Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

[Spartan]

Then there is this one that I like...

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

<facepalm>

"Later in the same letter the apostle Paul recites the “mystery of godliness” in these terms: “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). So Paul directly proclaims Jesus as God. And of course he also referred to God the Father as God (1 Timothy 1:1-2). Thus, as Paul acknowledged, Jesus was one of the two who were God, in line with the truth proclaimed in John 1, which refers to God (the Father) and the Word who was also God, who became Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3; John 1:14)."

Does the wording of 1 Timothy 2:5—“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”—mean that Jesus is not God?

 

[calm]

<facepalm>

"Later in the same letter the apostle Paul recites the “mystery of godliness” in these terms: “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). So Paul directly proclaims Jesus as God. And of course he also referred to God the Father as God (1 Timothy 1:1-2). Thus, as Paul acknowledged, Jesus was one of the two who were God, in line with the truth proclaimed in John 1, which refers to God (the Father) and the Word who was also God, who became Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3; John 1:14)."

Does the wording of 1 Timothy 2:5—“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”—mean that Jesus is not God?

Exactly.
Therefore one should look at the Bible in context. If one only pick out some passages from the Bible, then everyone can interpret something different into it.

 

[JJ50]

Exactly.
Therefore one should look at the Bible in context. If one only pick out some passages from the Bible, then everyone can interpret something different into it.

The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, some dafter than others, judging by some of the crazy cults and dogmas, which use that book to support their garbage.

 

[calm]

The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, some dafter than others, judging by some of the crazy cults and dogmas, which use that book to support their garbage.

If we look at the Bible in its entire context, then there is only one interpretation.
But whoever is not connected with the Holy Spirit will never be able to understand the Bible. No matter how long he studies the Bible, without the Holy Spirit he will understand nothing. He will think he would understand but in truth he walks in the darkness.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[dybmh]

Now you begin to see why the Ugaritic Tablets have been so helpful to scholars.

Are you saying the Ugarite tablets have vowels?

 

[sooda]

Are you saying the Ugarite tablets have vowels?

I have posted 3 or 6 links on the importance of the Ugaritic tablets to Biblical scholars.

Every spoken language has vowels and consonants, but a remarkable number of ancient written languages did not include vowels in writings.

The vowel points were added around A.D. 700-1000 because biblical Hebrew was becoming a completely dead language, even among the Hebrew Masoretes who were copying it. So they developed a vowel point system to know how to pronounce it.

Evidence the Hebrew Vowel Points were Inspired | Truth Watchers

The above contains a lot of information on the development of Hebrew.

 

[sooda]

Are you saying the Ugarite tablets have vowels?

Ugaritic - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_language
Phonology. Ugaritic had 28 consonantal phonemes (including two semivowels) and eight vowel phonemes (three short vowels and five long vowels): a ā i ī u ū ē ō. The phonemes ē and ō occur only as long vowels and are the result of monophthongization of the diphthongs ay and aw, respectively.

 

[dybmh]

I have posted 3 or 6 links on the importance of the Ugaritic tablets to Biblical scholars.

Yes, I know. I read them, and I remember them.

I simply do not agree with your conclusions about them.

Every spoken language has vowels and consonants, but a remarkable number of ancient written languages did not include vowels in writings.

The vowel points were added around A.D. 700-1000 because biblical Hebrew was becoming a completely dead language, even among the Hebrew Masoretes who were copying it. So they developed a vowel point system to know how to pronounce it.

Evidence the Hebrew Vowel Points were Inspired | Truth Watchers

The above contains a lot of information on the development of Hebrew.

Yes, I know. The point i was making is: The Ugarite Tablets are irrelevant to how Biblical Hebrew is pronounced.

Focusing on the pronunciation for a moment...






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:

View attachment 30891

Sefaria:

View attachment 30892

Judaica Press:

View attachment 30894

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

Biblehub:

View attachment 30895

Sefaria:

View attachment 30896

Judaica Press:

View attachment 30897

@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?

In this reply, I was speaking about Biblical Hebrew pronunciation.

You said...

Now you begin to see why the Ugaritic Tablets have been so helpful to scholars.

The Ugarite tablets have nothing to do with Biblical Hebrew pronunciation.

 

[sooda]

Yes, I know. I read them, and I remember them.

I simply do not agree with your conclusions about them.


Yes, I know. The point i was making is: The Ugarite Tablets are irrelevant to how Biblical Hebrew is pronounced.



In this reply, I was speaking about Biblical Hebrew pronunciation.

You said...



The Ugarite tablets have nothing to do with Biblical Hebrew pronunciation.

Don't confuse spoken language with written language. Ugarit did have some written vowels.. Serious scholars over the past 50 years have found the Ugarit very helpful in translating not only the Bible but also the Dead Sea scrolls.. so its not exactly "my" conclusions.

 

[dybmh]

Don't confuse spoken language with written language. Ugarit did have some written vowels.. Serious scholars over the past 50 years have found the Ugarit very helpful in translating not only the Bible but also the Dead Sea scrolls.. so its not exactly "my" conclusions.

