Lon, you need to loosen up a little.
In a conversation about Biblical accuracy? Not really going to happen. Perhaps you are in the wrong thread?
You said nothing in regards to how what I said was not irrefutable.
Not true. I don't care if 'you don't like it.' You don't get to make up your own facts. We were discussing whether what you said was 'irrefutable' and such has gone too far. It simply isn't irrefutable.
To be a follower of Christ, or better put, his disciple, means you are a Christian;
No, it doesn't. That is what isn't 'irrefutable.' "Christian" meant anointed by Him. "Many will say to me on that day, Lord Lord, yet I will tell them, 'depart I never knew you.'" Would you call one of these 'Christian?' Does it make sense to call one a Christian whom the Lord says to "I never knew you?"
Perhaps in your ideology such is completely presentable, but such is not irrefutable. I believe there are fairly decent cases against the assertion.
you've previously said this was not irrefutable, but, from what I can see, you've nowhere explained how what I've said is not irrefutable, are you not going to explain?
Oddly, YOU are the one that said irrefutable. Do you follow conversations well? Perhaps you are the one to blame for a lot of the confusions you blame others for?
:chuckle: You are a riot of understatement and overstatement.
Let's look at what you call 'fluff:'
Lon said:
The need is rather to observe what is given in scripture...to go no further... Our goals in theological discussion is to reveal what the scripture says, and means (that we may consider) if 'what it means' to another is supported by the text and contextual meaning.
I've made it an effort to have a theological discussion with you, you then claim I'm using deductive reasoning.
I then ask you questions pertaining to what scripture literally means in line with your reasoning with other scripture, take the meaning of "all things" when comparing John 1:3 with Hebrews 2:8 for example, you then refuse to answer the question claiming its not worth your time answering.
Or that it is out of context, or that it isn't relevant to the conversation, or that it is getting lost and away from the discussion at hand...etc. etc. etc.
As I've said from almost the beginning of our conversations you cherry-pick the topics and scriptures you believe you can deal with
Nope. You made that up. You did. You do it with scripture too because you just aren't that good at this. You should stop speaking and start listening at that point.
and ignore the harder ones.
What you 'think' is hard for another and for whatever reason is all in your head. These odd little delusions are in every poor scholars head and certainly in every Unitarian's thoughts and presentations. They are immature and incorrect. It means you are wrong, even if that's hard for you to entertain as true, it is true nevertheless.
Please stop pretending I'm the one being unreasonable
This work in the Witness Hall does it?
Not working here. It is all you, making up stuff. Do you just want to do my part in this conversation and get it over with? Go ahead. I'll sit back and watch you answer for both of us....
and not reading and reasoning from context,
Ironic...
your the one refusing to engage with me, not the other way around.
"You're." : Plain: Talking and responding is engaging. A childish demand of some expectation doesn't mean it is 'suddenly the other guy's problem.' It is still just yours. You are posturing. Absurdly. And it shows.
You aren't?
At least as you think what a fact consists of anyway, no doubt.
and pointing out the irony.
You certainly present a lot of irony in threads. Very true.
As I've said, you have answered some question, but when you do they usually don't properly answer the question
Er, try again. Ask 1 specific question. You simply aren't a good questioner, NWL.
or are the answers to the less relevant question, you conveniently choose to ignore the hard questions.
Probably ask, don't tell...
Let's not pretend the you 'may' have answered the questions and it's who is out of line and maybe missed where you have answered them. In fact, I've made it extremely clear I only want you to answer a single question, you refuse to do so with no sufficient excuse.
Doesn't matter. I get to make up my own mind whether to comply or not. As with above, ask the one question. I might give it a go.
If someone only answers easy questions and always chooses to ignore the hard questions it natural to assume they're not answering the hard questions due to their inability and not due to choice, this is common sense.
In your head anyway. As I said, there are all kinds of ways to ask for someone to answer a question besides trying to inaccurately climb into their head or making odd assumptions that are ACTUALLY IN YOUR HEAD. You get that? Answering for me is 'from YOUR head.' There is no 'me' in that. You can carry on your own conversations, I don't need to be here for that.
As I have mentioned to you on in the not too distant past, my assessments of you not being able to answer my questions or refute my points are just that, my personal assessments. It is not necessary for me to modify my written thoughts by expressing they are opinions all the time. As I've asked you to do before, please take any comments I make that you, or even others, cannot refute my points, as my personal deduction.
You're a bit of eccentric. "Your thoughts" ARE your "Personal deduction." You don't need me or anybody else for personal conversations in your own head BUT an interruption like this one might help you get out of that mess.
You do have a right what to respond to, and actions also have consequence.
Yep. Like you carrying on your and my conversation, oddly without me....
