6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

  • Thread starter Thread starter feedm3
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That wasn't so difficult, was it? I appreciate the drum roll btw.

So seeing as how "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
 
Re: Owned again...

TJ12 said:
Thank you. That wasn't so difficult, was it? I appreciate the drum roll btw.

So seeing as how "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
Click to expand...


Matthew was not written by a Jew, bro...
 
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
Matthew was not written by a Jew, bro...
Click to expand...
I must be asking some very confusing questions, my apologies. I'm talking about Genesis 48:16, Bowman...which is why I mentioned Abraham and Isaac. Nevertheless, let's try this:

So seeing as how at the LXX version of Genesis 48:16 "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
 
Re: Owned again...

TJ12 said:
I must be asking some very confusing questions, my apologies. I'm talking about Genesis 48:16, Bowman...which is why I mentioned Abraham and Isaac. Nevertheless, let's try this:

So seeing as how at the LXX version of Genesis 48:16 "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
Click to expand...


Since the Hebrew can be either singular or plural, they chose one over the other.

Now apply your example to Matthew; which was not written by a Jew nor was it translated.
 
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
Since the Hebrew can be either singular or plural, they chose one over the other.
Click to expand...

So the Jewish translators chose the singular 'onoma' at LXX Genesis 48:16, requiring that Abraham and Isaac were literally two persons in one being, correct?
 
Re: Owned again...

TJ12 said:
So the Jewish translators chose the singular 'onoma' at LXX Genesis 48:16, requiring that Abraham and Isaac were literally two persons in one being, correct?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Not likely, as they are collective subjects as determined by the context.
 
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
Not likely, as they are collective subjects as determined by the context.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but could you please define what you mean by "they are collective subjects"? I thought that, by your rule, when the singular 'onoma' was used in reference to more than one person that made them literally the same being.

Thanks for your patience.
 
Re: Owned again...

TJ12 said:
I'm sorry, but could you please define what you mean by "they are collective subjects"?
Click to expand...

'Collective subjects' means more than one.



I thought that, by your rule, when the singular 'onoma' was used in reference to more than one person that made them literally the same being.

Thanks for your patience.
Click to expand...


How does that apply to the Gen 48.16...?

Or...are you now trying to now bridge over into NT Greek?
 
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
How does that apply to the Gen 48.16...?
Click to expand...
It must be all so very confusing. Let me explain.

The singular Greek word 'onoma' is used towards more than one person at LXX Genesis 48:16 and also at Matthew 28:19. I'm trying to understand why in one verse the singular 'onoma' necessitates that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being, while that's apparently "not likely" what it means at the other. Any ideas?
 
Re: Owned again...

TJ12 said:
It must be all so very confusing. Let me explain.

The singular Greek word 'onoma' is used towards more than one person at LXX Genesis 48:16 and also at Matthew 28:19. I'm trying to understand why in one verse the singular 'onoma' necessitates that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being, while that's apparently "not likely" what it means at the other. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Like I already said, you are trying your very best to compare apples to oranges and make them both become apples.

Gen 48.16 cannot be compared to Mat 28.19.

One is in Hebrew and the other in Greek.

Translating one into Greek does not now make them equal....come on, bro...
 
Re: Owned again...

Bowman said:
Gen 48.16 cannot be compared to Mat 28.19.

One is in Hebrew and the other in Greek.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I probably wasn't being clear enough. I'm very specifically speaking only of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, not the Hebrew.

I'm asking why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?

Please let me know if I'm not being specific enough. Thanks!
 
Your'e royally stuck!!!

TJ12 said:
I'm sorry, I probably wasn't being clear enough. I'm very specifically speaking only of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, not the Hebrew.

I'm asking why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?

Please let me know if I'm not being specific enough. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Not!

You just finished stating this...

TJ12 said:
The singular Greek word 'onoma' is used towards more than one person at LXX Genesis 48:16 and also at Matthew 28:19.
Click to expand...

You're simply stuck.

Again.
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

Bowman said:
Not!
Click to expand...

Again, I must not be clear enough. Let me try to explain yet further. I'm talking specifically of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 as opposed to the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16. So let's put the Hebrew aside entirely, ok?

And yes, you got me, this is connected to your argument for Matthew 28:19...like I've said many times already (spoiler?). I'm asking you again why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?

Can you please answer that question? Thanks!
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

TJ12 said:

Again, I must not be clear enough. Let me try to explain yet further. I'm talking specifically of the Greek Septuagint version of Genesis 48:16 as opposed to the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16. So let's put the Hebrew aside entirely, ok?

And yes, you got me, this is connected to your argument for Matthew 28:19...like I've said many times already (spoiler?). I'm asking you again why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?

Can you please answer that question? Thanks!
Click to expand...


By the context.
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

Bowman said:
By the context.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's the context?! I guess I missed that because for Matthew 28:19 you said it was, not the context, but simply that "they have the same singular name (onoma)" that proved that your three persons must be one being.

So what exactly does the context have to say so that we know for certain when the singular 'onoma' ("name") references multiple persons we should understand them as part of the same being? What in the context should indicate that they aren't the same being?
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

TJ12 said:
Oh, so it's the context?! I guess I missed that because for Matthew 28:19 you said it was, not the context, but simply that "they have the same singular name (onoma)" that proved that your three persons must be one being.
Click to expand...


Nope.

Show us.

And...there you go again....you said that you were talking about Gen.48.16.

Can't make up your mind?





So what exactly does the context have to say so that we know for certain when the singular 'onoma' ("name") references multiple persons we should understand them as part of the same being? What in the context should indicate that they aren't the same being?
Click to expand...


So...now have you jumped back to the NT....or are you still in the LXX that you so adamantly claimed that you wanted to stick to...?
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

Bowman said:
So...now have you jumped back to the NT....or are you still in the LXX that you so adamantly claimed that you wanted to stick to...?
Click to expand...
It's just mass confusion! Apologies, apologies. Please allow me to explain further. We wouldn't want distractions to get in the way of our quest for truth here, now would we?

Bowman, I'm talking about the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 (not the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16) and Matthew 28:19. These two Greek verses are in view. Ok? Now, how can I ask these so that you won't not understand what I'm saying? Hmmm. Let's try it this way in two easy questions numbered for your convenience:

1. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, why doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?

2. In Matthew 28:19, why does the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

TJ12 said:
]It's just mass confusion! Apologies, apologies. Please allow me to explain further. We wouldn't want distractions to get in the way of our quest for truth here, now would we?

Bowman, I'm talking about the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 (not the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16) and Matthew 28:19. These two Greek verses are in view. Ok? Now, how can I ask these so that you won't not understand what I'm saying? Hmmm. Let's try it this way in two easy questions numbered for your convenience:

1. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, why doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
Click to expand...



Observe the context…


Gen 48.16

…..of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they like the fishes increase into a multitude in the midst of the earth.


If the preceding ‘onoma’ meant ‘one’, then why are they referred to as ‘they’ afterward?



2. In Matthew 28:19, why does the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
Click to expand...


Mat 28.19 - 20

…of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.


When the preceding ‘onoma’ means ‘one’, then we don’t have a subsequent separation.
 
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!

Bowman said:
If the preceding ‘onoma’ meant ‘one’, then why are they referred to as ‘they’ afterward?
Click to expand...
Oh, it's the pronouns! Ok, you haven't told me that yet.

Well I'd assume that's alright for the same reason that the Trinity God says 'Let US make man in OUR image', right? (Genesis 1:26) Aren't these plural pronouns a big argument used for the Trinity? That being the case, I don't see why this should be evidence against Abraham and Isaac still being two persons in one being. Anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back