Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: 'The Word' - a Person?

Expand Messages
  • moto_bl
    Godhead The word theotes appears only once (Col. 2:9) in the entire New Testament. Theotes simply does not literally mean godhead, and the use of godhead
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 6, 2009

      'Godhead'

      The word theotes appears only once (Col. 2:9) in the entire New Testament. Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.*

      The following are excerpts from the RDB "Fulness of God.rtf" file (found at this site in the FILES >Trinity section or by clicking here) concerning the word "Godhead" and how it's usage as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English:

       

      Col. 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] the whole fulness [Gr. pleroma] of deity [theotes] dwells bodily" - RSV.


      The word theotes appears only this once in the entire New Testament [NT] (and never in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament [OT]). It has been rendered in various trinitarian translations as follows: "Godhead" - KJV, ASV, NEB, REB, MLB; "deity" - RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NAB, CBW, Mo, By; "divinity" - JB, NJB. It should be remembered also that "Godhead" as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English. "In older English ['Godhead'] was a synonym for divinity" - p. 221, Vol. 2, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, 1988 printing; and p. 362, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

      Theotes

      simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.* Actually, the heavenly Father, alone, is the closest thing to a literal "Godhead" to be found anywhere in the inspired Scriptures - see 1 Cor. 11:3.

      Col. 2:9 is also rendered by noted trinitarian scholars with these translations of theotes: "The full content of divine nature" - TEV and GNB (also see Barclay); "God's whole being" - Beck (NT); "God's nature" - AT; "Yet it is in [Christ] that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ)." - Phillips; "In him resides all the fulfillment of the divine" - Lattimore.

       

      * "Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune". In Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "1: the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed. And the derivation of the word "godhead" shows that it originally meant "godhood" not "godhead": "fr[om] god + -hed, -hede - hood (akin to ME -hod, -had - hood)" - Webster's 3rd New Int.


       

       

      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, Clinton Alexander <michigangoodman48607@...> wrote:
      >
      > I don't agree, no persons in the Godhead period.
      >  CLINTON W ALEXANDER

    • teddy_trueblood
      Hi, Marcus. I was addressing the Oneness (and some others) doctrine that only one person is God, but Jesus was God at one point . Correct me if I m
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 6, 2009

         

        Hi, Marcus.

        I was addressing the "Oneness" (and some others) doctrine that 'only one person is God, but Jesus was God at one point'.

        Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you, like JWs, consider that there is only one person who is God and that is the Father alone (John 17:3).

        I believe that you also do not believe that Jesus existed as a person before he was born on earth.

        I think the scripture (Phil. 2) I quoted and discussed in message 2643 deals with that also.  Can you tell me how you interpret it?


        --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus P.P.A. Ampe" <marcus_ampe@...> wrote:
        >
        > I would not deny a personhood, just the opposite. I consider Jesus a
        > real man of flesh and blood, but only come to live when Mary became
        > pregnant.
        > All the time Go existed, but Jesus had a beginning and as soon he was
        > placed on this earth both existed at the same time.
        >
        > Trueblood wrote:
        >
        > How can the following scriptures be explained if only Jesus is God - or
        > if *_only_* Jesus *_or_* the Father is God at any given time.
        >
        > Surely they *both* exist at the same time, and Jesus is not God - only
        > the Father (Jehovah) is.
        >
        >
        >
        > Solomon wrote:
        > >
        > > I agree. Philippians clearly represents a distinct Person here, not
        > > just a Thought in God's mind. Or a spoken word from God.
        > >
        > > Frankly, I wonder why anyone would wish to deny Personhood to the one
        > > who became our Lord Jesus Christ. That never made any sense to me.
        > >
        >

      • Marcus P.P.A. Ampe
        Jesus Christ cannot be ?Very God? (i.e. ?, of ?one person? with the Father) since statements about Jesus Christ are contradictions of statements
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 7, 2009
          Jesus Christ cannot be “Very God” (i.e., of “one person” with the Father) since statements about Jesus Christ are contradictions of statements about God, his Father. Consider the following:

          Jesus Christ
          God (his Father)

          Was tempted (Heb. 2:18)
          Cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13)

          Died (Rev. 1:18)
          Cannot die (1 Tim. 6:16)

          Seen by men
          cannot be seen by men (1 Tim. 6:16)

          Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Father. This is further indicated by the following references:
          a.     Jesus ascended to his Father and his God. (John 20:17). Since Jesus after his resurrection ascended to his God,1 then clearly he was not himself “Very God”.
          b.     He prayed to his Father indicating a distinction and independence of wills. “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matt. 26:39).
          c.     He is referred to as a man after his ascension into heaven. (1 Tim. 2:5)

          1 See also Luke 6:12; Ephesians. 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3. Since Jesus has a God, he is not himself “Very God”.

          Jesus is not co-equal with his Father. This is indicated by the following passages:
          a.     God is the head of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3).
          b.     Christ is approved by God—the greater. (Acts 2.22).
          c.     Christ himself states that his Father is greater. (John 14:28).
          d.     Christ is to be subject to the Father. (1 Cor. 15:28). This passage is often the single most effective quotation in setting forth the relationship of Jesus to God. It shows his position of delegated authority in the kingdom (vs. 27) and subsequent subjection to the Father. (vs. 28). Can one person in the God-head be subject to another and yet all persons be co-equal?

          e.     See also Mark 10:18 and John 5:19, 30.

