The Greek word

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and once again we see the need to resort to what Jesus did not say or do rather than what is written, the fact of the matter is this, there is not a single instance in the entire gospels where Jesus commanded anyone to worship him, in fact, he said to a man, why do you call me good? no one is good except the father. The whole premise that Jesus is t ...[text shortened]... ck beetle admirably pointed out the meaning of the term, often inaccurately rendered as worship.

Yeah, in fact it's SO "inaccurate" to render proskuneo as 'worship' that your NWT does precisely that, only when NOT referring to Jesus. See the NWT translation of the book of Revelation. In fact, the NWT renders the word as worship when talking about God, Satan and the Beast, but NEVER when talking about Jesus. Talk about religious bias! How dare you paint other denominations with your guilty brush?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, in fact it's SO "inaccurate" to render proskuneo as 'worship' that your NWT does precisely that, only when NOT referring to Jesus. See the NWT translation of the book of Revelation. In fact, the NWT renders the word as worship when talking about God, Satan and the Beast, but NEVER when talking about Jesus. Talk about religious bias! How dare you paint other denominations with your guilty brush?

we have the most accurate Bible on the planet, independently verified by associate professor BeDhun (peace be upon him) and unless you can demonstrate why the verse should be rendered as worship all your bluster is moot to boot, i dare you, infact I double dog dare you to produce a single instance where the context demonstrates that Jesus is to be worshipped. Your talk is big but your walk is weak.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we have the most accurate Bible on the planet, independently verified by associate professor BeDhun (peace be upon him) and unless you can demonstrate why the verse should be rendered as worship all your bluster is moot to boot, i dare you, infact I double dog dare you to produce a single instance where the context demonstrates that Jesus is to be worshipped. Your talk is big but your walk is weak.

You have one, count them, one associate professor claiming the NWT is an accurate translation. You failed to mention all the others, too many for you to list, that claim that the NWT is the most inaccurate and biased translation of all.

Originally posted by black beetle
Proskyno/ proskyneo (pros + kyno): initial meaning “I greet/ hail and owe obedience by means of kissing the hands or feet”. As regards the etymology of the verb ky-neo (ky-), we have the following: IE ku-s (n. kiss), Hett. kuwas-zi (v. kiss), Anc. Ger. kus (n. kiss), Ger. kuss, Eng. kiss.

The v. Proskyno is used as following: 1. (In sacred places or ...[text shortened]... sleepy. 9. (past participle: proskynimenos) A person that accepts somebody as his overlord.
😵

Why did you not comment on the point of Manny's post? Why did you skirt around it and give us a Greek language lesson?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, in fact it's SO "inaccurate" to render proskuneo as 'worship' that your NWT does precisely that, only when NOT referring to Jesus. See the NWT translation of the book of Revelation. In fact, the NWT renders the word as worship when talking about God, Satan and the Beast, but NEVER when talking about Jesus. Talk about religious bias! How dare you paint other denominations with your guilty brush?

Let's see and find out how biased the NWT is that would be an easy thing to prove or disprove. 🙂 I'll check that out here in a bit to see how it's rendered in the NWT as we can see for sure.


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Let's see and find out how biased the NWT is that would be an easy thing to prove or disprove. 🙂 I'll check that out here in a bit to see how it's rendered in the NWT as we can see for sure.


Manny

It is rendered "Let's Do the Twist" with Chubby Checker.

YouTube

Originally posted by josephw
Why did you not comment on the point of Manny's post? Why did you skirt around it and give us a Greek language lesson?

I commented not, because the prototype work of the apostle, written in Aramaic, is lost or not found yet. That being said, I ‘m sure that apostle’s Greek (Koine) caused horror to the native Greek AtticoIonian speakers.

However, it’s clear that in earlier passages the apostle used the v. proskyneo/ proskyno in a way that in English is translated as the v. worship. And indeed, the Orthodox Christian perspective as regards Mat. 28:16-17 is that “there is a certain degree of doubt, but the case is that the most believed it”. But a further controversy is caused mainly due to Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 (where all were in doubt and/ or afraid but they join him at last) and John 20:24-28 (everybody believed but Thomas)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I commented not, because the prototype work of the apostle, written in Aramaic, is lost or not found yet. That being said, I ‘m sure that apostle’s Greek (Koine) caused horror to the native Greek AtticoIonian speakers.

