God has proved his love for you

[kjw47]

Gods plan = mortals to live in an Eden( Paradise) knowing only good, never sick, never without. To live forever not aging like now. That is what Gods plan began, it is still his plan. He created all things with variety for us to enjoy. His word says, he knew us before our kidneys were formed, he knows the exact number of hairs on our heads. Think about that. God could easily see us as we see little ants scurrying about. The creator of all creation thinks about us individually and wants to be our friend. He sent his son to die on our behalf's. He asks us to use our free will out of love for him to listen to his advice. Which benefits us not him. He gave us his written word. Few have bothered to read it and learn about how merciful and loving he is. His son showed us that side while he was on earth. But he also stands for justice. And those who cant be bothered to learn about him and listen to him are choosing not to enter his kingdom and gain eternal life. His name is YHWH(Jehovah) the only true God.
Will you learn to be his friend?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]

It has been said that we shouldn't call God by His personal name. Why not? Moses, all the prophets, and King David as well as other kings called God "Jehovah," or whatever pronunciation a group of people would refer to God (YHWH). There are 7,000 times that the name "Jehovah" appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many people called Him by His personal name. One place is at Psalm 83:18 where the writer uses God's name.

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (KJV) There are only 4 places in the Scriptures that the KJV printed God's personal name, even though there are 7,000 more places. But the Tetragrammaton appears in the original Hebrew scrolls, which you can see if you look at a Hebrew Bible. Another is:

"Trust ye in the LORD forever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength." (Isaiah 26:4) The prophet Isaiah wrote that and had no compunction involving using God's name. Did you know that wherever the KJV has translated "LORD" in all uppercase letters, that is where the name of God appears in the Hebrew text? You can see it as the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Many translators opted to leave out the name of God in His own book!

Moses used God's name, if you'll look at his writings. He called Him by His personal name. He wrote at Exodus 3:15: "And God saith unto Moses, 'Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel. Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name--forever and this is My memorial to generation--generation." (Young's Literal Translation) That is the way it is translated by the translators for Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. It is not a JW translation. That translation puts the name of God in all the places that it appears in the Hebrew text.

King David used God's personal name continually. At Psalm 110: 1 and 2 David wrote: "The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord [the Messiah]: 'Sit at My right hand Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' The rod of thy strength doth Jehovah send from Zion, Rule in the midst of thine enemies." (Young's Literal Translation) David was very close to God, and he didn't call Him "Father." It is always God's personal name. So why shouldn't we use it when speaking to Him?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't Miss Kate I was writing to. Previously I had said it was. It was Mae von H. Sorry.

[Difflugia]

God never ever teaches us to benefit ourself and our self alone. The entire focus of Jesus’ teaching is to deny the self, the opposite of benefitting yourself. Saying “yourself” is in no translation of that verse…none.

Who is God "teaching you to benefit?"

“The Niphal form is a verbal stem formation in Biblical Hebrew, usually indicated by a נִ prefix before the 1st radical of the verb. (This נ changes in multiple conjugations, see paradigms below.) The Niphal stem is extremely flexible in its use in Biblical Hebrew. Generally speaking, the Niphal stem expresses either passive or reflexive voice; but it can also express middle voice, reciprocal voice, simple action, or even stative action, depending on the context and the specific verb. “

Um, thanks. What do you expect me to take away from this?

It was the JW “Bible” writer who arbitrarily and against all qualified Bible linguists decided to use the reflective.

What's the object of the verb if it's, as you seem to think, not reflexive?

You've have backed yourself into a linquistically absurd position and seem to think you can read some sort of theology out of whether "yourself" is express or implied.

[Difflugia]

There are plenty of problems with the NWT, but this isn't one of them.

Thank you, but I have to ask, what are the problems with the NWT?

I've mentioned a number of them in discussions here, some of which you've even been a part of. Here are links to some of those:

• The unjustifiable addition of "other" to Colossians 1:16.
• Changing the meaning of 1 Samuel 28 with scare quotes.
• The odd use of "cautious" instead of "clever," "crafty," or similar in Genesis 3:1.
• "Gives birth prematurely" vs. "miscarries" in Exodus 21:22.
• Isaac "fell in love with" Rebekah in Genesis 24:67.
• The NWT translates the same word to mean either "worship" or "obeisance" depending on who's being worshipped.

In short, despite the translators claiming that the NWT is meant to be a literal translation, they felt quite free to paraphrase when they needed to in order to support their peculiar doctrinal views.

I have compared dozens of versions and have come to the conclusion that the NWT is quite accurate.

Of course you have.

[Mae von H]

God never ever teaches us to benefit ourself and our self alone. The entire focus of Jesus’ teaching is to deny the self, the opposite of benefitting yourself. Saying “yourself” is in no translation of that verse…none.

Who is God "teaching you to benefit?"

Other people, the Kingdom of God.

