Not signed in (Sign In)

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below


Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     permalink
    ObiWan:Mathmatically, that is impossible to occur.
     
     
    What is impossible is that Tempe wins the Xmen Wolverine Premiere, I find out about it, after enduring trial after trial trying to get tickets, go with the fragile hope of yelling at a celebrity across the parking lot, with no tickets, and, through a series of minute and highly related events end up red-carpetside and LIEV SCHREIBER KISSES ME WHILE HOLDING MY HAND.  
     
    I mean, I live in goddamn Arizona and Liev Schreiber has been my second favourite actor since Defiance came out in theatres. The likelihood of my second favourite actor, who I'm deeply in love with, kissing me, is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% considering I dont travel to celebrity filled places, and even if I saw one I wouldnt ask for them to talk to me.  
     
    But look, it really happened, so nothing, nothing in this universe is impossible.  
    Not after Liev's beard caressed my cheek. Nothing.Superhero!
  1.  permalink
    ObiWan: Nope. Mormons believe the Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer (Satan). Oneness Pentacostals teach that Jesus is both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (often referred to as modalism). Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is the first of God's creation, and not God incarnate. They teach that Jesus is the Archangel, Michael (not evidenced in the Hebrew or Christian Testaments). The historic Christian faith has taught that there is one God, one in essence, and eternally existing in three Persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (i.e. Triune God).
     
     
    Another assumption about Jehovah's Witnesses and I kinda take offense to that. We are Christian. In fact, I can clearly say that Jehovah's Witnesses, as a whole, have upheld the moral standards of Christianity moreso than any other Christian faith. Jesus said that you will know his followers by their fruits. Religion in general has been at the root of most of the suffering in the world today, but I can tell you that Jehovah's Witnesses have never been involved.  
     
    Yes. We do teach that Jesus is God's son and the firstborn of creation, which is found in Colossians 1:15. And yes, Jesus being the Archangel, Michael, is actually found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It is actually found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, which states, "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice." There is more information on this if you would like.  
     
    And the whole Trinity thing. Yes we do not believe in the Trinity, and the Trinity was never a doctrine of Christianity until the Nicene Creed, 200 years after the death of the apostles. The word Trinity cannot be found in the Bible nor can any single scripture linking God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one can be found.Why is there an S in Lisp?
  2.  permalink
    AyaHu: 2012 came from the Mayan calendars, not the bible. The JWs I spoke to told me the 'events' that led up to it and tried to relate them to what is happening now, saying, it's coming soon, but the events were very vague and have been around since humans existed, like wars, the tsunami from a while back, 9-11, so on. We've always had these disasters, half the time the world just didn't know about it because communication has never been so good.
     
     
    Not as much as you would think. In the past, people really didn't need to lock their doors to go to sleep (ask an oldtimer if you want), there were no wars after wars after wars worldwide, and according to geologists, we have more earthquakes now than we did 100 years ago. Just because communication wasn't as good doesn't mean it was never recorded in older newspapers, radio shows, etc.Why is there an S in Lisp?
    •  
      CommentAuthorObiWan
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     permalink
    Several thoughts:  
    1. "Religion in general has been at the root of most of the suffering in the world today". As a friend of mine blogs, that's a cop-out to find an excuse for evil behavior. As he notes, "what causes us to become unjustly violent is more likely to be political, psychological or economic rather than genuinely religious. Political ideology has become the religion of our age. We can not afford the destructive stupidity of "More people are killed in wars over religion than for any other reason.""  
     
    2. Please be careful on taking verses out of context. As the late Dr. Walter Martin would have said, " text taken out of its context is a pretext for proof text". That is, ignoring the surrounding verses, and related verses is poor Biblical hermeneutics.  
     
    3. Although the word "Trinity" does not appear withing the Old (Hebrew) or New (Christian) Testaments, the concept is put forth in the OT, and clarified in the NT. See John 1:1 and John 20:28 for evidence of Jesus' claim to be God incarnate. I would also caution against citing from the New World Translation as it has been shown to be an inaccurate translation, with numerous additions and deletions, all designed support JW theology. FYI, the same can be said of Joseph Smith's "version" of the King James Bible, as he made a number of edits to try and conform it to Mormon theology.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009 edited
     permalink
    That Guy in Duluth:
    AyaHu: 2012 came from the Mayan calendars, not the bible. The JWs I spoke to told me the 'events' that led up to it and tried to relate them to what is happening now, saying, it's coming soon, but the events were very vague and have been around since humans existed, like wars, the tsunami from a while back, 9-11, so on. We've always had these disasters, half the time the world just didn't know about it because communication has never been so good.
     