          In Philippians 2:4-8
          1.     If “in the form of God” means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been “Very God” while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.
          2.     The Greek word “morphe” (translated “form”) does not refer to “essential nature” as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
          a.     “Eidos”, not “morphe” is the Greek word which conveys the idea of “essential nature”. As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, “morphe” means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to “Eidos” which means “true form”.
          b.     In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ “took upon him the form of a servant” (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. “doulos”, a slave)? The “essential nature” of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.
          c.     “morphe” occurs in only one other place in the N.T.—Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean “essential nature”. Jesus appeared “in another form”, but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples’ “eyes were holden”. (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31).
          3.     How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father’s person. (Heb. 1:3).
          4.     Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God—i.e., “being” in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact “Very God” before his “incarnation”. The Greek verb “huparchon” refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that “being in the form of God” means “being, and continuing to be in the form of God”. Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father’s character. Note the use of “huparchon” in the following passages:
          a.     Acts 2:30—“Therefore being a prophet does not mean ”being originally before birth a prophet”, but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.
          b.     1 Cor. 11:7—“Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God” does not mean “being originally before he was born the image and glory of God”, but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.
          c.     Gal. 2:14—“If thou being a Jew” does not mean “being originally before his birth as a Jew”, but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
          5.     “Thought it not robbery to be equal with God” is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The rsv reads as follows: “He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the “elohim”) to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father’s, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).
          6.     How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
          a.     “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14).
          b.     “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
               Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.
          7.     “He humbled himself”; “he emptied himself” rsv (vs. 8), refers to Christ’s deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37–38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ “being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God”,1 where is humility demonstrated?
          vs. Verse, verses
          cf. Compare
          i.e. That is
          rsv American Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952)
          1 This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1–23.






          teddy_trueblood schreef:

          Hi, Marcus.

          I was addressing the "Oneness" (and some others) doctrine that 'only one person is God, but Jesus was God at one point'.

          Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you, like JWs, consider that there is only one person who is God and that is the Father alone (John 17:3).

          I believe that you also do not believe that Jesus existed as a person before he was born on earth.

          I think the scriptures I quoted deal with that also.  Can you tell me how you interpret them?

           


        • teddy_trueblood
          Marcus, I deleted my original message (#2652) which you quoted and added a changed one (#2653) in its place concerning Phil. 2:6. (To avoid such problems in
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 7, 2009

             

            Marcus, I deleted my original message (#2652) which you quoted and added a changed one (#2653) in its place concerning Phil. 2:6. (To avoid such problems in the future it would be very helpful if you actually came to this group and read the existing messages here - and examined the links and files such as Phil. 2:6.) I also explained that I had been writing for those ("Oneness" and others) who believed that Jesus did not pre-exist as a person. I thought, erroneously apparently, that you also believed that Jesus did not exist as a person before he was born on earth. I knew that you, like us, did not believe that Jesus was God.

            The following is a small extract from the Phil 2:6 File which examines one of the words in Phil 2:6 which you have mentioned in your message #2654.

             

            Huparchon (or `Uparchon')

            Dr. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults declares:

            "Christ never ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation. It is interesting to note that the Greek term uparchon, translated `being' in Philippians 2:6 [KJV], literally means `remaining or not ceasing to be' (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7), hence in the context Christ never ceased to be God." - p. 94, 1985 ed.

            But If uparchon really had such a meaning, we would expect it to be used especially for God. What else that exists has an eternal existence? But search as we will we never see this word used for God! Some examples where we would expect to see it used (if it really meant `eternal existence') in the Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint are Is. 43:10, 25; 45:15, 22; 46:4, 9. Like all other scriptures referring to God, they use forms of the "be" verb (eimi), which may be used to mean an eternal existence, but they never use uparchon to describe his eternal existence! (Is. 45:22, for example, says, "I am [eimi] the God and there is no other." - cf. James 2:19 [estin, form of eimi]) So why is uparchon never used to show the eternal existence for the only thing in existence that has always existed (and which will never cease to exist)?

            Uparchon

            is never used for God because it actually, literally means (in spite of Martin's "scholarly" declaration above):

            "to make a beginning (hupo, `under'; arche, `a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390.

            Strong's

            Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as "to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE" - #5225.

            And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us:

            "[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun" - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

            So, even though it may be rendered into English as "existed" or "is," it nevertheless must also be understood as something that has come into existence at some point.

            In that sense, then, uparchon is very much like another NT word, ginomai,

            ginomai [#1096, Thayer's], which also literally means "become" or "come into existence" but is sometimes translated into English as "is," "are," etc. E.g., 1 Peter 3:6 "whose daughters ye are [ginomai]," KJV, NKJV, NAB, RSV, NIV, is more properly understood as "you have become [ginomai] her children," NASB, NRSV, NEB, NWT - Cf. John 6:17, "It was [ginomai] dark."

            As respected trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall tells us:

            "[Ginomai] denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb [just like huparchon] is therefore not used of God...."

            Marshall further explains that although ginomai is often translated into English as "is," "are," "were," etc. it must nevertheless be remembered that it still retains the additional meaning of having come into existence! - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1978 printing.

            For another good example of the similarity of huparchon with ginomai see Luke 16:23 and 22:44.

            Lk. 16:23 - "he lifted up his eyes, being [huparchon] in torment," NASB.

            Lk. 22:44 - "and being [ginomai] in agony he was praying," NASB.

            In very similar statements Luke has used the very similar (in meaning) huparchon and ginomai and the highly respected NASB has rendered them both "being." But in both cases their fundamental meanings of "coming into existence" (or "coming to be") must be remembered. In other words, the person had not always been in torment or agony, but at some point had "come to be" in such a condition!

