• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

calm

Active Member
As a follow on, in support of what @Clear said...

I understand "Elohim" as a name or a title. Yes, the suffix indicates that the word could be plural, if it were simply a word. But as a name or a title, it's not necessarily true.

Examples:

Dennis
Lucas
James
Charles
Nicholas
etc..

All of these names end in "s", but that doesn't mean when I say, "Hello, Lucas" that I am speaking to two people.

Does that help?

edit: consider the biblical name Ephraim,
Elohim (the true term is Alahim) is not a name it is a title.

"El" (Al) is the absolutely God. "I am AL and no one else" (Is. 45,22). The root Al means "towards" and describes the main activity of God, namely that of subordination, it is the title of the Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, 1Co 15:28).
"Eloah" (Alah) is literally someone who is focused on Al. "All Eloah's(Alahs) speech is purified" (Proverbs 30:5).
The majority is "Elohim" (Alahim): the subordinates to Al. These can also be people who have been given special powers by Al, but who submit to El(Al). People from Israel are called Elohim(Alahim) because they were given authority over others (Ps 82:8; John 10:34), e.g. Judges (Gen 21:6) or Moses (Gen 4:16). Moses was made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).
 

calm

Active Member
Jesus is not only God, but Jehovah God!!

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

In Isaiah 44:8 God is the only Rock. Psalm 18:31 says, “Who is the Rock except our God”? I Corinthians 10:4, identifies Jesus as the Rock. Jesus must also then be God the Rock.

Isaiah 44:24 says that God (Jehovah) is the one who has made all things. Colossians 1:16, speaking of Christ, says that “all things were created by Him and for him”. Jesus must therefore be Jehovah God.

In Jeremiah 10:10 it says “the LORD (Jehovah) is the true God”. I John 5:20 states that Jesus is the “true God”. Jesus must be the true God.

Isaiah 43:10,11 says that “I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no savior besides Me. Jesus is the Savior (Matthew 1:21, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, etc., etc.). Jesus must be God the Savior.

Jehovah knows all things (Psalm 147:5). Jesus knows “all things.” (John 16:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah alone is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23). Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13). Jesus sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:10). Only God is the sanctifier of men. Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our peace (Judges 6:23). Jesus is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Jesus is our righteousness. (Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be delivered / snatched out of His hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is present everywhere.(Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27); Jesus is omnipresent (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus’ nature does not change. (Hebrews 13:8).

Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve”(2 Kings 17:35); Jesus (identified as the Creator in Colossians 1:16-17) is to be served (Colossians 3:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy (Isaiah 8:12b-13). Jesus, as Lord, is to be set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:14b-15a).

Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s glory (John 17:5). Jesus must be Jehovah.

God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh—YHWH – Isaiah 42:8). Jesus has Jehovah’s name (John 17:11; John 16:14-15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “mighty God” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21). Jesus is the “mighty God”
(Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8).

Jehovah is “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is the “first and the last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One” (Isaiah 47:4). Jesus is “the Holy One” (Acts 3:14; John 6:69). Jesus must be Jehovah, the Holy One.

Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (Isaiah 8:13-15). Jesus is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of life” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads them “to springs of the water of life” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17). THERE IS ONLY ONE SHEPHERD –John 10:16.

Jehovah is “Lord of Lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Jesus is “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The Father is Lord of all (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24). Jesus is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36). THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD (Jude 4) .

Jehovah created the universe (Psalm 102:25-27). Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:10-12). THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR. (Isaiah 44:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jesus Must be Jehovah
Exactly.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Elohim (the true term is Alahim) is not a name it is a title.

"El" (Al) is the absolutely God. "I am AL and no one else" (Is. 45,22). The root Al means "towards" and describes the main activity of God, namely that of subordination, it is the title of the Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, 1Co 15:28).
"Eloah" (Alah) is literally someone who is focused on Al. "All Eloah's(Alahs) speech is purified" (Proverbs 30:5).
The majority is "Elohim" (Alahim): the subordinates to Al. These can also be people who have been given special powers by Al, but who submit to El(Al). People from Israel are called Elohim(Alahim) because they were given authority over others (Ps 82:8; John 10:34), e.g. Judges (Gen 21:6) or Moses (Gen 4:16). Moses was made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).

