Jeremiah 16:21

[dadof10]

Hi

What can I say ? You want to controll the conversation, so be my quest. :biglol

I like my KJV but no one is listening - :biglol

We are talking about INTERPRETATION - but who is listening ? :rolling

You are talking to Chris about TRANSLATION, not MM - but who is listening ?

Maybe if I type in English, would that help ?

Do you think the NWT is an accurate translation? Yes or no.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

What can I say ? You want to controll the conversation, so be my quest. :biglol

I like my KJV but no one is listening - :biglol

We are talking about INTERPRETATION - but who is listening ? :rolling

You are talking to Chris about TRANSLATION, not MM - but who is listening ?

Maybe if I type in English, would that help ?

Do you think the NWT is an accurate translation? Yes or no.

Hi :

It boils down to interpretation, not translation ! All translations have errors in them, some more than others. You seem to be arguing which translation you would prefer to call a fraud.

This thread started out by looking at Jeremiah 16:21 and looking at the emphasis on the "name". My conversation has been on the interpretation verses the translation . Too much emphasis is put upon translations instead of the understanding of the scriptures, especially by looking at the context of scripture.

The same holds true when we look at any scripture, as some believe that their translation is better than someone elses translation. As it is true that the translators took liberties that they should not have. Arguing over the translation is fruitless, when one does not understand the meaning behind the context of scripture.

 

[Mohrb]

Re: Dadof10 regarding our "ad Verecundiam" tangent:

Here's a good example if I do say so myself: While in college, I majored in Aviation Technology, but I minored in Sociology. The fact that I have formal college education on the logical fallacies makes me at least a mild expert. And I say I remember that "just because an expert (even in the appropriate field) says something doesn't necessarily make it right." (this being a part of the ad Verecundiam fallacy).

Now... because I'm an expert... am I right? Or, even though I do have applicable expertise, can I not still be wrong?

More applicable to this conversation, I'm most certainly an expert in theology. I have easily over 1000 hours of formal theocratic ministry school time, and have on record nearly 10,000 hours of study, research, debates, etc. That's easily enough to qualify me as an expert on bible studies... yet you don't consider everything I say to be unquestionable, do you? And, you shouldn't. What I say is not at all valid on the basis of "it's me saying it." Anything I say is exactly as valid as it agrees with the facts. Same goes for anyone else. Experts are more likely to have a complete understanding of the facts... but it is quite possible for someone to be recognized as an expert by mindlessly following the popularly acceptable theories. Using such a person as an "expert" is just putting a singular face on an ad populum.

... anywho... I'll digress from this conversation. The tangent's interesting, but I think it's starting to detract from the main conversation. You can offer whatever rebuttal you wish and have the last word on it, but I don't think it's constructive for me to continue it in this thread.

You are missing the point. We are not talking about "A" person or expert. We are talking about ALL Greek and Hebrew scholars, from ALL decades, from ALL denominations coming to the same conclusion. These people have access to the most accurate manuscripts and the most recent techniques.

If you define "expertise" BY the acceptance of your theory, of course ALL experts agree with you. Just like how evolutionists often state that exactly 100% of ALL scientists fully support evolution... because anyone that expresses the slightest doubt of evolution is automatically not a scientist any more.

There have been MANY expert bible students that believe Jeremiah 16:21 should be translated using the name "Jehovah" rather than "LORD." With a quick search: American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, New World Translation, Webster's Bible Translation, Young's Literal Translation, Spanish: Reina Valera (1909), Spanish: Modern, German: Elberfelder (1871).

And even in the ones that translate it as "LORD," I'll betcha there will be a footnote in most of them admitting that the literal translation is "Jehovah," but it was changed.

... unless you're referencing trinitarianism vs. non-trinitarianism... there are too large a number of experts to even begin to name that are non-trinitarian. Realize there are about two dozen monotheist Christian denominations around... and as far back as there is a record of trinitarianism, there's a record of monotheism. The only difference is, in those times, trinitarians had the government's backing, and were allowed to excommunicate (or execute) any and all who believed 1 Corinthians 8:6 "There is for us only ONE God, the Father"

Stating that "all experts have always" agreed with you... is just absolutely untrue. Just like it's absolutely untrue that "all experts have always" agreed with me.

 

[Mohrb]

Again, you are talking about an anecdotal episode. You need to compare apples to apples.

