I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses

[walter]

I don't usually find that a list of scriptures or a long passage ever really answers any of my questions, as I find brief passages taken out of context to be too vague and abstract. Longer passages are more specific, but in the sense they are about the story being told, not about the here and now question being asked, if that makes sense.

I believe you are correct some things can not be explained with scriptures, but I feel the things that are important Jesus or the Apostles talk about them, or maybe another place in the Bible. I truly believe my fundamental Beliefs are explained in the Bible.

 

[Thomas]

Clear:

What your friend told you is correct.

As all reading this thread can see, this is not merely a "Jehovah's Witness theology." It is taken directly from scripture in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Hi @Alter2Ego – welcome aboard!

I would offer:
"And he (the robber crucified alongside Jesus) said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom." And he said to him, "Amen, I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).

I would have thought if "... nothing (absolutely nothing) is left of that individual's prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance....", then there is no 'you' to enter paradise?

 

[walter]

Accordingly, a fifth-century Curetonian Syriac version renders Jesus’ reply: “Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'” --Luke 23:43

Comma placement

In Luke 23:43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Could this also be interpreted as, “I say to you today, you will…” In other words is it more likely that “today” describes when “you will be with me” or when “I say to you”. kai eipen auto, Amen soi...

www.textkit.com

In Luke 23:43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Could this also be interpreted as, “I say to you today, you will…” In other words is it more likely that “today” describes when “you will be with me” or when “I say to you”. kai eipen auto, Amen soi...
Also:
kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.’”)–Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton
parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the truth,
that I should have you in Paradise with me.’”)–Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” On that very day,when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40;1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18 ) Thus, the word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being with Jesus in Paradise._

 

[Thomas]

Thomas:

That is incorrect. A translation is simply the presentation of the same thought from one language into a different language. A correct translation DOES NOT change the meaning of the original text.

I would say a translation strives to communicate the meaning of the text, and the translator is required to interpret the sense of the text in a way in which the reader can understand.

If translation was as simple as you say, then machine translators would suffice, but let me assure you that is not the case.

That's why translators are applauded for their work – not only in Biblical spheres, but in translating works in French, German, Japanese, etc., into English. Read the foreword of any classic in a foreign language translated into English and the translator will talk of the difficulties of translation. I had a tutor who said he once spent and hour and a half searching not simply the meaning of a word (in the writings of a 6th century saint), but rather how that person used the word and what he meant by it – that is some small insight into the translators work.

In every common language today, speakers will tell you there are words and phrases in their language that defy translation – there simply isn't the equivalent expression in English.

The idea that Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek of the Scriptures does not suffer the same problems assumes too much.

An example is John 11:8 –
"His disciples say unto him, 'Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?" (KJV, and most common translations)
"The disciples said to him: 'Rabbi, just lately the Judeans were seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?' ” (NWT)

The Greek is Ἰουδαῖοι ioudaios, and 'Jews' is perfectly acceptable.

However, as accurate or acceptable as the KJV and others might be, it led to many assuming, quite wrongly, that John was antisemitic. The Jehovah's Witness translation is more nuanced in saying 'the Judaeans', because that highlights the clash between Jesus and his Jewish Galilean followers and the Jewish Judaeans who were aligned to the Temple authorities – so the choice of Judaean, which I too, favour, was a judgement call on the translators' part.

 

[Thomas]

Really? You are saying the exact opposite of what the scripture at 2 Timothy 3:16 says.

No I'm not. I'm saying the way 2 Timothy 3:16 was understood then, by the people it was written to and for, is not the way some choose to interpret the phrase nowadays.

The early Christians were a community, and had its teachers and other offices, such as the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12), all given to one end, the "edifying of the church.

"knowing this before all else: that no prophecy of scripture comes from a private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20),
and yet many assume that they may interpret Scripture in a way that seems fitting to themselves.

"... just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom vouchsafed him, also wrote to you, and just as he does in all his letters when speaking in them about these things – wherein there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untutored and unstable distort (as they do to the rest of the scriptures too), to their own ruin." (2 Peter 3:15-16).

These and other texts show that Scripture is not 'self-explanatory' as many assume Scripture to be, nor is Scripture given for the benefit of the individual, but "the edification of the Church" (cf 1 Corinthians 14:12, Ephesians 4:12, 4:16, 5:23).