     
    Not as much as you would think. In the past, people really didn't need to lock their doors to go to sleep (ask an oldtimer if you want), there were no wars after wars after wars worldwide, and according to geologists, we have more earthquakes now than we did 100 years ago. Just because communication wasn't as good doesn't mean it was never recorded in older newspapers, radio shows, etc.
     
     
    Ok, so you know, Rome conquering the whole of the earth was not at all a war. And pompeii, a very famous natural disaster, that doesnt exist at all, and you know, all those years China fought everyone else, and the egyptians, and iran and the middle east I guess havent been at war for hundreds of years. Yeah... right.  
     
    There has always been widespread war. There has always been natural disaster. There have always been earthquakes. The fact they stronger means very little, considering at one point water ran through the grand canyon. There used to be a volcano in Flagstaff that erupted all the time. Why dont we hear about that? Our people hadnt spread to Flagstaff yet, by the time we got there it was dormant. Communication is better than ever and we populate the crap out of places we never did before. Hence when you cover more area the likelihood of finding gold goes up.  
     
    And I guess the nazis didnt exist, either. Im pretty sure many people slept with their doors locked then.  
    And all the famine and disease that hit our first settlers. The 1600s was one giant gory bloody faminous mess, so was The Plague. We slept with our doors locked then. In the 1890s in tombstone, you always locked your door. Where has ever not locked their doors? Where I live the crime rate is .00001% and I could not leave my door locked, but I'm not stupid enough to. Even in the 1890s a stranger could wander in.Superhero!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     permalink
    I am a pro Jehovas witness, but don't tell me those statements dont cover like.. every era... ever.Superhero!
  3.  permalink
    AyaHu:
    That Guy in Duluth:
    AyaHu: 2012 came from the Mayan calendars, not the bible. The JWs I spoke to told me the 'events' that led up to it and tried to relate them to what is happening now, saying, it's coming soon, but the events were very vague and have been around since humans existed, like wars, the tsunami from a while back, 9-11, so on. We've always had these disasters, half the time the world just didn't know about it because communication has never been so good.
     
     
    Not as much as you would think. In the past, people really didn't need to lock their doors to go to sleep (ask an oldtimer if you want), there were no wars after wars after wars worldwide, and according to geologists, we have more earthquakes now than we did 100 years ago. Just because communication wasn't as good doesn't mean it was never recorded in older newspapers, radio shows, etc.
     
     
    Ok, so you know, Rome conquering the whole of the earth was not at all a war. And pompeii, a very famous natural disaster, that doesnt exist at all, and you know, all those years China fought everyone else, and the egyptians, and iran and the middle east I guess havent been at war for hundreds of years. Yeah... right.  
     
    There has always been widespread war. There has always been natural disaster. There have always been earthquakes. The fact they stronger means very little, considering at one point water ran through the grand canyon. There used to be a volcano in Flagstaff that erupted all the time. Why dont we hear about that? Our people hadnt spread to Flagstaff yet, by the time we got there it was dormant. Communication is better than ever and we populate the crap out of places we never did before. Hence when you cover more area the likelihood of finding gold goes up.  
     
    And I guess the nazis didnt exist, either. Im pretty sure many people slept with their doors locked then.  
    And all the famine and disease that hit our first settlers. The 1600s was one giant gory bloody faminous mess, so was The Plague. We slept with our doors locked then. In the 1890s in tombstone, you always locked your door. Where has ever not locked their doors? Where I live the crime rate is .00001% and I could not leave my door locked, but I'm not stupid enough to. Even in the 1890s a stranger could wander in.
     
     
    Yes, I totally agree. We personally believe that the total decline of civilization began in 1914, when WWI started. Yes there have been natural disasters and wars before that, but not as often as today.Why is there an S in Lisp?
  4.  permalink
    ObiWan: Several thoughts:  
    1. "Religion in general has been at the root of most of the suffering in the world today". As a friend of mine blogs, that's a cop-out to find an excuse for evil behavior. As he notes, "what causes us to become unjustly violent is more likely to be political, psychological or economic rather than genuinely religious. Political ideology has become the religion of our age. We can not afford the destructive stupidity of "More people are killed in wars over religion than for any other reason.""  
     