Jesus quite often spoke in anecdotes and illustrations too. That's where I get the habit.
What specific idea do you believe "EVERY BIBLE EXPERT IN HISTORY" believes that you feel was not represented well by the NWT translators (or JWs in general)?

According to who? The Catholic and Protestant scholars claim their translations are accurate, and their work can be verified. Can you say the same?

What makes their work verifiable? The content of their work? Or who has the longest resume? The content of the work of any translation can be compared regardless of who the translator was.... by simply looking at the work itself.

So do I. It's called Thayer's Greek Lexicon. It's accepted as the STANDARD, and highly thought of by all denominations. What's your "secular" dictionary called?

Oooooo, I'll quote you on that one!

I usually use the Oxford Greek to English dictionary. There are also plenty of secular resources online such as kypros.org/Lexicon, ectaco.co.uk/English-Greek-Dictionary, etc. One can also easily find commentaries on given words and phrases online (of course, these should be taken with a grain of salt).

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant your translators compared different versions.

Not really. A translation is a translation. We have quite a bit of reason to believe that the NWT is a good one. However, JWs encourage people to read "the bible" ... we're 100% absolutely fine with a person studying with any bible translation they want as long as it includes all 66 books. Our publications -often- quote other translations, we very often use the wording in other translations in our talks (sermons), etc. As JWs, when studying any given verse, we generally study it in at least a few translations. Any time there's a significant difference, we're encouraged to stop and research why there is a difference, read into the context, and understand grammatically exactly what's going on. Not just "trust one translation by default."

[quote:29fnq2uk]1 rule. If I go into detail and stay on the topic of John 20:28 without dismissing it in favor of a scripture that "I like better" ... will you do me the same favor for a scripture of my choosing? Will you promise to directly address a scripture without saying "well some other scripture says something else, and that's more important?"

Sure. If you'll agree that Thayer's is the authority.[/quote:29fnq2uk]
Considering you defined Thayer as the authority... kindly turn to page 287. See what he specifically states about John 20:28. Any footnotes you'd like to share with the class.

(I knew I'd seen Thayer's name around. I did some research, and turns out there have been dozens of references to Thayer's work. Him and Jason BeDuhn have put out some interesting points. )

 

[dadof10]

Hi :

It boils down to interpretation, not translation ! All translations have errors in them, some more than others. You seem to be arguing which translation you would prefer to call a fraud.

This thread started out by looking at Jeremiah 16:21 and looking at the emphasis on the "name". My conversation has been on the interpretation verses the translation . Too much emphasis is put upon translations instead of the understanding of the scriptures, especially by looking at the context of scripture.

The same holds true when we look at any scripture, as some believe that their translation is better than someone elses translation. As it is true that the translators took liberties that they should not have. Arguing over the translation is fruitless, when one does not understand the meaning behind the context of scripture.

If your TRANSLATION is inaccurate, how can your INTERPRETATION of that convoluted translation possibly be accurate?

You must have an accurate translation BEFORE you can have an accurate interpretation.

If you think that "All translations have errors in them", how do you come to any conclusions that don't end in "Thus saith the Lord...I think, maybe"?

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi :

It boils down to interpretation, not translation ! All translations have errors in them, some more than others. You seem to be arguing which translation you would prefer to call a fraud.

This thread started out by looking at Jeremiah 16:21 and looking at the emphasis on the "name". My conversation has been on the interpretation verses the translation . Too much emphasis is put upon translations instead of the understanding of the scriptures, especially by looking at the context of scripture.

The same holds true when we look at any scripture, as some believe that their translation is better than someone elses translation. As it is true that the translators took liberties that they should not have. Arguing over the translation is fruitless, when one does not understand the meaning behind the context of scripture.

If your TRANSLATION is inaccurate, how can your INTERPRETATION of that convoluted translation possibly be accurate?

You must have an accurate translation BEFORE you can have an accurate interpretation.

If you think that "All translations have errors in them", how do you come to any conclusions that don't end in "Thus saith the Lord...I think, maybe"?

Hi

The church in the first century didn't have a NT, nor a bible to read. How do you think God helped them understand the truth ?

Ever hear of the Spirit of truth ?

 

[dadof10]

Re: Dadof10 regarding our "ad Verecundiam" tangent:

Here's a good example if I do say so myself: While in college, I majored in Aviation Technology, but I minored in Sociology. The fact that I have formal college education on the logical fallacies makes me at least a mild expert. And I say I remember that "just because an expert (even in the appropriate field) says something doesn't necessarily make it right." (this being a part of the ad Verecundiam fallacy).

