They make Him an 'it', an active force (insult). The same arguments they use in an article to prove that Satan is a person, not a force, can be used to show that the Spirit is personal, not impersonal.
toldailytopic: Jehovah's Witnesses. What do they have wrong? What do they have right?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
They make Him an 'it', an active force (insult). The same arguments they use in an article to prove that Satan is a person, not a force, can be used to show that the Spirit is personal, not impersonal.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who determines what is sound and what is shoddy?
Not the JW Governing Body, RC Pope, LDS Prophets, etc.
It can be objectively shown that Watchtower scholarship is shoddy. They misquote trinitarians to try to disprove the trinity (?!), add or subtract words from the Bible, use specious, obscure sources to try to prove their point, while ignoring a wealth of defensible, credible scholarship. They make glaring mistakes even inventing non-existent Greek tenses to try to support their view (e.g. Jn. 8:58).
They flip flop, change like the wind, make false prophecies, have used pyramid measurements to set end time dates (?!), quote spirit mediums to support doctrine (J. Greber).
How do you know that the Trinity, Deity/virgin birth/incarnation/resurrection, etc. of Christ is true? We can know these things are true without being KJV-only. JWs and Mormons quote the KJV, yet are heterodox on salvific points.
We can show that Jn. 1:1 is God, not 'a god' based on grammar, context, theology, etc. JWs are right that the correct interpretation of this verse means our salvation (1950 booklet they publish), but they are wrong about their translation and denial of His Deity. Good research establishes this, while their arguments for their view can be dismantled. Truth can be proven and error can be refuted. The authority is in the Word of God, but it must be properly translated and interpreted.
the one with the keys
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who determines what is the proper translation and interpretation?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Keys to what?
Well?
Well?
A linguist specializing in ancient languages for proper translation?
As for interpretation, is it every man for himself?
bybee
Well?
A linguist specializing in ancient languages for proper translation?
As for interpretation, is it every man for himself?
bybee
You and me, the priesthood of believers. We are responsible for how we handle the Word of God. AMR and others can make some case for the Church throughout history being superintended by the Spirit on the essentials (we obviously have many peripheral disagreements due to human fallibility, noetic effects of sin, etc.). You study to show yourself approved, a workman, a Berean, rightly dividing the Word, etc.
godrulz is a JW? Now it makes sense.
I saw the title and read the first response and imediatley thought of the autopilot.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What is the word of truth?
But the Bible explicitly says "plainess of speech". godrulz is a liar. He is also very subtil, because that is how satan operates. He doesn't come up front and attack.
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made
The Bible doesn't need interpretation. Sure, there is a figure of speech or hyperbole, but it is clearly meant to be that way when it is.
I went to their big summer convention to share the gospel. It was sad to see the deceived people so zealous. They also fostered love and unity/uniformity among each other, unlike you, accuser of the brethren.
I am a student, not a scholar, but thx for the compliment. I will be happy to help you translate and interpret the Word better than you usually do.
Jesus is the Living Word of Truth, while the written Word is the Word of Truth. KJV is not the only expression of the Word and actually has inferior MSS and scholarship. Erasmus, Vulgate, TR, etc. is not the end all be all.
I believe in the perspicuity/clarity of Scripture. Despite this, equally capable, godly believers come up with a myriad of doctrines and disagreements reading the same clear Word. The noetic effects of sin, preconceived bias, exegetical fallacies, reliance on imperfect translations vs original language studies, proof texting out of context, ignorance of historical background, etc. can be a problem. Even Peter had trouble understanding some things Paul wrote. We are to be Bereans. Squecky quotes simple verses more than all of us, yet has the most bizarre errors/beliefs.
Instead of refuting my comments on I Tim. and protos (you did not even get the spelling write), you call me the spawn of Satan. This tells me you are not a capable exegete and prefer to remain in ignorance rather than grow in understanding. The same goes for correcting future tense in Acts, past or present or aorist tenses in Jn, Peter, etc. You called me a liar like my father the devil, but could offer no exegetical refutation (even KJV agreed with I Tim. view I hold).
Truly, we need to take you with a grain of salt. You make similar exegetical mistakes as JWs. I intelligently refute JWs because their souls are at stake. You damn me over peripheral, interpretative issues instead of defending essential truths like the Deity of Christ like I do.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What is the word of truth, according to Paul, specifically?
2 TIM. 2:15 Since the KJV was not extant yet, it might refer to the OT. By way of application in principle, it would also apply to the rest of NT Scripture as it was written and later canonized. It would refer to all inspired writing/revelation from God in the original autographs and essentially any accurate version based on them.
Why play 20 questions game playing? If you have a point, make it.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How can you rightly divide the word of truth, if you don't know what the specific word of truth Paul refers to is?
For Timothy, this includes OT Scripture and what he had heard orally from Paul. It does NOT refer to KJV specifically. The verse does not tell us if he is referring to Genesis, the whole OT, his inspired letters/oral sayings, etc. Our completed canon came later in church history.
I am not sure what you are getting at, so tell us what you think the specific word of truth is? Please and thx. Then I will be able to agree or disagree. 2 Tim. 3:16 also refers primarily to the OT (and Paul's own testimony that would eventually become Scripture), but the rest of the NT eventually in principle. An argument can be made for the original autographs, not for the infallibility of any subsequent version. In light of the wealth of MSS evidence, it is safe to call credible translations the Word of God (just as Jesus did with the imperfect LXX that differed from original Hebrew MSS, etc.).
The better question is how can you rightly divide the Word of truth by relying on one imperfect version, ignoring original language studies, breaking sound exegetical/hermeneutical principles (including proof texting, ignoring inspired grammatical tenses, etc.)?!
- Status