nPeace
Veteran Member
Is that not to say you simply want to believe what you do? Does reason not matter to you? Does truth matter?
Last edited:
-
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!
Jehovah's Witnesses and the king james bible
- Thread starter Frank Goad
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
@AdamjEdgar it is evident that you believe the things you do, not because you can demonstrate your source to be true, but because you want to believe it, regardless of how unreliable and untruthful that source.
That's the first answer.
The second is, you cannot show how the NWT changed anything in the original texts, but you just want to make false claims, because of your opposition to JWs.
Remember, the Pharisees' envy caused them to hate the Lord's witnesses.
So since you were not able to answer my questions, or demonstrate anything to support your claims... I'll make the answer clear for those who are interested.
The text at Acts 28:20 is correctly rendered in the NWT.
Consider...
One can see the difference between the rendering of Acts 20:28, and the other scriptures.
Whereas the other texts precede the noun with the adjective "own", that is not the case with Acts 20:28.
So "own eyes", "own farm", "own disciples"... Yes, but not so Acts 20:20. It's not "own blood", but rather, "blood of [his] own".
We know whom his own refers to, and this is clearly in harmony with the rest of scriptures.
1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus, the son of him [God].
The son of God. Not God himself.
God did not send himself. God sent his son - not just a son, but his only begotten... son. John 3:16
Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,
Revelation 1:6 who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and power forever and ever! Amen.
The blood of the son - Not his God and father's blood.
This demonstrates the erroneous translations of that verse by those influenced by the apostasy that dominated the centuries after the death of the apostle John.
That's the first answer.
The second is, you cannot show how the NWT changed anything in the original texts, but you just want to make false claims, because of your opposition to JWs.
Remember, the Pharisees' envy caused them to hate the Lord's witnesses.
So since you were not able to answer my questions, or demonstrate anything to support your claims... I'll make the answer clear for those who are interested.
The text at Acts 28:20 is correctly rendered in the NWT.
Consider...
One can see the difference between the rendering of Acts 20:28, and the other scriptures.
Whereas the other texts precede the noun with the adjective "own", that is not the case with Acts 20:28.
So "own eyes", "own farm", "own disciples"... Yes, but not so Acts 20:20. It's not "own blood", but rather, "blood of [his] own".
We know whom his own refers to, and this is clearly in harmony with the rest of scriptures.
1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus, the son of him [God].
The son of God. Not God himself.
God did not send himself. God sent his son - not just a son, but his only begotten... son. John 3:16
Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,
Revelation 1:6 who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and power forever and ever! Amen.
The blood of the son - Not his God and father's blood.
This demonstrates the erroneous translations of that verse by those influenced by the apostasy that dominated the centuries after the death of the apostle John.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
before answering your post above, i have a question. As we are talking about inerrancy and not changing the text...and we are talking about the reliable witness of the Watchtower translation
In Acts 20:21,24,27,28,32 (NWT) i notice the word God (capital G) is used 5 times.
Which God (capital G) is this?
nPeace
Veteran Member
To my knowledge, the only true God, carries a capital "G" in the NWT.
All other gods carry a common "g" with one exception - where a title name is given (A title name, is always capitalized, like every name, whether it be applied to a person, or thing).
So at Isaiah 9:6, every title name is capitalized - His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Usually when using words like wonderful, counselor, mighty, god, eternal, father, prince, peace... there is no need to capitalize these words, except they be used as a title name.
For example, where people disobey Jesus words at Matthew 23:9, and give the title "Father Paul; Father ..." to men. It's capitalized.
Even the god of this world is not given a capital "G". It's a description, like in John 1:1 "... the word was a god."(description. Not title name) and Psalm 82:6 . . .“I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. ...which Jesus quoted. at John 10:34, 35.
Hope that's clear.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
OK I have no problem with that.
Now i am led to another question...
So to summarise your point above:
1. God (capital G) refers only to Jehovah God
2. god (lower g) refers to anyone who is not God = anyone who is not "Jehovah God"
3. I am a bit unsure of your John 1:1 statement...are you saying this refers to the "god of this world"?
are all of the above 3 points correct?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Unless it is a title name, as mentioned, in the case of Isaiah 9:6
Not anyone
but I know what you mean.... Any mighty one that is god-like, or refered to as a god. John 10:34, 35The angels are all god-like, and are considered gods.
