independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)I can't believe this old bundle o tripe is still doin the rounds. (Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's only the ones that are out of touch who still believe it!) Some people would believe that a little green men came to earth and became president if the story helped support their case.
Actually, in all fairness there is an element of truth to it. It seems that a well meaning brother at the Branch Office joined the UN Library back in 1991 with a view to having access to books and documents for research purposes.
Apology accepted. 
I'd like to know where you got your imformation from (the jolly account of a naieve JW researcher who obtained a Lib card...) I dont question the fact that WT researchers would use the UN library, I question the reason behind the affiliation as an NGO when this is not required to gain access to the library. Even so, to gain access to the United Nations Library, a library card was not required. This changed prior to September 11th. I've included an email from a United NAtions librarian, Maureen Andersen Chief, User Services Section, Dag Hammarskjold Library. (Note the second paragraph) If you dont believe the imformation below is accurate, then drop her a line yourself, her email address is enclosed. Subject: Access to the Dag Hammarskjold Library in 1991 To: (undisclosed) From: "dhluss" Mr. P___, In 1991, access to the Dag Hammarskjold Library was given for short Periods of time to individuals who needed to consult unique materials which Were available only in our Library and not elsewhere. The procedure for a library pass was the following: the interested party needed to fill out an application form and supply a letter of recommendation in support of the research. If the required material was not available in a UN depository library (the list of depository libraries is posted at: http://www.un.org/depts/d...untries/), the application was approved and sent to UN Security and Safety Service for further review. If this Service approved the application, instructions were then given to the Pass Office to issue a library pass (bearing a photograph of the applicant) of fixed duration. The issuance of a library pass is independent of NGO status or any Other status. There has been no change in the library pass policy in general; however, as a result of the tragic events of September 11th, the issuance of library passes has been suspended indefinitely. I hope this information is useful and answers some of your questions. Sincerely, Maureen Andersen Chief, User Services Section Dag Hammarskjold Library | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
RE this talk about the UN, here's a question for you all... Am I now a member of the UN?
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: Janfriend said: Actually, it just means salvation. Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua which just means salvation, not Jehovah is salvation Do a little more research it means Jehovah is salvation. If you need resources I will post them, however if you really want to know you will find them on your own. What kind of resources? WTS ones? Adonai has proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his award is before him. Adonai is saying someone is coming. He calls this person "our salvation". Adonai is not speaking of himself coming. He is of course present when he is speaking. He can’t be speaking and coming at the same time. He is speaking of another person. Adonai has said, "behold your salvation". So who is this salvation spoken of in the Holy Scriptures? The name Yeshua in Hebrew means salvation. In Hebrew, a name is given to a person to represent a person’s character, identity, purpose or destiny. A name represents who a person is to be. Jesus never heard the name "Jesus". He was Jewish, with a Jewish/Hebrew name. The name which Jesus heard was "Yeshua". His name has been translated into other names, with "Jesus" probably being the most recognized. "Yeshua" is the name He answered to during His time on Earth. A wonderful reality has been lost in the translations of His name. You see, many wonder why Jesus claimed the Old Testament was about Him, and yet His name is never found in the Old Testament. Very simple answer: His name "Yeshua" means "Salvation", and was translated into it's literal meaning, instead of the actual name. Otherwise, it is said, the name "Yeshua" would be mentioned over 100 times in the Old Testament. The Old Testament did point to Jesus; but with His Hebrew name, "Yeshua". Even more specifically, Our Messiah's Name is YAHSHUA = YAH IS SALVATION. He was to come in His Father's Name. His Father's name is Yahweh. There is controversy as to how it's pronounced, spelled, etc [This message was edited Tue Jul 27 21:37:52 2004 by Janfriend] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: Even more specifically, Our Messiah's Name is YAHSHUA = YAH IS SALVATION. He was to come in His Father's Name. His Father's name is Yahweh. 
I'm confused, did you just prove ZKP's point Janfriend?
. Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great and extinguishes the small. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
couldUB said: Janfriend said: Even more specifically, Our Messiah's Name is YAHSHUA = YAH IS SALVATION. He was to come in His Father's Name. His Father's name is Yahweh.
I'm confused, did you just prove ZKP's point Janfriend?