    2. Please be careful on taking verses out of context. As the late Dr. Walter Martin would have said, " text taken out of its context is a pretext for proof text". That is, ignoring the surrounding verses, and related verses is poor Biblical hermeneutics.  
     
    3. Although the word "Trinity" does not appear withing the Old (Hebrew) or New (Christian) Testaments, the concept is put forth in the OT, and clarified in the NT. See John 1:1 and John 20:28 for evidence of Jesus' claim to be God incarnate. I would also caution against citing from the New World Translation as it has been shown to be an inaccurate translation, with numerous additions and deletions, all designed support JW theology. FYI, the same can be said of Joseph Smith's "version" of the King James Bible, as he made a number of edits to try and conform it to Mormon theology.
     
     
    1. If you go to the United Nations, they actually have a bulletin board of the wars going on in the world. Depending on the color, it determines the source or reason behind the war, and a large majority of it is religious. Now, if you wish to say that politics and economy is involved as well, this is true. I cannot deny that. However, I see PLENTY of churches in my area with the signs to support the war, support the troops, etc. Even many of our political leaders have backing from the churches through support, sermons, and money. Lemme ask you, would Jesus pick up a weapon to kill a Gentile, even though he was a Jew and the Jews hated Gentiles?  
     
    2. I can say the same about the Trinity. The surrounding area of Chapter 4 of Thessalonians primarily speaks of the resurrection of the dead as well as staying away from fornication. Show me in context with accompanying scriptures, and then I will know what you are trying to refer.  
     
    3. John 1:1. The most confusing scripture of all time. Many Bibles use "a god", "a divine being", "God", etc. to translate that scripture into English. Here...  
     
    Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?  
     
    John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.  
     
    What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os′ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)  
     
    What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS.  
     
    Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?  
     
    John 20:28 (RS) reads: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”  
     
    There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as “gods.” (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god.” (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1 (NW, AT).  
     
    The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: “I am ascending . . . to my God and your God.” (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus is himself “the only true God” or that Jesus is a Trinitarian “God the Son,” he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).  
     
    ---  
     
    And the whole NWT, is inaccurate and mistranslated to support JW views, show me evidence of this.Why is there an S in Lisp?
    •  
      CommentAuthorObiWan
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    If you Google "problems with the New World Translation", you'll finde a host of sites that address this. To address just two issues:  
     
    1. John 1:1 - To quote directly from Mantey: John 1:1, which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses.  
     
    Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.  
     
    The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have.  
     
    If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.  
     
    Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or type.  
     
    The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1:18 he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.  
     
    Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19, for instance: "that all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word." (Williams translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth."  
     
    And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ, who we believe, is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity?  
     
     
    2. New World Translation - The New World Translation differs from other translations in some rather startling ways. For example, in over 200 times in our New Testament — what they call the Christian Greek Scriptures — the New World Translation has substituted the word “Jehovah” in place of the word “Lord” which, of course, appears in the Greek text. In several passages in which Jesus is called “God” the text has been mistranslated, notably John 1:1, which is made to say that “the Word was a god.” In Colossians 1:16-17, which says that “all things” were created through Christ, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” making it say that “all other things” were created through Christ. These are just a few examples of their mistranslations.  
     
    FWIW, I'd prefer to avoid "wrangling about words". Please do your own independent research.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=channel_page it explains the origin of life. It is mathematically unavoidable not impossible.  
     
    also you avoided the evolution statement i gave you  
     
    Well the definition of evolution is: change, usually to a more complex form.  
    It can also mean a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations.  
     
    definition of mutation is simply one of these changes.  
     
    would you not agree that a population of bacteria that suddenly gained the ability to eat new substances is a change  
     
    and since that is a change would you not agree the organism got more complex  
     
    and since it became more complex through this change would you not agree that it evolved?  
     
    here is a good example of evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco&feature=channel_page Its simply a math program but shows how it works  
     
    here is another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=channel_page This shows how evolution happens after something is createdLooking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorObiWan
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    I read your statement/definition on evolution and mutuation. Both are quite simplistic. As to your example of bacteria, neither of us are microbiologists, so let's avoid the problem of potentially looking foolish (I don't need help to look stupid - I can do that on my own).  
     