            If you examine the following examples of the Biblical usage of huparcho, you will find they are clearly speaking of conditions which once did not exist but which have come into existence ("have begun to be"): Luke 16:23; Acts 2:30; Acts 7:55; Ro. 4:19; 2 Cor. 8:17; James 2:15 (plural form).

            These last three verses not only show a state that has begun recently but a state that is transient, temporary - e.g., Abraham hadn't always been [uparchon] 100 years of age and certainly wouldn't continue to be 100 years of age: he had begun to be [uparchon] about 100 years old at this point - Ro. 4:19.

            2 Cor. 8:16, 17 tells us:

            "But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. For he [Titus] ..., being [uparchon] himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord." - NASB.

            It should be obvious to everyone that Titus hasn't been earnest from all eternity. He obviously came to be earnest at some point in time. And, in fact, we are even told in verse 16 that at some point in time God put this earnestness into Titus' heart. Obviously it was not always there if God put it in his heart at some point! The meaning of uparchon as "having come [or begun] to be" is very certain from the context alone in these two verses.

            James 2:15 tells us, in the KJV: "If a brother or sister be [uparchon] naked [`without clothes' - NIV, NASB]," we must help him to become clothed again. Obviously the brother has not been naked for all eternity but has very recently come to be in this condition. It's equally obvious that the brother will not always continue in this condition. In fact his brothers are commanded to ensure that he not continue in this naked state. (Famed trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for uparchon in this verse: "BEGIN to be [uparchon] naked" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 ed.)

            Therefore, huparcho (or uparchon) does not mean "eternal pre-existence" as claimed by some trinitarians, and it certainly does not have to mean a condition that must continue to exist as Dr. Walter Martin also implies. Notice the solitary example (1 Cor. 11:7) he has selected to "prove" that uparchon means "not ceasing to be": "For a man ... is [uparchon] the image and glory of God" - NASB. My trinitarian NASB reference Bible refers this scripture to Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; and James 3:9. These scriptures all state that man was created or made in the image of God. (In fact James 3:9 literally says that men "have come to be [ginomai, #1096] in the likeness of God" and is usually translated in trinitarian Bibles as "have been made [or created] in the likeness of God." - NASB, NIV, RSV.)

            So there is the real parallel meaning for the uparchon of 1 Cor. 11:7 - created (or caused 'to come to be'). There obviously was a time (before he was created) when a man was not the image of God. Furthermore, Martin's solitary "example" states that "a man" (NASB) is the image of God. This means that every man who lives has these qualities in some degree. However, not every man will have these qualities forever. Many, when they return to the dust of the earth, will cease to reflect God's qualities and glory! It would be much better to translate this verse literally as "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he has come into existence [huparchon] in the image and glory of God."

            There is little doubt about what huparchon was actually intended to mean (regardless of how modern trinitarian translators wish to translate it). Noted trinitarian scholar and translator Dr. Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; etc.) has even admitted in his Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary (p.134, Baker Book House, 1977) that his own rendering of huparchon as "being" at Phil. 2:6 in his own published Bible translation should be, to be more literal,

            "beginning secretly [huparchon] in (the) form of God ...." - Phil. 2:6

            So, rather than any "eternal pre-existence" being implied by Paul's use of huparchon at Phil. 2:6 ("who `always having been' in God's form" - cf. TEV), it is more likely just the opposite: "Who came into existence (or was created) [huparchon] in a form [morphe] similar to God (or in God's image)"! Of course, if Jesus first came into existence in God's image, then he cannot be the eternal, always-existent God of the Bible (nor even the always-existent God of the trinity doctrine)!

            Or, put even more simply, since huparchon is never used for God himself, then its use for the pre-existent Jesus shows, again, that Jesus cannot be God!

            What we really have at Phil. 2:6-7, then, may be more accurately rendered:

            "who, even though he had come into existence as a glorious spirit person in a likeness [external form or guise] of God (or a god), never gave even the slightest consideration that by force he should try to become equal to God (in even a single aspect or quality), but, instead, emptied himself of his glorious form and took on the likeness [external form or guise] of a slave, being born in the likeness of a man."

            Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father!

            And, of course, it is also proof that Jesus existed as a person ('the Word' in John 1) in heaven long before coming to earth as the human Jesus.

            - excerpt from the Phil 2:6 file

            ..................................................................

            ...................................................................


