spirit. This is why I made the comment at the start about networking and a distributed power system. Whether God works in serial mode or in parallel mode is something we shall not know for definite. Serial interfaces are much faster these days than the old parallel interfaces, but maybe parallel interfacing offers the fastest possible speeds.

    Now for you to answer my questions.

    All the best
    David
    Hey David:
    Like I said I really do not want to have this debate with you! The issue is your understanding of the Greek and Hebrew Mss. You cannot just make up ideas about what you think the Holy Spirit might be! To the point the Bible clearly states that in Christ Jesus lived the "Godhead bodily".

    Colossians 2:8,9
    …8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;…

    This means in the Aramaic/Greek an idea of dwelling like in a tent. The GODHEAD is ONE! This idea you cannot seem to accept. OK....

    Q1. Can God be divided or less than one? A. If GOD so chooses

    Q2. Was God's Holy Spirit given to separate individuals and did those individuals become God? A. No

    Q3. Why was the Holy Spirit given in different measures to different people? A. No. The word measure means quality or types of ways like talents different talents but all Spirit given.

    Q4. Why did God use Angels to do his work, when God could have done everything himself directly without any middlemen? A. Dunno Ask GOD!





    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Last edited by Mystykal; 10-23-2013 at 03:13 AM.
    Mystykal

  5. #585
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Mystykal
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hey David:
    Like I said I really do not want to have this debate with you! The issue is your understanding of the Greek and Hebrew Mss. You cannot just make up ideas about what you think the Holy Spirit might be! To the point the Bible clearly states that in Christ Jesus lived the "Godhead bodily".
    Colossians 2:8,9
    …8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;…

    This means in the Aramaic/Greek an idea of dwelling like in a tent. The GODHEAD is ONE! This idea you cannot seem to accept. OK....
    We both read the same words and we have to articulate what we understand by those words. Whether we want to change our understanding, depending on what others articulate is, up to us. I cannot change what you want to think. I am comfortable with what I think and if I am wrong, I trust God will forgive my misunderstanding. If you say something I can accept, then I accept it. We can do no more than continue our individual search for truth and express our understanding. As for the word "indwelling" we have our different understanding of what that means in the sense of the Godhead dwelling in Jesus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Q1. Can God be divided or less than one? A. If GOD so chooses

    Q2. Was God's Holy Spirit given to separate individuals and did those individuals become God? A. No

    Q3. Why was the Holy Spirit given in different measures to different people? A. No. The word measure means quality or types of ways like talents different talents but all Spirit given.

    Q4. Why did God use Angels to do his work, when God could have done everything himself directly without any middlemen? A. Dunno Ask GOD!
    Thank you for your answers. Not as complete as I would have hoped. I shall let your answers stand without comment and not take this any further.

    All the best
    David

  6. #586
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    I have switched this discussion to the thread where it belongs.

