AboutBrenton Hepburn Expertise I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I can answer questions on the reliability of the NWT, the so called mind control problems, so called prophecies, and general practices and history of Jehovah’s Witnesses.....
>>>>WARNING<<<<<< ....Please be aware that there are at least ... 3 .... people here who ARE NOT practicing JWs and, (at other times there have been as many as 5.) These ones will, at times, appear to have an agenda against JWs., and will often give answers that are not correct in regard to JW teachings and practices. If you are after a answer from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please read some of the answers that the various experts have published before choosing someone. If you want to ask them a question that is fine, but if you want a balancing view after asking one of the NON JWs, ask a JW the same question
Experience I have been a publisher since 1964. When I first went on the internet I found a lot of negative information dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses covering prophecy, mind control and what many said was a very bad translation of the Bible known as the NWT. It shook my faith. After may hours researching these topics I could see why some felt that way, but, I was also able to explain why there were these misleading views. I can now set matters straight for anyone that has negative information about Jehovah’s Witness to show them that such information is at best misleading and at worst dangerous lies.
Education/Credentials I have been a student of the Bible for many years, am trying to teach myself Biblical Greek.
Was a public tax accountant for many yrars untill SEP 2009 when I gave it up.
Question It appears to me in your response that you have actually not even read my response in its entirety replied to anything new (than my request from Simons email which you did not answer either) nor answered any of my actual questions and copied and changed a few words off a formalised response used also to reply to Simon's email, my question is not to do with in any way how you answered.
It is two fold John 20:28 and where you base "all modern schollars" who you seem to have suggested as a result of their understanding consequently warrant the NWT position. Where are you basing this?
People can argue till the cows come home on what you have written because it is not the fundamental issue. I can use the same argument to show that an addition of the word a in the greek does not change the meaning, only in the English. Because the translation is determined beforehand by what you're theological belief is to start with (you yourself said "the context warrants it" the context of what?! what you already believe John means), it also follows your belief on rules of the Greek language of structure. So I want to determine where you are basing "all modern scholars" and how you deal with John's monothiestic background to which only one out of 6 anarthrous use of theos in John 1 determine that somehow 1 is translated to mean "a God" At the very least the exclusive insistence seems odd to me?
my actual email is photographyat vanuatu.com.vu
Answer Hello Michael,
Thank you for your reply and your next question.
I appologise if the way I answered you seemed incomplete, but, as you are aware, this site limits the amount of words one can use at one time. I had not forgoten your question on John 20:28 but was leaving it for another post so that I could deal with one part of your querry only.
My first reply has a direct bearing on the yhis part of your question....
_______________________
and how you deal with John's monothiestic background to which only one out of 6 anarthrous use of theos in John 1 determine that somehow 1 is translated to mean "a God" At the very least the exclusive insistence seems odd to me?
________________________
Colwells rule ahs to be considered in determoning when to put the indefinate article into a sentance. Yesy we agree that John had a monothiestic background and his writtings demonstate that. The wordsing of John 1:1 of saying Jesus was "a god" does not change that when we consider that way the word :god" was used by the Hebrews. The Hebrew word for God basicaly means :a mighty one" and ot was used in the Bioble in relatrion to false gods that are worshiped, it is applied rightly to men as well as angels. But there is only one true God that is to be worshiped. Calling Jesus "a god" does not put him in the class of the True God that the Hebrews and Jesus worshiped.
It might seem odd to you that there 6 anarthrous uses of theos in John 1 where the NWT does not put the indefinate article in front of them but chooses to do so for i:1c. The reason is that those 6 instances the contstuction is different to John 1:1c. In verses 1c Colwells rule applies and in the other instances it does not. That is what I was demonstrating to you by the two example I used of Verse 6 and 18. I also demonstrated how colwells rules is applied without bias in seberal other instances in the book of John when the construction is the same as John1:1c. In John 1:1c the word theos in questions is an anarthrous predicate in the nominative case calling attention to the subject of the verse wich is the logos. It is not telling us identity but describing a quality, just as the word builder descibed the quality of class that the apprentice belongs to. In the other instance in Jihnthe anarthrous theos is not a predicate and is not describibg a quality.
The illustration of the builder and the aprentice is to show that when the same type of nouns are used, with the same syntax, and grammar, but in a non theological setting, how the predictae nature of the builder that is the apprentice is easily understood.
The word god is not a proper name but descibes what class the individual is just as builder, carpemter, king etc does. A person can be a king but when we are tralking about a particular king of a given country the title can be associated with the name of that king. There are many gods but only one true God that is deserving of our religous worship, or devotion, for whom we serve.
Before I answer you on John 20:28, can you please elaberate on what you are asking or meaning by the following
_____________________________
It is two fold John 20:28 and where you base "all modern schollars" who you seem to have suggested as a result of their understanding consequently warrant the NWT position. Where are you basing this?