The Word is god-like, and considered a god,
People "in the place of" or acting as God are considered gods.
One thing I just remembered. In the NWT God is capitalized at Exodus 7:1 - Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.
This is so because the mention here is in reference to the true God, and not just a god, since Moses is "acting in the place of" the true God.
Elohim -
God
The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.
No. Sorry if that was not clear.
I was just making the comparrison, since Satan is rightly considered a god, as it is he is god-like - one of the spirit beings - a divine one. Likewise, the Word is rightly a god, because he too is a god-like one - one of the spirit beings - a divine one.
However, he is not ruler of this world. He, nor his father.
Indeed, the son of God himself said that he is no part of this world, and his kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36
He even rejected attemps to make him king of this world. John 6:15 ; Luke 4:5-8
Jesus himself identified the ruler of this world. John 12:31 Hence why Christians are no part of this world, nor do they pray for this world, because it is in Satan's control, and doomed. 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9, 10
Not quite.
However, I hope it's clear now.AdamjEdgar
Active Member
Unless it is a title name, as mentioned, in the case of Isaiah 9:6
Not anyone
The angels are all god-like, and are considered gods.
The Word is god-like, and considered a god,
People "in the place of" or acting as God are considered gods.
One thing I just remembered. In the NWT God is capitalized at Exodus 7:1 - Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.
This is so because the mention here is in reference to the true God, and not just a god, since Moses is "acting in the place of" the true God.
Elohim -
God
The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.
No. Sorry if that was not clear.
I was just making the comparrison, since Satan is rightly considered a god, as it is he is god-like - one of the spirit beings - a divine one. Likewise, the Word is rightly a god, because he too is a god-like one - one of the spirit beings - a divine one.
However, he is not ruler of this world. He, nor his father.
Indeed, the son of God himself said that he is no part of this world, and his kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36
He even rejected attemps to make him king of this world. John 6:15 ; Luke 4:5-8
Jesus himself identified the ruler of this world. John 12:31 Hence why Christians are no part of this world, nor do they pray for this world, because it is in Satan's control, and doomed. 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9, 10
Not quite.
right i see. Can i ask this...
my understanding is that Jehovahs witnesses claim to let the scripture speak for themselves when determining doctrine. That would seem to suggest to me that they do not change the meaning of scripture and simply read it as is.
where in the greek language do you get the indefinite article "a" from for John 1:1 that you quoted in an earlier post?
could you provide a reference for this please, because my understanding is that in the greek language, any addition to this text would have at the very least inserted the word "the" in front of God and not "a"!
Thus it would have kept the true and intended meaning of John 1:1 as translated by the mainstream bibles...ie Jesus (the Word) is "the God" = God!
and so when we read this passage in codex sinaiticus for example, john 1:1-3 make the interpretation of the opening statement that the apostle makes very self evident and is clearly in conflict with the unitarian view.
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Clearly in verse one the lack of the article "a" means that should the author have intended this to mean something other than the Mighty/Almighty God as outlined in Isaiah 9:6, then he could have written the passage in a manner that would achieve this end...however what then of the following 2 verses that clearly support. and expand upon the meaning of verse 1?
2 He was in the beginning with God.
As far as I understand it, JW's do not disagree with this...they believe that God created the earth through Jesus. Thus logic seems to dispute the unitarian doctrine here ...why does Jehovah need to create through someone else, especially when according to JW's that someone else is an angel in fact a little lower than an angel (Heb 2:9)? Do you not claim Jehovah is the Almighty God? If he is Almighty what going on here exactly...did he just have a bad day...was he feeling charitable? The charitable theory fails the test...
Isaiah 45 (NWT)
This is what Jehovah says, the Holy One of Israel, the One who formed him: Would you question me about the things coming And command me about my sons and the works of my hands?t and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands,
Malachi 3:6 I am Lord God, I change not! Clearly doesnt have bad days either...or change his mind on his laws or in the delegation of things precious to him!
3 All things came into being through him, and without him came into being not one thing that is in being.
This passage quite would seem to me to make the claim that without the Word, it wasnt possible for anything to even be created...Jehovah had no option but to use Jesus in order to create! That actually now makes the claim that Jehovah is subservient to the Son requiring the Sons powers. Now many unitarians would immediately cry foul of such a statement, however, for a trinitarian, this is actually harmonious with the doctrine. The Triune God needs all persons to be whole/complete. They all have very specific functions.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
That the scripture explain or interpret scripture, is indeed what JWs go by.