“The Niphal form is a verbal stem formation in Biblical Hebrew, usually indicated by a נִ prefix before the 1st radical of the verb. (This נ changes in multiple conjugations, see paradigms below.) The Niphal stem is extremely flexible in its use in Biblical Hebrew. Generally speaking, the Niphal stem expresses either passive or reflexive voice; but it can also express middle voice, reciprocal voice, simple action, or even stative action, depending on the context and the specific verb. “

Um, thanks. What do you expect me to take away from this?

Just know that the man who decided to make that promise entirely selfish was his personal choice.

It was the JW “Bible” writer who arbitrarily and against all qualified Bible linguists decided to use the reflective.

What's the object of the verb if it's, as you seem to think, not reflexive?

Every other trained translator chose the non-reflexive. The whole of scripture is not there to benefit the self. We are to benefit others.

You've have backed yourself into a linquistically absurd position and seem to think you can read some sort of theology out of whether "yourself" is express or implied.

Not at all. You’ve lost. The choice to make it reflexiv and thereby selfish was the JW book author. That you WANT to accuse me shows you refuse to admit this. It also shows you refuse to see what a change to the selfish reflexive means.

[Difflugia]

Just know that the man who decided to make that promise entirely selfish was his personal choice.

The author of Deutero-Isaiah?

What's the object of the verb if it's, as you seem to think, not reflexive?

Every other trained translator chose the non-reflexive.

"Every other translator" directly in the King James tradition assumed that their readers understand English grammar. "Every other translator" outside of that tradition (NIV, HCSB, CEV, JPS, GNT, NRSV, GWT) agreed with the NWT translators that you might need some help with that. The verb's reflexive in each translation whether an object's explicit or not.

To help with the English, pick a few different verbs that can take either an express or implied object, like "shower," "shave," or "undress." If Yahweh were to teach "you" to do those things, is He teaching you to shave yourself or someone else?

To help with the Hebrew, note that the verse includes a poetic doublet. In those cases, two phrases are presented together that sometimes figuratively, but more often literally mean the same thing.

I am Yahweh your God,

who teaches you to profit,
who leads you where you should go.

Everything in that doublet refers to "you" except, according to you, "profit."

The whole of scripture is not there to benefit the self. We are to benefit others.

Except that's not what Isaiah 48:17 says.

You've have backed yourself into a linquistically absurd position and seem to think you can read some sort of theology out of whether "yourself" is express or implied.

Not at all. You’ve lost.

Just out of curiosity, which of your completely unsupported assertions should I find most compelling?

The choice to make it reflexiv and thereby selfish was the JW book author.

Every explicit pronominal verb ending in that phrase in Hebrew is "you" or "your." If you want it to mean something else, you have to add words yourself.

That you WANT to accuse me shows you refuse to admit this.

The only thing I "WANT to accuse" you of is a poor understanding of grammar.

It also shows you refuse to see what a change to the selfish reflexive means.

I do. I absolutely refuse.

[onewithhim]

There are plenty of problems with the NWT, but this isn't one of them.

Thank you, but I have to ask, what are the problems with the NWT?

I've mentioned a number of them in discussions here, some of which you've even been a part of. Here are links to some of those:

• The unjustifiable addition of "other" to Colossians 1:16.
• Changing the meaning of 1 Samuel 28 with scare quotes.
• The odd use of "cautious" instead of "clever," "crafty," or similar in Genesis 3:1.
• "Gives birth prematurely" vs. "miscarries" in Exodus 21:22.
• Isaac "fell in love with" Rebekah in Genesis 24:67.
• The NWT translates the same word to mean either "worship" or "obeisance" depending on who's being worshipped.

In short, despite the translators claiming that the NWT is meant to be a literal translation, they felt quite free to paraphrase when they needed to in order to support their peculiar doctrinal views.

I have compared dozens of versions and have come to the conclusion that the NWT is quite accurate.

Of course you have.

I am surprised that you found fault with those verses that you refer to in the NWT. I thought you understood the rules that allow someone to add a word to enhance the meaning of a verse. The KJV, for example, uses many other words to fill in a verse. Sometimes that is necessary.

"Which say, it is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh." (Ezekiel 11:3, KJV) The underlined words were added by the translators. There are hundreds more examples, if not thousands. Verse 5 adds "every one of":

"...I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them." (Ez.11:5b, KJV)

The KJV "paraphrased" as well, and all other versions do this. They just don't put the words in italics the way the KJV does.

Surely you can't find fault with "gives birth prematurely" compared to "miscarriages." Don't they mean exactly the same thing? And "worship" and "Obeisance"---I think that is quite accurate of the NWT to use each word according to the context. And how can "other" take away from the meaning of Colossians 1:16? I don't understand your objection to the other verses' words as well.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #25]

Has He ever told you personally that He loves you or do you just read JW doctrine about it?

Are you an ex baptized JW?
God draws close to those who draw close to him.

That’s a pretty interesting answer. Essentially “join our organization and God will draw near to you.” But you cannot honestly tell me that God has told you He loves you.

I brought that point out because I know that JWs do not experience a personal intimate relationship with God and I wanted to make you hungry. The GB is not watching. Consider this. But I do admit an ex JW choice will be entailed.

What does "an ex JW choice will be entailed" mean?

.