            --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus P.P.A. Ampe" <marcus_ampe@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jesus Christ cannot be "?Very God?" (i.e. <#_ftn1>?, of "?one person?"
            > with the Father) since statements about Jesus Christ are contradictions
            > of statements about God, his Father. Consider the following:
            >
            >
            > /Jesus Christ/
            >
            > /God (his Father)/
            >
            >
            > Was tempted (?Heb. 2:18?)
            >
            > Cannot be tempted with evil (?James 1:13?)
            >
            >
            > Died (?Rev. 1:18?)
            >
            > Cannot die (?1 Tim. 6:16?)
            >
            >
            > Seen by men
            >
            > cannot be seen by men (?1 Tim. 6:16?)
            >
            >
            > Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Father. This is further
            > indicated by the following references:
            > a. Jesus ascended to his Father and/ his God/. (?John 20:17?). Since
            > Jesus /after/ his resurrection ascended to his God,?^1 <#_ftn1> ? then
            > clearly he was not himself "?Very God?".
            > b. He prayed to his Father indicating a distinction and independence
            > of wills. "?Not as I will, but as thou wilt.?" (?Matt. 26:39?).
            > c. He is referred to as a /man after/ his ascension into heaven. (?1
            > Tim. 2:5?)
            >
            > ^1 <#_ftnref1>See also ?Luke 6:12?; ?Ephesians. 1:17?; ?1 Peter 1:3?.
            > Since Jesus has a God, he is not himself "?Very God?".
            >
            > Jesus is not co-equal with his Father. This is indicated by the
            > following passages:
            > a. God is the head of Christ. (?1 Cor. 11:3?).
            > b. Christ is approved by God---the greater. (Acts 2.22).
            > c. Christ himself states that his Father is greater. (?John 14:28?).
            > d. Christ is to be subject to the Father. (?1 Cor. 15:28?). This
            > passage is often the single most effective quotation in setting forth
            > the relationship of Jesus to God. It shows his position of delegated
            > authority in the kingdom (?vs. <#_ftn1>? ?27?) and subsequent subjection
            > to the Father. (?vs.? ?28?). Can one person in the God-head be /subject/
            > to another and yet all persons be co-equal?
            >
            > e. See also ?Mark 10:18? and ?John 5:19?, ?30?.
            >
            > In Philippians 2:4-8
            > 1. If "?in the form of God?" means the very nature of God, then
            > Christ could not have been "?Very God?" while on earth, as trinitarians
            > assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind
            > in coming to the earth.
            > 2. The Greek word "?/morphe/?" (translated "?form?") does not refer
            > to "?essential nature?" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is
            > proven by the following:
            > a. "?/Eidos/?", not "?/morphe/?" is the Greek word which conveys the
            > idea of "?essential nature?". As Liddell and Scott point out in their
            > lexicon, "?/morphe/?" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape,
            > figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to
            > "?/Eidos/?" which means "?true form?".
            > b. In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "?took
            > upon him the form of a servant?" (?vs. <#_ftn1>? ?7?). But what is the
            > form of a servant (Grk. "?/doulos/?", a slave)? The "?essential nature?"
            > of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form,
            > therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the
            > distinguishing characteristic.
            > c. "?/morphe/?" occurs in only one other place in the N.T.---?Mark
            > 16:12?, and here it clearly does not mean "?essential nature?". Jesus
            > appeared "?in another form?", but this could not refer to a change of
            > his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another
            > form was because the disciples' "?eyes were holden?". (?Luke 24:16? ?cf.
            > <#_ftn2>? ?vs.? ?31?).
            > 3. How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and
            > demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the
            > express image of his Father's person. (?Heb. 1:3?).
            > 4. Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was /originally/ in the
            > form of God---?i.e. <#_ftn3>?, "?being?" in the form of God is taken to
            > mean that he was in fact "?Very God?" before his "?incarnation?". The
            > Greek verb "?/huparchon/?" refutes this position since it is in the
            > imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of
            > performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual,
            > habitual, repeated action, so that "?/being/ in the form of God?" means
            > "?being, and continuing to be in the form of God?". Christ never ceased
            > to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth
            > he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of
            > "?/huparchon/?" in the following passages:
            > a. ?Acts 2:30?---"?Therefore /being/ a prophet does not mean ?"being
            > originally before birth a prophet?", but rather a prophet and continuing
            > to be such.
            > b. ?1 Cor. 11:7?---"?Forasmuch as he /is/ the image and glory of
            > God?" does not mean "?being originally before he was born the image and
            > glory of God?", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.
            > c. ?Gal. 2:14?---"?If thou /being/ a Jew?" does not mean "?being
            > originally before his birth as a Jew?", but rather if you from the start
            > and continuing to be a Jew.
            > 5. "?Thought it not robbery to be equal with God?" is generally
            > acknowledged to be a poor translation. The ?rsv <#_ftn4>? reads as
            > follows: "?He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.?"
            > Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make
            > one like God (the "?elohim?") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to
            > take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and
            > the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of
            > Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to
            > himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (?Matt. 26:39?).
            > 6. How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages
            > supply the answer:
            > a. "?If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also
            > ought to wash one another's feet.?" (?John 13:14?).
            > b. "?Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things
            > which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of
            > eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.?" (?Hebrews 5:8?, ?9?).
            > Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and
            > demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.
            > 7. "?He humbled himself?"; "?he emptied himself?" ?rsv? (?vs.? ?8?),
            > refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his
            > Father. Christ was worshipped (?Matt. 8:2?; ?9:18?), performed the works
            > of God (?John 10:37--38?), and forgave sins (?Matthew 9:2?), but he
            > never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him
            > by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility
            > to the Philippians. But if Christ "?being originally, before his birth,
            > while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at
            > his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God,
            > but left the form of God?",?^1 <#_ftn5> ? where is humility demonstrated?
            > <#_ftn6>
            > vs. <#_ftnref1>Verse, verses
            > cf. <#_ftnref2>Compare
            > i.e. <#_ftnref3>That is
            > rsv <#_ftnref4>American Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952)
            > ^1 <#_ftnref5>This is the way in which ?Phil. 2:6? is read by
            > trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, /The Humiliation of Christ/, (Edinburgh:
            > T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1--23.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > teddy_trueblood schreef:
            > >
            > > Hi, Marcus.
            > >
            > > I was addressing the "Oneness" (and some others) doctrine that 'only
            > > one person is God, but *Jesus was God* at one point'.
            > >
            > > Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you, like JWs, consider that
            > > there is only one person who is God and that is the Father *alone*
            > > (John 17:3).
            > >
            > > I believe that you also do not believe that Jesus existed as a person
            > > before he was born on earth.
            > >
            > > I think the scriptures I quoted deal with that also. Can you tell me
            > > how you interpret them?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >

          • shangbangt
            ... wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that dont understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but just in a clear way
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 20, 2009
              --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
              <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
              wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that dont
              understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but just
              in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
              >
              >
              > (NASB) Philippians 2:4 do not merely look out for your own personal
              > interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this
              attitude in
              > yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He
              existed in
              > the form [morphe: 'outward appearance'] of God, did not regard
              equality
              > with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos: 'taken by force' -
              see 'Phil
              > 2-6,7,8' study in the Files section], 7 but emptied Himself, taking
              the
              > form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8
              Being
              > found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming
              obedient to
              > the point of death, even death on a cross. [Emphasis added]
              >
              > ..........................
              >
              > It seems clear that Christ existed before coming to earth. And
              while in
              > spirit form (as are all those in heaven: God, angels are spirit
              persons)
              > in heaven, he did not regard ... (Jesus is judging or deciding for
              > himself here - before coming to earth). And while still in spirit
              form
              > in heaven, he emptied Himself, taking the form.... Jesus did things
              > himself ('emptied Himself 'and 'taking the form'). If he were just
              some
              > part or quality of God himself, it would have said that God emptied
              it
              > (how and why would you empty a quality??). And it would have said
              that
              > God gave it the form of a bondservant.
              >
              > I don't see how this passage can be consistent with Jesus not
              existing
              > as a self-aware, thinking person in heaven who makes his own
              decisions
              > and acts upon them.
              >
              > ....................................................................
              .
              >
              >
              > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus P.P.A. Ampe"
              > <marcus_ampe@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Christ was the word "made flesh" (John 1:14) The Word expresses
              the
              > > divine intention, mind or purpose. "Logos" does not in itself
              denote
              > > personality.(masculine gender in AV; Diaglott in the neuter) You
              can
              > > compare it with wisdom which is personified as a woman. (Proverbs
              > > 8:1,2,22, 23)
              > > The creation was accompanied by the word, i.e. Gods speaking.
              > (Gen.1:3;
              > > John 1:7,8) (Ps. 33:6,9; 107:20; 147:15,18,19; Isa 55:11) "By the
              word
              > > of Jehovah the heavens were made"
              > > "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
              the
              > > heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and
              in
              > the
              > > water: {standing: Gr. consisting}" (2Pe 3:5 AV) "But the heavens
              and
              > > the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
              reserved
              > > unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly
              men."
              > > (2Pe 3:7 AV) Kept in store by the same word.
              > > "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
              word
              > of
              > > God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which
              do
              > > appear." (Heb 11:3 AV)
              > > "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the
              world by
              > > his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
              When
              > > he uttereth his voice, [there is] a multitude of waters in the
              > heavens,
              > > and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth;
              he
              > > maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of
              his
              > > treasures. {multitude: or, noise} {with: or, for}" (Jer 10:12-13
              AV)
              > >
              > > God's Word was with God (and in God), but angels, prophets and
              Christ
              > > have been vehicles by which God has expressed his Logos. Though
              Christ
              > > is the complete manifestation of the Logos. When the "word was
              made
              > > flesh" (Jo 1:14) Christ became the manifestation of the Word (Re
              > 19:13;
              > > Lu 1:2) since his doctrine and words came from Jehovah his Father
              (Jo
              > > 7:16;17:14)
              > > Php 2:6-7 does not mean being originally before he was born the
              image
              > > and glory of God, but rather being the image of God and
              continuing to
              > be
              > > (1Co 11:7)
              > > Born out of the Father he could be the most high of all men,
              because
              > the
              > > others had a human father and mother, while Christ only a human
              mother
              > > but the heavenly Father.
              > > Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and
              demeanour,
              > > he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave. (learning
              > > obedience Heb 5:8,9)(washing feet: Jo 13:14) Submitting his will
              to
              > that
              > > of his Father.
              > >
              > >
              > > teddy_trueblood wrote:
              > > >
              > > > *"Word" and 1 John 5:7, KJV*
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > (KJV) 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in
              heaven, the
              > > > Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
              > > >
              > > > Some of us have met persons who believe that God is only one
              person,
              > > > but that he has been in different forms at times (the Father
              */or/*
              > > > the Son). They are often called "Oneness" believers.
              > > >
              > > > Because most of them believe that these two persons did not both
              > exist
              > > > at the same time (therefore keeping God as one person alone),
              they
              > > > _deny the pre-existence of the Son_. Especially do they deny
              that
              > 'the
              > > > Word' at John 1 was the Son. To do this they insist that the
              _Word_
              > at
              > > > this point was simply a _/quality/ or /aspect/ of God Himself
              _and
              > not
              > > > another person who was with God (the Father). Most of them will
              say
              > > > that _Jesus only came into existence as /a person /when he was
              born
              > on
              > > > earth._
              > > >
              > > > (KJV) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and *_the Word was
              > with
              > > > God_*, and the Word was God.
              > > >
              > > > It is difficult to prove to them that the Word in John 1 was
              > actually
              > > > a person in heaven who became Jesus. (I try to reason on Phil.
              > 2:5-8,
              > > > 1Jn 4:9; etc.)
              > > >
              > > > It may be helpful to use 1 John 5:7 for any of those "Oneness"
              folks
              > > > who also believe the KJV is the best (or only) English
              translation
              > to
              > > > be used by Christians.
              > > >
              > > > Notice that this spurious addition to scripture in the KJV uses
              > "Word."
              > > >
              > > > So, for those who insist on using the KJV, here is evidence
              for "the
              > > > Word" being a */person/* who was with God in the beginning being
              > back
              > > > as the */same person /*with God again.
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • moto_bl
              Hello shangbangt, We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact, you can see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and research
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 21, 2009

                Hello shangbangt,

                We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact, you can see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and research study aids that we use by clicking here.