That they do not change the meaning of scripture, is definitely what JWs hold to.
That they read it as it is, is not a very coherent statement.
To read scripture "as it is", is not practical. It's actually impossible, since no one today speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek of ancient times.
Even the modern Greek differs from Greek 2000 years ago.
The scriptures were originally writen in those languages, and none of the manuscripts are in our common languages.
So in order to read scripture, which was written in those ancient languages, there needs to be
1) translation - to do that word for word to a language common to the reader, would be an injustice, since it would be like reading a foreign language.
Just think of taking German, and word for word, putting it in English.
2) understanding
Like other languages, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek contain many idiomatic expressions. A reader must understand idioms used in the Bible if he is to comprehend its message correctly. And translators must understand them if they are to translate them accurately. Depending on a Bible reader’s language, culture, or background, some idioms can easily be understood, even if translated literally. (See study notes on Mt 5:2; 10:27; 24:31.) Other idioms may need to be explained in order to be fully understood by those not familiar with the Bible’s original languages. (See study notes on Mt 26:23; Mr 5:34; 14:40.) And still other idioms may need to be translated according to their meaning, with the literal meaning being given in footnotes or study notes.—See study notes on Mt 9:15; Lu 10:6; 12:35.
1) consider that the Bible was written using the common, everyday language of average people, such as farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. (Nehemiah 8:8, 12; Acts 4:13) Therefore, a good translation of the Bible makes the message it contains understandable to sincere people, regardless of their background. Clear, common, readily understood expressions are preferred over terms that are rarely used by the average person.
You can read the article Principles of Bible Translation to see what principles were used to guide how the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was translated.
Some might conclude that a strict, word-for-word, interlinear-style translation would enable the reader to get closest to what was expressed in the original languages. However, that is not always the case. Consider a few of the reasons there.
Perhaps these references will help.
Sahidic Coptic Translation of John 1:1
Was the Word "God", or "a god"?
Study Notes - John 1
The writer did indicate the difference.
Read the text in Greek. It reads (in English)... In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
Note the definite article in red. Why is it on the first mention of God, and not the second?
Is it not because the Word was not the God Almighty?
There is an obvious difference.
Hopefully you gave attention to the portion I posted on God / Elohim.
The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.
Why do you think there has to be a need?
We are here. Animals are here. The earth is here.
Does that mean that God needed us? Should we reason that it's logical to ask, 'Why did God need humans on earth?"
How would you answer?
Likewise, God did not need to work with his only begotten, but he took delight in doing so, in the same way he took delight in giving life to lesser life.
However, isn't it the scriptures that say the Word was with the father, and it was him who was God's first creation, through whom God made all other things?
Revelation 3:14 ; Colossians 1:15-17
God sent his only begotten son (John 3:16). What does that mean to you?
Yes. God is the creator. The Word worked beside his father.
Even when he was on earth, he explained, it was God's finger that he used. Luke 11:20 ; Matthew 12:28 .
So imagine him using God's hands.
That would have been awesome.
Of course.
Why do you say it was not possible for anything to be created.
Is that something you concluded, or is it what's writen?
From your quote, I don't see it writen.
If you said, "I made my bed all by myself". I don't think it would automatically lead one to conclude you had no helper, and you had no choice but to.
The holy spirit was received by the Word, from God, and poured out on 120 disciples. It was poured out on Jesus, the day of his baptism. Acts 2:33 ; Matthew 3:16 ; Luke 4:18
At John 17:3, Jesus said everlasting life depends on taking in knowledge / knowing the only true God, and the one he sent - Jesus Christ. Two persons.
Why do you say the holy spirit is a person?
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I will deal with just a couple of your points as essentially your argument for all of the above is the same and can be dealt with by focusing just on these basic points:
Reference to the Coptic bible translation of the 2nd century
"In fact, the historic Coptic Church fully embraced the Nicene Creed, penned by an Egyptian church father, Athanasius, which explicitly states Jesus is fully God—“true God from true God.”
As such, the Sahidic Coptic manuscripts comprise a rich deposit of empirical evidence. They tell us what the early Greek texts might have looked like. They tell us how the Copts understood the text at the time of translation. In fact, the Sahidic Coptic translation was primarily intended to proclaim the gospel throughout Egypt where the Copts lived.