Nope.. You're wrong. Didn't you read any of the links I provided? Christian and Jewish scholars have been working on these Ugaritic tablets since the 1940s... and it had revolutionized our understanding of the languages and the myths. Had you never even heard of them before?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Elohim (the true term is Alahim) is not a name it is a title.
What is your source for this pronunciation?

"El" (Al) is the absolutely God. "I am AL and no one else" (Is. 45,22). The root Al means "towards" and describes the main activity of God, namely that of subordination, it is the title of the Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, 1Co 15:28).
"Eloah" (Alah) is literally someone who is focused on Al. "All Eloah's(Alahs) speech is purified" (Proverbs 30:5).
The majority is "Elohim" (Alahim): the subordinates to Al. These can also be people who have been given special powers by Al, but who submit to El(Al). People from Israel are called Elohim(Alahim) because they were given authority over others (Ps 82:8; John 10:34), e.g. Judges (Gen 21:6) or Moses (Gen 4:16). Moses was made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).

Take a look at Gen 4:35 and 4:39? Thoughts?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nope.. You're wrong. Didn't you read any of the links I provided? Christian and Jewish scholars have been working on these Ugaritic tablets since the 1940s... and it had revolutionized our understanding of the languages and the myths. Had you never even heard of them before?
Respectful question: If God exists, isn't possible that there was a divine revelation to the Canaanites / Ugarites / Egyptians, etc, etc, etc... and that explains the similarities between Judaism and the others?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Respectful question: If God exists, isn't possible that there was a divine revelation to the Canaanites / Ugarites / Egyptians, etc, etc, etc... and that explains the similarities between Judaism and the others?

You have never been to the region, have you? Its not much bigger than a postage stamp.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You have never been to the region, have you? Its not much bigger than a postage stamp.
OK.

But you didn't answer my question...

Respectful question: If God exists, isn't it possible that there was a divine revelation to the Canaanites / Ugarites / Egyptians, etc, etc, etc... and that explains the similarities between Judaism and the others?

Also,

If God doesn't exist, isn't it possible that similarities in stories and religious symbolism is a caused by simple human nature and the stories and beliefs "make sense" to primitive people? As an example: do you remember the flood story I posted in one of your threads from Hawaii? The similarities to the Abrahamic flood story are remarkable.

"In Hawaiian mythology, Nu'u was a man who built an ark with which he escaped a Great Flood. He landed his vessel on top of Mauna Kea on the Big Island. Nu'u mistakenly attributed his safety to the moon, and made sacrifices to it. Kāne, the creator god, descended to earth on a rainbow and explained Nu'u's mistake."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Nu'u

The names: Noah ... Nu'u
The ark...
The story ends with a rainbow...

But Hawaii is geographically distant from Canaan. This shows that often, people come up with similar ideas, and... Sooda, It's not copying. It's just people coming to the same conclusion based on similar observations.

It happens in science and for inventors too:

"The concept of multiple discovery is the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors.

Commonly cited examples of multiple independent discovery are the 17th-century independent formulation of calculus by Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and others, described by A. Rupert Hall. The 18th-century discovery of oxygen by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and others. The theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. What holds for discoveries, also goes for inventions. Examples are the blast furnace (invented independently in China, Europe and Africa), the crossbow (invented independently in China, Greece, Africa, northern Canada, and the Baltic countries), and magnetism (discovered independently in Greece, China, and India)."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Multiple discovery

Sooda, Even if the stories are similar, that doesn't mean that one is copying from the other. And even if they were, no one knows who was copying from whom. Stories were originally passed word of mouth. Denying that means denying the rich tapestry of religious myth of Native Americans and other tribal cultures.
 
Last edited:

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
P.S.
You accused me of taking biblical quotes out of context and I asked you ─

So tell me why ─

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​
don't mean that Jesus acknowledges the Father as the only true god, and as the God that Jesus himself worships.​

but you must have overlooked it.

What's the answer?

These were quotes that I used to undermine Trinitarians viewpoint of Christ all the time.

