i have a question

by brandon_the many 90 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephMalik

    Kristopher said:

    How do you come about entering "Human Race" into the interpretation? That seems as bad as what the WT is doing. Does anyone see a lot of faulty logic in these posts?


    Because only the human race created by this Word, that would now become our Savior is being discussed in this introduction by John. Do you see animals or plants in it anywhere? Does the word “all” mean animals and plants to you? If so why?

    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    The life of animals and plants are not under discussion. Such all things pertained to men, all men in fact Hebrew or not, black, white or some other race be they in Israel or some other part of the world.

    9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

    Once again no animals or plants are under discussion by John. The identity of who was assigned to make such animals and plants is not given in scripture. When or how such Word came into existence is not discussed in scripture. But as for man and the one responsible for us we know that it was the Word. Such Word as God to the human race accepted His responsibility and assignment and came here for a purpose which was:

    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Now you know why this Word is called the “only begotten of the Father.” This Word now flesh is the only human so conceived by the Father. John already discussed how all things human at such a beginning were created by the Word personally by express authority of the God such Word was with but now this one exception. And depending upon the translation we use we learn from John.

    18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

    18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NAS)

    Makes perfect sense how this Son, this God of the human race, this viceregent that John knows is already sacrificed and now gone back to the Father has explained the Father to us. But notice also:

    29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’

    A man with a higher rank than John who himself was appointed by an angel to go about baptizing. This is how I came about to add human race to the interpretation. I did it because that is what John was talking about and explaining to us. Context is visible only if you want to see it and are not blinded by doctrine that conceals it from us. Joseph

  • Crudell

    Whats the point, so immature I was just showing how foolish it all sounds to doubt God word the bible.

    See you may think it's a joke but not really, it's these very teaching which pollutes peoples mind to beleive there own philosophy an not trusting Jehovah's words and the very thing,which cost our ancertors.

    Making them feel the very warth of him. True, but sad.

  • Narkissos

    Hi Judc,

    Mono-anthropist ants converted to poly-anthropism?

    Sorry that was just a joke on my part. What I meant is that (imo) your illustration points to a polytheist understanding of the text. The ants thought there was just one Human (mono-anthropist < monotheist) and now they understand there are several humans (poly-anthropism < polytheism). So "Human" in their ant-lexicon cannot be a name anymore, it becomes a generic noun, potentially applying to as many humans may henceforth show up. And the one formerly known as "the Human" is not anymore "human" than the others.

    I think one of the major problems in reading the Gospel of John is that we cannot help reading into it the basic assumptions or "orthodox" monotheism, especially the separation between "God" and "non-God" (or "creator" and "creature"). The early Gnostic core of GJohn implies a completely different view. That of an original and ultimate, transpersonal divine oneness which includes the Father, the Son and the believers/elect. So whatever the "Son" is, he is to reveal "us" what "we" are, too. From this perspective, both apparently monotheistic and polytheistic expressions (e.g. 10:33ff) make sense.

    Gnostic ants could indifferently say: "The Human" or "a human" became ant-like so that we might know we are human too.

  • EAGLE-1

    To save time and research and long drawn out bible studies start with genesisssssss---Only 2 people are on the planet and jehover cant find them.They are hiding.Kinda kills it for me.The rest of the book sort of goes downhill from there.Try something from Clancy.