Now... because I'm an expert... am I right? Or, even though I do have applicable expertise, can I not still be wrong?

I notice you couldn't post any "variations", only rehash your opinion as to why the definition of Argumentum ad Verecundiam should be changed to include your personal "variations".

Let's remember what this tangent is about. You claimed that my appealing to the VAST MAJORITY OF PROPER AUTHORITIES (EXPERTS) WITHIN THE FIELD OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGES, SPECIFICALLY GREEK AND HEBREW, WAS AN EXAMPLE OF THE LOGICAL FALLACY: ARGUMENTUM DE VERICUNDIAM. This is simply not true.

The definition does NOT include your caveat, and therefore does not apply, even if you consider yourself a "mild expert".

And now you are making MY point. In my last post I quoted three articles on the exact definition of the logical term "Argumentum ad Verecundiam". These definitions are OBVIOUSLY accurate, however you insist on ADDING "variations" to them. Why? Because the "TRUE definition" contains these variations, or because you personally think it should? Is this an example of your Biblical exegesis as well?

If the definition of the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" contains "variations" that include appeals to EXPERTS WITHIN THE FIELD, simply post it.

More applicable to this conversation, I'm most certainly an expert in theology. I have easily over 1000 hours of formal theocratic ministry school time, and have on record nearly 10,000 hours of study, research, debates, etc. That's easily enough to qualify me as an expert on bible studies... yet you don't consider everything I say to be unquestionable, do you? And, you shouldn't. What I say is not at all valid on the basis of "it's me saying it." Anything I say is exactly as valid as it agrees with the facts. Same goes for anyone else. Experts are more likely to have a complete understanding of the facts... but it is quite possible for someone to be recognized as an expert by mindlessly following the popularly acceptable theories. Using such a person as an "expert" is just putting a singular face on an ad populum.

... anywho... I'll digress from this conversation. The tangent's interesting, but I think it's starting to detract from the main conversation. You can offer whatever rebuttal you wish and have the last word on it, but I don't think it's constructive for me to continue it in this thread.

I wouldn't either if I were you.

If you define "expertise" BY the acceptance of your theory, of course ALL experts agree with you. Just like how evolutionists often state that exactly 100% of ALL scientists fully support evolution... because anyone that expresses the slightest doubt of evolution is automatically not a scientist any more.

How would we know if the JW translators are "experts" we don't know who they are, YET YOU BELIEVE THEM IN OPPOSITION TO MOST OTHER QUALIFIED TRANSLATORS. A fact that you will not address.

Realize there are about two dozen monotheist Christian denominations around... and as far back as there is a record of trinitarianism, there's a record of monotheism. The only difference is, in those times, trinitarians had the government's backing, and were allowed to excommunicate (or execute) any and all who believed 1 Corinthians 8:6 "There is for us only ONE God, the Father"

And now the conspiracy theory comes to light. I knew we'd get here eventually. Trinitarians and the government in cahoots to keep down the poor JWs. Here's a little fact for you, Trinitarians believe there is ONE GOD. But I'm sure a Biblical expert like you with "over 1000 hours of formal theocratic ministry school time, and have on record nearly 10,000 hours of study, research, debates, etc." already knew that.

Since you are a self proclaimed "mild expert" in "the logical fallacies", maybe you can give the definition of "Straw-man argument"? There is a good example in red above. "...excommunicate (or execute) any and all who believed 1Cor. 8:6"????

 

[francisdesales]

The church in the first century didn't have a NT, nor a bible to read. How do you think God helped them understand the truth ?

The Apostles and those whom they ordained to teach the word, such as Timothy... Wasn't that what Jesus told them to do, just as He was leaving to ascend to His Father - to teach all truth???

 

[dadof10]

According to who? The Catholic and Protestant scholars claim their translations are accurate, and their work can be verified. Can you say the same?

What makes their work verifiable? The content of their work? Or who has the longest resume? The content of the work of any translation can be compared regardless of who the translator was.... by simply looking at the work itself.

This is the heart of the matter. Do you know Greek and Hebrew? Can you translate into English? Do you have access to the MS? If the answer to these (and many more) questions is "no" then you have to take the word of people who can say "yes" to these questions. Even if you use the Oxford Greek to English dictionary or any "secular" dictionary or lexicon, you are taking the TRANSLATORS word for the content because the content was translated by people. The "dictionary" you use didn't fall from the sky.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? I'll wait for your answer.