. No. Did you read the first part and did you read: Janfriend said Very simple answer: His name "Yeshua" means "Salvation", and was translated into it's literal meaning, instead of the actual name. If Yahshua means Yah is salvation, what do you think Yahweh means? [This message was edited Wed Jul 28 0:51:32 2004 by Janfriend] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: I understand the idea behind "not being part of this world" In other words, spiritual matters and their consequence are of high import compared to worldly affairs. However, no matter how much you want to believe you are not of this world. You are. It's like saying that you don't live in America because you were born in another country. You are on this physical planet. Your existence is not inconsequential. Like I said, feel free to live your life in whatever moral fashion you choose, however acknowledge the real fact that you are of this world. You got a body. You walk on earth. Like it or not, this isn't the spiritual realm. I'm not knocking the spiritual, just pointing out the fact that you are a worldly creature. If you weren't you'd be living in the spiritual world wouldn't you?
yet Jesus himself was no part of this world. in a prayer to his heavenly Father he said at john 17:15, 16 "I request you, not to take them out of this world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as i am no part of the world." living on this earth and being no part of the world are two different things, and entirely possible. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world Being not of the world and being "no part" of the world are two different things | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: fantasyislander said: yet Jesus himself was no part of this world. in a prayer to his heavenly Father he said at john 17:15, 16 "I request you, not to take them out of this world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as i am no part of the world." living on this earth and being no part of the world are two different things, and entirely possible. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world Being not of the world and being "no part" of the world are two different things ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: If Yahshua means Yah is salvation, what do you think Yahweh means?
JAH vs. YAH / JEHOVAH vs. YAHWEH / JESUS vs. YAHSHUA vs. YESHUA Oh boy! Translation issues! Are we using English? Are we holding to the original Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? It's interesting that this debate is growing again. Here's a couple of links: From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh From the Catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/...08329a.htm From the Mission to Israel website: http://www.missiontoisrae...-name.html Should bibles be translations or transliterations? The point? The debate is much larger than prince.org, and my opinion and your opinion will have support from different scholars. Listed possibilities: 'He causes to become' 'He that is and shall be' I've often wondered: How do people in Greece read the Greek scriptures? Has the language changed too much? Would it be like reading 'old-english'? Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: Janfriend said: If Yahshua means Yah is salvation, what do you think Yahweh means?
JAH vs. YAH / JEHOVAH vs. YAHWEH / JESUS vs. YAHSHUA vs. YESHUA Oh boy! Translation issues! Are we using English? Are we holding to the original Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? It's interesting that this debate is growing again. Here's a couple of links: From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh From the Catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/...08329a.htm From the Mission to Israel website: http://www.missiontoisrae...-name.html Should bibles be translations or transliterations? The point? The debate is much larger than prince.org, and my opinion and your opinion will have support from different scholars. Listed possibilities: 'He causes to become' 'He that is and shall be' I've often wondered: How do people in Greece read the Greek scriptures? Has the language changed too much? Would it be like reading 'old-english'? thanks for that info, NotDeaf. i've always found it interesting the debate between Jehovah and Yahweh, etc. personally, i use Jehovah and Jesus because i speak english, and that is the english transliteration. however, i also speak spanish, and when i speak spanish i say Jehova' (pronounced hay-oh-VAH) and Jesus (hay-SOOS). if i spoke Hebrew then i'd probably say Yahweh (or whatever the correct pronunciation is.) it's just like any other name, it's different in any language. Joshua in english is Josue' in spanish. (hoe-SWAY) Mary is Maria, Joseph is Jose', Alexander is Alejandro, Xavier is Javier, etc, etc. any name is different in any language, whether it's Russian, Chinese, Swedish, French, German, etc, etc. i know that Jesus didn't say "Gee-suss" when he said his name, because he didn' speak english. just like someone in france doesn't say "Jack" but he says "Jacque". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: Janfriend said: 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world Being not of the world and being "no part" of the world are two different things ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. "not of" and "no part of" are different. Examples: You could be not of the Unites States (from another country), but part of the Unites States because you live and work there. You are part of the development and progression of where you are Being no part of something would be like a separatist group that wants nothing to do with the outside world, like the Amish or a militia group or a cult like Jim Jones' Peoples Temple Jesus did not instruct his followers to not obey the laws of the land and live in there own little world. He simply said they are not caught up in the evils of the world, they are different and not like "everybody else" and therefore they are hated There is no Greek word for "part" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: Janfriend said: 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world Being not of the world and being "no part" of the world are two different things ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. The NWT translates this verse thus: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you." Actually