1. 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!

Featured Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by tigger2, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    So What are the Places Where the JW Bible is Falsifying the Translation of the Original Greek and Hebrew Texts?

    This is such an overwhelmingly common complaint about the NWT, that I would like to examine all such examples. But, obviously, If I'm swarmed with too many examples, it will be very difficult to discuss them all.

    I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god.'

    So disregarding John 1:1c and the fact that the translators have explained in the NT itself why they have replaced the word for 'Lord' found in the oldest existing texts with 'Jehovah,' what else is found in the NWT which is falsely translated?

    One at a time, please.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,493
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    No responses yet, eh? Lol.

    Enjoy reading your posts, my brother.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,974
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Yes, I would like to know too.....let's see if there are any that can't be explained using the works of recognized scholars.

    Professor Jason BeDuhn wrote a book called "Truth in Translation" where he compared nine of the most popular translations of the Bible and compared their renderings with the Greek text......he admitted that the NWT was an excellent translation in this regard, not found to be biased in its translation especially regarding trinity 'proof texts'.

    "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament
    by
    Jason David BeDuhn
    4.35 · Rating details · 81 ratings · 14 reviews

    Written with the student and interested public in mind, Truth in Translation aims to explain what is involved and what is at stake in Bible translation. It begins with brief treatments of the background to the Bible and its translation, the various approaches to translation, and the specific origins of nine translation versions in wide use in the English-speaking world today. It then proceeds to compare those versions on nine points of translation, ranging from individual terms, to difficult passages, to whole categories of grammar. The book serves to inform readers of the forces at work shaping the meaning of the Bible, to help in their selection of Bible translations, and to act as a critical catalyst for the improvement of Bible translations through more careful attention to the risk of bias in the translation process."


    Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason David BeDuhn

    We've explained why we translate John 1:1 as we do, and BeDuhn agrees that it is rendered in accord with the Greek understanding of the text.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +2,038
    In my limited personal experience with the JW, their interpretation of scripture has been inexplicable to me. As to John 1:1 it makes no difference to me if the word is God or Jehovah. To insist that one is more accurate than the other is just plain vapid. They do a cute trick with the 144,000, I think insisting that only that number go to Heaven. If that is the case, then to hell with it. It's not worth trying. Their insistence that good works influence that is repulsive to me.
     
  5. Scheherazade

    Scheherazade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Ratings:
    +22
    Religion:
    Undecided
    Let's not disregard John 1:1. While John 1:1c does not use the definite article before θεός, neither does John 1:1b use it before θεόν. This word (they're the same, just in a different grammatical case) is often used throughout the NT without being prefixed by a definite article (282 times to be exact) to refer to The One God, and yet in these many instances, the NWT translators do not translate it as 'a god' (see Matt. 4:4 [tr. as 'Jehovah'], 6:24 ['God'], 14:33 ['God's'], 15:4 ['God'], etc.); they only translate it according to their own standard 16 times (see Wallace, Daniel B. Greek, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 267). This is not to mention the instances of this in the Septuagint (Exod. 3:6, Lev. 24:15, Num. 24:8, Isa. 41:4, Job 1:5, Ps. 49:1, 117:27, Mal. 3:8, Wis. 2:16, Tob. 6:18, etc.). Just because θεό is not preceded by a definite article (that is, it is anarthrous) does not mean that it is indefinite. If this was the case, then the NWT translators should have translated ἀρχὴ in John 1:1a as 'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning.' You do not need the definite article in the sentence because θεός is at the beginning of the clause in John 1:1c. This is done to place emphasis on the word, thus making it definite, hence why you do not see any translators (including the NWT translators) translating it as 'God was the Word,' even though that would be literally following the word order of the original, "Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." The word is clearly definite, as scholarly consensus attests to, but even that is besides the point. What is most important in John 1:1 is the qualitative identity between the logos and God which the author is clearly asserting, and he asserts this through word order (see Harner, Philip B., "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" [J.B.L. 92, 1, 75-87], p. 75).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    327
    Ratings:
    +103
    Religion:
    Natsari
    @tigger2
    John 1:1 in the nwt is a clear fake.

    Jn.1:1 En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos

    "In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

    Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in the flesh they must change John 1:1 NWT. The NWT renders John 1:1 as: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That is NOT what the Greek text actually says! It states "the word was God." Let's take a look at what authentic New Testament Greek scholars say about this verse.

    Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

    In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

    They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it! "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."( Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

    Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

    The title page of the Watchtower Bible states, "Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony D.D. (1948 Reprint). They considered him to be scholar but he was not out of reach of their tampering.

    The Watchtower misrepresented Dr. Westcott using his credentials and the reprinted Greek text of Dr. Westcott. Westcott identified the Word in John 1:1 with...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12).

    Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

    Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

    Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

    WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

    Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

    Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

    Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

    Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

    Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

    Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

    Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

    Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

    Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

    Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

    Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

    Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
    Source: Scholars on Jn.1:1

    1
     
    #6 calm, Jul 29, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  7. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    327
    Ratings:
    +103
    Religion:
    Natsari
    DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

    A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

    E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

    C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

    C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

    Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

    Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

    Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

    Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

    James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same(Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

    E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

    Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

    Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

    Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

    Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

    I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.
    Source: Scholars on Jn.1:1

    2
     
  8. calm

    calm 12/9/2019

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    327
    Ratings:
    +103
    Religion:
    Natsari
    @tigger2
    Hebrews 1:8 is in the nwt a fake too.