I will go with what the Bible says since it was written by inspiration of God.

OK.

 

[Clear]

1) IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY, INTELLIGENCE AND EMOTIONS RESIDE IN THE PHYSICAL BODY’S BRAIN AND AT DEATH ALL ASPECTS OF THE PERSONS PERSONALITY IS ANNIHILATED AND NO LONGER EXISTS IN ANY FORM EXCEPT MEMORIES HAD BY OTHERS

Clear asked in post #489: “I have been talking with a Jehovahs Witness friend who mentioned that the Jehovahs Witness theology concerning death is that the intelligence and emotions and memories within an individual resides in the physical brain (as opposed to residing in an intelligent spirit within the body), and that, upon death and the complete decomposition of the body, nothing, (absolutely nothing) is left of that individuals prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance, other than memories of that person retained by others.
Is this correct?
Alter2Ego responded: What your friend told you is correct.
To quote you with regard to what your friend said Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding the condition of the dead: "... nothing (absolutely nothing) is left of that individual's prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance...." Below is where Jehovah's Witnesses got that belief:”

Thank you so much for the simple, direct answer to my question.



2) NO ONE ACTUALLY TAKES THEIR THEOLOGY DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE, BUT INSTEAD THEY TAKE THEIR THEOLOGY FROM SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF SACRED TEXTS

Alter2Ego responded: As all reading this thread can see, this is not merely a "Jehovah's Witness theology." It is taken directly from scripture in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Though I understand why individuals claim that they take their theology and theories “directly” from scripture, this is not what actually happens. What happens is individuals typically read the bible and, using their personal context and bias, create personal meaning of the text that may (or may not) be shared by others.

Thus, your (and my) theologies typical come from our various subjective interpretations of text.
Because our individual contexts and biases differ, our resulting interpretations will differ.
And because our interpretations differ, our theology will differ.

Another problem is the variance of language and texts we read. For example, Your version of Ecclesiates 9:5 renders ουκ εισι γινωσκοντες ουδεν as “the dead know nothing” but if we use the ancient Jewish and Christian version in their literature the context is different which affects the translation.

This does not mean the early Judeo-Christian religion is correct and your religion is incorrect, merely that they are different.

Thank you again for the simple and clear answer and for not trying to obscure the answer.

 

[Clear]

Thomas pointed out: “One cannot read without interpreting. A translation is an interpretation, even before we get to read it.”
Alter2Ego replied: “That is incorrect. A translation is simply the presentation of the same thought from one language into a different language. A correct translation DOES NOT change the meaning of the original text.”
Thomas replied: “I would say a translation strives to communicate the meaning of the text, and the translator is required to interpret the sense of the text in a way in which the reader can understand.”



I agree with Thomas on this specific issue.

Anyone who thinks translation is simply the same thought transferred from one language to another is not a translator.
It is NOT that simple.

Different Translators vary considerably in their language abilities, in their knowledge base, in their historical knowledge, and in their biases through which they translate.

A good example is Doug Moos' description of his group that created the NIV often disagreed on their translation of a specific text.
To break the impasse, they voted on the most popular translation which, often enough Doug disagreed with, but was out voted.

Translators such as James Sanders related publicly, that it is very difficult to describe the problems of translation to "normal Christians" and he commented on how unhappy Isaiah might be with how his words were translated but Isaiah would simply have to "put up with it" because average people would be reluctant to hear what he actually said and how it should have been translated.

 

[walter]

These scriptures agree with each-other. Some scriptures can be taken in two or three different ways, I have picked a perspective that agrees with the many other scriptures in the Bible.

1.In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” -Gen. 3:19 NKJV
2. For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same
[ **breath/spirit ]. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. 20 All go to one place; all come from dust, and all return to dust. - Ecc. 3:19, 20 Berean Standard Bible
3. "let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy" "the earth will give birth to her dead" -Isaiah 26:19 NIV
4. “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death" -Hosea 13:14 NKJV
5. When his [ *spirit/breath KJB ] departs, he returns to the ground; on that very day his plans perish. -Psalm 146:4
6. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. NIV -Ecc. 9:5
7. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun. NIV Ecc. 9:6
8. and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit/breath returns to God who gave it. NIV Ecc. 12:7
9. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” New International Version 1 Corinthians 15:54
( Death has been swallowed up - because in the resurrection they will get everlasting life )
10. Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
11. "And I will raise them up at the last day" NIV -John 6:44
12. "And you, Daniel, go rest to the end, and you shall rise in your time at the end of days." -Daniel 12:13 Peshitta Holy Bible
13. "The word I have spoken will judge him on the last day." -John 12:48 Holman Christian Standard Bible
14. John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.9. "let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy" "the earth will give birth to her dead" NIV
15. John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but "has crossed over from death to life". ( My perspective is these ones are in God's memory and get life.)
16. John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me "will never die". NIV
( My perspective is King David is physically dead but we know the Bible says he did not ascend to heaven Acts 2:34, David is in God's memory and will be resurrected to life, victory over death is promised to the faithful, on judgment day in the future, so if we consider the resurrection, David is only dead figuratively because we know he will be raised back to life in the future, considering these facts David "will never die".)
17. Daniel 12:2-3 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. NIV

[ **Berean Standard Bible - breath/spirit - Peshitta Holy Bible ]
[ * Berean Standard Bible - spirit/breath - King James Bible ]

 

[Faithfulservant]

Accordingly, a fifth-century Curetonian Syriac version renders Jesus’ reply: “Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'” --Luke 23:43

Comma placement

In Luke 23:43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Could this also be interpreted as, “I say to you today, you will…” In other words is it more likely that “today” describes when “you will be with me” or when “I say to you”. kai eipen auto, Amen soi...

www.textkit.com

In Luke 23:43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Could this also be interpreted as, “I say to you today, you will…” In other words is it more likely that “today” describes when “you will be with me” or when “I say to you”. kai eipen auto, Amen soi...
Also:
kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.’”)–Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton
parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the truth,
that I should have you in Paradise with me.’”)–Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” On that very day,when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40;1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18 ) Thus, the word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being with Jesus in Paradise._

Ooh this one. There were no commas in koine Greek. Also in every instance where Jesus said assuredly assuredly I say to you does He ever add the word today. To add that to this specific scripture to create a doctrine is reaching IMO.

 

[walter]

Ooh this one. There were no commas in koine Greek. Also in every instance where Jesus said assuredly assuredly I say to you does He ever add the word today. To add that to this specific scripture to create a doctrine is reaching IMO.

Accordingly, a fifth-century Curetonian Syriac version renders Jesus’ reply: “Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'” --Luke 23:43

Those are not my words this was translated by a 5th century Curetonian Syriac Translator. this is from a Syriac Bible or manuscript.

 

[Faithfulservant]

And? Still reaching

Luke 23:43 Then Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

Geneva bible 1599

Link to translations of this verse

Luke 23:43 Parallel: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

 

[Clear]

Hi Alter2Ego

Welcome, from one new member to another.

Clear asked (post #489): “I have been talking with a Jehovahs Witness friend who mentioned that the Jehovahs Witness theology concerning death is that the intelligence and emotions and memories within an individual resides in the physical brain (as opposed to residing in an intelligent spirit within the body), and that, upon death and the complete decomposition of the body, nothing, (absolutely nothing) is left of that individuals prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance, other than memories of that person retained by others.
Is this correct?”

Alter2Ego responded: “What your friend told you is correct.
To quote you with regard to what your friend said Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding the condition of the dead: "... nothing (absolutely nothing) is left of that individual's prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance...."



Alter2Ego

I am grateful for your decisive and clear and unambiguous answer to my prior question.
Thank you, and I hope you will let me ask for additional clarification.

1) Regarding the resurrected body in Jehovahs Witness Theology

Since, upon the death of a person, absolutely nothing remains of the dead person, I assume that, in Jehovahs Witness theology, resurrection of the person who had been annihilated consists of God creating a different body (i.e. one capable of a heavenly existence).
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?



2) Regarding the resurrected personality, intelligence and emotions placed into a resurrected body

Since the original personality, intelligence and emotions no longer exist, I assume that, in Jehovahs witness theology, that God places another set of personality, intelligence and emotions into the resurrected body.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?

Again, thank you so much for a simple and clear answer.