the NWT translation of John 15:19 is in error and leads to a complete misunderstanding of the verse and therefore a false application. There are at least two places where the NWT translation is in error (the sections I have in bold above). The first thing to note is that there is no Greek word for "part" in the text ("meros" is the Greek word for part). The Greek should have: "ei meros tou kosmou ete" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"ei ek-----tou kosmou ete." The Greek preposition "ek" is used with the genitive case. The words "tou kosmou" translates "the world." So if one leave out the noun "meros," which is not in the Greek text anyway, and since the genitive case is often translated by the English word "of," and this can clearly be seen in the NWT example above, then the text should read: "If you were of the world." Now on to the second problem. The Greek should have: "oti de meros tou kosmou ouk este" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"oti de ek-----tou kosmou ouk este." As anyone can see, and I have lined it up so all may, the key phrase used by the NWT and the meaning the NWT wishes to support is not found in the Greek text. The question asked in the above post is: "so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable?" The difference is one between relationship verse ownership. The Greek preposition plus the genitive case shows ownership. This is a possessive genitive and this is the most common usage of the genitive case. The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world." Therefore the idea that Christians have no part or relationship to the world and cannot or should not participate in matters concerning the world cannot be supported by this text. If John wanted to say that Christians are to have no dealings with the world then he would not have used this Greek construction. The thought is that Christians no longer belong to the world because Christ has paid their debt for sin, but these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world. So what is the function of the Greek preposition "ek" in this verse? A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) lists five basic usages of "ek": (1) marker denoting separation (p.295). In this case it reflects the idea of the place or a thing from which separation takes place (used with verbs of motion). There are no verbs of motion in this text and thus it does not fit. (2) marker denoting the direction from which something comes (p. 296). For example: "I am from New York." Also this does not fit this passages. (3) marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). This one fits the usages in the passage and clearly can be seen from the phrase "I have chosen you out of [from] the world." Their place of origin was the world. The world is where he found them. (4) marker used in periphrasis (p.297). Once again this usage does not fit. (5) marker denoting temporal sequence (p. 297). This usages also does not fit. Conclusion (1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text. (2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else. (3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin or source and does not have anything to do with relationship of an object or person to something else. In fact if the NWT was correct in its translation the preposition should not be in the Greek text at all. [This message was edited Wed Aug 11 15:13:37 2004 by 333] "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: fantasyislander said: ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. "not of" and "no part of" are different. Examples: You could be not of the Unites States (from another country), but part of the Unites States because you live and work there. You are part of the development and progression of where you are Being no part of something would be like a separatist group that wants nothing to do with the outside world, like the Amish or a militia group or a cult like Jim Jones' Peoples Temple Jesus did not instruct his followers to not obey the laws of the land and live in there own little world. He simply said they are not caught up in the evils of the world, they are different and not like "everybody else" and therefore they are hated There is no Greek word for "part" i hope you didn't misunderstand what i've said above, because what you put here is EXACTLY how i thought this verse read. as christians we live in this land and obey the laws of this land, but we are not involved in the evils of this world, we are different, "separate" in that sense. so, we agree as to the meaning of this verse, right? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
333 said: fantasyislander said: ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. The NWT translates this verse thus: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you." Actually the NWT translation of John 15:19 is in error and leads to a complete misunderstanding of the verse and therefore a false application. There are at least two places where the NWT translation is in error (the sections I have in bold above). The first thing to note is that there is Greek word for "part" in the text ("meros" is the Greek word for part). The Greek should have: "ei meros tou kosmou ate" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"ei ek-----tou kosmou ate." The Greek preposition "ek" is used with the genitive case. The words "tou kosmou" translates "the world." So if one leave out the noun "meros," which is not in the Greek text anyway, and since the genitive case is often translated by the English word "of," and this can clearly be seen in the NWT example above, then the text should read: "If you were of the world." Now on to the second problem. The Greek should have: "oti de meros tou kosmou ouk este" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"oti de ek-----tou kosmou ouk este." As anyone can see, and I have lined it up so all may, the key phrase used by the NWT and the meaning the NWT wishes to support is not found in the Greek text. The question asked in the above post is: "so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable?" The difference is one between relationship verse ownership. The Greek preposition plus the genitive case shows ownership. This is a possessive genitive and this is the most common usage of the genitive case. The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world." Therefore