Clarifying questions for JW's

[Revelations won]

I have a few clarifying question for JW's as follows.

1. Do you claim that Jesus the Christ is just a mortal being like us?

2. Do you claim that Jesus the Christd oes not now have a body of flesh and bones?

[Capbook]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

[onewithhim]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

[Capbook]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

That is to say, you are confined to what the GB teaches, nothing go beyond.

[onewithhim]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

That is to say, you are confined to what the GB teaches, nothing go beyond.

We are "confined" to the GB's teachings? I have said to you that we read and study other material beyond what the GB gives us and form our own opinions. My opinions just happen to coincide with the GB's teachings.

[Capbook]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

That is to say, you are confined to what the GB teaches, nothing go beyond.

We are "confined" to the GB's teachings? I have said to you that we read and study other material beyond what the GB gives us and form our own opinions. My opinions just happen to coincide with the GB's teachings.

As it coincides, nothing in your belief that goes beyond the teachings of the GB.
Have you had your own study about the Tanakh?
Or the GB had not yet teach you that.

[onewithhim]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

That is to say, you are confined to what the GB teaches, nothing go beyond.

We are "confined" to the GB's teachings? I have said to you that we read and study other material beyond what the GB gives us and form our own opinions. My opinions just happen to coincide with the GB's teachings.

As it coincides, nothing in your belief that goes beyond the teachings of the GB.
Have you had your own study about the Tanakh?
Or the GB had not yet teach you that.

I just told you that I do studying of many things outside what the GB gives us. I do say, though, that the WTS reads just about everything and passes on to us many things that the unChristian world has to say, as well as awesome information about Science and Creation. I have familiarized myself with the Tanakh on my own and have several copies. The GB refers to the Tanakh often in their writings.

[Capbook]

Yes, you have explained with cut texts that hardly support your interpretation.

Have a good and wonderful day.

On the contrary, I have supported what I have said with scripture. But try and have a most excellent and fabulous day.


JW

Good day to you also. Hope you could study the Scriptures by interpreting Bible text by Bible text with no man contribution that we may fall guilty to eisegesis.

"Man contribution" is not necessary to arriving at conclusions. I (and I'm sure JW also) have not interpreted Bible text according to men's ideas. We have studied the Scriptures ourselves and come to conclusions on our own. We think for ourselves. Is that something you also do? Or are you stuck like glue to your Lexicons and are unable to form your own conclusions per the verses themselves?

Do yours and JW own conclusion go beyond the teachings of your church Governing Body or just within?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that our conclusions do not contradict the teachings of the GB.

That is to say, you are confined to what the GB teaches, nothing go beyond.

We are "confined" to the GB's teachings? I have said to you that we read and study other material beyond what the GB gives us and form our own opinions. My opinions just happen to coincide with the GB's teachings.

As it coincides, nothing in your belief that goes beyond the teachings of the GB.
Have you had your own study about the Tanakh?
Or the GB had not yet teach you that.

I just told you that I do studying of many things outside what the GB gives us. I do say, though, that the WTS reads just about everything and passes on to us many things that the unChristian world has to say, as well as awesome information about Science and Creation. I have familiarized myself with the Tanakh on my own and have several copies. The GB refers to the Tanakh often in their writings.

Do the GB believe that "the Law and the Prophets" is the Tanakh or the Bible (OT&NT)?
Are your Tanakh copies arranged them as "the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings" that Psalms is the first book in "the Writings"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Do the GB believe that "the Law and the Prophets" is the Tanakh ....?

My understanding is that the Tanakh is simply the Hebrew scriptures (The "old testament" ) in a different order (ie there are no books in the Tanakh that cannot also be found in the bible canon.

I cannot speak for the members if the governing body, but if the above is an accurate understanding, Jehovah's witnesses believe the Tanakh is another translation of inspired scripture.

[Capbook]

Do the GB believe that "the Law and the Prophets" is the Tanakh ....?

My understanding is that the Tanakh is simply the Hebrew scriptures (The "old testament" ) in a different order (ie there are no books in the Tanakh that cannot also be found in the bible canon.

I cannot speak for the members if the governing body, but if the above is an accurate understanding, Jehovah's witnesses believe the Tanakh is another translation of inspired scripture.

No, it is not a translation, see below;

No, "Tanakh" is not a translation itself; it's an acronym for the Hebrew Bible, standing for the three divisions of the Jewish scriptures: Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings); so, when you see "Tanakh" it refers to the entire Hebrew Bible text, not a specific translation of it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+tana ... e&ie=UTF-8

[JehovahsWitness]

Do the GB believe that "the Law and the Prophets" is the Tanakh ....?

My understanding is that the Tanakh is simply the Hebrew scriptures (The "old testament" ) in a different order (ie there are no books in the Tanakh that cannot also be found in the bible canon.

I cannot speak for the members if the governing body, but if the above is an accurate understanding, Jehovah's witnesses believe the Tanakh is another translation of inspired scripture.

No, "Tanakh" is not a translation ...

Okay but if there are no books in the Tanakh that cannot also be found in the Hebrew scriptures of the bible cankn then we view the Tanakh as inspired scripture.