 

[cyberjosh]

I think Jason's point is that the JWs go into Scripture with a preconceived bias and purposely mistranslate certain words/phrases to fit that viewpoint.

There have been some errors in translation with some (all?) denominations through the years, but the errors don't ALL revolve around ONE doctrine like the NWT's mistranslation of ANY verse that alludes to the Trinity.

What makes you so sure that it's the JWs with a bias against "any verse that alludes to the trinity" as opposed to trinitarian denominations that have a bias against any verse that could possibly be construed as trinitarian (and any verse directly opposing the trinity)?

For example, Jesus telling the Jews "Amen amen, lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" ... the simple, contextually sound translation is a statement that Jesus pre-existed Abraham. Yet trinitarians see Jesus use "Ego Eimi" and say "that can be translated 'I am... therefore let's put it in all caps to insinuate that Jesus is using the same phrase his Father used when speaking through the burning bush (Ehyeh asher ehyeh)... and since Jesus is saying something (many other people have said) that can be translated to the same english phrase as the completely different phrase God said, we can use it to support the trinity!

It has both connotations. It was meant to be a grammatically correct sentence but one cannot deny its overtones and pretensions to deity (which the Jews readily detected). It is not implausible that "ego eimi" in certain contexts refers to YHWH of the Old Testament since His proper name is not used in the NT elsewhere (only kurios for "Lord" substituted in OT quotations). Jesus used the proclamation "ego eimi" with unequivocal power in John 18:6 which forced the solders coming to arrest him to the ground. The dual connotations between a proper grammatical answer and a confident proclamation of supreme identity are present at the same time.

... yet, trinitarians can "conveniently overlook" simple verses such as John 17:3, where Jesus prays to God "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (notice Jesus calling the Father alone the "only true God" and specifying himself as the one God sent forth, not God)


... I agree, -someone's- doing some "creative interpretation."

For this topic please see my thread here: The Diety of Christ/Jesus is God: An Approach for Skeptics.

God Bless,

Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

This is perhaps a tangent, but...

The Jews substituted YHWH's name for Adonai and Elohim because they feared saying the Lord's name out loud, less they accidentally take it in vain.

That is true but one thing I never understood about this is why they thought it necessary to do this. In the Pentateuch itself Moses uses YHWH's name quite often. It's kind of like the ridiculousness of the Sadducees not believing in angels because they limited their doctrine to just the Pentateuch, and yet those very five books mention angels quite a few times. I think the Jews imposed another legalistic precedent for themselves when they began to substitute YHWH's name with Adonai and other names/titles.

Just my thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[dadof10]

The church in the first century didn't have a NT, nor a bible to read. How do you think God helped them understand the truth ?

Ever hear of the Spirit of truth ?

And how do you know the "voice" you hear is the "Spirit of Truth" instead of your own?

 

[Mysteryman]

The church in the first century didn't have a NT, nor a bible to read. How do you think God helped them understand the truth ?

Ever hear of the Spirit of truth ?

And how do you know the "voice" you hear is the "Spirit of Truth" instead of your own?

Hi :

The same question can be asked pertaining to those who believe that certain men were sent to teach the truth. How do you know that they are speaking the truth ? Or are they speaking untruths unto you ? How does one determind the difference between a false teacher and a true teacher of the scriptures ? What standard do you use that makes that determination ?

We know that the Apostle Paul was sent unto the gentiles as well as the church to teach the truth. Knowing the background of this one man named Saul, which changed his name to Paul by the message on the road to Damascus. What proof do you or did anyone have, that the preaching of Paul was the message of the gospel of Christ ? Was this man Paul approved of the Jews ? Was he ordained and made known unto the Jews, that Peter ordained this man Paul ? Why would you believe the words spoken by this man Paul ? Do you believe the words that we read about of this man Paul, because his words are written with ink , on paper, and now is put into a book we call the bible ?

Did Baranabas' words hold such authority, that they believed Barnabas when he told them that Saul spoke boldy in the name of Jesus Christ ? Was then Barnabas greater than Peter, in that he declared this man Saul ? And if some people are the followers of men, then would you have followed Barnabas when he was carried away with the dissimulation of the Jews and Peter , and left Paul's side ? And by Barnabas following Peter, does this now show that Paul was no longer the Apostle of Jesus Christ, just because this man Barnabas went with the dissimulation of Peter and the other Jews ?