    Hello Charisma

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Hi David,

    To answer your first paragraph to me, again your approach looks like the diversionary tactics of which Timmy accuses you.
    This is an unnecessary and superfluous comment as though to make an accusation against me. There was no diversionary tactic used or intended. Timmy’s abusive and offensive language needs believers like you to condemn that sort of language. Instead, by you closing remarks, you are judgemental and you are condemning me, by pre-empting the judgement of Christ. It was clear I had no used a diversionary tactic for after my opening paragraph, I specifically replied to your comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    If you had accepted the open, plain meaning of scripture in the first few weeks after appearing in the forum and starting the questionable thread in question, you would have shown yourself tender and sensitive to truth.
    You mean I should have rolled over and submitted to the strong comments that I received at the start. I am passionate for the Truth, I am doing as Jude exhorts his readers and I am “earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints” . That can be another thread, and I ask you what is the faith that Jude is speaking of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Instead, you have shown yourself wedded to a fleshly interpretation of the Bible, some of which you have never read, or, have never read with any real understanding, which, at the heart of this interpretation, denies the gospel in its entirety.
    That is an assumption on your part and again judgemental. You have no idea how many times I have read the Bible and the difficult passages that lead to misunderstanding. It is wrong to say my understanding “denies the gospel in its entirety”. To me you are speaking without thinking. Had you read all my posts, you should know that I believe the gospel message. I have to say, I think you sound less mature in your thinking and until you really begin to start explaining things to me that shows your maturity as a self-thinker about God’s word, then I can rightly or wrongly have my private views about you. I will not do as Timmy does and start calling you offensive names.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    That FACT that you believe a fiction doesn't even seem to trouble you, even though it is clearly troubling to Timmy, who has spent hours replying to your faulty and deadly (to those who accept/believe it) doctrine.
    Charisma, I would like you to start thinking for yourself. You obviously follow the words of Timmy though you can be gobsmacked by some of the things he has said. I have replied to Timmy’s posts and exposed the error of his logic. If you accuse me of having deadly doctrine, I could do the same of you and Timmy, but I do not want to engage in this type of conversation. I just want to stick with the argument by quoting scripture and getting to the root of scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Here is the sacrednamebible's rendering of the verses Timmy posted from Romans 9. The truth could not be clearer.
    First of all, I do not object to you reading the Sacrednamebible as one of your reading sources, but you should also read other bible translations as your sources. From an earlier quote you published, it was obvious that it was not in agreement with the KJV. Despite the Emphatic Diaglott being the original work of a JW member, it is a good reference document and one JW’s do not hold to themselves. Instead, the JWs are holding on to beliefs not supported by the Diaglott.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    1 I say the truth in MASHIYACH, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
    So Christ is the Messiah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

    3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from MASHIYACH for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

    4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises;

    5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh MASHIYACH came, who is over all, ELOHIYM blessed for ever. Amen.

    6 Not as though the word of ELOHIYM hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
    Yes, Jesus who is the Christ, came in the flesh (not the substance of God). Jesus the Christ has been given all supremacy by his Heavenly Father.



