by cameo-d 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
Thanks Cameo-D, your simple question begged a simple answer. I don't know why you got so many insults...
I'm not reading much into it, though, since I don't believe in Paul's inspiration any more than I believe in Joseph Smith's. But more power to you..
I don't know why you got so many insults...
Some people don't like it when I try to show that WT ties in with other Occult Luciferian Societies.
Well, Middleman, that is interesting.
It is also irrelevant.
The view of the WATCHTOWER on this matter is the one that counts here - not because they're right, but because they are the ones naming their books. So while it might be interesting to note that Scholfield thinks "sons of god" means demons, that is not what the WTB&TS had in mind when they decided on the name for the book, so it is not a 'secret meaning" of the title.
According to the "Insight" book, volume 2, page 996:
The expression “Son of God” primarily identifies Christ Jesus. Others referred to as “son(s) of God” include intelligent spirit creatures produced by God, the man Adam before he sinned, and humans with whom God has dealt on the basis of covenant relationship.
Nathan, you know I love you,man but you sounded a bit Farkelish. Now don't beat me up.
I miss Farkel too. If he's not here to beat some sense into morons, someone's got to step up.
"If he's not here to beat some sense into morons, someone's got to step up."
Nathan, can't you present info on the subject matter without making this personal and calling me names? I have appreciated many of your posts in the past and I know you have worthwhile contributions.
"Others referred to as “son(s) of God” include intelligent spirit creatures produced by God, the man Adam before he sinned, and humans with whom God has dealt on the basis of covenant relationship."
Perhaps you can qualify this by defining exactly which "god" this is....you know there are many. Also this appears to be an assumptive statement. Is this one of those "WT goes beyond what is written" by rationalizing their own definition of disjointed tidbits?
Nathan, can't you present info on the subject matter without making this personal and calling me names?
What can I say? Your illogic and irrationality bring out the best in me. You spout foolish, weak and silly arguments and you want to be treated with kid gloves and respect. Je refuse!
Perhaps you can qualify this by defining exactly which "god" this is....you know there are many. Also this appears to be an assumptive statement. Is this one of those "WT goes beyond what is written" by rationalizing their own definition of disjointed tidbits?
See, here you go again. You're asking ME to qualify a statement written by the WTB&TS. I can't do that, because I'M NOT THE AUTHOR.
Perhaps you can qualify this by defining exactly which "god" this is....you know there are many. Also this appears to be an assumptive statement. Is this one of those "WT goes beyond what is written" by rationalizing their own definition of disjointed tidbits?
See, here you go again. You're asking ME to qualify a statement written by the WTB&TS. I can't do that, because I'M NOT THE AUTHOR.
That is not a statement exclusively written by the WT. I think every copy and version of the Bible refers to many gods. Even the Israelites acknowledged and accepted the fact that there were other gods. And out of all those gods they chose to align themselves with one. They were not truly monotheistic. They were henotheistic.
For some reason they chose "the god of Armies" as he is so-called all throughout the OT. And perhaps that is why his worshippers have sustained themselves by warfare and acquired the spoils of their enemies all through the ages. Islam, Judea, and Christianity are all formed around this "god of Armies".
It has even been said that Jehovah's Witnesses are henotheistic because they worship Jehovah while still believing that Jesus, Satan, and the angels are "lesser gods".
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term
consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, 4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament.
It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century
before Christ, and by the early church fathers.Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without
Scriptural foundation. 5
*
The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34) He made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men.
An interesting read of textural controversy at this website: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
