It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FredT
Okay, lets say a JW kid gets a blood tranfusion (court order requires it) to save thier life. How does this affect thier status in the religion?
Originally posted by miriam0566
one can only guess who the translators were. the closest anyone can get to that information is an ex JW apostate who named who headed the committee.
1. its sheer speculation. of course anit-JW websites dont present it that way.
2. ok, you possibly have the names of the people who headed the committee. so what? you still dont know who actually did the translating. how can you possibly smash the credentials of someone when you have absolutely no idea who he is?
imperfect servants of god can make mistakes. they admit it, learn from it and move on.
1. the list of tribes in revelation doesnt match the actual tribes of isreal, so how can it be literal?
2. the first century christians also knew that the tribes were figurative. james 1:1 says ¨to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.¨ he wasnt ONLY addressing jews, but rather congregations that likely included gentiles.
Originally posted by octotom
1. its sheer speculation. of course anit-JW websites dont present it that way.
The punishment, as said by the Law, is public stoning. I didn't have any one prediction in mind. But, I was actually thinking more towards the early 1900s and earlier. I know that there were many predictions made then that never came to pass. Many left the JWs because of that.
This depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Many, including myself, believe that the list doesn't match up with previous lists of tribes because the tribe of Dan became so pagan that they were virtually wiped out of existance. A similar thing would have happened to Ephraim.
Again, this is an issue of interpretation. It should be noted too that the time of the writing of this letter was about 40 AD or so. There were gentile Christians, but many Christians were of Jewish ancestry. It is also not known specifically who James was writing to. He might have been writing to Jewish congregations. This James was the brother of Jesus, so he may have had a more Jewish focus, much like the Apostles did.
Out of curiosity, are you a Jehovah's Witness, Miriam?
From the Patristic period (Arius, c. a.d. 256–336) until the present day (Jehovah's Witnesses), some have claimed that “the Word was God” merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicates that the translation “a god” is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (“a god”) but rather specifies that a given term (“God”) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (“the Word”). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context clearly indicates that this “God” that John is talking about (“the Word”) is the one true God who created all things (see also John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 for other examples of Theos without a definite article but clearly meaning “God”).
Originally posted by octotom
From the ESV Study Bible Note on John 1.1:
From the Patristic period (Arius, c. a.d. 256–336) until the present day (Jehovah's Witnesses), some have claimed that “the Word was God” merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicates that the translation “a god” is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (“a god”) but rather specifies that a given term (“God”) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (“the Word”). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context clearly indicates that this “God” that John is talking about (“the Word”) is the one true God who created all things (see also John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 for other examples of Theos without a definite article but clearly meaning “God”).
Basically, the JWs, when they translated John 1, inserted the indefinite article in front of God because they didn't see the definite article to show that the Word was God. But, due to Colwell's Rule this isn't necessary, and wrong, because theos is a predicate nominative of the definite subject "Word". So it should be translated God. The NWT was translated with the presupposition that Jesus isn't God, so it was translated as "a god". As I've read, the NWT uses Colwell's rule in other places in the NT, but not here.
Here is a link to an article/essay about the NWT. It includes the names of four men who are known to have translated the NWT.
www.spiritwatch.org...
Comparison of Scholarly Qualifications Of NWT / NASB Translators
Although the Jehovah’s Witness leadership desperately wants the names of the New World Translation’s translators to remain unknown (for reasons that shall soon become clear), the names have, in fact, been revealed by former high- ranking members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect (8).
As for the prophets again, if a prophet was wrong, that's when he was stoned, not not being from God. Obviously though, if the prophet was wrong, he wouldn't have come from God, since God can't be wrong, and by default, a true prophet of God can't be either.
Miriam, what is the scriptural basis for Michael becoming Jesus, especially in light of Hebrews 1.5ff?
Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by miriam0566
www.lcms.org...