In fact the author of the reference below holds the view that if one is to apply to JW principle to our interpretation of the coptic text ("a god") we actually create a huge headache for ourselves in that...
"the only other viable interpretation, given the other usages, would suggest the Copts understood “the Word” to be a “god of the pagans” (cf. Acts 28:6) or some “usurper god” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4)"
The authors final position on the coptic debate is as follows...
"When looking at the testimony of the New Testament, the Coptic evidence regarding the indefinite article shows how strange calling Jesus “a god” in John 1:1c would be. As we discovered, it is much more likely describing Jesus as having all the qualities of God—capital G."
Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1: New Evidence Advances the Discussion | Christian Research Institute (equip.org)
Jehovahs Witness actively discourage from getting a higher education (Education Statistics show them to be among the lowest educated group in the US)
Unfortunately, Watchtower actively tries to discourage such research outside of their own publications and when combined with the following, its a considerable trail of deceit that combined with a generally low level of education achievement allows for easy preying upon its members. Members are taught by role play...the apparent width of knowledge of JW theology appears to be excellent, however, when one actually tests their deeper understanding of said doctrines all of a sudden things start to quickly unravel. I think this is mostly because they do not read widely outside of watchtower publications and that is a tragedy and very problematic. I believe a person should be actively encouraged to read the opposition's writings (and do it widely and in depth)...that is the only way to test one's foundation and faith... not regurgitating rehearsed answers.
A little side note at this point...kind of add break I guess... a bit of google adds trivia (my daughters might say "a TikTok moment of enlightenment")
Statistics show that JW's are among the most poorly ranked in the US for education. About 9% get graduate degrees vs about 30% for the national average in US.
People reading this might be interested in the following study conducted that looks at JW education standards... Education Study of Jehovahs Witnesses
The following paper is of interest here...https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.clov...d-4d9e-8256-2b8bc499f91b/documents/John_1.pdf
"In a typical English sentence, the subject is followed by the predicate. However, in a Greek sentence this structure is not necessarily followed. Sometimes the subject, or its main verb, is found further down the sentence. Quite opposed to English sentence construction, the fact that one Greek word precedes a following word does not necessarily have any significance"
"A big fuss is made especially by the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is "anarthrous" (i.e. without the article). For this reason, they assure us, it should be translated as "a god." This completely misses the point as to why theos does not have the article. If there had have been an article in front of theos, then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." You see? This is why there is no article in front of theos. John was quite intentionally avoiding modalism"
Modalism
the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.
Watchtower transposing God with Jehovah in the New Testament
I have another bit of trivia from the above reference...
In the New Testament, the word "God", relevant to this discussion, is found about 282 times. Strangely enough, the watchtower translation only transposes the word Jehovah into these places 266 times. Wouldnt you know it, that appears to be only when the transposing directly changes the meaning of the text to ensure a non trinitarian theology by the writer of the passage of scripture.
JW's seem to think that this solves the problem, however, what in fact it has done is create more issues rather than less. Unfortunately for those who would try to add or subract from the bible, it is so intimately linked among its pages and passages that attempting to to this kind of stuff is quickly exposed. See two examples of how the issue is easily exposed by decent scholars below:
"It can be easily demonstrated that the anarthrous theos is quite in fact qualitive, not indefinite. If the anarthrous theos is to be taken as indefinite, and hence translated into English with an indefinite article ("a god"), then we must do the same to the other 282 times that theos appears without the article. In fact, 3 there are four more instances in chapter 1 of John alone where theos appears anarthrously, and yet the Jehovah's Witnesses inconsistently translate only verse 1 as indefinite, while in the remaining four instances in the first chapter where theos appears anarthrously they don't translate them as "a god."
"In 2 Corinthians 5:19 the word theos appears anarthrously, but the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT) does not translate it as "For a god was in Christ..." Nor do they translate John 1:6 as indefinite either ("There was a man sent from a god, whose name was John"). John 1:12 would not mean the same if they translated it as indefinite ("...to them gave the power to become the sons of a god..."). Same with verse 13 ("Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of a god") and verse 18 ("No man hath seen a god at any time...")."
The writer goes on to conclude...
"Even though in every one of these we see theos appearing without the article, Jehovah's Witnesses do not translate them in the indefinite as "a god." They only do it to the third clause of verse 1. Rather inconsistent, this author notes, not to mention a clear demonstration that the authors of the NWT had no grasp of the Greek language."
