Evacuated

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case. Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference. This was a good one: the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 : "The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard" This one I didn't know: The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..." And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit: Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020: Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

Great example. This headed the list on p27 in the 1989 brochure, Should You Believe in The Trinity?:

You just cant leave it can you even though from at least 1865 this idea has been batted around? Unless you believe Greber was a reincarnation?? Maybe he was??? I don't know!! Even though this so-called support has long been discarded (1983), and even though the critics huff and they puff continuously , this house just won't fall down will it? Somebody has the issue round their neck it looks like. Anyway, thanks for the spar. I never had to look at the detail on the Greber stuff before. I have a study interested in this subject so it's been useful. I'm really off now. Have fun.

Es macht nichts! Just to end off this little sub-thread: Greber and his demons were neither source nor support for the rendering of John 1:1 favoured by the NWT. The pre WT view of this text, along with pre-Greber references in the WT attest to this conclusion.. The KJV remains an excellent translation of the Scriptures, despite it's errors, archaic vocabulary, and embarrasing insertions, (paticularly 1John 5:7). I frequently use it as it still has currency in many quarters. I suppose it underlines one of the lessons in the account at Matt 19:25-26: “Who really can be saved?” Looking at them intently, Jesus said to them: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Bye for now!

The idea seems to have been around earlier than the first WT "AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ' and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such." Quote from Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible p.54. Robert Young - 1865 Selection of WT quotes reflecting "a god" as an appropriate rendering of John 1:1 Quote : WT Nov 15 1913: "Accurately translated it reads, "The Logos was with the God and the Logos was a god; the same was in the beginning with the God" Quote: WT Dec 15 1913: "St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God." Quote: WT Jan 1 1922: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1., 2)" Quote: WT Nov 15 1925: "..it is not to be expected otherwise than that John would speak of this one who was in the beginning with God as being a god, a mighty one." Quote from Greber's rendering of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1 Quote from The New Testament, A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts’’ Johannes Greber. 1937. Greber (1874–1944) seems considerably behind on this matter. His spiritistic activity appears to have begun in 1923, with his Bible Translation not started until after 1929, published in 1937. (according to Wikipedia). Seems that the WT did use this rendering prior to Greber, and, of course, the idea preceded the WT anyway. Was this really so obscure??

Your choice ??? I don't understand what you actually mean. Your grammar mystifies me. Who indeed? John 20:22 "After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit." John 14:25 "the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name" The same one.

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries. Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener. "The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. You will guard them, O Jehovah; you will protect each one of them from this generation forever." Ps 12:6-7

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him. Jehovah can interfere with any source of "inspired" teaching and turn it to His own ends if He wishes. He has demonstrated this amply. I'll let you figure out where and when. OH NO IT DOESN'T This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant. I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault. You really have lost me here I'm afraid. Interesting. The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II): "the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues. or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit." He seemed to explain it quite well there.

Just a cursory reading of this: "Absolute poverty is defined as living on less than $1.25/day." : Pathetic benchmark! "Over the next 20 years, we have the ability to extinguish absolute poverty on Earth." ???Excuse me! We have been able to do this for years! "the basic rationale for child labor will completely disappear" And what are those poor, redundant, robot replaced, child laborers doing? Starving to death? Trafficked?... "We’re demonetizing food rapidly." What does this even mean? Less people malnourished?? Wakey Wakey!! "In the last 25 years, under-five mortality rates have dropped by 50%" Glad to hear it...I think.... er, What is the life prospect for these folk and any assessment of the quality of that life? "we will rapidly begin to eliminate dozens or hundreds of similar plagues." In the context of the elimination of guinea worm infestation glad to hear but.... Hmm... sounds highly speculative at best. "we will rapidly begin"??? "the dramatic decline in the number of teen (15 to 19 years old) birth rates in the United States since 1950" Is this due to abortion availability? birth control? Social media preference to live contact? or better moral standards? Or something else? "the number of homicides per 100,000 people has decreased to almost zero." over the last 700 years??? how on earth is this measured especially prior at least 19th Century and what is included? probably doesn't include war deaths or political genocide. I can't look at any more of these stats, but I wholeheartedly agree with the final statement of this report: We live in the most exciting time to be alive! Enjoy it.

Folks! Please get this in perspective: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949 And Otto, your objective comments are great but i could not upvote as you must leave JTR to express his(strong) feelings on this matter. He obviously cares even if you don't agree with all his sentiments.

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with. Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text. Caiaphas, the High priest, prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. So there is no contradiction ...sir. However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply": "Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29

I don't understand this statement really, but I think you are referring to my earlier response explaining that I wanted to apply your analysis technique, (demonstrated in some passages you quoted from John's gospel), to the passage in Proverbs 8. I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post. What it indicates is clearly visible in that post, so my curiosity, (the reason for asking), is satisfied on that count. You have also shared your view on the passage (quoted earlier) in Proverbs 8 as being allegorical, poetic, and having no connection with this thread. Thank you for that also. I think this statement from Isaiah 40:13 is definitely relevant to any discussion on Holy Spirit: "Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah, and who can instruct him as his adviser?" And also this reassuring encouragement at Luke 11:13: "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!"