the idea that Christians have no part or relationship to the world and cannot or should not participate in matters concerning the world cannot be supported by this text. If John wanted to say that Christians are to have no dealings with the world then he would not have used this Greek construction. The thought is that Christians no longer belong to the world because Christ has paid their debt for sin, but these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world. So what is the function of the Greek preposition "ek" in this verse? A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) lists five basic usages of "ek": (1) marker denoting separation (p.295). In this case it reflects the idea of the place or a thing from which separation takes place (used with verbs of motion). There are no verbs of motion in this text and thus it does not fit. (2) marker denoting the direction from which something comes (p. 296). For example: "I am from New York." Also this does not fit this passages. (3) marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). This one fits the usages in the passage and clearly can be seen from the phrase "I have chosen you out of [from] the world." Their place of origin was the world. The world is where he found them. (4) marker used in periphrasis (p.297). Once again this usage does not fit. (5) marker denoting temporal sequence (p. 297). This usages also does not fit. Conclusion (1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text. (2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else. (3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin or source and does not have anything to do with relationship of an object or person to something else. In fact if the NWT was correct in its translation the preposition should not be in the Greek text at all. The exact word for word from greek to english is this.....if of the world ye were the world would its own have loved;but because of the world ye are not, but I chose you out of the world, therfore hates you the world. This is exactly what we believe no matter how bad people twist the Bible the NWT is the most accurate translations available and its free! go figure. Even non JW have agreed with my statement on being the most accurate translation when you compare it with the original greek. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: Janfriend said: "not of" and "no part of" are different. Examples: You could be not of the Unites States (from another country), but part of the Unites States because you live and work there. You are part of the development and progression of where you are Being no part of something would be like a separatist group that wants nothing to do with the outside world, like the Amish or a militia group or a cult like Jim Jones' Peoples Temple Jesus did not instruct his followers to not obey the laws of the land and live in there own little world. He simply said they are not caught up in the evils of the world, they are different and not like "everybody else" and therefore they are hated There is no Greek word for "part" i hope you didn't misunderstand what i've said above, because what you put here is EXACTLY how i thought this verse read. as christians we live in this land and obey the laws of this land, but we are not involved in the evils of this world, we are different, "separate" in that sense. so, we agree as to the meaning of this verse, right? hi fantasy This thread is getting long. There are so many other verses to tell us to stay seperate from the world also. I guess in the eyes of some it will always be disputed. I hope your having a great day! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: fantasyislander said: i hope you didn't misunderstand what i've said above, because what you put here is EXACTLY how i thought this verse read. as christians we live in this land and obey the laws of this land, but we are not involved in the evils of this world, we are different, "separate" in that sense. so, we agree as to the meaning of this verse, right? hi fantasy This thread is getting long. There are so many other verses to tell us to stay seperate from the world also. I guess in the eyes of some it will always be disputed. I hope your having a great day!thanks! yeah, i agree too. and have a great day to you too! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
333 said: fantasyislander said: ok, so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable. The NWT translates this verse thus: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you." Actually the NWT translation of John 15:19 is in error and leads to a complete misunderstanding of the verse and therefore a false application. There are at least two places where the NWT translation is in error (the sections I have in bold above). The first thing to note is that there is Greek word for "part" in the text ("meros" is the Greek word for part). The Greek should have: "ei meros tou kosmou ate" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"ei ek-----tou kosmou ate." The Greek preposition "ek" is used with the genitive case. The words "tou kosmou" translates "the world." So if one leave out the noun "meros," which is not in the Greek text anyway, and since the genitive case is often translated by the English word "of," and this can clearly be seen in the NWT example above, then the text should read: "If you were of the world." Now on to the second problem. The Greek should have: "oti de meros tou kosmou ouk este" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"oti de ek-----tou kosmou ouk este." As anyone can see, and I have lined it up so all may, the key phrase used by the NWT and the meaning the NWT wishes to support is not found in the Greek text. The question asked in the above post is: "so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable?" The difference is one between relationship verse ownership. The Greek preposition plus the genitive case shows ownership. This is a possessive genitive and this is the most common usage of the genitive case. The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world." Therefore the idea that Christians have no part or relationship to the world and cannot or should not participate in matters concerning the world cannot be supported by this text. If John wanted to say that Christians are to have no dealings with the world then he would not have