That is what your leadership have told you...not what sound research of unbiased and highly educated scholars have clearly explained. We did not know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs either but fortunately, we are smart enough to figure it out with a very high degree of accuracy! (cue the "Rosetta Stone")
Reference to the Coptic bible translation of the 2nd century
"In fact, the historic Coptic Church fully embraced the Nicene Creed, penned by an Egyptian church father, Athanasius, which explicitly states Jesus is fully God—“true God from true God.”
As such, the Sahidic Coptic manuscripts comprise a rich deposit of empirical evidence. They tell us what the early Greek texts might have looked like. They tell us how the Copts understood the text at the time of translation. In fact, the Sahidic Coptic translation was primarily intended to proclaim the gospel throughout Egypt where the Copts lived.
In fact the author of the reference below holds the view that if one is to apply to JW principle to our interpretation of the coptic text ("a god") we actually create a huge headache for ourselves in that...
"the only other viable interpretation, given the other usages, would suggest the Copts understood “the Word” to be a “god of the pagans” (cf. Acts 28:6) or some “usurper god” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4)"
The authors final position on the coptic debate is as follows...
"When looking at the testimony of the New Testament, the Coptic evidence regarding the indefinite article shows how strange calling Jesus “a god” in John 1:1c would be. As we discovered, it is much more likely describing Jesus as having all the qualities of God—capital G."
Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1: New Evidence Advances the Discussion | Christian Research Institute (equip.org)
Jehovahs Witness actively discourage from getting a higher education (Education Statistics show them to be among the lowest educated group in the US)
Unfortunately, Watchtower actively tries to discourage such research outside of their own publications and when combined with the following, its a considerable trail of deceit that combined with a generally low level of education achievement allows for easy preying upon its members. Members are taught by role play...the apparent width of knowledge of JW theology appears to be excellent, however, when one actually tests their deeper understanding of said doctrines all of a sudden things start to quickly unravel. I think this is mostly because they do not read widely outside of watchtower publications and that is a tragedy and very problematic. I believe a person should be actively encouraged to read the opposition's writings (and do it widely and in depth)...that is the only way to test one's foundation and faith... not regurgitating rehearsed answers.
A little side note at this point...kind of add break I guess... a bit of google adds trivia (my daughters might say "a TikTok moment of enlightenment")
Statistics show that JW's are among the most poorly ranked in the US for education. About 9% get graduate degrees vs about 30% for the national average in US.
People reading this might be interested in the following study conducted that looks at JW education standards... Education Study of Jehovahs Witnesses
The following paper is of interest here...https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.clov...d-4d9e-8256-2b8bc499f91b/documents/John_1.pdf
"In a typical English sentence, the subject is followed by the predicate. However, in a Greek sentence this structure is not necessarily followed. Sometimes the subject, or its main verb, is found further down the sentence. Quite opposed to English sentence construction, the fact that one Greek word precedes a following word does not necessarily have any significance"
"A big fuss is made especially by the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is "anarthrous" (i.e. without the article). For this reason, they assure us, it should be translated as "a god." This completely misses the point as to why theos does not have the article. If there had have been an article in front of theos, then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." You see? This is why there is no article in front of theos. John was quite intentionally avoiding modalism"
Modalism
the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.
Watchtower transposing God with Jehovah in the New Testament
I have another bit of trivia from the above reference...
In the New Testament, the word "God", relevant to this discussion, is found about 282 times. Strangely enough, the watchtower translation only transposes the word Jehovah into these places 266 times. Wouldnt you know it, that appears to be only when the transposing directly changes the meaning of the text to ensure a non trinitarian theology by the writer of the passage of scripture.
JW's seem to think that this solves the problem, however, what in fact it has done is create more issues rather than less. Unfortunately for those who would try to add or subract from the bible, it is so intimately linked among its pages and passages that attempting to to this kind of stuff is quickly exposed. See two examples of how the issue is easily exposed by decent scholars below:
"It can be easily demonstrated that the anarthrous theos is quite in fact qualitive, not indefinite. If the anarthrous theos is to be taken as indefinite, and hence translated into English with an indefinite article ("a god"), then we must do the same to the other 282 times that theos appears without the article. In fact, 3 there are four more instances in chapter 1 of John alone where theos appears anarthrously, and yet the Jehovah's Witnesses inconsistently translate only verse 1 as indefinite, while in the remaining four instances in the first chapter where theos appears anarthrously they don't translate them as "a god."