    As to the first video, it essentially promots life from non-life, which as one author I found describes it as a theory of necessity. As all three videos are from the same author, I'd have to question their objectivity.  
     
    The reality is that evolution remains one explanation of origins, as does the creationist view. Neither can be reproduced in the laboratory. Both are based on observable facts, and both require faith to believe in them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    ObiWan: The reality is that evolution remains one explanation of origins, as does the creationist view. Neither can be reproduced in the laboratory. Both are based on observable facts, and both require faith to believe in them.
     
     
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
    •  
      CommentAuthorObiWan
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    What's missing from that is the question - was there some (genetic) recessive characteristic that eventually came out? Additionally, the unanswered question in my mind is - was there some external force that was introduced that caused this? We don't know. The article possibily eludes to it, so it raises more questions than answers. The article also jumps to the conclusion that this is a "poke in the eye" for creationists. Far from it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009 edited
     permalink
    that article is the exact article I was using as a foundation to my argument bacteria able to eat new stuff, that being citrate. The fact that there was something introduced, which caused the mutation around generation 20k, is evolution. If you have nothing change in an environment, then once something becomes top of that environment you will see little if any change for the better. If evolution didn't happen then you could have many different things happen to any of the petri dishes, and none of the bacteria would ever change. The simple fact that it did change means evolution exists. Why it changed is a different matter, and I mean the mechanics of what caused the change not the "ooh new food" reason for change.  
     
    Also that author brings solid facts that say how "life" can be had from "non-life".Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    yes i used punctuation for that one else it would have been horribly confusing without commas and periodsLooking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    I thought something was amiss.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     permalink
    yep the planets aligned and revealed the comma and period buttonsLooking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
  5.  permalink
    ObiWan: If you Google "problems with the New World Translation", you'll finde a host of sites that address this. To address just two issues:  
     
    1. John 1:1 - To quote directly from Mantey: John 1:1, which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses.  
     
    Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.  
     
    The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have.  
     
    If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.  
     
    Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or type.  
     
    The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1:18 he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.  
     
    Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19, for instance: "that all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word." (Williams translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth."  
     
    And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ, who we believe, is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity?  
     
     
    2. New World Translation - The New World Translation differs from other translations in some rather startling ways. For example, in over 200 times in our New Testament — what they call the Christian Greek Scriptures — the New World Translation has substituted the word “Jehovah” in place of the word “Lord” which, of course, appears in the Greek text. In several passages in which Jesus is called “God” the text has been mistranslated, notably John 1:1, which is made to say that “the Word was a god.” In Colossians 1:16-17, which says that “all things” were created through Christ, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” making it say that “all other things” were created through Christ. These are just a few examples of their mistranslations.  
     
    FWIW, I'd prefer to avoid "wrangling about words". Please do your own independent research.
     
     
    1. I am going to tell you right now, I have had this debate before. A large majority of those websites are extremely biased and actually misquote the NWT. I would take them with a grain of salt. Actually the New World Translation was never translated by Jehovah's Witnesses, we just tend to use it because it rightly uses God's name instead of LORD or GOD in all caps. I will get to that point in Number 2. To be honest, we have no idea as to who really did translate the NWT (and just to let you know, that whole court case thing about the guy who didn't know how to translate Greek or Hebrew is a hoax. I used to work at a Law School Library. No such case exists.). In any case, the NWT is not the only one that translates John 1:1 as "a god".  
     
    “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.  
     
    “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.  
     
    “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.  
     
    “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.  
     
    “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.  
     
    “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.  
     
    “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.  
     
    “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.  
     
    “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.  
     
    There is an awesome book called "Truth in Translation" and this website does a general overview of it...  
    http://www.tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm  
     
    In general, about John 1:1, Professor Jason David BeDuhn compares the NWT to eight other translations. The book as a whole, goes into the strengths and weaknesses of these Bibles with sound arguments. John 1:1 is VERY difficult to translate into English overall. Even he says that. I am gonna copy and paste some sections. Great read though.  
     
    Greek has only a definite article, like our the; it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog." For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is "the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."  
     
    Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially ("lexically") translate as "the god"; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an indefinite noun that would normally be translated as "a god." To complete our translation into English, we need to take into consideration the fact that English has both a common noun "god" and a proper noun "God." We use the proper noun "God" like a name, without either a definite or indefinite article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, "God" corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically "the god"), which also is used often as the proper noun "God" in both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the "the" from "god" and say that the Word was "with God" (literally "with the god"). But what about the indefinite theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun "God," but to the indefinite noun "a god."  
     
    In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean "a god."  
     
    . . . Having introduced "God" and "the Word," John would use the definite article to help his readers keep track of the fact that he is still talking about the same God and the same Word. But having mentioned "God" once in 1:1b ("the word was with God"), John does not use the definite article again with theos until 1:2 ("this one was with God"), skipping right over the theos of 1:1c ("the word was a god"). This middle theos, we are left to conclude, is not exactly the same thing as the "God" of 1:1b and 1:2.  
     
    If John had wanted to say "the Word was God," as so many English translation have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article "the" (ho) to the word "god" (theos), making it "the god" and therefore "God." (pp. 114-116)  
     
    ----He then explains how there are many respected Greek Scholars who will defend the translation of "and the Word was God", but he continues on...----  
     
    This brings us back to John 1:1. [John Harner, in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," 1973, pp. 85 and 87] suggests that John was not interested in definiteness or indefiniteness, but in character and quality.
  6. . . . I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded a definite. . . . So if the meaning of "the Word was a god," or "the Word was a divine being" is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as "the Word was divine." The meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by Harner as "ho logos...had the nature of theos" (Harner, page 87). (pp. 123-124)  
     
    ----A little more...----  
     
    Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NWT translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NWT achieves this, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun. (p. 133)  
     
    ----Now, it does go on to say the weaknesses of the NWT with this translation of John 1:1, but it is perfectly legit.----  
     
    Now I do agree that Jesus is in a position of power. Hence he has authority in heaven and earth. No question. However, he will have to give that authority back. That is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.  
     
    2. Now, if you have a KJV, not the New King James Version but the one before, I want you look at the Foreword (The new one removed it). Basically, where GOD and LORD is in all caps, is where the divine name is located (YHWH). Today's modern Bibles have removed his name and replaced it with GOD and LORD. Part of the original reason as to why was actually superstition. The use of God's name should be kept holy, according to ancient Christians and Jews, and removing it from Bible translations down the road was an extreme approach towards that. There are other parts as well, primarily to assist in pushing the Trinity doctrine, otherwise, there would be a lot of confusion.  
     
    And with Colossians 1:16,17...  
    Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
  7. Why is there an S in Lisp?
  •  permalink
    Suzukiman: that article is the exact article I was using as a foundation to my argument bacteria able to eat new stuff, that being citrate. The fact that there was something introduced, which caused the mutation around generation 20k, is evolution. If you have nothing change in an environment, then once something becomes top of that environment you will see little if any change for the better. If evolution didn't happen then you could have many different things happen to any of the petri dishes, and none of the bacteria would ever change. The simple fact that it did change means evolution exists. Why it changed is a different matter, and I mean the mechanics of what caused the change not the "ooh new food" reason for change.  
     
    Also that author brings solid facts that say how "life" can be had from "non-life".
     
     
    So, the new food argument would then work with those who are lactose intolerant? Would then those humans be a differing species or group from others? No. Just a general condition. A part in the DNA that says someone can digest it or not. I would have to agree with ObiWan.  
     
    I am not denying that mutations occur. Just the whole new species with different chromosomes and what not.Why is there an S in Lisp?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009 edited
     permalink
    well what happens when too many things are different then you have a new species when it no longer can produce a living offspring as i say below many things can produce offspring even though they are different. People who are lactose intolerant are the ones that havn't changed yet. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for Southern Europe, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries. Lactase is an enzyme needed to break down lactose as you can see different regions have different reactions to lactose. So in short yes lactose tolerance is an evolution. When humans didnt have the need for lactase after being weaned the body would save resources by not producing lactase but the invention of domestication happened and suddenly you have an abundance of milk products so humans that could now metabolize the sugar after growing up now win.  
     
    speaking of different chromosomes if they were completely different species then why are their all the crossbreeds of big cats, ligre, tigron, léopon, pumapard, tigard, servical, caraval, jaglion, Ocelot-Puma  
     
    heck even odder is a Wholphin now the false killer whale and a dolphin are definitely different species.  
     
    and there are mules, zonies, zetlands, zebrets, and hebras but the pony zebra donkey horse and shetland pony are different species.  
     
    or are all these species just simple mutations? and if they didn't evolve into these different species then why are they similar enough to produce an offspring? The differences above are much greater then squinted asian eyes or black skin or even blond hair. So basing a new species on chromosomes alone is not very good because I would hazard a bet that you could make a monkey human hybrid as well with nothing more than a really drunk person and a horny monkey.  
     
    If they were made as different species then why do all these have the ability to cross breed and it doesnt stop their many more have this ability to.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorObiWan
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009 edited
     permalink
    Three thoughts:  
    1. I've had this debate before too, and it produced little results. The issue is...is Jesus who he claimed to be - God incarnate. If He is (and I believe He is), then I need to worship him as such. If He isn't, then I am most to be pitied (to reference Paul).  
    2. To nake the statement "large majority of those websites are extremely biased", and I'll include books by notable Christian theolgians and Greek scholars is a big stretch. You're coming at this with a biased view towards JW theology. I'm coming at this with a biased view towards traditional Christian teaching  
    3. The amount of information you provided in your response is overwhelming - overwhelming to the point it loses its point, and interest, at least for me.
  •  permalink
    ObiWan: Three thoughts:  
    1. I've had this debate before too, and it produced little results. The issue is...is Jesus who he claimed to be - God incarnate. If He is (and I believe He is), then I need to worship him as such. If He isn't, then I am most to be pitied (to reference Paul).  
    2. To nake the statement "large majority of those websites are extremely biased", and I'll include books by notable Christian theolgians and Greek scholars is a big stretch. You're coming at this with a biased view towards JW theology. I'm coming at this with a biased view towards traditional Christian teaching  
    3. The amount of information you provided in your response is overwhelming - overwhelming to the point it loses its point, and interest, at least for me.
     
     
    1. Agreed. To be honest, I hate Trinity discussions. It goes nowhere.  
    2. Well I am kinda defending my faith. Even though I am biased towards JW theology, it is still the other side of the coin. Same with you. No biggie.  
    3. I understand. My bad. However, I would still recommend that book. Very interesting read. Goes into a full host of scriptures.Why is there an S in Lisp?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     permalink
    Suzukiman: yep the planets aligned and revealed the comma and period buttons
     
     
    Does that include Pluto?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     permalink
    The period of the planets?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     permalink
    that was a horrid joke but both duluth and obi avoided my last post completely gah how can one have a one sided debate it would be like playing chess without an opponent you would always know exactly what you were thinking of doing next turn.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
  •  permalink
    Suzukiman: well what happens when too many things are different then you have a new species when it no longer can produce a living offspring as i say below many things can produce offspring even though they are different. People who are lactose intolerant are the ones that havn't changed yet. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for Southern Europe, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries. Lactase is an enzyme needed to break down lactose as you can see different regions have different reactions to lactose. So in short yes lactose tolerance is an evolution. When humans didnt have the need for lactase after being weaned the body would save resources by not producing lactase but the invention of domestication happened and suddenly you have an abundance of milk products so humans that could now metabolize the sugar after growing up now win.  
     
    speaking of different chromosomes if they were completely different species then why are their all the crossbreeds of big cats, ligre, tigron, léopon, pumapard, tigard, servical, caraval, jaglion, Ocelot-Puma  
     
    heck even odder is a Wholphin now the false killer whale and a dolphin are definitely different species.  
     
    and there are mules, zonies, zetlands, zebrets, and hebras but the pony zebra donkey horse and shetland pony are different species.  
     
    or are all these species just simple mutations? and if they didn't evolve into these different species then why are they similar enough to produce an offspring? The differences above are much greater then squinted asian eyes or black skin or even blond hair. So basing a new species on chromosomes alone is not very good because I would hazard a bet that you could make a monkey human hybrid as well with nothing more than a really drunk person and a horny monkey.  
     
    If they were made as different species then why do all these have the ability to cross breed and it doesnt stop their many more have this ability to.
     
     
    Is it evolution or just a recessive gene? We humans do not fully understand the DNA strand. What was thought as "junk" DNA may now actually mean something according to some scientists. For lactose intolerance, a gene in our body says, "Okay. No need to drink Mama's milk. Now for solid food!" and turns it off (which may require another gene), whereas another gene in our body allows us to digest lactose because such gene may be turned off due to a recessive trait. Who knows really. You admitted it yourself. Observation and understanding what is actually happening may be two different things.  
     
    And the whole chromosomes being the same. Not entirely true. You see, all of those hybrids that you have named may live, but are normally messed up (sickly, abnormally aggressive, etc.) and cannot breed. They are born sterile. Evolution generally comes from Darwin's Theory of basically life moving on, but life cannot move on if one is born sterile.Why is there an S in Lisp?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Those were all TL;DRSuperhero!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Well actually most of those hybrids can breed. What is most likely happening for lactose intolerance is a protien that builds the enzymes that breaks down the sugars is turned off after x amount of time or more likely weight. When it is turned on or off is most likely built from dna but the dna could tell something else to happen which then creates the protein. But if evolution didnt happen and we obviously know that things do change we can see this with simple eye and hair colors or we can find you have a high risk of heart attack from ne side or a low one. now lets expiriment "+" = parent has a high risk of heart failure "-" = parent has a low risk so we now have 3 families +,+ +,- -,- out of these three which is the "most" likely to die before having an offspring? If infact they do than the +,+ would not be created and so you have reduced the gene pools chance of heart failure.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    I heard lactose intolerance is simply having gastric problems from eating dairy. If so, I would think it would still be worth it, for sweet, glorious cheese.Superhero!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Five bucks says you're thinking about quesadillas.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Sasquatch: Five bucks says you're thinking about quesadillas.
     
     
    Quesadillas, Cheese Enchiladas, Cheese Crisps, I could go on and on and on!Superhero!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Exotic pizzas.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAyaHu
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     permalink
    Brio Tuscan Grille's Magherita Pizza ......mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........Superhero!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     permalink
    hey this is my thoelogical argument that will never end your stealing .......... with your short attention sp ........ cheeeeeeseLooking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorsomeone
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     permalink
    ObiWan:
    Suzukiman: Evolution is a fact simply because it has been observed and it happens.
     
     
    That's actually incorrect. Last time I checked, no one has directly observed a fish turning into a bird, amphibian or reptile. Evolution, on it's best day, is still a theory, and on any other day, is a hypothesis. Those that promote evolution as "fact" deny or ignore its inherent flaws and inconsistencies. Believing in evolution requires faith, just as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christians believe requires faith - faith in something that you have not directly seen.  
     
    [sidebar: Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are not "Christian" as they deny the essentials of the historic Christian faith]
     
     
    You are confusing macro-evolution and micro-evolution.. Evolution does exist, just not on the scale that the Evolutionary Theory proposes which would be macro-evolution.. Micro-evolution however does occur and things evolve minutely. It does not mean one species will turn into another, just that a species will develop or lose some traits.Hiya kids. Here is an important message from your Uncle Bill. Don't buy drugs. Become a pop star, and they give you them for free!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     permalink
    ^^^^^^^^^ i guess im a prisoner in here?? f you rev it I may pop out like a genie wearing a greasy set of overalls.  
     
     
    but exactly correct then f its beneficial to reproduction it will win vs something that isnt beneficial to reproduction.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     permalink
    basically if it reproduces more that trait will start to take over living longer is not a necessity nor is getting smarter or even having complexity at all. heck if we had a mutation where all the inbreds from the backwoods towns in central america suddenly became "braindead" and would screw "anything" in site of the opposite sex not just "sheep" than the whole world would have that trait pretty quick if you then figure there is 1 woman per 10 sheep and 100 things get screwed per day per every single inbread braindead male hick you do the math. it would be 10 new braindead offspring every few days. The world would be infested by braindead sheep lovin yokles, some very scared sheep, and every plant that you can distill into moonshine.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     permalink
    Those poor sheep.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSuzukiman
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     permalink
    there is even the unmentioned goats too. It would take years of therapy to get those animals back to normal.Looking for my head ............... yeah the eight valve one yeah ....
  •  permalink
    is it me or is there something wrong with the format of this page?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSasquatch
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2009
     permalink
    Sheep's doing.
  • Add your comments