You are still presuming, and now it seems indulging in some mentalism it appears? "whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things." Ph 4:8

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God. But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom, so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah" 1Corinthians 1:26-31

Why not ask you? I wanted to know what you thought of it and what the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. Your presumption is that I was leading somewhere. Where did you presume I was leading? Better to let God's Spirit do the leading don't you think? No need to be so cagey and suspicious then: "Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit is good; may it lead me on level ground" Ps 143:10.

This is a pure presumption on your part I'm afraid. You asked me to describe what my "idea" of the Holy Spirit is. I assumed (maybe wrongly) that you meant what is my understanding of what the Holy Sprit is. Anyway, I will try to clarify my answer for you. My understanding of what the Holy Spirit is is best expressed by Jesus who distributes it (John 20:22). I do not see how I could add to what he said at John 14:16-17, 26; 16:13-14 quoted below. The bold highlights hopefully add clarity to what my understanding comprises. (John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you. (John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you. (John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; (John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you. My comment which you reference (quoted above) in context was to indicate that I have no "idea" other than the teaching of Jesus on this matter which, for me, provides adequate clarity on what the Holy Spirit is. However, in case your question addresses the standard definitions of the word "idea" in connection with the Holy Spirit, I will try and align my thinking with these. The word "idea" is defined as: 1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action. 2. the aim or purpose. With regard to these definitions of the word " idea" in connection with the Holy Spirit: I suppose my thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action would include to work with the Holy Spirit's direction in producing the fruitage of the Spirit; take care not to put out the fire of the Spirit; avoid blasphemy against the Spirit; (Gal.5:22; 1Thess.5:19; Matt.12:31 ). That would seem to address also the second definition suggested in connection with my aim or purpose in connection with the Holy Spirit. Taking issue with these kind of remarks, whilst tempting, I find counter-productive so excuse me if I do not take the bait and try to stick to the factual elements of your postings.

Somebody with problems. Needs help. No one is immune.

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus. Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter. The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this. Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Thank you. Your clarity is very easily assumed? I only applied the technique you demonstrated with regard to Jesus words about Holy Spirit to another passage of scripture and asked you to share your view or opinion. I don't recall I said anything about what my understanding of Proverbs 8 is as it is not the topic under discussion. I was more interested in the application of your technique to that passage and what you felt it might reveal. I do not have an "idea" of what the Holy Spirit is. I would not even know that there was Holy Spirit had not Jesus explained the matter. So for me to add, expand, or interpolate on Jesus words seems rather impertinent. I am happy with what he said and that is why I quoted him in answer to your question. Not enough for you?

insignificant ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/ adjective 1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration. "the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending" synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 2. meaningless. "insignificant yet enchanting phrases" The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made. By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous". In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day: (Matthew 12:24) "the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.” and dealt with them graciously: (Matthew 12:25-28) "Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."

To you... To you.... But to me it is not strange, and makes perfect sense. By your method of exposition in bolding the personal pronouns and italicising certain verbs, you emphasize your view that the Holy Spirit is a separate person "distinct" from the Father and "distinct" from Jesus it would seem? Using the same method, how do you see wisdom?: "Is not wisdom calling out? Is not discernment raising its voice? On the heights along the road, It takes its position at the crossroads. Next to the gates leading into the city, at the entrances of the doorways, it keeps crying out loudly: “To you, O people, I am calling; I raise my voice to everyone. You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness; you stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.  Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right; For my mouth softly utters truth, and my lips detest what is wicked. All the sayings of my mouth are righteous. None of them are twisted or crooked. They are all straightforward to the discerning and right to those who have found knowledge. Take my discipline instead of silver, and knowledge rather than the finest gold, for wisdom is better than corals; all other desirable things cannot compare to it. I, wisdom, dwell together with shrewdness; I have found knowledge and thinking ability. The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. I hate self-exaltation and pride and the evil way and perverse speech.  I possess good advice and practical wisdom; understanding and power are mine. By me kings keep reigning, and high officials decree righteousness. By me princes keep ruling, and nobles judge in righteousness.  I love those loving me, and those seeking me will find me. Riches and glory are with me, lasting wealth and righteousness. My fruitage is better than gold, even refined gold, and what I produce is better than the finest silver. I walk in the path of righteousness, in the middle of the pathways of justice; I give a rich inheritance to those who love me, and I fill up their storehouses." Pro.8:1-21

@Otto Hi. Is there something significant about your quoting of Trinitarian references 3 times? The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledgement of the late and ecclesiatical sanctioning of the doctorine is interesting. But apart from noting the continued muddled definition of the word "power", only the description in the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia makes any real sense to me, although I don't find any lack of clarity in the Greek Scriptures (New Testament). Thanks

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of: There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

No wonder, with this kind of religious gobbledegook: "going to heaven, is an occurrence which happens for those who are born again as spirit, even while they are still living here physically, on earth". I don't mean any offence at all, but I do not get any sense from this statement. I appreciate you may be trying to describe some sort of experience you have had, but it's beyond me, at least in these terms. I guess I'm just not one of whoever you are trying to describe.