    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    If you cannot 'see' Elohiym in v 5, and if you don't understand it even if you do, then you need to start asking questions about what you've been taught.
    You are teaching me “to suck eggs”. I have been asking questions for decades, that is why I have reached the conclusion I have and I am sharing on this forum. When did you stop thinking at the point you think you know everything correctly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    That verse is saying that Messiah is Elohiym. NOthing could be clearer.
    No it is not. Your logic is like that of Timmy’s; it is flawed. God and Jesus are separate. Besides all the many times Paul is referring to God AND Jesus the Christ, then we are told by Paul in later verses in Romans the following. (This complements John 3:16, the basis of our faith). (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. See that!! “God raised him (Jesus) from the dead”. Jesus could not be God, for Jesus could not raise himself, because Jesus was dead. Jesus was totally without consciousness while in the grave and in the grave we are told; “there is no remembrance”., Also, consider this; when Jesus was dying on the cross, he cried to his Heavenly Father; “why hast thou forsaken me” Was Jesus speaking to himself like Timmy would have you believe? Of course not. Why did Jesus also say; ”into thy (God’s) hands, I commend my spirit”. I am accused of not accepting the clear and simple teaching of the Bible, yet what could be simpler than that, in which Jesus clearly shows his dependence on God and not being God? Please answer all my questions whenever I ask a question like this. Start giving me the proof from Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Either you believe the scripture, or you are believing a made-up form of religion which has plucked a lot of ideas from the Bible, but has no power to save your soul and bring you through into the next world, no matter how much you want it to be true. Because IT IS NOT TRUE.
    I believe the Scripture, and I no more accept the teaching of men, than you do if that is the case. I am not asking you where you got your belief from. Are you completely self-taught? If I have to choose your teaching or that of Michael Rood say, I will accept his, because he uses the KJV, Webster’s dictionary to understand the language of the day, and he goes back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Now if you do the same and show me your reasoning from those texts, then you might begin to persuade me according to your thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    For any 'gospel of Jesus Christ' to be true, in its exposition, the flesh-life of the believer has to be crucified. That includes what goes on in the intellect and mind. If you are dead in Christ, buried in His grave with Him where He took your sin forever, then you don't have a mind of your own, and you don't have fleshly desires you cannot overcome, and you don't believe garbage about Jesus being 'not God'. Because by then, you are convinced HE IS GOD.
    I am not zombified in the way you expect me to be and the way that I could think you have been zombified by what you have been taught. Until you stop stating and back up what you say from Scripture, you are not going to persuade me. It is not “garbage” to believe Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man and not God. I have explained this elsewhere. Please do not accuse me of what can be thrown back directly at you. Start to reason with me instead of throwing out false and inaccurate statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    I haven't read the rest of your post, but when I do, I may not answer if I think it is a waste of time.
    In that case, you have prejudged the outcome and you will not listen to reason. That is why, I expect you have not read every thread I have started and everything I have written explaining why I believe what I do and backing that up with scriptural verses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Btw, I don't answer to God for Timmy's choice of words; he does.
    I am not suggesting you answer to God. You must have an opinion about Timmy’s words, so why not speak up. Either you agree with Timmy’s tone of language or you do not, which is it? Please answer me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    And that is the same principle by which you will be judged.
    I agree and that is a given and need not be said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    How entertained do you think God is, that you are doing despite to the Spirit of His grace, which seeks to draw you out of the jaws of hell through His death and resurrection which you are required to believe in the terms He Himself proclaimed it: not in the terms made up by some mere mortal to excuse their own sins?
    I beg God for His forgiveness. I am reasoning from His word, and that is the basis I reason with you. I am [COLOR="#0000FF"] “rightly dividing the word of Scripture” [COLOR]. You are not proving to me you are doing the same. The Truth will win in the end, so neither of us have to be afraid of losing the argument. Continue to put up your verses and misquotes and I will answer you and show what I think is your error. This must be done in brotherly love and not as Timmy is doing by name calling. I sense Timmy’s frustration which we all have, when our point of view is not accepted. Only by continued dialogue will the Truth win, or we remain blind to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    Let me tell you. He is sorrowful at the prospect of having to close the door of the bridechamber in your face. Unless you repent, you WILL be outside.
    How can you be so judgemental of me in the way the Christ will judge me. I am professing his name and that God raised him from the dead. This is what I have just quoted from Romans which is the essential of salvation. We are only discussing the nature of Jesus and his equality or not with God.

    Jesus now lives eternal. In that respect, he is the same as God, for God is eternal and was eternal from the beginning. Jesus had a genesis, the same as you and me. Jesus was born and that was his genesis. Jesus underwent the transformation from a corrupt body to an incorruptible body and that is again a first. It could be said to be the genesis of the new creation. We are told; [COLOR="#0000FF"] “we shall be like him (Jesus)..” We are told that this corruptible body must put on incorruption, and so we shall at the resurrection be made like Jesus with his incorruptible body. Then we shall live forever and be like God in that respect. It still does not make us equal with God, who is Creator.

    You still have not explained to me 1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, This is a handing over from one to the other. Also, 1 Cor 15:27 But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Please explain these verses to me. Nothing could be more clear as you like to say. Jesus is in subjection to God. How do you explain that?

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 10-27-2013 at 03:02 AM.

  7. #587
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    No it is not. Your logic is like that of Timmy’s; it is flawed. God and Jesus are separate. Besides all the many times Paul is referring to God AND Jesus the Christ, then we are told by Paul in later verses in Romans the following. (This complements John 3:16, the basis of our faith). (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. See that!! “God raised him (Jesus) from the dead”. Jesus could not be God, for Jesus could not raise himself, because Jesus was dead. Jesus was totally without consciousness while in the grave and in the grave we are told; “there is no remembrance”., Also, consider this; when Jesus was dying on the cross, he cried to his Heavenly Father; “why hast thou forsaken me” Was Jesus speaking to himself like Timmy would have you believe? Of course not. Why did Jesus also say; ”into thy (God’s) hands, I commend my spirit”. I am accused of not accepting the clear and simple teaching of the Bible, yet what could be simpler than that, in which Jesus clearly shows his dependence on God and not being God? Please answer all my questions whenever I ask a question like this. Start giving me the proof from Scripture.
    I think it is important to focus on this one point. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly stated that he would raise up the "temple" of his body himself:

    John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

    And this is confirmed:

    John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Now of course it doesn't matter what the Bible actually says because the interpretations are subject to the will of the interpreters. If you want to believe that Jesus raised himself from the dead, the Bible gives you verses you can use to "prove" that. If you don't want to believe that, then you can simply explain them away. And so we see, once again, that the Bible is not any kind of guide at all. It leads no one to any certain knowledge because in the final analysis, folks believe what they want to believe (or more likely what they have been told to believe by other believers).
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #588
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I beg God for His forgiveness. I am reasoning from His word, and that is the basis I reason with you. I am “rightly dividing the word of Scripture” . You are not proving to me you are doing the same. The Truth will win in the end, so neither of us have to be afraid of losing the argument. Continue to put up your verses and misquotes and I will answer you and show what I think is your error.
    This brings forth a most fact. I have been trying to reason with you for well over a year and we have failed miserably to agree about the most basic elements of logic. How then can you have any confidence in your interpretations since they are based fundamentally on your own fallacious reasoning?

    This is especially problematic given that you have to explain away the plain meaning of so many verses.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #589
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    I shall respond to the two posts and concentrate on the second quote from John 10:18 since on the face of it, this is the most condemning against Jesus not having the power to raise himself from the dead.

    Before I show you my findings, I will make one comment about the fact that you appear to have given up looking for the Truth in God's word. As it appears to me, you will quote any translation that supports your intention to compound to the confusion you correctly say is between different Christian sects, denominations etc. Since this appears to be your tactic, it seems to me you have no intention of recognizing the mistranslations and introduced errors and eliminating those from that which is accepted valid translation. This is what is fundamentally different between our approach. I am resolving the apparent errors and mistranslations. Once that is done, those errors and mistranslations cease to exist for me. I do not have to keep referring to those as you do.
    There might be some difficult verses that I cannot readily answer, but where I have come to certain conclusions based on the many mutually confirming verses (as you claim to do), then I look for those difficult verses to have a meaning that will fit into that which is already established. If I can do this legitimately using valid meanings of words, as could have been meant by the author, then I have eliminated a potential problem. If I cannot make a verse of passage fit and it leads me to a totally different conclusion, then that would be grounds to revise my thinking. If I am unable to make sense such that I cannot make a verse or passage fit my conclusions then I have to wait till such time as I can make sense of it. I would rather leave something that is uncertain to one side and not accept another interpretation which cannot be supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think it is important to focus on this one point. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly stated that he would raise up the "temple" of his body himself:

    John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

    And this is confirmed:

    John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Now of course it doesn't matter what the Bible actually says because the interpretations are subject to the will of the interpreters. If you want to believe that Jesus raised himself from the dead, the Bible gives you verses you can use to "prove" that. If you don't want to believe that, then you can simply explain them away. And so we see, once again, that the Bible is not any kind of guide at all. It leads no one to any certain knowledge because in the final analysis, folks believe what they want to believe (or more likely what they have been told to believe by other believers).
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This brings forth a most fact. I have been trying to reason with you for well over a year and we have failed miserably to agree about the most basic elements of logic. How then can you have any confidence in your interpretations since they are based fundamentally on your own fallacious reasoning?

    This is especially problematic given that you have to explain away the plain meaning of so many verses.
    Now to deal with John 10:18

    It is interesting how we can all make mistakes and I just found a mistake in the scanned edition of the Emphatic Diaglott which can be downloaded off the internet. When looking up John 10:18 I have found that two pages have been missed out of the scanning process. Verses 6 to 28 are missing. This would suggest that the 846 pages of the book should be at least 849 since the layout would indicate two scanned pages have been missed. I have got around the problem by referring to a hardback copy of the Book. I have also found the Greek text on the internet which appears to be the same as in the Diaglott. The only thing I did not like about the on-line translation is that the translation uses the same version as you have quoted, which are not the words used in the Diaglott and when you look at the words used below the Greek words, then the translation I do not like or agree with, does not in my opinion agree with the words shown with the Greek text. I have compiled a picture to show the Greek text and compare the two paraphrased translations.