                The following are just a few links to many online Bibles available:

                *Online Bible Translations
                "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."

                Bible Crosswalk
                Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools

                Bible Gateway
                Many Bibles to choose from

                Bibles and Reference Works
                Many Links to Bible Study Tools

                ---------------------------------------------------------
                 
                You may also be interested in the following links which address the topic that you brought up:
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                directoryNWT (JW Bible)
                Defending the NWT


                 

                 

                --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt" <shangbangt@...> wrote:

                >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that dont
                > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but just
                > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.

              • shangbangt
                ... your religion? ... can ... study ... and_answers/message/2002 . ... also ... you ... and_answers/message/1085 ... and_answers/message/1609 ... 28JW ...
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 21, 2009
                  --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                  <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what is
                  your religion?
                  >
                  > Hello shangbangt,
                  >
                  > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact, you
                  can
                  > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and research
                  study
                  > aids that we use by clicking here
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                  and_answers/message/2002> .
                  >
                  > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles available:
                  >
                  > *Online Bible Translations
                  > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                  > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                  >
                  > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                  > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                  >
                  > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                  > Many Bibles to choose from
                  >
                  > Bibles and Reference Works
                  > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                  > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                  > --------------------------------------------------------- You may
                  also
                  > be interested in the following links which address the topic that
                  you
                  > brought up:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1085
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                  and_answers/message/1085>
                  > *Why was the NWT printed?
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                  and_answers/message/1609>
                  > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1754>
                  > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/files/NWT%20%
                  28JW\
                  > %20Bible%29/>
                  > Defending the NWT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                  > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                  > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that
                  dont
                  > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but
                  just
                  > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                  >
                • teddy_trueblood
                  ... ................................................ Please see the name of this group. Teddy
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 21, 2009


                    --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt" <shangbangt@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                    > no_reply@ wrote:
                    > >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what is
                    > your religion
                    ?

                    ................................................

                    Please see the name of this group.

                    Teddy


                    > >
                    > > Hello shangbangt,
                    > >
                    > > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact, you
                    > can
                    > > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and research
                    > study
                    > > aids that we use by clicking here
                    > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                    > and_answers/message/2002> .
                    > >
                    > > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles available:
                    > >
                    > > *Online Bible Translations
                    > > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                    > > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                    > >
                    > > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                    > > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                    > >
                    > > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                    > > Many Bibles to choose from
                    > >
                    > > Bibles and Reference Works
                    > > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                    > > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                    > > --------------------------------------------------------- You may
                    > also
                    > > be interested in the following links which address the topic that
                    > you
                    > > brought up:
                    > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1085
                    > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                    > and_answers/message/1085>
                    > > *Why was the NWT printed?
                    > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                    > and_answers/message/1609>
                    > > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                    > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1754>
                    > > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                    > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/files/NWT%20%
                    > 28JW\
                    > > %20Bible%29/>
                    > > Defending the NWT
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                    > > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                    > > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that
                    > dont
                    > > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but
                    > just
                    > > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                    > >
                    >

                  • geritaliano
                    For the longest time I would use my King James Version. I would take both books (New world translation and king james to the Bible Study and then meetings. It
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 21, 2009
                      For the longest time I would use my King James Version. I would take
                      both books (New world translation and king james to the Bible Study
                      and then meetings. It was hard to understand thee, thou, art ect.
                      since that is not the way we speak. Eventually I also preferred the
                      NWT.


                      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                      <shangbangt@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                      > <no_reply@> wrote:
                      > >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what
                      is
                      > your religion?
                      > >
                      > > Hello shangbangt,
                      > >
                      > > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact,
                      you
                      > can
                      > > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and
                      research
                      > study
                      > > aids that we use by clicking here
                      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                      > and_answers/message/2002> .
                      > >
                      > > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles
                      available:
                      > >
                      > > *Online Bible Translations
                      > > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                      > > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                      > >
                      > > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                      > > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                      > >
                      > > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                      > > Many Bibles to choose from
                      > >
                      > > Bibles and Reference Works
                      > > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                      > > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                      > > --------------------------------------------------------- You
                      may
                      > also
                      > > be interested in the following links which address the topic that
                      > you
                      > > brought up:
                      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1085
                      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                      > and_answers/message/1085>
                      > > *Why was the NWT printed?
                      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                      > and_answers/message/1609>
                      > > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                      and_answers/message/1754>
                      > > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/files/NWT%
                      20%
                      > 28JW\
                      > > %20Bible%29/>
                      > > Defending the NWT
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                      > > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                      > > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people
                      that
                      > dont
                      > > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but
                      > just
                      > > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                      > >
                      >
                    • moto_bl
                      Hi shangbangt, Many who are members of this group are known as Jehovah s Witnesses. However everyone is welcome to this group except for those who are
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 22, 2009

                        Hi shangbangt,

                        Many who are members of this group are known as Jehovah's Witnesses. However everyone is welcome to this group except for those who are unreasonably opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses. I myself am a Jehovah's Witness.

                        For more information about Jehovah's Witnesses, you can click on the following links:

                         
                         


                        --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt" <shangbangt@...> wrote:

                        >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what is
                        > your religion?