  • maxwell66

    in regards to daystar about changing their doctrine to not support the trinty doctrine. the trintey doctrine was only established about 300-400Ad (correct me if im wrong) after emperor constanine established it as the religion for the roman empire. and correct me if im wrong, the jews both before and after christ held the belief in only ONE god. god jesus and the holy spirit ( which i might add has never said a word) are the same being that would mean that the old testament was i lie and the bible states that god cannot lie. lets not forget the voice that came down from heaven and said "this is my son" and the fact that jesus constantly prayed to god ( bit pointless if he prayed to hinself aye), another question, who resurected him when he died, why would saten even bother trying to tempt him if he was the eternal father jehovah god. another question to ask is why modern bibles now leave gods name out. perhaps its because religious leaders dont want the name used in vain, then why would it appear in the hebrew texts alone over 6500 times??? another question, where does it say that there needs to be a pope? christ is the head, why does there need to be a human head, isralites had the same problem. jehovah was there king, but they wanted someone they could see. religions today are promoting wars, (pope has his two cents worth) when jesus said "for all thosewhotake the sord will perish by the sword" 26,53Matt. The reason Jw's are politically nutural is because jesus said he was no part of this world as should you be (john 17:16) so what do catholc's do, they make there own country (way to get around it) unfortunately most of christanitys doctrins have been developed partly by the popes religion (catholics?) so what the jehovahs witnesses are doing is good, they are rethinking common belies, as the roman empire was more of you have to believe this which is not what the bible says. this is one of the fundemental reasons why god is taking so long to act, when adam sined, humans integratery came into question, whether someone would stay loyal to god because they loved him or because they loved the benefits, as was later demonstrated in job, thats one reason the jw explain for the long absence of god enforcement, timen need to pass so as many people as possible can surrive the end of times. all these people are dissing the Jw's, how many other religions soel purpose is to devote their time to warn people ( also mormans) like someone warning people of a coming storm, they dont use the old peer pressure tatic of passing around the collection hat ( cant look stingy to the person sitting next to you), you can give a donation but the majority is funded by the jw's themselves and even then the times i have been they have never asked, its usually on a side wall, you dont have to give a portion of your salary, you dont have to give any at all, the information is there for the benifet of all, remember the true religion at the ended of times 'will be despised on the account of my name', will be prosecuted against, which is still happening to Jws in countrys where mandatory millatory service is required, they were prevented from there precheing during ww2 ( or wwi one of them) which was predicted in daniel dont havea bible with me but can post later. anyway wat bad are they doing, why dont people like them, is it because they come nocking on door with good intentions, or that they wont protest, fight in wars, salute a flag ( which is a form of idolatory, pride nationalism that there country is best and that god favours them more), gambel, drink, generally dos stuff that causes unrest, how many times do you see them on the news?

  • maxwell66

    in regards to lady liberty the hebrew scriptures are very old 3000-3500( i think) and the new testament being just under 2000 years old. they have compared the bible of our day with the dead sea scrolls ( parchment thay found in a cave) and the majority is vertially unchanged, thought there was a fer gramatical errors which after such a long amount of time is extremely good considering. this was in a jw magazine. though in the end it comes down to which religion is telling the truth, the bible says you will recognise it by its fruits, at the moment im slightly in favor of jw's but unlike some ignorant people, who will believe one side and not hear anything of the other, and will not listen to facts ( eg those who still believe the earth is flat, what a bunch of dicks) i dont intend on making my mindup until i am 100% sure, what i am sure of is that there can only be one.

  • Narkissos

    Welcome maxwell66,

    You asked to be corrected if you were wrong, I was thinking of "correcting" a few things (imo) but they are just too many and most of them would lead us far off the topic of this thread.

    For the moment being I'll just say, beware of relying on only one source of information (i.e. JW literature). You'll end up with a false picture of the Bible, of its interpretation, of history, of church doctrine, etc., which in turn can lead you to harmful choices.

    You can learn a lot from reading here. I really hope you do.

  • plmkrzy
    In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

    Over the years I’ve had this explained a few different ways. The last explanation of this scripture and a reason for using thecapitol was explained as:

    In [the] beginning the Word was , (as in the first creation that being Jesus)

    and the Word was with God,(Jesus was with God from the beginning)

    and the Word was a god. as in Jesus is “a” god but not “THE God” The big guy the only one that rates a capitol G.

    I’ve heard this one as well:

    In clause 3, however, evidently because of the absence of the definite article, [THE] they argue that the word "God" undergoes a shift in meaning, making it mean "A mighty one" So, in effect, the WTS says that Jo is saying: "The Word was with God, and the Word was a mighty one"

  • brandon_the many
    brandon_the many

    Hey guys,

    Thank you for your generous welcome into the forum. After reading over most of the replies. I was better able to research this. This topic came up last week at Church. It had me just wanting to find out why the passage John 1:1 has been changed or altered. With myself the NWT really does bother me in any way. With no intention on starting a pea pea contest , I am better able to look into why this is. I am very mindful of all of your responses. I hope to pick your brains some more. I do not have Internet at the house , nor do i really want it. So i do my surfing from work. you folks take care.....and will be defiantly posting and replying..... "to the world you may be one person , but to one person you maybe the world." **please disregard any misspelling...i am mostly jacked up on coffee and multi -tasking is task within its self..... lol **
  • Thomas Poole
    Thomas Poole

    Depending on the Bible. John 1:1 sometimes reads: God, a God, like God, or divine. (They would all be correct if you have studied the scriptures.)

    Wanna cut through? Study each person and then in their relationship with each other. It becomes obvious how they work together, and let the Bible talk for itself. It aint that difficult. You can always ask if the Trinity Doctrine is from man or God. Reason that God and Jesus are never in the same place. Don't make the Bible match the Trinity; this is ignorant. Learn the Bible and then measure the Bible against the Trinity.

    Unless you dig it out. You will always be playing the game with the subject

Share this