"In 2 Corinthians 5:19 the word theos appears anarthrously, but the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT) does not translate it as "For a god was in Christ..." Nor do they translate John 1:6 as indefinite either ("There was a man sent from a god, whose name was John"). John 1:12 would not mean the same if they translated it as indefinite ("...to them gave the power to become the sons of a god..."). Same with verse 13 ("Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of a god") and verse 18 ("No man hath seen a god at any time...")."
The writer goes on to conclude...
"Even though in every one of these we see theos appearing without the article, Jehovah's Witnesses do not translate them in the indefinite as "a god." They only do it to the third clause of verse 1. Rather inconsistent, this author notes, not to mention a clear demonstration that the authors of the NWT had no grasp of the Greek language."
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Not sure what this has to do with JWs and education, but it seem to me to be mis-directed and unfocused.
So let's try to refocus. How should Acts 12:22, and Acts 28:6 be translated? ...and which translation are you using primarily?
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I dont use any particular translation specifically, any that are open before me will do. Sometimes i use KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, BSB, ESV, NASB, the Vulgate translated into English, Codex Sinaiticus onine (the English section to the bottom rhs obviously)...even the NWT.
In terms of how we should translated Acts 12:22 and 28:6...
What is the context of the statements by the writer and importantly, the observers, in both of those passages?
For example, in John 1:1, the apostle is defining who the Word is...that is quite obvious...the context is very clearly in support of that theology.
In Acts 12:22 and 28:6,
1. in what context are the statements being made?
2. and by whom to whom (were they Christians, Jews, pagans)
once you have thought about that, then consider the following two illustrations...
If you were a missionary in Papua New Guinea 50 years ago, and a poisonous snake bit you on the hand (as happened to paul) and you simply shook it off and remained unaffected, what would those natives who observed the incident say of you?
If you were a visiting preacher in a Christian area, worshipping with like-minded Christians and a poisonous snake bit you on the hand and you shook it off remaining unaffected, how might these people respond?
Wouldnt you agree the response in illustration 1 above ... "he is a god" (lower case g)?
Wouldnt you agree the response in illustration 2 above ... "praise God" (capital G)?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
So you believe in considering the context when translating. Seriously!!?
So why may I ask, are you against the translators of the NWT for doing so?
For example, in John 1, the writer makes a distinction between Theos and Theos, as they are used in the same sentence, by using the definite article. Whereas, he did not, where it was not necessary.
This is only one example out of many, but you just basically killed your entire argument, didn't you?
You can't expect that everyone will see eye to eye when the reality is, that doctrine drives people to seeing the context in light of their beliefs.
Is that JWs? No, but you obviously differ on that answer.
Can it be shown who is correct, from who is in error? Yes, but honesty is required for a definitive conclusion to be met, and honesty is not a quality of those who are not Jesus disciples.
We see that with the Pharisees.
So how will we go about reaching a definitive conclusion? Any suggestions?
Accusing JWs won't cut it. They accused Jesus and his followers. ... Which reminds me...
(Acts 4:13) Now when they saw the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were astonished. And they began to realize that they had been with Jesus.
(Matthew 11:25) At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children.
(1 Corinthians 1:26, 27) 26 For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame;
Isn't that interesting.
To be looked down on from the standpoint of men, where worldly education is concerned is not unique to JWs.
Moreover, it actually is something to be happy about, as it has much significance in association with God and his Christ... according to the scriptures
Yet JWs win Awards for teaching both young and old to read and write... and much more importantly, understand scriptural truths for themselves.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I have already answered your question regarding John 1:1. There is an enormous amount of scholarly work on this and even easy to understand articles such as the one i referenced in a previous post.
You went to Acts 12 and 28 hoping to throw a spanner in the works. Unfortunately, these are both extremely poor examples in an attempt to support the counterclaim to mainstream theology concerning John 1:1. Anyone who has done any research on the unitarian position of John 1:1 should already know that these are not satisfactory texts to use for the counterclaim...they are very self-evident in that they cannot possibly refer to the true God in heaven and for very obvious reasons.
Your Coptic argument is also a lost cause...that has already been studied a long time ago and it actually bumps up against the same issue that we find in the attempt to use Acts 12 and 28 to forward the unitarian view...and indeed this argument actually strikes an even worse problem in that it ends up forwarding the doctrine of modalism!