OK. From what I can tell, you are using the Ugarite Tablets as part of your arguments to discredit scripture.

I take issue with the level of certainty you apply to this conclusion. I also take issue with your inserting these tablets into discussions where there is no relevance.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a ton of scriptures you're conveniently trying to kick to the curb to satisfy your unbiblical bias. And those scriptures are in addition to all the other scriptures, titles, acts, divine abilities, etc., of Jesus that go along with them.

Maybe you missed my point... I was not kicking any scriptures to the curb, I was saying that Christians INTERPRET these scriptures differently, so how can I know which Christians have the correct interpretation?

I said: You can use Bible verses to try to prove anything you want to try to prove, and the fact that other Christians believe differently than you do proves that there is more than one way to interpret Bible verses.

The hundred-dollar question is what makes you right and the others wrong?​

This has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Baha'i... I am just trying to figure out what the Bible means.

 

[sooda]

OK. From what I can tell, you are using the Ugarite Tablets as part of your arguments to discredit scripture.

I take issue with the level of certainty you apply to this conclusion. I also take issue with your inserting these tablets into discussions where there is no relevance.

Discredit scripture? Are you kidding? Are you also afraid of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi?

The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical ...
The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies

The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies. ... And among the ruins of Ugarit, he found the archives of the ancient city The clay tablets discovered in those archives have had a revolutionary impact on the study of the Hebrew Bible.

Why does education present a risk to some sects?

 

[Trailblazer]

"Later in the same letter the apostle Paul recites the “mystery of godliness” in these terms: “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16).

Yes, I agree, God was manifested in the flesh; but that is not the SAME as saying that God became flesh.

So Paul directly proclaims Jesus as God. And of course he also referred to God the Father as God (1 Timothy 1:1-2).

1 Timothy 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is not proclaiming Jesus as God in the verses above. Paul is differentiating Jesus from God with the word "and."

Does the wording of 1 Timothy 2:5—“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”—mean that Jesus is not God?

The wording means that Jesus was a Mediator between God and man, which means that Jesus cannot be God, since Jesus was a Mediator. A Mediator cannot mediate between himself and himself. Jesus mediated between God and humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am thinking more theoretically. So yes, ONLY one God is needed from our point of view. But that means bare minimum requirements. It doesn't exclude the possibility theoretically that other Gods exist.

Theoretically anything is possible, but realistically only one God is needed, and only one God is declared in the scriptures, when interpreted correctly.

So I am not talking about a each religions theory. I am just asking if it makes sense from a logical point of view regardless of religion.

Logically, there cannot be BOTH one God and many Gods.... There is either one God or many Gods.

 

[sooda]

Theoretically anything is possible, but realistically only one God is needed, and only one God is declared in the scriptures, when interpreted correctly.

Logically, there cannot be BOTH one God and many Gods.... There is either one God or many Gods.

For most of human history there have been many gods or one "chief" God and many lessor gods.

Many gods are mentioned in scripture.. including Yam, El, Baal and Asherah.

What was the name of the Bronze snake on the post in Sinai?

 

[sooda]

In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live.

They gave the bronze snake a name, Nehushtan, and burned incense and worshipped the idol up until when King Hezekiah ultimately destroyed it. Just as God had provided a way of salvation for those who had been bitten.

 

[dybmh]

Discredit scripture? Are you kidding? Are you also afraid of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi?

No Sooda, I'm not afraid.

Yes, you attempt to discredit scripture all the time. Do you deny it?

The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies. ... And among the ruins of Ugarit, he found the archives of the ancient city The clay tablets discovered in those archives have had a revolutionary impact on the study of the Hebrew Bible.

Yes. But you take to another level.

Why does education present a risk to some sects?

I'm not a member of any sect. I am not in any religious group. You would have to ask them.

But since we're asking rhetorical questions...

Why do people introduce topics that are irrelevant into discussions here on RF? Because they are preaching. It's product placement... marketing... advertising.

 

[dybmh]

In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live.

They gave the bronze snake a name, Nehushtan, and burned incense and worshipped the idol up until when King Hezekiah ultimately destroyed it. Just as God had provided a way of salvation for those who had been bitten.

And this is a perfect example.

It's Irrelevant. It is product placement... marketing.... advertising.

 

[sooda]

No Sooda, I'm not afraid.

Yes, you attempt to discredit scripture all the time. Do you deny it?


Yes. But you take to another level.

I'm not a member of any sect. I am not in any religious group. You would have to ask them.

But since we're asking rhetorical questions...

Why do people introduce topics that are irrelevant into discussions here on RF? Because they are preaching. It's product placement... marketing... advertising.

You should be thrilled about the Ugaritic Tablets.

You often preach so what is your concern about others preaching?

 

[sooda]

And this is a perfect example.

It's Irrelevant. It is product placement... marketing.... advertising.

The discussion is about God and gods. Its not "marketing" to read scripture.. The Bible talks about Yam, Bal, El and Asherah as well as Nehushtan.