New World Translation.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But the really big point here is none of the Bible supports the trinity on any level.

I disagree, in that I think that the Biblical texts clearly can be supportive of some version of a triune god. (Note how carefully I have phrased that.) I also disagree with those trinitarians who claim that the Biblical texts clearly point ...[text shortened]... t) can express/manifest itself in multiple forms (three essential ones in trinitarian theology).[/b]

Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are some mysterious 3 in 1 God or their not.
God, Jehovah, had plenty of opportunities to explain to humans who he is so we can even slightly understand such a powerful and all wise spiritual being.
And yes he did give us hints and all the Bible says in the old testiment is he is ( 1 ) God. Absolutley no hint of him being a multi personality or multi being.
He never once said he was part of a triune God and in fact condemned the pagan nations on earth because of their man made beliefs which in fact included their made up God's that were in fact 3 in 1 beings of some kind.
He never told anyone including anyone within his own people that "oh, by the way, you know those Babylonians that I hate? They do have one thing right and that is I am a three in one God just like they worship."
So no, not even a vague hint that he was indeed a triune God.
And again none of the Jews even down to this day believe in the trinity and neither did the early Christians.

So no matter how any of us play with words, nouns, insertions or whatever we can discuss till the cows come home, nothing in the Bible supports even slightly the trinity unless you look at the few scriptures the bible writers tweeked because of their bias. They knew they had to do this to make this trinity thing stick.
Then when you have so many religious leaders answer when asked about the trintiy and what it is exactly, the answer most favorably used is "it's a mystery and humans can't understand it."
Hog wash!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are some mysterious 3 in 1 God or their not.
God, Jehovah, had plenty of opportunities to explain to humans who he is so we can even slightly understand such a powerful and all wise spiritual being.
And yes he did give us hints and all the Bible says in the old testiment is he is ( 1 ) God. Absolutley no most favorably used is "it's a mystery and humans can't understand it."
Hog wash!!!!!

You are talking just like the Muslims, who say the Jews and Christians changed those portions of the Holy Bible that they don't agree with. It is all the same Satan at work. One calls him Allah and the other calls him Jehovah. They are both antichrists and false prophets.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are talking just like the Muslims, who say the Jews and Christians changed those portions of the Holy Bible that they don't agree with. It is all the same Satan at work. One calls him Allah and the other calls him Jehovah. They are both antichrists and false prophets.

The instructor

You are the one who has no idea who Jehovah and Jesus are just as satan wishes. Time will tell....

Originally posted by galveston75
You are the one who has no idea who Jehovah and Jesus are just as satan wishes. Time will tell....

Time Will Tell...

YouTube

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, I get that, I do.

I was using the play of words to get my point across. My usage of the "Word" in my post meant the Bible ('God's Word' ). I also used the "Word" to play off the words of John 1:1-3, which is a point of contention between JWs and other Christians.

I understand your preferring the use of dogma in the perjorative sense, but my use of dogma was as the entirety of a church's beliefs.

This is the kind of completely dumbed down argument that contributes to prejudice. The sahidic coptic text dated to be among the earliest of texts has the indefinite article it being written in coptic and guess what it completely agrees with the New World Translation. May I suggest that if you cannot provide reasons and let's be clear you have not done so, you refrain from making any kind of comparisons until you can and do.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are some mysterious 3 in 1 God or their not.
God, Jehovah, had plenty of opportunities to explain to humans who he is so we can even slightly understand such a powerful and all wise spiritual being.
And yes he did give us hints and all the Bible says in the old testiment is he is ( 1 ) God. Absolutley no ...[text shortened]... most favorably used is "it's a mystery and humans can't understand it."
Hog wash!!!!!

I think you err in assuming or accepting that the texts in the original languages are as clear as they seem to be in translation--any of the translations. They just aren't. And that is a truth that stands behind anyone's search for truth in the Biblical corpus.

And it is perhaps, at least in part, the insistence that they ought to be that destroyed the "pluralistic orthodoxy" that church historian Jaroslav Pelikan described a characterizing early Christianity--which pluralism included varying understandings of the nature of the godhead.

(Now don't turn that into a strawman, and claim that I am saying that nothing can be understood from them.)

Originally posted by galveston75
So no matter how any of us play with words, nouns, insertions or whatever we can discuss till the cows come home, nothing in the Bible supports even slightly the trinity unless you look at the few scriptures the bible writers tweeked because of their bias. They knew they had to do this to make this trinity thing stick.