    Name:  John10_18_Dialglott_comparison.png
Views: 29
Size:  122.4 KB

    First of all, what I would ask is if you ignore both translations and only concentrate on the Greek text and the words underneath, without bias, what would be your paraphrase of the words underneath the Greek text. Of course, we can enquire as to whether the English words chosen and shown in with the Greek text are the best words or whether there are any other words which could be legitimately used.

    Given the two paraphrased translations, I agree more with the translation in the Emphatic Diaglott. This leaves the word "Authority" to be explained. The word does not indicate that Jesus raised himself from the dead and the word in the Diaglott says that he "received" his life. The passage reads more correct in that Jesus had the authority to lay down his life. After all, Jesus could have escaped the ordeal and so it could be argued that what he did was tantamount to suicide in getting himself condemned and crucified. The text I agree with emphasizes Jesus received his life again and not that he took his life in the sense of raising himself from the dead. This is in keeping with the fact that God has the power to create and restore life. Jesus only called upon God's Holy Spirit to perform the things he requested, or spoke, knowing his Heavenly Father would perform that which Jesus requested. The temptation of Jesus, which he overcame, was not to use God's power granted to him for his own gain. Jesus knew he had to obey God and use God's power for the purpose of God and not for his own purpose.

    So now you have my answer and why I do not accept the words you highlighted in red as the best translation of the Greek words. I expect you will disagree with my reasoning, but you cannot say I have not answered you. The fact that although we have to make sense of the words, which are direct translations of the Greek, how those words are paraphrased is where the disagreement comes. For the reasons I have stated and looking at the English words directly under the Greek text, I am accepting the words in the Emphatic Diaglott instead of the words that you have chosen to quote from the KJV. Although I say (as others do) that the KJV is still one of the best translations, this does not mean I accept everything in the KJV has been translated accurately and this is an example were the KJV is suggesting something that is not necessarily inferred by the Greek text, otherwise if that was so, then the Emphatic Diaglott would have more or less said the same thing as the KJV, but it does not. Therefore, since there are two or more ways the verse has been translated, I will accept the one translation that best agrees with the conclusion I have already established for myself.

    You have a choice to accept which translation you want to, but if you accept the translation that supports the idea that Jesus is God, then you do exactly the same as the sheeple you talk about. If you do that and do not attempt to resolve these things for yourself and to see that God's word is not as ambiguous as you claim it to be, then all you are doing is choosing to deny God's word is Truth and select anything that proves your case, whether it is a correct translation or not. That is why I will not follow your line or reasoning.

    All the best
    David

  10. #590
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    I shall respond to the two posts and concentrate on the second quote from John 10:18 since on the face of it, this is the most condemning against Jesus not having the power to raise himself from the dead.
    Hey there David,

    I think the real reason you are focusing on John 10:18 is because John 2:19 is much more difficult for you to explain away because Jesus explicitly said that he would raise himself:

    John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

    It's too bad you don't realize how obvious it is when you try and dodge "inconvenient" facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Before I show you my findings, I will make one comment about the fact that you appear to have given up looking for the Truth in God's word. As it appears to me, you will quote any translation that supports your intention to compound to the confusion you correctly say is between different Christian sects, denominations etc. Since this appears to be your tactic, it seems to me you have no intention of recognizing the mistranslations and introduced errors and eliminating those from that which is accepted valid translation. This is what is fundamentally different between our approach. I am resolving the apparent errors and mistranslations. Once that is done, those errors and mistranslations cease to exist for me. I do not have to keep referring to those as you do.
    You really need to stop with the false accusations David. I did not go looking for some unusual translation to support my conclusion. I quoted from one of the most widely used versions - the King James - which also happens to be the version that you said is "one of the best translations"! And worse, you have been quoting the cult classic "Emphatic Diaglott" as the only evidence supporting your position, so you are the one who is actually doing what you accused me of doing! How ironic is that?