used this Greek construction. The thought is that Christians no longer belong to the world because Christ has paid their debt for sin, but these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world. So what is the function of the Greek preposition "ek" in this verse? A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) lists five basic usages of "ek": (1) marker denoting separation (p.295). In this case it reflects the idea of the place or a thing from which separation takes place (used with verbs of motion). There are no verbs of motion in this text and thus it does not fit. (2) marker denoting the direction from which something comes (p. 296). For example: "I am from New York." Also this does not fit this passages. (3) marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). This one fits the usages in the passage and clearly can be seen from the phrase "I have chosen you out of [from] the world." Their place of origin was the world. The world is where he found them. (4) marker used in periphrasis (p.297). Once again this usage does not fit. (5) marker denoting temporal sequence (p. 297). This usages also does not fit. Conclusion (1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text. (2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else. (3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin or source and does not have anything to do with relationship of an object or person to something else. In fact if the NWT was correct in its translation the preposition should not be in the Greek text at all. WHAT did Jesus mean in saying that his followers are “in the world,” and yet that they must be “no part of the world”? (John 17:11, 14) To be among those surviving to live in God’s New Order, we need to understand this. 2 First consider what being “no part of the world” does not mean. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves like hermits in a cave or that we withdraw into a monastery or other remote place. On the contrary, the night before his death Jesus prayed to his Father on behalf of his disciples, saying: “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”—John 17:15, 16. 3 Rather than be hidden from people, Jesus’ disciples were ‘sent forth into the world’ to make known the truth. (John 17:18) In doing so, they served as “the light of the world,” letting the light of truth shine so that men might see how God’s truth affects people’s lives for the good.—Matthew 5:14-16. 4 Christians have contact with many people as they work to support themselves and their families and as they bring the good news of God’s Kingdom to mankind. So, as the apostle Paul shows, they are not expected to “get out of the world” in a physical way. They cannot entirely “quit mixing in company” with people of the world. But they can and must keep away from the wrong practices of the majority of mankind.—1 Corinthians 5:9-11. 5 The situation is similar to that of Noah’s day when Jehovah took note that “all men had lived corrupt lives on earth.” (Genesis 6:12, The New English Bible) But Noah and his family lived differently. By refusing to join in with the corruption around them and by preaching righteousness, Noah “condemned the world.” He showed it to be inexcusably out of harmony with God’s will. (Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 2:5) That is why, when the global Flood brought an end to ungodly mankind, he and his family survived. They were “in the world” yet at the same time were “no part of the world.”—Genesis 6:9-13; 7:1; Matthew 24:38, 39. What Is Proper Love for People of the World? 6 Would becoming “no part of the world” also mean becoming a hater of mankind? To do so would put one at odds with Jehovah God, who, his Son Jesus said, “loved the world [of mankind] so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” So God’s kindness and compassion toward people of all sorts sets the example for us to follow.—John 3:16; Matthew 5:44-48. 7 But does not the apostle John tell us, “Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him”? If God himself loved the world, why did the apostle say this?—1 John 2:15. 8 The Bible shows that God loves the world of mankind simply as humans who are in an imperfect, dying state and in desperate need of help. On the other hand, Satan has organized most of humankind in opposition to God. It is that “world”—human society alienated from God and under Satan’s control—from which true Christians must be separate. (James 1:27) God’s Word warns against loving the wrong desires and deeds of that world: “Everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.”—1 John 2:15-17. 9 Yes, those desires of the flesh and of the eyes and for personal exaltation do ‘originate with the world.’ They were what developed in mankind’s first parents and led them to seek independence from God so that they could follow selfish interests. Following these selfish worldly desires led to breaking God’s laws.—Genesis 3:1-6, 17. 10 Consider what you see around you. Do not most people build their lives around the desires of the flesh and of the eyes and “the showy display of one’s means of life”? Is it not these things that shape their hopes and interests, governing the way they act and deal with one another? Because of this, human history is one long record of disunity and war, of immorality and crime, of commercial greed and oppression, of proud ambition, and of striving for fame and power. 11 We can see, then, that loving the world as God does is far different from loving its wrong desires and practices, which he condemns. God’s love for mankind has opened the way to freedom from those sinful desires and their bad results, including death itself. He expressed that love by giving his own Son to ransom mankind. But if anyone rejects that sacrifice and continues in disobedience, the Bible says that “the wrath of God remains upon him.”—John 3:16, 36; Romans 5:6-8 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: it's just like any other name, it's different in any language. Joshua in english is Josue' in spanish. (hoe-SWAY) Mary is Maria, Joseph is Jose', Alexander is Alejandro, Xavier is Javier, etc, etc. any name is different in any language, whether it's Russian, Chinese, Swedish, French, German, etc, etc. i know that Jesus didn't say "Gee-suss" when he said his name, because he didn' speak english. just like someone in france doesn't say "Jack" but he says "Jacque".