In light of your interest in jumping around all over the place...let me show you something from your own Bible translation...
Revelation 7:15. That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them.
Revelation 7:17 because the Lamb, who is in the midst* of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs* of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.
Do you see the problem yet?
"Not yet" you say? ok, in your jw.org online bible, the marginal reference for Revelation 7:15 is
Psalms 15:1 "O Jehovah, who may be a guest in your tent?"
Now go back to Revelation 7:17 read it again... contemplate Psalm 15:1, and then answer me these questions...
1. according to the scriptures, how many tabernacles (tents) are there in heaven? Does Jehovah have a tent, Jesus have a tent, I mean - wow how many tents are there floating around up in heaven?
2. If Jehovah sits in the midst of the throne, how is it that in Revelation 7, the Lamb (The son of God Jesus) is sitting there guiding them to springs of waters of life and wiping away every tear from their eyes? Has this throne suddenly grown in size and there are now 2 deities sitting on it or has Jehovah God retired and His son taken the reigns? If Jehovah hasnt retired and is sitll on the throne...which middle is he in and which middle is the Lamb in? Are there 2 muddles...er... i mean middles?
Also, you still have not addressed
Isaiah 45 (NWT)
This is what Jehovah says, the Holy One of Israel, the One who formed him: Would you question me about the things coming And command me about my sons and the works of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands,
Last edited:
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I wish to add another dilemma for Arianism to the above post...
Can i direct readers to the 23rd Psalm (in the New World Translation)
Now just to be absolutely certain there is no mistake in interpretation in Psalm 23, it is irrefutably clear, the NWT clearly makes the claim that this is talking only about JEHOVAH GOD!
So here is the dilemma...
Proposition: The Sheperd in Psalm 23 is Jehovah God
True - According to the NWT and Jehovahs Witnesses
So may i ask, how do we reconcile that with the following texts:
John 10:11 I am the fine shepherd;i the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep. (NWT)
Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus (NWT)
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of Jehovah, you nations,And proclaim it among the islands far away:q“The One who scattered Israel will gather him together.He will watch over him as a shepherd does his flock.r (NWT)
Zechariah 10:3 ...For Jehovah of armies has turned his attention to his flock, (NWT)
Matthew 2:6 ‘And you, O Bethʹle·hem of the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant city among the governors* of Judah, for out of you will come a governing one,* who will shepherd my people Israel.’ (NWT)
1Peter 5:4 And when the chief shepherdg has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (NWT)
Now the finale...(which we have already seen the relevance from my previous post)
What we have here according to the NWT, is at least 2 persons of the Godhead who are laying claim to the flock...they are both claiming "shepherdship" (the chief shepherd actually).
There can only be one reason for this, they are both equal as part of the trinitarian Godhead.
No doubt the mistake made by NWT editors was to use a simple word editor "search and replace function" in order to add the name Jehovah to the bible. Clearly, no one thought about checking Psalm 23!
Can I just add something here about Psalm 23...I cannot let the corruption of this beautiful text by almost all other translations go unchallenged.
I am not a KJV only person, however, i think it is the most wonderful version of this text (IMHO)
The KJV version of Psalm 23
Can i direct readers to the 23rd Psalm (in the New World Translation)
Jehovah is my Shepherd. I will lack nothing.
He leads me in the paths of righteousness for the sake of his name.
I fear no harm, For you are with me;
Your rod and your staff reassure me.
You refresh* my head with oil;
My cup is well-filled.
And I will dwell in the house of Jehovah for all my days.
He leads me in the paths of righteousness for the sake of his name.
I fear no harm, For you are with me;
Your rod and your staff reassure me.
You refresh* my head with oil;
My cup is well-filled.
And I will dwell in the house of Jehovah for all my days.
Now just to be absolutely certain there is no mistake in interpretation in Psalm 23, it is irrefutably clear, the NWT clearly makes the claim that this is talking only about JEHOVAH GOD!
So here is the dilemma...