                        >
                        > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                        > no_reply@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hello shangbangt,
                        > >
                        > > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact, you
                        > can
                        > > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and research
                        > study
                        > > aids that we use by clicking here
                        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                        > and_answers/message/2002> .
                        > >
                        > > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles available:
                        > >
                        > > *Online Bible Translations
                        > > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                        > > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                        > >
                        > > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                        > > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                        > >
                        > > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                        > > Many Bibles to choose from
                        > >
                        > > Bibles and Reference Works
                        > > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                        > > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                        > > --------------------------------------------------------- You may
                        > also
                        > > be interested in the following links which address the topic that
                        > you
                        > > brought up:
                        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1085
                        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                        > and_answers/message/1085>
                        > > *Why was the NWT printed?
                        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                        > and_answers/message/1609>
                        > > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1754>
                        > > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                        > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/files/NWT%20%
                        > 28JW\
                        > > %20Bible%29/>
                        > > Defending the NWT
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                        > > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                        > > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people that
                        > dont
                        > > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but
                        > just
                        > > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                        > >
                        >

                      • moto_bl
                        Hi Geri, Your gradual transition, it seems, reflected the whole: Prior to 1896, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was doing much as a Bible distributor.
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 22, 2009

                          Hi Geri,

                          Your gradual transition, it seems, reflected the whole:

                          "Prior to 1896, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was doing much as a Bible distributor. (The) various Bible translations that were available...included numerous editions of the King James Version that were easy to carry and use, also larger `Teachers' Bibles' (King James Version with such helps as a concordance, maps, and marginal references)." - (Proclaimers; Chap. 27, page 603; pp.5)

                          A couple of decades later, the Society published and distributed a KJV with marginal cross references. In 1944, Jehovah's Witnesses began printing and distributing the American Standard Version, which used the name "Jehovah" throughout and so was much preferred by most Witnesses. By the latter half of the 20th century, Jehovah's Witnesses ceased to publish or print a Witness-specific edition of KJV. In 1961, the complete New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a revised edition in one volume, was published by the Watch Tower Society.


                          Just as a general comment to all, it should be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have never pretended that one particular translation is inspired or infallible in a way that others are not. They do not require their adherents or students to use any particular translation, and their teachings can be readily learned using any quality translation of the Scriptures.


                           

                           

                          --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "geritaliano" <geritaliano@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > For the longest time I would use my King James Version. I would take
                          > both books (New world translation and king james to the Bible Study
                          > and then meetings. It was hard to understand thee, thou, art ect.
                          > since that is not the way we speak. Eventually I also preferred the
                          > NWT.
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                          > shangbangt@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                          > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                          > > >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what
                          > is
                          > > your religion?
                          > > >
                          > > > Hello shangbangt,
                          > > >
                          > > > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact,
                          > you
                          > > can
                          > > > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and
                          > research
                          > > study
                          > > > aids that we use by clicking here
                          > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                          > > and_answers/message/2002> .
                          > > >
                          > > > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles
                          > available:
                          > > >
                          > > > *Online Bible Translations
                          > > > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                          > > > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                          > > >
                          > > > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                          > > > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                          > > >
                          > > > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                          > > > Many Bibles to choose from
                          > > >
                          > > > Bibles and Reference Works
                          > > > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                          > > > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                          > > > --------------------------------------------------------- You
                          > may
                          > > also
                          > > > be interested in the following links which address the topic that
                          > > you
                          > > > brought up:
                          > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1085
                          > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                          > > and_answers/message/1085>
                          > > > *Why was the NWT printed?
                          > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                          > > and_answers/message/1609>
                          > > > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                          > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                          > and_answers/message/1754>
                          > > > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                          > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/files/NWT%
                          > 20%
                          > > 28JW\
                          > > > %20Bible%29/>
                          > > > Defending the NWT
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                          > > > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The new
                          > > > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people
                          > that
                          > > dont
                          > > > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same thing..but
                          > > just
                          > > > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • Paul Leonard
                          It was interesting to see the dates. My first Bible, and I still use it, was the ASV published by the WTS. I still have some of the original volumes of the
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 22, 2009
                            It was interesting to see the dates.

                            My first Bible, and I still use it, was the ASV published by the WTS. I still have some of the original volumes of the NWT, acquired as they came out.

                            Personally I use the NWT in study for the meetings. The KJV for RV's where it fits their biases better and the NIV for some personal study. This allows me to keep in mind how many I meet at the door read and see Scripture in their reading/study and what they hear at church.

                            For research I have about 30 or so hard print Bible Translations plus many language aids for Hebrew, Greek and Coptic as well as Hebrew and Greek Interlinears. On my computer I have well over 100 translations in many languages and additional study aids.

                            You cannot have (and use) too many Bibles.

                            --- On Thu, 1/22/09, moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                            From: moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: [JWquestions-and_answers] Re: 'The Word' - a Person?
                            To: JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 10:02 AM

                            Hi Geri,

                            Your gradual transition, it seems, reflected the whole:

                            "Prior to 1896, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was doing much as a Bible distributor. (The) various Bible translations that were available... included numerous editions of the King James Version that were easy to carry and use, also larger `Teachers' Bibles' (King James Version with such helps as a concordance, maps, and marginal references). " - (Proclaimers; Chap. 27, page 603; pp.5)

                            A couple of decades later, the Society published and distributed a KJV with marginal cross references. In 1944, Jehovah's Witnesses began printing and distributing the American Standard Version, which used the name "Jehovah" throughout and so was much preferred by most Witnesses. By the latter half of the 20th century, Jehovah's Witnesses ceased to publish or print a Witness-specific edition of KJV. In 1961, the complete New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a revised edition in one volume, was published by the Watch Tower Society.


                            Just as a general comment to all, it should be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have never pretended that one particular translation is inspired or infallible in a way that others are not. They do not require their adherents or students to use any particular translation, and their teachings can be readily learned using any quality translation of the Scriptures.