The tricky thing about them is that how one interprets them is entirely dependent on how one views the nature of God. If a person is a Unitarian then it is obvious to them that Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true God, which excludes Jesus from being God. If one is a Trinitarian, then their view is that god split himself into three. So if he is split, and one part of him is in a human body, and it is saying that the Father is the only true God makes sense, but it doesn't exclude that the other two are also not the only true God.

The whole God worshipping himself though undermines Trinitarianism, as i don't know why a part of God would worship himself, but not certain other viewpoints that claims that Jesus is God who aren't Trinitarian.

I think that both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is wrong though, as either side either ignores certain scriptures or use mental gymnastics to interpret these scriptures to anything other than what they explicitly say.

Various people interpret the majority of texts based on and in light of the texts that they find foundational. So a Trinitarian might quote John 1:1 and view all other texts as building on the idea that Jesus is God. A Unitarian might use the verses you quoted as the foundation of their beliefs about Jesus and interpret all other texts based on the idea of Jesus not being God.

So proof texting back and forth doesn't help as it comes down to "my text vs yours". People should actually use the immediate context to understand the verse. Also, each book in the bible is written by one author. Believers assume that all the books harmonize with each other. They should read each book individually to see what it says in its own context and not read into the book because another book or letter says the opposite of what the text clearly says. For all we know, one author might have had a completely different viewpoint to another, hence contradictions.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I've already answered all your questions. Please do not be angry, but you are not able to understand the Bible because the Holy Spirit is not with you. I could explain to you as much as I want, you would never understand. So there is no point in discussing with you further.
This is interesting, Do you think that the Holy Spirit is in you? And please prove it if you think you do?
 

calm

Active Member
These were quotes that I used to undermine Trinitarians viewpoint of Christ all the time.

The tricky thing about them is that how one interprets them is entirely dependent on how one views the nature of God. If a person is a Unitarian then it is obvious to them that Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true God, which excludes Jesus from being God. If one is a Trinitarian, then their view is that god split himself into three. So if he is split, and one part of him is in a human body, and it is saying that the Father is the only true God makes sense, but it doesn't exclude that the other two are also not the only true God.

The whole God worshipping himself though undermines Trinitarianism, as i don't know why a part of God would worship himself, but not certain other viewpoints that claims that Jesus is God who aren't Trinitarian.

I think that both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is wrong though, as either side either ignores certain scriptures or use mental gymnastics to interpret these scriptures to anything other than what they explicitly say.

Various people interpret the majority of texts based on and in light of the texts that they find foundational. So a Trinitarian might quote John 1:1 and view all other texts as building on the idea that Jesus is God. A Unitarian might use the verses you quoted as the foundation of their beliefs about Jesus and interpret all other texts based on the idea of Jesus not being God.

So proof texting back and forth doesn't help as it comes down to "my text vs yours". People should actually use the immediate context to understand the verse. Also, each book in the bible is written by one author. Believers assume that all the books harmonize with each other. They should read each book individually to see what it says in its own context and not read into the book because another book or letter says the opposite of what the text clearly says. For all we know, one author might have had a completely different viewpoint to another, hence contradictions.
You think smart, thats good.
I have a question, what is wrong with Jesus worshipping his father? Are you not aware that Jesus was human when he worshipped his father?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Focusing on the pronunciation for a moment...

Elohim (the true term is Alahim) is not a name it is a title.

"El" (Al) is the absolutely God. "I am AL and no one else" (Is. 45,22). The root Al means "towards" and describes the main activity of God, namely that of subordination, it is the title of the Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, 1Co 15:28).
"Eloah" (Alah) is literally someone who is focused on Al. "All Eloah's(Alahs) speech is purified" (Proverbs 30:5).
The majority is "Elohim" (Alahim): the subordinates to Al. These can also be people who have been given special powers by Al, but who submit to El(Al). People from Israel are called Elohim(Alahim) because they were given authority over others (Ps 82:8; John 10:34), e.g. Judges (Gen 21:6) or Moses (Gen 4:16). Moses was made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).

What is your source for this pronunciation?