Proposition: The Sheperd in Psalm 23 is Jehovah God
True - According to the NWT and Jehovahs Witnesses
So may i ask, how do we reconcile that with the following texts:
John 10:11 I am the fine shepherd;i the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep. (NWT)
Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus (NWT)
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of Jehovah, you nations,And proclaim it among the islands far away:q“The One who scattered Israel will gather him together.He will watch over him as a shepherd does his flock.r (NWT)
Zechariah 10:3 ...For Jehovah of armies has turned his attention to his flock, (NWT)
Matthew 2:6 ‘And you, O Bethʹle·hem of the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant city among the governors* of Judah, for out of you will come a governing one,* who will shepherd my people Israel.’ (NWT)
1Peter 5:4 And when the chief shepherdg has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (NWT)
Now the finale...(which we have already seen the relevance from my previous post)
Revelation 7:17
because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne,
will shepherd them and will guide them to springs* of waters of life.
And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.
because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne,
will shepherd them and will guide them to springs* of waters of life.
And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.
What we have here according to the NWT, is at least 2 persons of the Godhead who are laying claim to the flock...they are both claiming "shepherdship" (the chief shepherd actually).
There can only be one reason for this, they are both equal as part of the trinitarian Godhead.
No doubt the mistake made by NWT editors was to use a simple word editor "search and replace function" in order to add the name Jehovah to the bible. Clearly, no one thought about checking Psalm 23!
Can I just add something here about Psalm 23...I cannot let the corruption of this beautiful text by almost all other translations go unchallenged.
I am not a KJV only person, however, i think it is the most wonderful version of this text (IMHO)
The KJV version of Psalm 23
1{A Psalm of David.} The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." Raymond V Franz (former JW Governing Body member quoting JF Kennedy)
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
If you go back and read my last few posts, that would seem to me to be what we have been doing.
You are the one who threw acts 12 and 28 into the mix...thinking they would support Arianism...they do not.
I then expanded my response to you by adding into the mix Revelation 7:17 and your own concordance link with Psalms 15...where the "Tent" in Psalms is irrefutably Jehovah's (thanks to watchtower inserting Jehovah into Psalms 15;1 without realising the implications for conflicting with Revelation 7...)
Then I added Psalm 23...the correct translation should be "The Lord is my shepherd". However once against watchtower have put their foot in it and changed the wording to Jehovah...so now we apparently have two competing shepherds tending the sheep, two Almighty God's Surrounding us with their Tents, Two Almighty God's sitting "in the midst of the throne"...bit of a problem with that because clearly our Shepherd is Jesus in the New Testament, it is Jesus tent that surrounds us, and only One God can sit in the middle of a throne!
nPeace
Veteran Member
No we have not been doing that, because for one thing, we are not discussing one topic, and for another, i do answer your questions, but you don't respond to them, but instead bring up something different - like when you tried to discredit JWs by referring to an off topic point about education... wounding yourself in the process as scripture clearly shows that it's the ones who are not following Christ who attack persons faith on the basis of worldly wisdom. or education.
So that would be a topic. What does the Bible say about education? The conclusive answer puts you in the bracket of the unbeliever, does it not.
Another topic would be, Who is God? Or, Who is Jesus Christ? Or Is Jesus Christ God / God Man? etc.
If you look back, you will see that my response to your scripture in Isaiah had a question, which you did not respond to.
That's why I suggested picking a topic, which we can stick to, and see if we can scripturally discuss it.
that would be better than pointing fingers at a group, and bringing up all sorts of misinformation to try to
what are you trying to do?Not once did I mention Ellen G. White, or any member of the SDA. I did not even mention SDA.
It easy to run with our emotional feelings about a group we don't like, but that's Pharisee-like, is it not? Their jealousy got the better of them.
They could not even answer Jesus from scripture.
They just said things like, "You have a demon." etc.
If you are interested in discussing scripture, you can leave that out. It does nothing but highlight a motive that's the basis of trying to discredit a group... with misinformation.
Recall, when i asked you how you know your source is true, what your response was? Exactly.
Do you want me to pick the topic then?
Does the Bible support the Belief that God is three persons in one?
Good with you, or do you have something else?
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
If you were simply arguing that Jehovah is a bad translation of the tetragrammaton, you would get no argument from me. However that it is not what you are arguing. It is painfully obvious that you don’t know Hebrew. If you did you would know that neither of the verses cited say anything about “the Lord”.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
So the following is wrong
א מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד: יְהוָה רֹעִי, לֹא אֶחְסָר. 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Psalms 23 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
I'm happy for you to translate the text...it will be interesting to see if it only further validates my point in my previous post about Arianism. I would doubt Jews would like the post...unless they are Messianic.
Last edited: