Peace and Security, Great Tribulation, Armageddon

[Doug]

9 minutes ago, feebee said:

NSW police are aware of a "retribution" rally being planned to take place in response to this attack. Emotions are running high.

 

Yeah, there's a flyer circulating on social media calling for a "Middle Eastern bashing day" on Dec. 27.

 

Author Tony Abbott wrote in his book Australia: A History  "notable presence of recent migrants from the Middle East in the pro-Hamas demonstrations that erupted in Sydney and Melbourne".

 

Monday, Abbott claimed that same unchecked anti-Semitism had led to the abomination in Bondi.  "There's no doubt there's been a lot of dreadful Jew hating overseas and now we've seen the most horrific manifestation of it here", Abbott.

[shali]

AI was created and is backed by this world which is run by Satan.  I wouldn't trust it for any answers regarding questions involving God's Word.  Satan would like nothing better than to have us rely on AI  rather than on the FDS for sound scriptural answers to our questions.  I would use AI for mundane general questions (like cooking stuff and statistics) but not to find answers we already have printed in our publications that are easily found with our Research Guides and tools.  I think more times than not, AI has been incorrect in it's answers even in general matters.

Edited yesterday at 02:08 PM by shali

[LeslieDean]

46 minutes ago, shali said:

 but not to find answers we already have printed in our publications that are easily found with our Research Guides and tools.  

I use it to verse map. How would I use a verse map format in jwlibrary or on our authorized web site to perform this research please? 

[jps]

I wonder how the upcoming ban on religion will affect all the nearly isolated indigenous tribal religions, for example all the Sámi peoples in northern Sweden/Lapland, etc..

[Doug]

3 minutes ago, jps said:

I wonder how the upcoming ban on religion will affect all the nearly isolated indigenous tribal religions, for example all the Sámi peoples in northern Sweden/Lapland, etc..

 

The answer to your question may be that it won't involve a ban, per se'.   The nations may decide that religion should pay taxes on their revenue and assets like everyone else.  This would effectively put false religion out of business.  The governments could move to seize their bank accounts and properties without "banning" them.  Probably religions would try to resist and fight back.  Then they could be shut-down as an enemy of the state.

 

It will be amazing to witness .   .    .

[New World Explorer]

2 hours ago, Doug said:

 

The answer to your question may be that it won't involve a ban, per se'.   The nations may decide that religion should pay taxes on their revenue and assets like everyone else.  This would effectively put false religion out of business.  The governments could move to seize their bank accounts and properties without "banning" them.  Probably religions would try to resist and fight back.  Then they could be shut-down as an enemy of the state.

 

It will be amazing to witness .   .    .

The language used in Revelation 18:19,21 rather indicates that it will be attack not the procedure, triggering GT and events that mankind never experienced before. Upcoming GT is called GT for a reason . 

[LeslieDean]

I like reading the different responses. It's like watching a tennis match. Someone poses a question or thought that may have never occured to me, then one gives a reply, I see and like the response, then the next person gives a different reply. It allows me to consider the many different ways that things may happen but I know only Jehovah will reveal the correct one. It keeps my curiosity high. 

[shali]

9 hours ago, LeslieDean said:

I use it to verse map. How would I use a verse map format in jwlibrary or on our authorized web site to perform this research please? 

If I knew what "verse mapping" was I might be able to answer that. But whatever it entails, it doesn't sound like it's something that involves actually digging deep to find out what Jehovah intended us to understand about that scripture. Do you remember the concordance? Would that help in verse mapping? I was merely referring to the fact that I don't trust AI to tell me what Jehovah meant us to understand about Bible doctrine, principles and his standards. Even a scripture as simple as John 1:1 will not be correctly understood by AI or the creative days in Genesis. If I want to dig deep I'm not using AI. 

[SteveAus]

This is Gemini AI's answer re: John 1:1 😁

 

Analysis of the Controversy in John 1:1

The controversy surrounding John 1:1 is one of the most significant theological and grammatical debates in biblical history. It centers on the nature of Jesus ("the Word") and his relationship to God the Father.

The specific phrase referring to "two beings" arises from how different groups translate and interpret the Greek grammar of the verse's final clause.

The verse is typically divided into three clauses:

1. Clause A: "In the beginning was the Word,"

2. Clause B: "and the Word was with God,"

3. Clause 😄 "and the Word was God" (or "was a god").

1. Why it Refers to "Two" (The Distinction)

The concept that there are "two" entities comes primarily from Clause B: "The Word was with God."

• The Logic: To be with someone, you must be distinct from them. You cannot be "with" yourself.

• The Agreement: Both Trinitarians (e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox) and Nontrinitarians (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) agree on this point: The Word (Jesus) and God (The Father) are distinct in some way.

• The Controversy: The debate is about what kind of distinction this is.