The ancient Hebrew.
You have to remember that the old Hebrew is not the new Hebrew. They are different.
My sources report it is pronounced Elohim in Genesis, and Ail in Isaiah. Nothing I have indicates "AL".

But even if we disagree on precisely how the vowels are pronounced, are you proposing that the word "Aleph-Lamed" in Isaiah 45:22 is pronounced in a similar manner as "Alpeh-Lamed-Hei-Yud-Mem" in Genesis 1:1?

Here are multiple sources showing that there are different vowels for these words.

"Alpeh-Lamed" in Isaiah 45:22 ( the vowel is a Tzeireh )

Biblehub:

Capture-1.JPG


Sefaria:

Capture-2.JPG


Judaica Press:

Capture-6.JPG


"Aleph-Lamed-Hei-Yud-Mem" in Genesis 1:1 ( the vowel is a Chataf Segol )

Biblehub:

Capture-3.JPG


Sefaria:

Capture-4.JPG


Judaica Press:

Capture-5.JPG


@calm, Respectful question: Why do you think the Aleph-Lamed ( with a tzeireh ) in Isaiah 45:22 should be pronounced the same as the Alpeh-Lamed ( with a chataf segol ) in Genesis 1:1? Are all of these sources wrong that the vowels are different? Are the different vowels intended to be pronounced in the same manner?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
You think smart, thats good.
I have a question, what is wrong with Jesus worshipping his father? Are you not aware that Jesus was human when he worshipped his father?

Ha! I give the illusion of thinking smart.

My thoughts aren't fully thought out though on this I suspect.

There are certain theories in which I think it would make sense for Jesus to worship God. My current viewpoint is that Jesus is an Avatar of God. So if his human body has its own personality but is filled with a part of God then it makes sense that he would pray.

If what I think the Trinitarian viewpoint of Jesus is true, then the view would be that Jesus was 100% God but 100% human, but if his consciousness was that of one of the three persons of God who are equal in position, then there is no point in worshipping the Father. I understand Jesus then speaking with God on equal terms, even if he might have been in an inferior nature, because the reason God is worshipped is because he is the creator (Rev 4:11), and therefore if Jesus is also creator, even then he was worthy of worship, on equal terms as the Father, and therefore didn't need to worship the Father.

Although, now that I think of it, if the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to be humiliated, and being obedient to the Father as per Philppians 2 which says:

He humbled Himself

and became obedient
to death—

even death on a cross.

then that might make sense.

Scenario: if part of Gods plan was to for a third of himself (Jesus) to become obedient to the other third (the Father), meaning that Jesus was submissive to the Father and played inferior, then Jesus had to worship as a form of submissiveness to the Father.

The question then is: why would God's plan require one third of himself to be submissive to the other to the point of worship? Is it simply so that followers can follow in his footsteps? Or is there another alternative explanation?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) REGARDING THE GRAMMAR OF JOHN 1:1c AND THE RENDERING "And the word was a God".

Hi @calm, I have to agree with @Blü and @tigger2 on the specific point regarding John 1:1c. It would do good for you to learn greek so that you can understand WHY you lost that specific debate on that specific subject. IF you could spend just a bit of time learning greek you would see that you are giving @Blü and @tigger2 perfect examples why they are correct regarding the actual use of the article in John 1:1c as the ancients used it.

For example, you offered Isaiah 9:6 which is another example of the same type of lack of article seen in John 1:1c.

The LXX says : "Οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη τπι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγενλος θαυμαστος συμβουλος θεος ισχυρος εξουσιαστης αρχων ειρηνης πατηρ του μελλοντος αιωνος αξω γαρ ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας και υγιειαν αυτω.

The Greek of Isaiah 9:6 reads : for “a” child is given to us (Οτι παιδιον), not “the” child.

“a” son (υιος) has been given to us, not “the” son.

“a” great counsel (μεγαλης βουλης), not “the” great counsel

“a”/”an” messenger/angel (αγγενλος), not “the” messenger/angel”

“a” counselor (συμβουλος), not “the” counselor.

“a” mighty God (θεος ισχυρος), not “the” mighty God”. (Not "almighty", but "mighty" or "strong")

“a” ruler of peace (peaceful) (αρχων ειρηνης), not “the” ruler of peace.

“a” father of the coming age (πατηρ του μελλοντος αιωνος), not “the” father of the coming age.

The point is that you are giving your antagonists who read ancient languages the very examples that show why your cut and pasting regarding the use of the article in John 1:1c is incorrect.

Even if you used the Hebrew such as ben Chayyim, you will find similar use of the article that demonstrates why your cut and pasting is incorrect and how the ancients used the definite article in their texts.

כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם, .

The author clearly knows to use the article, (כִּי-יֶלֶ “THAT” boy) and (הַמִּשְׂרָה “THE” government), but then the examples of lack of articles follows, :

יוֹעֵץ “a” counselor, not “the” counselor

אֵל גִּבּוֹר “a” mighty God, not “the” mighty God

, אֲבִי-עַד “a” father of the coming age,. Not “the” father…

שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם “a” prince of peace, not “the” prince of peace.


John 1:1c is simply following these sorts of examples and the theology is consistent as well. While I do not particularly like Jehovahs Witness theories on other points, they and all others using this rendering of "a God" in John 1:1 are perfectly correct grammatically. (Ancient context is a different argument)



2) REGARDING ISRAEL KAHNS DISCUSSION OF ELOHIM AS A PLURAL, EL IS THE SINGULAR FORM

Hi @Israel Kahn : Isaiah 9:6 above, is an example where the truly singular “EL” is used for God (“a mighty God”), appearing above as the BLUE word.



3) REGARDING VARIOUS RELIGIONS HAVING TRADITIONS SIMILAR TO JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

@dybmh : Regarding your musings on similarities between Judaism and other religions.

The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni ad loc, Sifrei 343), recounts that Jehovah offered the Torah to all the nations of the world before the Jews. In an quaint form it is recounted that ”First He approached the children of Esav and asked them, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They replied, "What is written in it?" "Do not murder." They said, "...Our father [Esav] was assured [by his father, Yitzchak] that, 'By your sword will you live! (Bereishis 27:40)' we cannot accept the Torah" Next Hashem went to the children of Ammon and Moav, and asked, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They asked, "What is written in it?" "Do not commit sexual immorality." They responded, "Master of the Universe, our very existence is based on an immoral act!" (These two nations are descended from the daughters of Lot, who were impregnated by their father.) Thus they too, refused the offer.” And the narrative continues as it explains why many other nations refused this greater guidance of the Torah.

While the story itself is legend, It represents the concept that all nations have had prophets sent to them and have had portions of truth given to them in their own language and in their own symbol set and thus there should be a lot of parallel concepts in the various doctrinal “debri” floating around in the various religions that harken back to the earliest and most important legends and stories. For example, IF the Adamic narrative is true, then the gospel he taught his children and their children would have spread out to different developing nations and thus, there would be some similarities in the religious legends of different geographical areas and different nations.

I like your thinking on this point.

In any case I hope you all have good and insightful and wonderful spiritual journeys in life.

Clear
ειτωνετζω
 
Last edited:

kjw47

Well-Known Member
First fake
In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
... and the Word was a God.

The Jehovah's Witnesses want to hide the divinity of Jesus by adding a "one" to this passage. Because "a God" means "Mighty One". The original scriptures prove that there is no "a", a clear forgery.

Second fake
In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in Hebrews 1:8
But with respect to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; and: A scepter of rectitude is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | CARM.org

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
But with respect to the Son: God is your throne, ...

Again they try to hide the divinity of Jesus. The old scriptures prove that God the Father personally addresses Jesus with the title God. God, the Father, addressed nobody another with the title God, Jesus is the only one. This biblical passage also proves the Trinity.

Third fake
In the oldest original copies of the Bible it says in Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
... and God's power...