However, it’s clear that in earlier passages the apostle used the v. proskyneo/ proskyno in a way that in English is translated as th ...[text shortened]... and/ or afraid but they join him at last) and John 20:24-28 (everybody believed but Thomas)
😵

Why is there no degree of doubt when the word is translated "worship" in all those other places when it does not refer to Jesus?

Originally posted by black beetle
I commented not, because the prototype work of the apostle, written in Aramaic, is lost or not found yet. That being said, I ‘m sure that apostle’s Greek (Koine) caused horror to the native Greek AtticoIonian speakers.

However, it’s clear that in earlier passages the apostle used the v. proskyneo/ proskyno in a way that in English is translated as th ...[text shortened]... and/ or afraid but they join him at last) and John 20:24-28 (everybody believed but Thomas)
😵

"I commented not, because the prototype work of the apostle, written in Aramaic, is lost or not found yet. That being said,"

So then, it is you that is the authority on what constitutes the Word of God above even the Word of God itself?

If it were left to you and those like minded, there would be nothing left of the Word of God. Fortunately for those of us who hear His voice the Word of God will never pass away until all of it is fulfilled.

How obtuse it is that one should considered oneself credible about something one doesn't even believe is true, much less others who's faith is in the Word of God! Essentially you post randomly, since you even fail to reply to the point of the posts you reply to. Your posts are cloudy and vague, and only serve to bolster your own unbelief.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why is there no degree of doubt when the word is translated "worship" in all those other places when it does not refer to Jesus?

Because, for one, the meaning is backed up by the context and, for two, because that specific use of the verb is acceptable😵

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I commented not, because the prototype work of the apostle, written in Aramaic, is lost or not found yet. That being said,"

So then, it is you that is the authority on what constitutes the Word of God above even the Word of God itself?

If it were left to you and those like minded, there would be nothing left of the Word of God. Fortunately for ...[text shortened]... osts you reply to. Your posts are cloudy and vague, and only serve to bolster your own unbelief.[/b]

"Word of G-d" is to you and to your fellow Christians, and I respect your beliefs in full. To me, it is simply a text written in Greek Koine by a scribe who was unable to use Greek properly. The community you defined as "those of us", all that has to play with, when it comes to that specific apostle's thesis and its meaning, is this exact text. You can accept whatever you want, but the case is that the verse we are talking about is either nonsensical, or a product of broken Koine, or it means that the v. proskyneo must not be translated over here as the English v. worship.
So methinks it would be good first to get to know what exactly the apostle wrote, and why, in the context of the proper use of Koine since the prototype in Aramaic is lost or not yet found. Then you have to evaluate if the translation from Koine to English holds or not, and for what reasons.

What is the point of your post or of the OP, which you believe I failed to reply to? And which way my reply only served to bolster my own unbelief, which is anyway irrelevant to the issue we are discussing?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
"Word of G-d" is to you and to your fellow Christians, and I respect your beliefs in full. To me, it is simply a text written in Greek Koine by a scribe who was unable to use Greek properly. The community you defined as "those of us", all that has to play with, when it comes to that specific apostle's thesis and its meaning, is this exact text. You can ...[text shortened]... rved to bolster my own unbelief, which is anyway irrelevant to the issue we are discussing?
😵

I'm always looking for ways to simplify ideas. To find the least common denominator.

I believe that the Bible is a book that contains the Word of God, and is preserved by God through time.

You don't believe that. You believe in bending ethereal matter. Or something like that. (Not meant to define you or exactly what you believe per se)

That's it! So what's the debate about? The existence of God? Or the existence of what is left over after God is removed from the equation?

Or is it that we are all control freaks seeking to persuade others to our way of thinking? What are we trying to prove? The obvious? A secret? Are we so paranoid and suspicious of one another, as though we needed to protect the motherland from invasion by the enemy, that we can't communicate a few simple concepts without confusion and enmity?

How do plead? Guilty! I think I may be losing faith in this "debate".

Maybe we need a saviour! 😕

Originally posted by josephw
I'm always looking for ways to simplify ideas. To find the least common denominator.

I believe that the Bible is a book that contains the Word of God, and is preserved by God through time.

You don't believe that. You believe in bending ethereal matter. Or something like that. (Not meant to define you or exactly what you believe per se)

That's it! ...[text shortened]... o plead? Guilty! I think I may be losing faith in this "debate".

Maybe we need a saviour! 😕

Edit: "I believe that the Bible is a book that contains the Word of God, and is preserved by God through time."

Kindly please feel free to keep up believing whatever you please;


Edit: "You don't believe that. You believe in bending ethereal matter. Or something like that. (Not meant to define you or exactly what you believe per se)"

I don't believe that. No big deal;


Edit: "That's it! So what's the debate about? The existence of God? Or the existence of what is left over after God is removed from the equation?"

To me, the debate is merely about the proper use of the v. proskyneo and its proper translation in English as regards specific NT verses. In this context, I also mentioned the Orthodox Christian perspective, which in my opinion is also bonkers;


Edit: "Or is it that we are all control freaks seeking to persuade others to our way of thinking? What are we trying to prove? The obvious? A secret? Are we so paranoid and suspicious of one another, as though we needed to protect the motherland from invasion by the enemy, that we can't communicate a few simple concepts without confusion and enmity?"

I fail to understand how any post of mine here or elsewhere implies that we are or should be control freaks;


Edit: "How do plead? Guilty! I think I may be losing faith in this "debate".

No problem;


Edit: "Maybe we need a saviour!"

Oh well😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Because, for one, the meaning is backed up by the context and, for two, because that specific use of the verb is acceptable😵

Why do you think the JWs do not use the translation "worship" like all other translators do when referring to Jesus? Doesn't the context back up the use of "worship" in those other places? Even in one place that you mentioned, Thomas lost his doubt toward the end and said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." Why then would "worship" not be appropriate?

Also how do you know there ever existed a prototype in Aramaic?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you think the JWs do not use the translation "worship" like all other translators do when referring to Jesus? Doesn't the context back up the use of "worship" in those other places? Even in one place that you mentioned, Thomas lost his doubt toward the end and said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." Why then would "worship" not be appropriate?

Also how do you know there ever existed a prototype in Aramaic?

OK RJ, this is my 1 cent: we have the v. “worship” and we have “do obeisance” too. The v. worship is used in a positive sense when talking about God, whilst “obeisance” is mostly used in reference to the general respect given to people held in high regard. Therefore, according to "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" we have:
v. Worship: 1. To honor and love as a deity. 2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion.
Obeisance: 1. A gesture or movement of the body, such as a curtsy, that expresses deference or homage. 2. An attitude of deference or homage.

I understand that the JW organization accepts this distinction and that their thesis is that God should be “worshiped”, whilst Jesus should merely receive “obeisance” (the respect and submission one pays to important dignitaries and superiors).
However, although that the word “obeisance” could be occasionally used in order to translate the v. proskuneo, the JW organisation make a distinction between “obeisance” and “worship” when Koine per se and the hermeneutics have to do about the kind of reverence that was given to Jesus. This is the reason why they translate the v. proskuneo as “obeisance” every time when the person that receives it is Jesus, and never when G-d the Father is the recipient of honor and praise.
Tricky. So, as regards this matter, the Greek Orthodox Christian thesis is that, after rising from the grave, Jesus was declared “the Son of God with power” (Rom. 1:4) and accepted worship (proskuneo) according to Mat. 28:8-9 and Mat. 28:17. The Orthodox point out that 1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:32-35, Mark 5:21-24 & 35-43, Luke 7:11-16, John 11:1-45, Acts 9:36-43 and Acts 20:7-12 prove that, from all the persons that were raised from the dead, none received and accepted worship but Jesus (the First of the dead). The received and accepted worship of Jesus by his followers, to the Orthodox is clearly a proof of His deity (Luke 24:52-53). Well, this thesis is acceptable because, for one, it can be backed up by the context of the above mentioned verses, and for two because it does not violate the proper use of the v. proskyneo.


As regards the apostle and the prototype, the data available are questionable; St Irenaeous offered that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, and St. Clement of Alexandria claimed that he preached them for 15 years. Eusebius wrote that the apostle gave to the Hebrews his gospel in the mother tongue (the prototype I mentioned, that is) and, after that, he went to other countries (Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea, and probably also Persia, Macedonia and Syria)
😵