  • Trinitarian View: They are two distinct Persons (Father and Son) within one eternal Being.

  • Nontrinitarian View: They are two distinct Beings entirely (Almighty God and a lesser created god).

2. The Core Controversy: "God" vs. "a god"

The fiercest debate is found in Clause C. In the original Greek, the text reads:

kaì theòs ēn ho lógos

(Literally: "and God was the Word")

The controversy lies in the translation of the word for God (theòs).

The Grammatical Issue

In Greek, nouns often have a definite article (like the word "the"), written as ho.

• In Clause B ("the Word was with God"), the Greek is ton theon (The God). This refers to the specific person of the Father.

• In Clause C ("the Word was God"), the word theòs lacks the definite article (ho). It is "anarthrous" (without article).

Interpretation A: "The Word was God" (Trinitarian View)

Most scholars and standard translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB) translate this as "The Word was God."

• Grammatical Argument: Greek grammar rules (specifically Colwell’s construction) suggest that when a predicate noun (God) comes before the verb, it usually drops the "the" but remains definite or qualitative.

• The Meaning: John is describing the quality or essence of the Word. The Word possesses the same "God-ness" or divine nature as the Father, without being the Father.

• Refuting the "Two Beings" theory: If John had used "The God" here, it would mean Jesus is the Father (a view known as Sabellianism). By leaving out "The," John distinguishes the persons while equating their nature.

Interpretation B: "The Word was a god" (Nontrinitarian View)

The New World Translation (NWT), used by Jehovah's Witnesses, renders this as "The Word was a god."

• Grammatical Argument: They argue that because the definite article (ho) is missing, the noun should be treated as indefinite ("a god") to show class or category, similar to how one might say "John is a man."

• The Meaning: This view argues that Jesus is a divine being—a powerful spirit creature—but he is not the Almighty God (Jehovah). He is a separate, created being; essentially a "second god."

• The Result: This creates a theology of two distinct beings: One Almighty God, and one lesser god.

Summary of Interpretations

Feature	Trinitarian View (Standard)	Nontrinitarian View (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses)
Translation	"And the Word was God."	"And the Word was a god."
Grammar Focus	Theos describes the nature/essence (Qualitative).	Lack of "the" (ho) means indefinite (a god).
Relationship	2 distinct Persons sharing 1 Being.	2 distinct Beings (Creator and creature).
Status of Jesus	Co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.	Created by the Father; powerful but subordinate.

Conclusion

The text refers to "two" because the Word is explicitly stated to be with God. The controversy is strictly whether this distinction results in two separate gods (one Big "G" and one little "g") or two persons sharing the one infinite nature of God.

The vast majority of Greek scholarship supports the "Qualitative" view ("The Word was fully God in nature"), arguing that if the Apostle John had intended to describe Jesus as "a god" in the lower sense, he had other specific Greek words (such as theios) available to make that distinction clearer.

Edited 17 hours ago by SteveAus

[Dages]

I'm sorry but how is it related to the topic?

[jrnievas]

2 hours ago, Dages said:

I'm sorry but how is it related to the topic?

Because false religion including trinity beliefs will be destroyed in the near future? Perhaps I'm guessing this right. 

 

😆😅

Edited 14 hours ago by jrnievas

[jps]

2 hours ago, SteveAus said:

This is Gemini AI's answer re: John 1:1 😁

 

Analysis of the Controversy in John 1:1

The controversy surrounding John 1:1 is one of the most significant theological and grammatical debates in biblical history. It centers on the nature of Jesus ("the Word") and his relationship to God the Father.

The specific phrase referring to "two beings" arises from how different groups translate and interpret the Greek grammar of the verse's final clause.

The verse is typically divided into three clauses:

1. Clause A: "In the beginning was the Word,"

2. Clause B: "and the Word was with God,"

3. Clause 😄 "and the Word was God" (or "was a god").

1. Why it Refers to "Two" (The Distinction)

The concept that there are "two" entities comes primarily from Clause B: "The Word was with God."

• The Logic: To be with someone, you must be distinct from them. You cannot be "with" yourself.

• The Agreement: Both Trinitarians (e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox) and Nontrinitarians (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) agree on this point: The Word (Jesus) and God (The Father) are distinct in some way.

• The Controversy: The debate is about what kind of distinction this is.

  • Trinitarian View: They are two distinct Persons (Father and Son) within one eternal Being.

  • Nontrinitarian View: They are two distinct Beings entirely (Almighty God and a lesser created god).

2. The Core Controversy: "God" vs. "a god"

The fiercest debate is found in Clause C. In the original Greek, the text reads:

kaì theòs ēn ho lógos

(Literally: "and God was the Word")

The controversy lies in the translation of the word for God (theòs).

The Grammatical Issue

In Greek, nouns often have a definite article (like the word "the"), written as ho.

• In Clause B ("the Word was with God"), the Greek is ton theon (The God). This refers to the specific person of the Father.

• In Clause C ("the Word was God"), the word theòs lacks the definite article (ho). It is "anarthrous" (without article).

Interpretation A: "The Word was God" (Trinitarian View)

Most scholars and standard translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB) translate this as "The Word was God."

• Grammatical Argument: Greek grammar rules (specifically Colwell’s construction) suggest that when a predicate noun (God) comes before the verb, it usually drops the "the" but remains definite or qualitative.

• The Meaning: John is describing the quality or essence of the Word. The Word possesses the same "God-ness" or divine nature as the Father, without being the Father.

• Refuting the "Two Beings" theory: If John had used "The God" here, it would mean Jesus is the Father (a view known as Sabellianism). By leaving out "The," John distinguishes the persons while equating their nature.

Interpretation B: "The Word was a god" (Nontrinitarian View)

The New World Translation (NWT), used by Jehovah's Witnesses, renders this as "The Word was a god."

• Grammatical Argument: They argue that because the definite article (ho) is missing, the noun should be treated as indefinite ("a god") to show class or category, similar to how one might say "John is a man."

• The Meaning: This view argues that Jesus is a divine being—a powerful spirit creature—but he is not the Almighty God (Jehovah). He is a separate, created being; essentially a "second god."

• The Result: This creates a theology of two distinct beings: One Almighty God, and one lesser god.

Summary of Interpretations

Feature	Trinitarian View (Standard)	Nontrinitarian View (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses)
Translation	"And the Word was God."	"And the Word was a god."
Grammar Focus	Theos describes the nature/essence (Qualitative).	Lack of "the" (ho) means indefinite (a god).
Relationship	2 distinct Persons sharing 1 Being.	2 distinct Beings (Creator and creature).
Status of Jesus	Co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.	Created by the Father; powerful but subordinate.

Conclusion

The text refers to "two" because the Word is explicitly stated to be with God. The controversy is strictly whether this distinction results in two separate gods (one Big "G" and one little "g") or two persons sharing the one infinite nature of God.

The vast majority of Greek scholarship supports the "Qualitative" view ("The Word was fully God in nature"), arguing that if the Apostle John had intended to describe Jesus as "a god" in the lower sense, he had other specific Greek words (such as theios) available to make that distinction clearer.

 

clause c 😀

[Dustparticle]

8 hours ago, jps said:

 

clause c 😀

 

 Oh well, I have  nothing  to do. If the word is almighty God, then how would they answer John 1:18, in which it mentions that no man hath seen God at any time in KJ Bible? Plus, if they  want to mention that there is no "a" or "an" in Greek. Fine, then why  is there an "a" in Acts 28:6 in KJ Bible?

[shali]

AI answer to John 1:1 would still leave a person confused as to what to believe. If you did the research on JW.org online, there would be no confusion as to what to believe.  AI will also tell you that it is highly likely that religion will never be done away with - our study of the Bible proves that to be completely false.  That's why I don't defer to AI in these types of matters, AI will never put Jehovah's thinking on a matter first.

Edited 4 hours ago by shali

[shali]

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. . . 

[vern]

God approved religion changes from time to time. So we learn to be loyal to Jehovah first and foremost.

[New World Explorer]

This topic has become a "dumping zone of anything possible to discuss" 

Please stay on the topic, and if you have anything else to discuss start a new topic ... plenty of room on this forum. 

Self control is needed. 

[New World Explorer]

Putin calls European leaders ‘little pigs’ and says Russia will achieve Ukraine goals by diplomacy or force.

Russian leader says aims of its ‘special military operation’ will be met ‘unconditionally’

“If they do not want a substantive discussion,” he said, “then Russia will liberate its historical lands on the battlefield.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/17/ukraine-russia-war-eu-european-council-frozen-assets-zelenskyy-europe-live-news

[feebee]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/war-with-venezuela-coming-tucker-carlson-makes-huge-claim-about-trumps-presser-tonight-101765997772163.html

 

Tucker Carlson claims Trump will announce war with Venezuela.

[New World Explorer]

21 minutes ago, feebee said:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/war-with-venezuela-coming-tucker-carlson-makes-huge-claim-about-trumps-presser-tonight-101765997772163.html

 

Tucker Carlson claims Trump will announce war with Venezuela.

Just to clarify, Trump has presidential powers to hit at waters, boats etc. 

But invasion on land (if he decides on that of course) needs Congressional approval, simply saying Trump does not have those powers alone. 

[Shawnster]

36 minutes ago, feebee said:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/war-with-venezuela-coming-tucker-carlson-makes-huge-claim-about-trumps-presser-tonight-101765997772163.html

 

Tucker Carlson claims Trump will announce war with Venezuela.

 

 

Will? The article you cite says "may." There is a big difference between will and may.