And if this man Barnabas is not the standard by which one follows, then it must be Peter whom we follow , correct ? For sure this man Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ because he walked with Christ. And even though he denied the Lord thrice, this is no reason to think that Peter is no longer an Apostle of Jesus Christ. So if Peter is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teachings, because he denied the Lord thrice. Then by which standard of any man, does one follow their teachings ?

When Paul spoke and preached and taught the church, did not this man Paul declare that the words he spoke are only for those who have ears to hear ? But wait, Barnabas is no longer by the side of Paul. So who now confirms that this man Paul is speaking the truth ?

Is Apollos who walked with Paul suppose to declare unto you that what Paul speaks is the truth ? Is Apollos the standard by which men are to follow another man and his teachings ? And if Apollos is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teaching, then surely the man that confirms this man Paul's teaching must be Timothy. But wait ! Timothy was not circumcised. For sure , you would not believe a man, that would confirm this man Paul who was not circumcised ! So Paul had Timothy circumcised, so what ? Is this the way in which the preaching and teaching of this man Paul is confirmed ? A man like Timothy who now is circumcised can declare that the teaching of this man Paul is true ?


So what man do you follow dadof10 , and which man confirms that this man speaks the truth to you ?

 

[Mohrb]

If the definition of the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" contains "variations" that include appeals to EXPERTS WITHIN THE FIELD, simply post it.

OK, just one more minor correction, then I'll bow out of the fallacy tangent:

My point was that I have expertise in the field of sociology (I minored in sociology in college on top of a life long obsession with the subject). And I gave you my understanding. The fact that you rejected my understanding shows that you fully agree with it because my -point- was that even an expert within a field can be wrong. My last example: Catholicism must be right, the pope says so! Surely we agree that the pope is an expert in catholicism. That doesn't mean we should approve of praying to saints and forgiveness of sin can be purchased via material gifts to the catholic church. Since you asked for a citation of a definition:

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
"A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect"

How would we know if the JW translators are "experts" we don't know who they are, YET YOU BELIEVE THEM IN OPPOSITION TO MOST OTHER QUALIFIED TRANSLATORS. A fact that you will not address.

I don't believe it -on the basis that it was them that translated it.- I believe it -on the basis of examining the differences and carefully weighing the evidence for and against the various translations, researching, praying, etc.-

... Remember, illiterate greek children can speak greek. Language isn't something to be afraid of. It's something that ANYONE can check.

And now the conspiracy theory comes to light. I knew we'd get here eventually. Trinitarians and the government in cahoots to keep down the poor JWs. Here's a little fact for you, Trinitarians believe there is ONE GOD.

Of the many definitions of "the trinity" ... yes, most involve a statement that three "persons" are one "being" to one extent or another. Some say they're three beings, but coequal. Others say they're different "persons" of that one "being," but not equal.

Here's the test: Do you think that there is for us only one God, the Father (1 co 8:6)? Or do you believe any person other than the Father can be God? Do you believe anyone can be equal to almighty God? Monotheism is the belief in 1 God... period. "1 yet 3, yet neither 3 nor 1, yet both" ... is not "1." When Jesus himself calls his Father "you, the only true God" (John 17:3)... I take it on Jesus' authority that he's right. (Both verses should read the same in any translation of the bible you can find).

"...excommunicate (or execute) any and all who believed 1Cor. 8:6"????

Research a person named Arius.

 

[Mohrb]

This is the heart of the matter. Do you know Greek and Hebrew? Can you translate into English? Do you have access to the MS? If the answer to these (and many more) questions is "no" then you have to take the word of people who can say "yes" to these questions. Even if you use the Oxford Greek to English dictionary or any "secular" dictionary or lexicon, you are taking the TRANSLATORS word for the content because the content was translated by people. The "dictionary" you use didn't fall from the sky.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? I'll wait for your answer.

I know enough Greek to work my way through a dictionary. Yes. Go ahead and test me if you'd like. Give me a greek phrase, and I'll bet I can give you an accurate translation.

You're right, dictionaries are the product of fallible people to, and may not necessarily give a "perfect" definition. However, I've yet to see a dictionary fail to portray the general concept of a word. When in doubt... there are always other dictionaries, and plenty of commentary discussing specific wording that can be researched, weighed, and prayed over.