You fail to answer my vital questions, if they were answered honestly then my points could be fully established; I highlight these points and you still choose to ignore them claiming they are not worth your time, no person in their right mind would accept such an excuse.
You are still crying. I've given you other avenues besides crying. Again, there IS a limitation rule on TOL for the length of these (thanks for trimming???).
If you truly believe the average joe could pick up the bible and come to the conclusion of the trinity then you're also wrong.
Its an opinion any way, isn't it? You can have an opinion. It is quite another thing to convince one your's in particular is right other than a personal opinion. You are given to overstatements and exaggerations (as are most if not all Unitarians from my short stay on this planet).
No person who has no prior knowledge of the scriptures
Short interruption: It doesn't mean what you think it does. You've given a double-negative.
would likewise come to the truth of the scriptures by themselves.
Well good. You just have the wrong teachers. Time to have the right ones
Rather, for someone to believe in the trinity ( even if it is the truth) they need to be taught, this is either by verbal teachings or written words regarding established scriptural theology.
Sure. I agree with you. Romans 10:14-15
Also, you should note the article is from 1910, JW's understanding of the scripture and principles are not static, they change overtime.
That is problematic. See more
here.
No only does it demonstrate that we, as a people are willing to accept and change what we understand about the bible, but it also means we don't necessarily agree with things that were said in the distant past.
That's good. Perhaps one day you'll no longer be Unitarian either (it does damage to the Word of God).
It's not a translation you 'accept.'
No, a definition of 'translation' is taking another language and having it make sense in another language. The NWT is from English to English. That isn't the definition of translation.
As I have said, I do not agree with all things about the NWT, although most of these issue may be in the minority, but it is very much a translation and numerous authorities have claimed so;
Like the Russel, who couldn't read Greek at all?
That isn't a translation. English to English isn't a translation. At best? A paraphrase.
Please go and research concerning it, he even wrote a response confirming his comments.
The statement was accurate.
Jason BeDuhn: "Thank you for your message. It is always a good idea to check out your sources and confirm their accuracy. In this case, I was quoted accurately by the Watchtower. I stated in my letter the virtues of the KIT, and the combination of factors that makes it such a useful volume. Since that quote appeared, I have received many messages such as your own, which cite authorities against the NWT and point to specific passages where it is felt that the NWT has not translated accurately. I always check every such reference, because it is certainly possible that I might have overlooked something. I have recently completed a book prompted by all of this correspondence, called "Bible Wars: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament," which I hope will be published later this year. Through all of this work, I have found that the NWT is one of the most accurate translations currently available. Of course, it has its weaknesses, as every translation does. But on comparison, it does quite well."
Its odd, given 1) it isn't a translation and 2) that men like Dr. Metzger called it atrocious, while Jason, whatever his last name is (you've posted two different spellings so far), is little known comparatively in the theological world. Does it concern you, that you have to find an odd-duck from the theological school?
Hence the reason why I trimmed down all the question you failed to properly address to a single one, which you still refused to answer.
Honestly? I've no idea what the one question is. I'm sure you think it was pronounced and highly noticeable, but honestly, it just hasn't come to my attention in conversation. What is it (third time in this post asking)?
No, all I asked you to do is explain why your understand of John 1:1 could be the only correct one according to the context and grammar, you refused to do so.
This is THE question? The reason it is the only acceptable is simply
this: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. It is normally easy to recognize when one goes beyond the text, such as my addition of "Jesus." He is given in verses 17 and 39 but I did have to skip ahead to 'translate.' I had to add two verses that were separated thus mine isn't a translation, but the NWT isn't word for word in translation. It adds a LOT of extra, English, man inspired, ideas to the Greek. If one is capable, the word for word is simply clear with NO extra words at all added. Such is actually a 'superior' translation.
Again, NWL is a slimmed down version of my surname.
Appreciate the input and correction.
It's not an assumption, its a presumption, there's a difference. If a child leave out 5 out of 10 questions of a math test it's typically because they don't know the answer, not because they don't 'want' to answer the question.
Better to 'ASK' why they did that, don't you think?
I truly believe you've tricked yourself into thinking the question is not worth answering to excuse your inability to do so,
I KNOW you believe that. It is where you can carry on this conversation by yourself, like you already believe and are doing. For me? A bit esoteric when another, you, are telling me what
I believe. Is this how you think regarding your own thoughts? Do you know your own mind? I'm very self-analytical so it is odd that another isn't, if that is what you are conveying. Whatever the course, I know my own mind rather well and don't attempt to lie about it.
again, this is my personal opinion, this should go without saying.
True. It was odd. Maybe, just maybe, it should have gone without saying. There may be something you are attempting in conversation, but the clarity isn't there. I'm not sure it is there for you either.