Here they try to present the Holy Spirit as just a "power", but the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Fourth fake
They claim that Jesus is an angel, but Jesus is not once identified as that. The Bible even makes a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels.
Hebrews 1: 5-8
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all Gods’s angels worship him.”
Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Fifth fake
They claim that the Holy Spirit is not a person but only a power. But the Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.
The Holy Spirit ...
• teaches the disciples (Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 2:13)
• leads the sons(Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18)
• witnesses the forgiveness of sins to Christians (Hebrews 10:15)
• convict the world of sin, justice and judgment (John 16:8-11)
• leads believers into the whole truth (John 16:13)

The Scriptures not only show that the Spirit of God is acting, but are also presented as someone with whom something happens.
The Holy Spirit can ...
• to be blasphemed (Mark 3:29-30)
• be lied to (Acts 5:3)
• be tried, that is, put to the test (Acts 5:9)
• to be fought (Acts 7:51)
• be saddened (Ephesians 4:30)

Sixth fake
They claim that Jesus is not God, but the Bible teaches the opposite.
  • Jesus is omnipotent (Revelation 1:8)
  • Jesus is the true God (John 20:28-29) (Romans 9:5) (1 John 5:20)(Isaiah 9:6)(Hebrews 1:8)
  • Jesus is the creator (Romans 11:36) (Colossians 1:16-17)
  • God became flesh and Jesus is this flesh (John 1:1+14) (1 Timothy 3:16)
  • Jesus is worshipped (Acts 7:59-60)
........

Seventh fake
They teach that the name "Jehovah" is God's(father) name, but that's not true. This name is wrong.
The name jehovah is a fictitious name of the catholic church, in the 14th or 15th century catholic theologians mixed the title AdOnAi with YHWH and from this came "Jehovah".
The name Jehovah is wrong not only because it was created by a "mix", but also because the letters J and V are not present in Ancient Hebrew. The J is usually a Y and the V/W is a U (in ancient hebrew there are no J or V/W sound). Also, "YHWH" is wrong, because the letter W did not exist until much later. The W was a "double U" before it was changed. YHUH is the right form and not "YHWH".
The name Jehovah is not only wrong but also blasphemy, because Je-hovah means earth-disaster. The Je comes from the Greek and means also in Greek earth, Hovah means in Hebrew disaster. Strong's Hebrew: 1943. הֹוָה (hovah) -- a ruin, disaster
Yud(Y)-Hei(AH)-UaU(U)-Hei(AH) are the 4 letters of the name.
If you connect all the letters now, then the name YAHUAH comes out. That's the true name of the father. In the ancient Hebrew, YHUH does not mean "I am who I am," , but BEHOLD A HAND, BEHOLD A NAIL.



Lets look at reality

There is no I am that I am in the Hebrew OT= Fact--A misleading error only found in trinity translations. I will be what I will be is correct.
Jesus teaches he has a God like we do-his Father-John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- Making a capitol G God in the last line of John 1:1= error. Or maybe you can explain to the world how God has a God yet there is only 1 God???????? Either Jesus is a liar or trinity teachers are the liars. We all must choose who we listen to. Paul listened to Jesus he was 100% clear-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all the Father.
The bible is clear--Only God gets worship--On earth Jesus was mortal( Hebrews 2:7-9) yet in every trinity translation a mortal Jesus is getting worship=100% error.
At 1Cor 15:24-28--Jesus must hand back the kingdom to his God and Father( after the 1000 year reign) and subject himself--- does that sound like what a God would have to do?
Trinity religions =( Mark 3:24-26) A house divided( 34,000 trinity religions) will not stand.-- you can take that to the bank.
Trinity translations are filled with misleading errors.
You have 0 clue if Jehovah is wrong or right.
 

tigger2

Active Member
Calm wrote: "The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence."

[1. We are concerned with John's use of theos here [for John 1:1c], not theon.

2. There are 13 uses of theon in the Gospel of John. Nine of them clearly use the definite article! (two others are in a series of nouns where the initial article is understood to apply to the others). Theon in John 10:33 does not have the article and the NWT (and NEB) translate it as "a god."

3. John 1:18 uses both theon and theos - these are not "the same term." An anarthrous accusative noun (including theon) when used as a direct object and found before its verb is understood to be definite. Therefore the anarthrous theon in 1:18 is properly understood to be 'the god' or God. Theos in 1:18 has no article and may be properly rendered "a god."]