For a JW to claim this is really, really astounding (or maybe not so unbelievable, really), because the truth is the reverse of this. It is the JWs who created their own Bible to deny the already-longstanding, mainstream Christian concept of the Trinity.

Again, a matter of their Word coming from their Dogma, instead of the traditional Christian method of drawing their dogma from the word of God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is the kind of completely dumbed down argument that contributes to prejudice. The sahidic coptic text dated to be among the earliest of texts has the indefinite article it being written in coptic and guess what it completely agrees with the New World Translation. May I suggest that if you cannot provide reasons and let's be clear you have not done so, you refrain from making any kind of comparisons until you can and do.

Robbie,

Here is somebody’s master’s Thesis on the anarthrous predicate nominative that I came across in researching the use of the predicate nominative as marking identity with the subject. I haven’t read it yet, so don’t know what his take is, or which side of the debate he might come down on. The cite given below seems to be evangelical, but I don’t know their theology.

Just for your interest. Not holding you to reading it (it will likely take me awhile).

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/dixon.pdf

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is the kind of completely dumbed down argument that contributes to prejudice. The sahidic coptic text dated to be among the earliest of texts has the indefinite article it being written in coptic and guess what it completely agrees with the New World Translation. May I suggest that if you cannot provide reasons and let's be clear you have not done so, you refrain from making any kind of comparisons until you can and do.

I believe it was me who brought the phrase 'dumbed-down' into this conversation. I'm glad you were so impressed that you've decided to use it.

Nevertheless, it is the JW translators who are guilty of concentrating on minutiae and losing the overall point, all in the name of proving their bizarre, contrary dogma correct. Fortunately, the rest of us can see through this maneuver.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are some mysterious 3 in 1 God or their not.
God, Jehovah, had plenty of opportunities to explain to humans who he is so we can even slightly understand such a powerful and all wise spiritual being.
And yes he did give us hints and all the Bible says in the old testiment is he is ( 1 ) God. Absolutley no ...[text shortened]... most favorably used is "it's a mystery and humans can't understand it."
Hog wash!!!!!

Oh, make no mistake, mainstream Christians also believe God is the One True God. This idea goes all the way back to Abraham.

But we also believe in the deity of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, which you deny.

Originally posted by vistesd
Robbie,

Here is somebody’s master’s Thesis on the anarthrous predicate nominative that I came across in researching the use of the predicate nominative as marking identity with the subject. I haven’t read it yet, so don’t know what his take is, or which side of the debate he might come down on. The cite given below seems to be evangelical, but I don’t k ...[text shortened]... ou to reading it (it will likely take me awhile).

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/dixon.pdf

thank you, if i have the time i will certainly try to assimilate the ideas.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I believe it was me who brought the phrase 'dumbed-down' into this conversation. I'm glad you were so impressed that you've decided to use it.

Nevertheless, it is the JW translators who are guilty of concentrating on minutiae and losing the overall point, all in the name of proving their bizarre, contrary dogma correct. Fortunately, the rest of us can see through this maneuver.

I can at least explain why we translate our text as we do, can you explain why your translators acknowledge the Greek grammatical construct in one important clause and yet seem unable to acknowledge it in others, shall I tell you? Religious bias. Were the ancient Coptics also guilty of stating that the word was 'a god'? hmmmm, proffering your opinion is one thing, doing so without the least iota of evidence is prejudice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hmmmm, proffering your opinion is one thing, doing so without the least iota of evidence is prejudice.

So sayeth the Atheists, in their arguments against God. Do you side with them, now?

Why do you 'require' evidence where you can offer false, misleading evidence and yet claim evidence is not necessary when you have none, false or otherwise?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Religious bias. Were the ancient Coptics also guilty of stating that the word was 'a god'?

This is what I mean. When the Coptics make the same mistake as you, you claim it is the true 'will of God', and yet the Egyptian patriarchs also headed the first three Ecumenical Councils, which you claim to be the work of the Devil. Well, which is it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
So sayeth the Atheists, in their arguments against God. Do you side with them, now?

Why do you 'require' evidence where you can offer false, misleading evidence and yet claim evidence is not necessary when you have none, false or otherwise?

sorry try as i might i cannot find a single reason which explains why your translators have translated the verse in the way that they have. Is it a secret?