RIGHT! In ASL my name, as well as all others, are NOT spoken! There isn't even a written form of the "name-sign". Just whatever the writter wishes to put down. (We call this a gloss) Only the person writting it will truly understand the gloss. We are still the same person, even if the name is slightly altered. So, for us, God's name ISN'T spoken. It's a movement of the hands.  Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: 333 said: The NWT translates this verse thus: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you." Actually the NWT translation of John 15:19 is in error and leads to a complete misunderstanding of the verse and therefore a false application. There are at least two places where the NWT translation is in error (the sections I have in bold above). The first thing to note is that there is no Greek word for "part" in the text ("meros" is the Greek word for part). The Greek should have: "ei meros tou kosmou ete" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"ei ek-----tou kosmou ete." The Greek preposition "ek" is used with the genitive case. The words "tou kosmou" translates "the world." So if one leave out the noun "meros," which is not in the Greek text anyway, and since the genitive case is often translated by the English word "of," and this can clearly be seen in the NWT example above, then the text should read: "If you were of the world." Now on to the second problem. The Greek should have: "oti de meros tou kosmou ouk este" (if the NWT translation were correct). The Greek text reads:---"oti de ek-----tou kosmou ouk este." As anyone can see, and I have lined it up so all may, the key phrase used by the NWT and the meaning the NWT wishes to support is not found in the Greek text. The question asked in the above post is: "so explain to me what you think the difference is between being "no part of the world" and "not part of the world." aside from one letter missing i think they're pretty much interchangeable?" The difference is one between relationship verse ownership. The Greek preposition plus the genitive case shows ownership. This is a possessive genitive and this is the most common usage of the genitive case. The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world." Therefore the idea that Christians have no part or relationship to the world and cannot or should not participate in matters concerning the world cannot be supported by this text. If John wanted to say that Christians are to have no dealings with the world then he would not have used this Greek construction. The thought is that Christians no longer belong to the world because Christ has paid their debt for sin, but these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world. So what is the function of the Greek preposition "ek" in this verse? A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) lists five basic usages of "ek": (1) marker denoting separation (p.295). In this case it reflects the idea of the place or a thing from which separation takes place (used with verbs of motion). There are no verbs of motion in this text and thus it does not fit. (2) marker denoting the direction from which something comes (p. 296). For example: "I am from New York." Also this does not fit this passages. (3) marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). This one fits the usages in the passage and clearly can be seen from the phrase "I have chosen you out of [from] the world." Their place of origin was the world. The world is where he found them. (4) marker used in periphrasis (p.297). Once again this usage does not fit. (5) marker denoting temporal sequence (p. 297). This usages also does not fit. Conclusion (1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text. (2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else. (3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin or source and does not have anything to do with relationship of an object or person to something else. In fact if the NWT was correct in its translation the preposition should not be in the Greek text at all. The exact word for word from greek to english is this.....if of the world ye were the world would its own have loved;but because of the world ye are not, but I chose you out of the world, therfore hates you the world. This is exactly what we believe no matter how bad people twist the Bible the NWT is the most accurate translations available and its free! go figure. Even non JW have agreed with my statement on being the most accurate translation when you compare it with the original greek. zpk2003 "The exact word for word from greek to english is this.....'if of the world ye were the world would its own have loved;but because of the world ye are not, but I chose you out of the world, therefore hates you the world."