... but, by all means. Please feel free to give me a greek phrase to translate. Words are fun. :amen

 

[Mohrb]

Hey cyberjosh! Welcome to the circus.

It has both connotations. It was meant to be a grammatically correct sentence but one cannot deny its overtones and pretensions to deity (which the Jews readily detected).

Of course there were overtones. They went to stone him... but what makes you believe they were such complicated overtones.

Consider the context. Jesus stated that he saw Abraham being glad. They stated that he was not nearly old enough to have ever seen Abraham. From a simple translation, he stated that he "was" since before Abraham "was." Does this statement by itself not seem supernatural to you? The fact that the Jews went to stone him doesn't necessarily mean he was making an extreme claim... they went to stone him when he healed someone on a sabbath as well. A person could be stoned to death for shaving their beard! (from an interpretation of Leviticus 19:27.)

The simple statement that he has existed before his human existence is contextually relevant, and would warrant the exact reaction it got. What evidence is there for putting in an entirely different connotation to a conversation for which it would be entirely off topic?

It is not implausible that "ego eimi" in certain contexts refers to YHWH of the Old Testament since His proper name is not used in the NT elsewhere (only kurios for "Lord" substituted in OT quotations). Jesus used the proclamation "ego eimi" with unequivocal power in John 18:6 which forced the solders coming to arrest him to the ground. The dual connotations between a proper grammatical answer and a confident proclamation of supreme identity are present at the same time.

Again... in John 18:6... they asked "Are you Jesus?" because they were already going to arrest him. He responded "I am." ... the simple translation is that he was confirming that he in fact was Jesus. What evidence is there that it meant anything more?

If you believe BOTH of these examples are Jesus claiming to be God... What about all the other people throughout the bible who used the exact same phrase? Do you believe that they're all God?


... anywho, I'll definitely give your other thread a read.

 

[Mohrb]

Also... dadof10... I'm curious to see what you read about Thayer's opinion of John 20:28. Considering you were the one to define him as "the authority" that is accepted across the board.

Page 287, I believe.

 

[dadof10]

And how do you know the "voice" you hear is the "Spirit of Truth" instead of your own?

Hi :

The same question can be asked pertaining to those who believe that certain men were sent to teach the truth. How do you know that they are speaking the truth ? Or are they speaking untruths unto you ? How does one determind the difference between a false teacher and a true teacher of the scriptures ? What standard do you use that makes that determination ?

We know that the Apostle Paul was sent unto the gentiles as well as the church to teach the truth. Knowing the background of this one man named Saul, which changed his name to Paul by the message on the road to Damascus. What proof do you or did anyone have, that the preaching of Paul was the message of the gospel of Christ ? Was this man Paul approved of the Jews ? Was he ordained and made known unto the Jews, that Peter ordained this man Paul ? Why would you believe the words spoken by this man Paul ? Do you believe the words that we read about of this man Paul, because his words are written with ink , on paper, and now is put into a book we call the bible ?

Did Baranabas' words hold such authority, that they believed Barnabas when he told them that Saul spoke boldy in the name of Jesus Christ ? Was then Barnabas greater than Peter, in that he declared this man Saul ? And if some people are the followers of men, then would you have followed Barnabas when he was carried away with the dissimulation of the Jews and Peter , and left Paul's side ? And by Barnabas following Peter, does this now show that Paul was no longer the Apostle of Jesus Christ, just because this man Barnabas went with the dissimulation of Peter and the other Jews ?

And if this man Barnabas is not the standard by which one follows, then it must be Peter whom we follow , correct ? For sure this man Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ because he walked with Christ. And even though he denied the Lord thrice, this is no reason to think that Peter is no longer an Apostle of Jesus Christ. So if Peter is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teachings, because he denied the Lord thrice. Then by which standard of any man, does one follow their teachings ?

When Paul spoke and preached and taught the church, did not this man Paul declare that the words he spoke are only for those who have ears to hear ? But wait, Barnabas is no longer by the side of Paul. So who now confirms that this man Paul is speaking the truth ?