    Furthermore, I didn't even comment on the meaning of the Greek words or the translation, so it is utterly absurd for you to say that I "have no intention of recognizing the mistranslations and introduced errors and eliminating those from that which is accepted valid translation". We haven't even begun a conversation about the interpretation of that verse! You accusations are totally unjustified.

    You say that the difference between our approaches is that you seek to "elminate errors" whereas I do not. Nothing could be more absurd. As far as I can tell, your only interest is in proving your preconceived dogmas that "just happen" to be identical to those taught by the human tradition known as the Christadelphians.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Now to deal with John 10:18

    It is interesting how we can all make mistakes and I just found a mistake in the scanned edition of the Emphatic Diaglott which can be downloaded off the internet. When looking up John 10:18 I have found that two pages have been missed out of the scanning process. Verses 6 to 28 are missing. This would suggest that the 846 pages of the book should be at least 849 since the layout would indicate two scanned pages have been missed. I have got around the problem by referring to a hardback copy of the Book. I have also found the Greek text on the internet which appears to be the same as in the Diaglott. The only thing I did not like about the on-line translation is that the translation uses the same version as you have quoted, which are not the words used in the Diaglott and when you look at the words used below the Greek words, then the translation I do not like or agree with, does not in my opinion agree with the words shown with the Greek text. I have compiled a picture to show the Greek text and compare the two paraphrased translations.
    I do not understand your obsession with the Emphatic Diaglott. It is a cult publication. There are many sites where the original Greek text is available. Why do you focus on this one text as if it were inspired directly from God? I just don't get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Given the two paraphrased translations, I agree more with the translation in the Emphatic Diaglott. This leaves the word "Authority" to be explained. The word does not indicate that Jesus raised himself from the dead and the word in the Diaglott says that he "received" his life. The passage reads more correct in that Jesus had the authority to lay down his life. After all, Jesus could have escaped the ordeal and so it could be argued that what he did was tantamount to suicide in getting himself condemned and crucified. The text I agree with emphasizes Jesus received his life again and not that he took his life in the sense of raising himself from the dead. This is in keeping with the fact that God has the power to create and restore life. Jesus only called upon God's Holy Spirit to perform the things he requested, or spoke, knowing his Heavenly Father would perform that which Jesus requested. The temptation of Jesus, which he overcame, was not to use God's power granted to him for his own gain. Jesus knew he had to obey God and use God's power for the purpose of God and not for his own purpose.
    You are focusing on the word "authority" because you are looking for a way to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived beliefs. Look at the context:

    John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Who laid down his life? Jesus. Who took up his life? Jesus. How does this compare with John 2:19? Perfectly. Jesus said that he himself would raise up his own body.

    Now you want to avoid this by focusing on the word "exousia" - translated as "power" or "authority." Great. Have fun with that. I'm sure you will find a way to preserve your beliefs no matter what the Bible says. Why you would want to do this is beyond me,but that it is your primary desire is not in doubt.

    As for the Diglott's translation of lambano (Strongs' 2983) - Here is a page that lists 21 different translations, and only one of those 20 translate it as "receive." All the other translate it as "take". That's 1 out of 21 that agree with your "Diaglott". This exemplifies the fact that the Diaglott is a cult translation used by cults to prove their cult doctrines that directly contradict what the Bible actually says. That's why it is so popular amongst the cults.