Actually, no! Word for word it reads in English: "If of [or "from"] the world you were, the world (an) the one's own would have love, but because of [or "from"] the world not you are. But I chose you of [or "from, out of"] the world." Merely copying from an interlinear Greek-English bible does not help one understand Greek grammar or syntax. I. The word in parenthesis above is the Greek particle "an" and is not translated and does not translate the English word "would." The particle "an" is used with (1) an indicative imperfect verb, and (2) appears in the apodosis following a conditional clause with "ei." Both are the case here. It denotes repeated action under certain conditions. See Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, eds., Eerdmans Publishing: 2002, vol. 1, p. 74). II. There is no possessive pronoun "its" in the Greek text. It has to be supplied in order for the Greek to make sense in English. III. Note that your post does not address the use of the genitive care, the use of preposition "ek", and the lack of a Greek word for "part" in the Greek text. These are the key points and the reasons the NWT translation is in error. zpk2003 "This is exactly what we believe no matter how bad people twist the Bible the NWT is the most accurate translations available and its free! go figure. Even non JW have agreed with my statement on being the most accurate translation when you compare it with the original greek.
Once again, no. It is not what the Greek text has and the NWT is far from the most accurate translations available. Most Greek and New Testament scholars would not agree that NWT is the most accurate translations available. And as for your quote of John 17:16 from the NWT: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world" it suffers from the same problems as John 15:19. (1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text. (2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else. (3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin or source and does not have anything to do with relationship of an object or person to something else. In fact if the NWT was correct in its translation the preposition should not be in the Greek text at all. [This message was edited Wed Aug 11 15:16:39 2004 by 333] "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
so 333, a question for you:
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: so 333, a question for you:
why did Peter, when commanded to stop preaching, speak of obeying God as ruler rather than men, in the book of Acts? did he misinterpret something? and he would have heard the words straight from the horse's mouth... his words & actions are certainly in line with being apart from the world...I wonder if people reason on these things. Also, the words in the above post do not appear to be 333's. He's merely been copying and pasting like so many others who post info from the "anti-sites". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also, the words in the above post do not appear to be 333's. He's merely been copying and pasting like so many others who post info from the "anti-sites".
That doesnt make his comments any less valid. If you want to refute what is posted, then fair enough. But I see little point in moaning about where he got the information from, as long as the information posted is true and correct. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: Also, the words in the above post do not appear to be 333's. He's merely been copying and pasting like so many others who post info from the "anti-sites".
That doesnt make his comments any less valid. If you want to refute what is posted, then fair enough. But I see little point in moaning about where he got the information from, as long as the information posted is true and correct. that's the real question, isn't it? what is the difference if it says "not of" or "no part of". the meaning is the same. christians are to remain separate from the world. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: [
That doesnt make his comments any less valid... just a lot less interesting. we can google and find this stuff ourselves. 
i'd rather speak with an actual individual, truth be told. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: as long as the information posted is true and correct.
True and correct in what way? Does grammar rules ACTUALLY provide the final say? Proper translation from one language to another means more than just knowing the rules of grammar. I deal with good and bad translating everyday. (from ASL to English and from English to ASL) In my experience, the person who is MOST accurate knows both the language AND the person well. Some people have expressions that they use, that if translated DIRECTLY BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR would be completely wrong. (Easiest example are idioms) Context Is Everything. The actress Marlee Matlin, has had the same interpreter / translator for YEARS. Why? He knows her, how she thinks, how she expresses herself, WHAT SHE MEANS. If her grammar isn't in the 3rd person subjective negative inclusion form, he still knows what she means. Heiress makes the point of checking actions for understanding: Heiress said: why did Peter, when commanded to stop preaching, speak of obeying God as ruler rather than men, in the book of Acts?
did he misinterpret something? and he would have heard the words straight from the horse's mouth... his words & actions are certainly in line with being apart from the world... The ACTIONS show the meaning. Even if the words used in THAT passage wern't the 2nd person indicative imperfect use of the genitive care. . Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: yxl1 said: as long as the information posted is true and correct.