Please reply to these clearly false accusations which are easily found in the public record.
Greek Concordance: θεόν (theon) -- 148 Occurrences
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If God doesn't exist, isn't it possible that similarities in stories and religious symbolism is a caused by simple human nature and the stories and beliefs "make sense" to primitive people? As an example: do you remember the flood story I posted in one of your threads from Hawaii? The similarities to the Abrahamic flood story are remarkable.

"In Hawaiian mythology, Nu'u was a man who built an ark with which he escaped a Great Flood. He landed his vessel on top of Mauna Kea on the Big Island. Nu'u mistakenly attributed his safety to the moon, and made sacrifices to it. Kāne, the creator god, descended to earth on a rainbow and explained Nu'u's mistake."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Nu'u

The names: Noah ... Nu'u
The ark...
The story ends with a rainbow...

But Hawaii is geographically distant from Canaan. This shows that often, people come up with similar ideas, and... Sooda, It's not copying. It's just people coming to the same conclusion based on similar observations.

Doesn't this fit in with Genesis 11:1-9? Since God confused the language of the tower builders in order to scatter them all over the earth, wouldn't these ones have taken the bones of the flood story with them? Embellishments would have been added over time to make them culturally significant, but the story is basically the same in just about every ancient culture. It cannot have been a coincidence.

Even if the stories are similar, that doesn't mean that one is copying from the other. And even if they were, no one knows who was copying from whom. Stories were originally passed word of mouth. Denying that means denying the rich tapestry of religious myth of Native Americans and other tribal cultures.

Exactly. Oral traditions were passed down from generation to generation. No one was copying anyone, because it was the same experience that led to their version of the story in the first place. Each culture diversifying individually but keeping basic truths as a foundation. Isn't that why we see common threads in the beliefs and legends of all these cultures? They had the same ancient beginning....just lost in time.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
@calm there has been so much scholarly evidence given to you on the whole issue of the trinity.
My response to you on your other thread, I will post portions here because you did not respond to them....

"It seems very obvious to me that the major English translations of the Bible came out of Christendom, a man made institution that translated the Bible with their own bias, long before anyone realized that they had one.

A classic example is in the KJV in John 1:1 and John 1:18.....

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."


The word "theos" is used in both verses and yet in verse 18 it says "son" not "God"...why? Both are the same word in Greek.
So if verse 18 renders the word "theos" as "son", then John 1:1 should also render it "son" making that verse say...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son."

You want inconsistencies and bias in translation...there is a major one, right there.

I don't know why people go to such lengths to make Jesus into God. Not once did Jesus ever say that he was God or even equal to his Father. He called himself "the son of God" but never did he claim to be "God". The Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy even though all he claimed to be was "the son of God".......imagine what they would have done if he'd claimed to God!? :eek:

Jesus identified the Father as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)
He said that the Father knew things that he didn't know, (Matthew 24:36)...that God's will could be different from his own (Matthew 26:39) How are they one God? Where will I find a trinity in the Bible?

And why don't the Jews believe in a trinity? Jesus was Jewish, so he would never have even thought of such a thing. (Deuteronomy 6:4) But it's amazing how many trinities there are in all sorts of non-Christian religions....

Trinities date back to Nimrod.
eb53cfaea73c28ce69b501d112f28e8f.jpg


Trinities are found in Egypt, Asia, Europe and Scandinavia.....they predate Christianity by centuries.

images
images
images


Northern hemisphere pagan trinity symbols which all predate Christianity.

images


The apostles were in no doubt about who Jesus was....(Matthew 15:16)

"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

To put another God in place of the Father is a breach of the First Commandment. Ask those in Christendom whom they believe God is, and see how many answer "Jesus Christ". That is blasphemy."

Now, since you believe in a triune god your question was....
calm said:
Is the Holy spirit a person?
My answer was....

No. The holy spirit is the power that emanates from God that he uses to accomplish his will. It can empower others to do extraordinary things. Again, this is another whole topic by itself.
If the holy spirit was a person, it would have a name like God and his son do.

In all of the scriptures that speak of Jesus 'at his Father's right hand', can you give me a single scripture that puts the holy spirit at his left? Can you do that?

My challenge still stands......
 
Last edited:
Top