    Here is Strongs' definition:
    λαμβανω lambano a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses; TDNT - 4:5,495; v AV - receive 133, take 106, have 3, catch 3, not tr 1, misc 17; 263 1) to take 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it 1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 1a2) to take upon one's self 1b) to take in order to carry away 1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away 1c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own 1c1) to claim, procure, for one's self 1c1a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant 1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend 1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud 1c4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain 1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute) 1d) to take 1d1) to admit, receive 1d2) to receive what is offered 1d3) not to refuse or reject 1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one's self, 1d41) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something 1e) to take, to choose, select 1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back
    This word is translated as "receive" 133 times and "take" 106 times. So it can be used either way. Why then did 20 out of 21 translators choose "take" as opposed to "receive"? You need to answer this question to PROVE that you are actually interested in TRUTH. If you cannot even explain why the vast majority of translators chose a translation that contradicts your preferred beliefs, then you will be exposed as a cult member not even slightly interested in truth. It's up to you David. If you really want to know the truth then you need to learn WHY scholars disagree with your beliefs and only then would your "explanations" about why they are all wrong would be worthy of being considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    So now you have my answer and why I do not accept the words you highlighted in red as the best translation of the Greek words. I expect you will disagree with my reasoning, but you cannot say I have not answered you.
    What reasoning? I didn't see any "reasoning". You merely found a CULT TRANSLATION that said what you wanted it to say! Now look at the profound irony here. That's exactly what you accused me of doing when I quoted the KJV!

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The fact that although we have to make sense of the words, which are direct translations of the Greek, how those words are paraphrased is where the disagreement comes. For the reasons I have stated and looking at the English words directly under the Greek text, I am accepting the words in the Emphatic Diaglott instead of the words that you have chosen to quote from the KJV.
    You are accepting the words of a cult translation that disagrees with over 95% of all Greek scholars because it says what you want it to say. You don't give a shit about the truth and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Although I say (as others do) that the KJV is still one of the best translations, this does not mean I accept everything in the KJV has been translated accurately and this is an example were the KJV is suggesting something that is not necessarily inferred by the Greek text, otherwise if that was so, then the Emphatic Diaglott would have more or less said the same thing as the KJV, but it does not. Therefore, since there are two or more ways the verse has been translated, I will accept the one translation that best agrees with the conclusion I have already established for myself.
    The problem has absolutely nothing to do with the KJV "suggesting something that is not necessarily inferred by the Greek text". The problem is that the KJV accurately represents the Greek text and the Greek text contradicts the dogmas taught by the tradition you follow. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You have a choice to accept which translation you want to, but if you accept the translation that supports the idea that Jesus is God, then you do exactly the same as the sheeple you talk about.
    It has nothing to do with "accepting translations." I can read the Greek and I understand why the vast majority of scholars translate it as "take" rather than "receive." It is absurd for you - a follower of cult leaders like Michael Rood and John Thomas - to suggest that I am in any way like the "sheeple" that thoughtlessly follow man made traditions. If anyone is doing that, it is you, not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If you do that and do not attempt to resolve these things for yourself and to see that God's word is not as ambiguous as you claim it to be, then all you are doing is choosing to deny God's word is Truth and select anything that proves your case, whether it is a correct translation or not. That is why I will not follow your line or reasoning.
    You are the one who says the Bible is "ambiguous"! You constantly say words don't mean what they obviously mean because that is how you force your dogmas upon the Bible. You twist words so that Satan is not a personal being and "angels" doesn't mean angels, etc., etc., etc. We've covered a hundred topics where you twist words. Here is one of my favorite examples:

    David: Either God is ONE or he is not.

    Richard: Not true! The word "ONE" is ambiguous.

    David: "One" in the sense of united, I agree with.

    Richard: Thanks for proving my point. When the Bible says that "God is one" you take it one way, and when Jesus says he and the father are "one" you take it in another way. Your doctrine requires that the meaning of the word "one" be quite ambiguous, so you can not insist that the Trinity contradicts the fact that God is one. It all depends upon how you interpret the meaning of the word "one". All Trinitarians believe God is One. It is a fundamental aspect of the Doctrine of the Trinity. So if you want to prove that the Doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the Bible you will have to prove which definition of "one" is intended and show that the Trinity contradicts that definition. Good luck with that!

    David: Silence (as usual when he is proven wrong).
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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