True and correct in what way? Does grammar rules ACTUALLY provide the final say? Proper translation from one language to another means more than just knowing the rules of grammar. I deal with good and bad translating everyday. (from ASL to English and from English to ASL) In my experience, the person who is MOST accurate knows both the language AND the person well. Some people have expressions that they use, that if translated DIRECTLY BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR would be completely wrong. (Easiest example are idioms) Context Is Everything. The actress Marlee Matlin, has had the same interpreter / translator for YEARS. Why? He knows her, how she thinks, how she expresses herself, WHAT SHE MEANS. If her grammar isn't in the 3rd person subjective negative inclusion form, he still knows what she means. Heiress makes the point of checking actions for understanding: Heiress said: why did Peter, when commanded to stop preaching, speak of obeying God as ruler rather than men, in the book of Acts?
did he misinterpret something? and he would have heard the words straight from the horse's mouth... his words & actions are certainly in line with being apart from the world... The ACTIONS show the meaning. Even if the words used in THAT passage wern't the 2nd person indicative imperfect use of the genitive care. . Ok so lets say there was no NWT? You can get the truth from any Bible as long as you have the greek to compare it with. I really like the scripture that say's (1CORINTH 14:9) IN THE SAME WAY ALSO, UNLESS YOU THROUGH THE TONGUE UTTER SPEECH EASILY UNDERSTOOD, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN? yOU WILL IN FACT BE SPEAKING INTO THE AIR. YES SINCE WE ARE IN THE YEAR 2004 WE HAVE TO USE WORDS THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND NOT YE AND THOU ETC. JUST BECAUSE WORDS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: yxl1 said: as long as the information posted is true and correct.
True and correct in what way? Does grammar rules ACTUALLY provide the final say? Proper translation from one language to another means more than just knowing the rules of grammar. I deal with good and bad translating everyday. (from ASL to English and from English to ASL) In my experience, the person who is MOST accurate knows both the language AND the person well. Some people have expressions that they use, that if translated DIRECTLY BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR would be completely wrong. (Easiest example are idioms) Context Is Everything. The actress Marlee Matlin, has had the same interpreter / translator for YEARS. Why? He knows her, how she thinks, how she expresses herself, WHAT SHE MEANS. If her grammar isn't in the 3rd person subjective negative inclusion form, he still knows what she means. Heiress makes the point of checking actions for understanding: Heiress said: why did Peter, when commanded to stop preaching, speak of obeying God as ruler rather than men, in the book of Acts?
did he misinterpret something? and he would have heard the words straight from the horse's mouth... his words & actions are certainly in line with being apart from the world... The ACTIONS show the meaning. Even if the words used in THAT passage wern't the 2nd person indicative imperfect use of the genitive care. . Ok so lets say there was no NWT? You can get the truth from any Bible as long as you have the greek to compare it with. I really like the scripture that say's (1CORINTH 14:9) IN THE SAME WAY ALSO, UNLESS YOU THROUGH THE TONGUE UTTER SPEECH EASILY UNDERSTOOD, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN? yOU WILL IN FACT BE SPEAKING INTO THE AIR. YES SINCE WE ARE IN THE YEAR 2004 WE HAVE TO USE WORDS THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND NOT YE AND THOU ETC. JUST BECAUSE WORDS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: (1CORINTH 14:9) IN THE SAME WAY ALSO, UNLESS YOU THROUGH THE TONGUE UTTER SPEECH EASILY UNDERSTOOD, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN? yOU WILL IN FACT BE SPEAKING INTO THE AIR.
Yes, that's a good one. Clearly it applies to spoken word, written word, AND signed words.(even though it only mentions the spoken word) Or would that make me a false prophet?  Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: Or would that make me a false prophet?
i know how the quotes work . . . edit [This message was edited Thu Jul 29 8:12:48 2004 by fantasyislander] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: zkp2003 said: (1CORINTH 14:9) IN THE SAME WAY ALSO, UNLESS YOU THROUGH THE TONGUE UTTER SPEECH EASILY UNDERSTOOD, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN? yOU WILL IN FACT BE SPEAKING INTO THE AIR.
Yes, that's a good one. Clearly it applies to spoken word, written word, AND signed words.(even though it only mentions the spoken word) Or would that make me a false prophet? LOL | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
“Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.”—1 PETER 4:4.
Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