Is Apollos who walked with Paul suppose to declare unto you that what Paul speaks is the truth ? Is Apollos the standard by which men are to follow another man and his teachings ? And if Apollos is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teaching, then surely the man that confirms this man Paul's teaching must be Timothy. But wait ! Timothy was not circumcised. For sure , you would not believe a man, that would confirm this man Paul who was not circumcised ! So Paul had Timothy circumcised, so what ? Is this the way in which the preaching and teaching of this man Paul is confirmed ? A man like Timothy who now is circumcised can declare that the teaching of this man Paul is true ?


So what man do you follow dadof10 , and which man confirms that this man speaks the truth to you ?

So, when you say "Spirit of truth" you mean men's preaching, or church teaching? I thought you were talking about private revelation.

Do you mean men's preaching and teaching when you say "Spirit of truth"?

 

[Mysteryman]

And how do you know the "voice" you hear is the "Spirit of Truth" instead of your own?

Hi :

The same question can be asked pertaining to those who believe that certain men were sent to teach the truth. How do you know that they are speaking the truth ? Or are they speaking untruths unto you ? How does one determind the difference between a false teacher and a true teacher of the scriptures ? What standard do you use that makes that determination ?

We know that the Apostle Paul was sent unto the gentiles as well as the church to teach the truth. Knowing the background of this one man named Saul, which changed his name to Paul by the message on the road to Damascus. What proof do you or did anyone have, that the preaching of Paul was the message of the gospel of Christ ? Was this man Paul approved of the Jews ? Was he ordained and made known unto the Jews, that Peter ordained this man Paul ? Why would you believe the words spoken by this man Paul ? Do you believe the words that we read about of this man Paul, because his words are written with ink , on paper, and now is put into a book we call the bible ?

Did Baranabas' words hold such authority, that they believed Barnabas when he told them that Saul spoke boldy in the name of Jesus Christ ? Was then Barnabas greater than Peter, in that he declared this man Saul ? And if some people are the followers of men, then would you have followed Barnabas when he was carried away with the dissimulation of the Jews and Peter , and left Paul's side ? And by Barnabas following Peter, does this now show that Paul was no longer the Apostle of Jesus Christ, just because this man Barnabas went with the dissimulation of Peter and the other Jews ?

And if this man Barnabas is not the standard by which one follows, then it must be Peter whom we follow , correct ? For sure this man Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ because he walked with Christ. And even though he denied the Lord thrice, this is no reason to think that Peter is no longer an Apostle of Jesus Christ. So if Peter is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teachings, because he denied the Lord thrice. Then by which standard of any man, does one follow their teachings ?

When Paul spoke and preached and taught the church, did not this man Paul declare that the words he spoke are only for those who have ears to hear ? But wait, Barnabas is no longer by the side of Paul. So who now confirms that this man Paul is speaking the truth ?

Is Apollos who walked with Paul suppose to declare unto you that what Paul speaks is the truth ? Is Apollos the standard by which men are to follow another man and his teachings ? And if Apollos is not the standard by which one follows a man and his teaching, then surely the man that confirms this man Paul's teaching must be Timothy. But wait ! Timothy was not circumcised. For sure , you would not believe a man, that would confirm this man Paul who was not circumcised ! So Paul had Timothy circumcised, so what ? Is this the way in which the preaching and teaching of this man Paul is confirmed ? A man like Timothy who now is circumcised can declare that the teaching of this man Paul is true ?


So what man do you follow dadof10 , and which man confirms that this man speaks the truth to you ?

So, when you say "Spirit of truth" you mean men's preaching, or church teaching? I thought you were talking about private revelation.

Do you mean men's preaching and teaching when you say "Spirit of truth"?

Hi dadof10

I will answer your last question here , after you answer my last question in my post.

Thanks

 

[dadof10]

OK, just one more minor correction, then I'll bow out of the fallacy tangent:

My point was that I have expertise in the field of sociology (I minored in sociology in college on top of a life long obsession with the subject). And I gave you my understanding. The fact that you rejected my understanding shows that you fully agree with it because my -point- was that even an expert within a field can be wrong. My last example: Catholicism must be right, the pope says so! Surely we agree that the pope is an expert in catholicism. That doesn't mean we should approve of praying to saints and forgiveness of sin can be purchased via material gifts to the catholic church. Since you asked for a citation of a definition:

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
"A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect"

This is the first time you've mentioned "bias" and I have not mentioned it AT ALL.