[Difflugia]

I am surprised that you found fault with those verses that you refer to in the NWT. I thought you understood the rules that allow someone to add a word to enhance the meaning of a verse.

I absolutely do. That's why I find fault with the way the NWT runs roughshod over those rules and changes the meaning of the text.

The KJV, for example, uses many other words to fill in a verse. Sometimes that is necessary.

I agree. In that vein, I defy you to find a case in the KJV where the added word actually reverses the meaning of the text. Perhaps one or more exist; the KJV certainly isn't perfect. The NWT is downright comical, though.

The KJV "paraphrased" as well, and all other versions do this. They just don't put the words in italics the way the KJV does.

They do. I've yet to find a version that isn't guilty of some amount of theological massaging of the text. Some are worse than others, though. In my opinion, the NWT is roughly as hamhanded as the NIV, for example. The NWT, however, makes this claim about itself:

We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.

Whether by accident or artifice, the NWT fails to meet this standard.

Surely you can't find fault with "gives birth prematurely" compared to "miscarriages." Don't they mean exactly the same thing?

Surely you don't believe that alive and dead are equivalent.

And "worship" and "Obeisance"---I think that is quite accurate of the NWT to use each word according to the context.

Claiming a simple context difference is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? What about the context would create more accuracy by using different words in Luke 4:8

In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

and 24:52?

And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

See if you can explain it without invoking an a priori doctrinal position.

And how can "other" take away from the meaning of Colossians 1:16?

That depends on whether or not you a priori believe that Jesus was himself created.

I don't understand your objection to the other verses' words as well.

While you certainly don't like them, I'd bet you actually understand these objections.

[Mae von H]

Just know that the man who decided to make that promise entirely selfish was his personal choice.

The author of Deutero-Isaiah?

What's the object of the verb if it's, as you seem to think, not reflexive?

Every other trained translator chose the non-reflexive.

"Every other translator" directly in the King James tradition assumed that their readers understand English grammar. "Every other translator" outside of that tradition (NIV, HCSB, CEV, JPS, GNT, NRSV, GWT) agreed with the NWT translators that you might need some help with that. The verb's reflexive in each translation whether an object's explicit or not.

Not according to Hebrew experts. It’s either reflexive or not and they aren’t the same at all. You cannot get around that no real Bible translator chose “benefit yourSELF” because the meaning is totally different and defies the entire writings of all other Bible authors. You really can’t get over this, can you?

To help with the English, pick a few different verbs that can take either an express or implied object, like "shower," "shave," or "undress." If Yahweh were to teach "you" to do those things, is He teaching you to shave yourself or someone else?

Find a verse where the Father (his preferred handle) teaches a man to shave.

To help with the Hebrew, note that the verse includes a poetic doublet. In those cases, two phrases are presented together that sometimes figuratively, but more often literally mean the same thing.

I am Yahweh your God,

who teaches you to profit,
who leads you where you should go.

Everything in that doublet refers to "you" except, according to you, "profit."

The whole of scripture is not there to benefit the self. We are to benefit others.

Except that's not what Isaiah 48:17 says.

You've have backed yourself into a linquistically absurd position and seem to think you can read some sort of theology out of whether "yourself" is express or implied.

Not at all. You’ve lost.

Just out of curiosity, which of your completely unsupported assertions should I find most compelling?

The choice to make it reflexiv and thereby selfish was the JW book author.

Every explicit pronominal verb ending in that phrase in Hebrew is "you" or "your." If you want it to mean something else, you have to add words yourself.

That you WANT to accuse me shows you refuse to admit this.

The only thing I "WANT to accuse" you of is a poor understanding of grammar.

It also shows you refuse to see what a change to the selfish reflexive means.

I do. I absolutely refuse.

Let’s move on. No one in the Bible ever came close to encouraging believers to expect God to benefit themself…and only themself. You’ll need to deal with this.

[Difflugia]

Not according to Hebrew experts.

Which part? What Hebrew experts? Are you still trying to bluff your way out of this?

It’s either reflexive or not and they aren’t the same at all.

Exactly my point. It's reflexive here.

You cannot get around that no real Bible translator chose “benefit yourSELF” because the meaning is totally different and defies the entire writings of all other Bible authors.

Did you just dismiss the translations that you don't like with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

You really can’t get over this, can you?

What, that someone debating me is trying to bluff their way through a linguistic debate? That's blood in the water.

Find a verse where the Father (his preferred handle) teaches a man to shave.

Based on the rest of your response, I'm guessing that won't help you, either.

Let’s move on.

You haven't supported any of your assertions at all. We haven't even left the gate.

No one in the Bible ever came close to encouraging believers to expect God to benefit themself…and only themself.

So, your entire linguistic argument is now that the most likely reading of a verse doesn't match your personal theology? You originally said, "This is not what the Hebrew says nor any translation I could find." You couldn't justify that, so now you're claiming that the Hebrew doesn't say what it says because you don't like the theological implications? Something, something, goalposts.

You’ll need to deal with this.

I'm trying to, but you keep telling me to just ignore the man behind the curtain.