Search results

Greetings again Lon, Yes, and perhaps more wide-ranging. I appreciate your post, but cannot agree with the way you view most of the Scriptures that you allude to or quote. I do not agree with Arianism, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is unique, the full revelation...

Greetings again Lon, I suggest that you have avoided my understanding of the “Lord” portion of John 20:28 based upon Psalm 110:1. If you look at my thread on “The Yahweh Name” I encountered Apple7. On a few other threads I had a thorough discussion on Psalm 110:1 and he went to extraordinary...

Greetings again Lon, To me those that argue the Trinity dwell on some of the ambiguous Scriptures and ignore most of the relevant Scriptures where the subjects of the One God, God the Father and Jesus, the Son of God are simply and clearly taught. My understanding of the One God, the Father in...

Greetings again Lon, Fair enough. I cannot accept the Trinity and I have been in the present environment for many years. I was brought up from a child to believe that there is One God, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Trinity was always that strange doctrine...

Greetings Lon, Not much substance in your post. I am prepared to discuss individual Scriptures, but not concerned about your complaints. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Bradley D and Right Divider, Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. The title “the Son of Man” first appears in Psalm 8, and this is stating that Jesus is a son of Adam: Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest...

Greetings again JudgeRightly, I am interested every now and then to drop in and look at this long running thread. I usually find much the same material, and sometimes a few different participants. I was interested in looking at some of your interaction with NWL, as I do have some common ground...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate your fairly thorough answer and the fact that you have read through my assessment of the JW Booklet. Yes, I read your reference to the JW explanation of why they use “Jehovah” and although it covers most of the ground, it does not spell out the fact of how the...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate your comments and accept that there is some acknowledgement concerning Jehovah, but possibly not obvious to all of how the error occurred. The current JW booklets continue to emphasise that God’s Name is Jehovah and that the JWs are to be commended for using...

Greetings again NWL, Despite what I said in the previous Post, on reflection, I question to what extent and how many JWs agree with your position that “Jehovah” is not the correct rendition. I decided to add a few quotes from a fairly committed JW advocate of the rendition “Jehovah” and the...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate and accept this, but the JW literature that I have read continues to state that God’s Name is “Jehovah”. The earlier booklet “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” has a similar statement page 13 “the Bible also teaches that God has a personal name: Jehovah”. It...

Greetings NWL, I appreciate that you state this as you are only the second JW that seemed to admit this, and the first was when I was 16 and I am a bit older now. You would most probably be aware of a range of JW literature that supports the “Jehovah” rendition, or at least I have encountered a...

Greetings again Trump Gurl, I appreciate the reminder. I would like to give a brief response to each of your items to state where I stand in regard to each. I do not accept that Jesus is God, nor the JW position that Jesus pre-existed, either as Michael the Archangel or similar. I believe that...

Greetings again Lon, Yes, the Gospel Record of John is definitely centred in Jesus and as you quote, this is summarised in the following: John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are...

Greetings again Lon, I believe that The Word in John 1:1 is a personification, similar to Wisdom in Proverbs 8. To insert “Jesus” into John 1:1 is not a translation, but an interpretation, and why I objected is because it negates my understanding of this verse. The JWs believe that The Word in...

Greetings again Lon, I was reacting to some of your comments such as: I consider most of this was more bluff, than reality. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Lon (Lonster) and Right Divider, I agree we have covered our differences, but I have not seen much evidence of your superior scholarship, but you have been verbose and other features. I also mentioned your name (Lonster - have you had a shave? Or a change of heart?) in the JW...

Greetings again Trump Gurl, Yes, he has some interesting insights into the various translations and recommends the RSV. There are a number of books that deal with the subject of the different translations and they give various recommendations. I like the following towards the end of his...

Greetings Trump Gurl, I have heard, but not studied, that the RSV in the Psalms, and possibly elsewhere, have sometimes given a translation based on altering the Hebrew, without even mentioning this in the margin. I was reading a commentary, and he gave a good explanation of a partly difficult...

Greetings again Lonster, What you are saying then, is that your supposed “translation” is really your commentary and that you have added your own understanding of John 1:1 to the Word of God. My understanding of "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification, and yes this is also different to the...