                          • shangbangt
                            ... getting too familiar with kids i dont really know anything about...so where are you from? ... is ... you ... research ... may ... that ...
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 22, 2009
                              --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                              <no_reply@...> wrote:
                              >cool..just wanted to know..im a witness too. Just didnt wanna be
                              getting too familiar with kids i dont really know anything about...so
                              where are you from?
                              >
                              > Hi shangbangt,
                              >
                              > Many who are members of this group are known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
                              > However everyone is welcome to this group except for those who are
                              > unreasonably opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses. I myself am a Jehovah's
                              > Witness.
                              >
                              > For more information about Jehovah's Witnesses, you can click on the
                              > following links:
                              > Official JW web site, on-line publications and public information
                              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1657>
                              > **Jehovah's Witnesses
                              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1746>
                              >
                              > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                              > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                              >
                              > >thanks, but im happy with the study tools im with now...btw..what
                              is
                              > > your religion?
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl
                              > > no_reply@ wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Hello shangbangt,
                              > > >
                              > > > We utilize many different Bibles in our studies here. In fact,
                              you
                              > > can
                              > > > see a list of (and gain access to) varied Bible tools and
                              research
                              > > study
                              > > > aids that we use by clicking here
                              > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              > > and_answers/message/2002> .
                              > > >
                              > > > The following are just a few links to many online Bibles
                              available:
                              > > >
                              > > > *Online Bible Translations
                              > > > <http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/>
                              > > > "The Web's most comprehensive list of links."
                              > > >
                              > > > Bible Crosswalk <http://bible.crosswalk.com/>
                              > > > Numerous Varied Bible Study Tools
                              > > >
                              > > > Bible Gateway <http://www.biblegateway.com/>
                              > > > Many Bibles to choose from
                              > > >
                              > > > Bibles and Reference Works
                              > > > <http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ub608/referenc.html>
                              > > > Many Links to Bible Study Tools
                              > > > --------------------------------------------------------- You
                              may
                              > > also
                              > > > be interested in the following links which address the topic
                              that
                              > > you
                              > > > brought up:
                              > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              and_answers/message/1085
                              > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              > > and_answers/message/1085>
                              > > > *Why was the NWT printed?
                              > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              > > and_answers/message/1609>
                              > > > "New World Translation (JW Bible)
                              > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              and_answers/message/1754>
                              > > > [directory] NWT (JW Bible)
                              > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-
                              and_answers/files/NWT%20%
                              > > 28JW\
                              > > > %20Bible%29/>
                              > > > Defending the NWT
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "shangbangt"
                              > > > <shangbangt@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > >The kjv isnt the only bible to use for confirming things. The
                              new
                              > > > > wrold translation seems to be a big help for alot of people
                              that
                              > > dont
                              > > > > understand the words in the kjv. Its saying the same
                              thing..but
                              > > just
                              > > > > in a clear way where everyone can understand and read it.
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • geri elmer
                              I also enjoyed the history on the NWT Bible usage. I have many Bibles as well from various sources. It is true that the Bible is God s word regardless of the
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 24, 2009
                                I also enjoyed the history on the NWT Bible usage. I have many Bibles as well from various sources. It is true that the Bible is God's word regardless of the translation that is used. Some who we meet at the doors assume that the New World Trasnslation is a Jehovah's Witness Bible that we put our own thoughts into. When we use the Bible that have it opens ones eyes easier. At least I should say it happen to me, many years ago :)

                                --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                                From: Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...>
                                Subject: Re: [JWquestions-and_answers] Re: 'The Word' - a Person?
                                To: JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 4:28 PM


                                Just as a general comment to all, it should be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have never pretended that one particular translation is inspired or infallible in a way that others are not. They do not require their adherents or students to use any particular translation, and their teachings can be readily learned using any quality translation of the Scriptures.

                                It was interesting to see the dates.

                                My first Bible, and I still use it, was the ASV published by the WTS. I still have some of the original volumes of the NWT, acquired as they came out.

                                Personally I use the NWT in study for the meetings. The KJV for RV's where it fits their biases better and the NIV for some personal study. This allows me to keep in mind how many I meet at the door read and see Scripture in their reading/study and what they hear at church.

                                For research I have about 30 or so hard print Bible Translations plus many language aids for Hebrew, Greek and Coptic as well as Hebrew and Greek Interlinears. On my computer I have well over 100 translations in many languages and additional study aids.

                                You cannot have (and use) too many Bibles.

                                --- On Thu, 1/22/09, moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com> wrote:

                                From: moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
                                Subject: [JWquestions- and_answers] Re: 'The Word' - a Person?
                                To: JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com
                                Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 10:02 AM

                                Hi Geri,

                                Your gradual transition, it seems, reflected the whole:

                                "Prior to 1896, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was doing much as a Bible distributor. (The) various Bible translations that were available... included numerous editions of the King James Version that were easy to carry and use, also larger `Teachers' Bibles' (King James Version with such helps as a concordance, maps, and marginal references). " - (Proclaimers; Chap. 27, page 603; pp.5)

                                A couple of decades later, the Society published and distributed a KJV with marginal cross references. In 1944, Jehovah's Witnesses began printing and distributing the American Standard Version, which used the name "Jehovah" throughout and so was much preferred by most Witnesses. By the latter half of the 20th century, Jehovah's Witnesses ceased to publish or print a Witness-specific edition of KJV. In 1961, the complete New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a revised edition in one volume, was published by the Watch Tower Society.


                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.