Here is my post:

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, so I believe the scholars who do. I can check out the credentials of the people who translate the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. and find out where they went to school, the extent of their education, their experience, who they have worked with in the past, etc. NONE of the scholars WHO'S NAMES ARE PRINTED ON THE FRONT FLAP OF THE BIBLES THEY TRANSLATE agree with the (last I heard) ANONYMOUS "translators" of the NWT.

And your response:

This is called an Ad Verecundiam fallacy. Do you believe in Evolution? What if you hear a scientist who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars going to a top notch school that teaches evolution? What if he has a Ph.D. in biology (specializing in a LOT of classes dealing with evolution? What if he's gone to many conferences with scientists from around the world who support evolution?

If you saw this expert say "Evolution is a fact because I say so, and I'm an expert" ... would you believe it because of his fancy white coat? Of course not. Now if he presented valid evidence that was repeatable, falsifiable, and supported a specific theory, you should listen to that. But, the point is, a statement is as valid as the evidence that supports the statement. Regardless of who says it.

Is it your claim, that EVERY scholar that rejects the NWT is biased?

Do you realize what you are implying? That it is ILLOGICAL to use the work of experts in the field that you are arguing. Does this sound right to you?

Let's give it a try.

Person A: "I disagree with your translation. The Greek word for "X" is "Y". My source is the Oxford Greek to English dictionary"

Person B: "This is called an Ad Verecundiam fallacy."

This is a joke, and you don't know what you're talking about.

BTW. Another example of Straw-man argumentation:

"That doesn't mean we should approve of praying to saints and forgiveness of sin can be purchased via material gifts to the catholic church."

The Catholic Church doesn't teach this. Another cheap-shot.

How would we know if the JW translators are "experts" we don't know who they are, YET YOU BELIEVE THEM IN OPPOSITION TO MOST OTHER QUALIFIED TRANSLATORS. A fact that you will not address.

[quote:28tcjmye]I don't believe it -on the basis that it was them that translated it.- I believe it -on the basis of examining the differences and carefully weighing the evidence for and against the various translations, researching, praying, etc.-

... Remember, illiterate greek children can speak greek. Language isn't something to be afraid of. It's something that ANYONE can check.

[/quote:28tcjmye]

You do not speak Greek or Hebrew, correct? You do not have access to the manuscripts, correct? You are "examining the differences and carefully weighing the evidence" with SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. You HAVE to trust your SOURCES, correct?

If the Oxford Greek Dictionary varies from Strong's, which one do you choose and how do you make this decision? Do you look at their CREDENTIALS? Maybe to actually take an expert's credentials into account is another logical fallacy.

And now the conspiracy theory comes to light. I knew we'd get here eventually. Trinitarians and the government in cahoots to keep down the poor JWs. Here's a little fact for you, Trinitarians believe there is ONE GOD.

[quote:28tcjmye]Of the many definitions of "the trinity" ... yes, most involve a statement that three "persons" are one "being" to one extent or another. Some say they're three beings, but coequal. Others say they're different "persons" of that one "being," but not equal.

Here's the test: Do you think that there is for us only one God, the Father (1 co 8:6)? Or do you believe any person other than the Father can be God?

[/quote:28tcjmye]

That's not "the test", unless you ignore other Scripture. You can't pluck one verse out of the Bible and simply ignore the rest.

Do you believe anyone can be equal to almighty God? Monotheism is the belief in 1 God... period. "1 yet 3, yet neither 3 nor 1, yet both" ... is not "1."

So is Trinitarianism. One God, three distinct Persons.

When Jesus himself calls his Father "you, the only true God" (John 17:3)... I take it on Jesus' authority that he's right. (Both verses should read the same in any translation of the bible you can find).

And when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and Jesus says "Blessed are you because you have seen and BELIEVE..." I take Him at His word.

Seems like we have a contradiction here, according to you.

You can't ignore one verse in favor of another. They are both correct. It's up to us to figure out the meaning. Lucky we have an infallible teaching authority to help, huh?

"...excommunicate (or execute) any and all who believed 1Cor. 8:6"????

[quote:28tcjmye]Research a person named Arius.

[/quote:28tcjmye]

Even if I admit the ridiculous claim that one man (Arius) was executed because he "believed 1Cor. 8:6", that still wouldn't validate your contention that the Church "excommunicate[ed] (or execute[ed]) any and all who believed 1Cor. 8:6."

You need to take the vitriol down a notch. This silliness may work when you go door-to-door, but it doesn't fly here. Your learned, JW hatred of the Catholic Church is showing.