    "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation.

    In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:

    "God is your throne forever and ever . . .
    and
    "Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever . . . "

    Because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version; otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God, and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.

    First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

    "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).

    In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God . . . " The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronominal suffix, as this one does . . . The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations . . . "1

    When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God; but, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc., but the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre, he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with--a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT not the other way around.

    Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:

    "For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest . . . " (Heb. 1:5-11).

    To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne, and He isn't a throne for anyone else.

    Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands . . . " This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the Trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did; or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly, this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

    The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.
    Source: Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | CARM.org
     
  9. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,310
    Ratings:
    +1,095
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    The JW cult have always made it up as they went along, and sadly their gullible acolytes believe all their garbage to be true!:eek:
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  10. 80s fashion girl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2019
    Messages:
    91
    Ratings:
    +64
    Religion:
    none
    I'm not a JW, but have some knowledge about their teachings. It is correct that they believe only 144,000 go to heaven. They are some kind of special chosen ones (I'm sure a JW could explain this better). The remaining righteous people who are saved are resurrected and inhabit the new earth, which is consistent with scripture.

    It's taught widely by protestant religions, and in error according to scripture, about the righteous 'going to heaven'. Elaborating on that would be another thread.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,974
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It appears to me as if you have never ever checked out what JW's believe......and comments like the above prove it. Why not find out first before making a judgment?

    It's not about whether its "God or Jehovah"....its about whether the very nature of God is something different to that taught by Jesus Christ himself. In John 1:18 just a few verses on from John 1:1 it clearly states that "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

    If no man has ever seen God, how many thousands saw Jesus Christ? If Jesus is described as an "only begotten god" then, in order to be "begotten" he had to have a 'begetter'. Understanding the Greek word "theos" will help us to see that Jesus and his Father as two separate divine and powerful individuals....but only one is the Almighty.

    Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the beginning of God's creation". The Father is his 'begetter'. According to one dictionary a "begetter is a..."Type of: parent. a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian."

    How can Jesus say that 'the Father is Greater than he is' when they are both supposed to be equal in the 'godhead' ?
    How could Jesus ask his Father for 'this cup to pass away from him', and then say that 'God's will had to be done and not his own'?

    How could Jesus say that the Father knew things that he did not? (Matthew 24: 36)

    Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God and neither do Jews....is this a revelation to you? Muslims do not believe that he was the son of God and Jews do not believe that he was the Messiah. Christendom alone believes that Jesus is God. One can only wonder why? It is not a Bible teaching.

    Picking John 1:1 to the exclusion of all other scripture just proves the inadequacy of the translators.

    There is way more scripture that disproves the trinity than ever supports it. It is a blasphemous teaching to all of the Abrahamic faiths....breaking the first Commandment.

    As far as the 144,000 goes.....as has been mentioned by @80s fashion girl, all that means is that God chose a small number of humans to rule with Christ in his Kingdom......like all governments, it is a small minority who rule over the majority. What are kings with no subjects? Why have priests if there are no humans for whom to perform their duties? (Revelation 20:6)

    The Revelation speaks of Jesus with his "bride" bringing their rulership to mankind on earth (Revelation 21:2-4).....this is where paradise will be restored...the place where God intended it to be in the beginning. (Isaiah 55:11)

    Not going to heaven is no big deal for true Christians because God never meant for any human to go to heaven in the first place. It was always God's intention to have humans living forever on earth....why does everyone think he wants to take us all to heaven? He already has a thousands of angels there. :shrug:

    And as for "works"....it is never stated in scripture that we can attain salvation by works alone. According to James...we need both faith AND works......"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?. . . . .So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead.
    18 Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”. . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone. 26. . . . Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:17-26)


    You can't have one without the other.


    I believe that you are very misinformed. :(
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Darkforbid

    Darkforbid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2019
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +491
    Religion:
    Theist
  13. Scheherazade

    Scheherazade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Ratings:
    +22
    Religion:
    Undecided
    Because Christians believe in the New Testament.
     
  14. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,118
    Ratings:
    +237
    Religion:
    Protestant
    On the Tract and Bible society I have a very small analysis to prove they are incorrect.
    1. No flesh and Blood can enter heaven.
    2. No man has an immortal Spirit.
    3. only 144 000 people will enter heaven.

    I ask: So, What will enter heaven if the flesh and blood in in the grave, and we dont have any spirit?
    They answer: God will recreate us as he remembers us.
    I ask, but that will be another creation, nothing of me now living gets to heaven?
    They answer: No, God will take your memory and will re create you:
    So I say: great, then this "memory" of mine is what I call an immortal spirit!
    They answer: No, I will get someone to come to answer you.

    Well, in almost 30 years, no answer yet.

    Look at the lies the JY's spread to the world when they made the NWT:
    Muslims all over the world uses this to destroy the Christian Bible thinking it is true!
    In the JW's quest to change the Bible in its description of Jesus' divinity, they sent thousands to hell!

    I love this website showing this fraud of the JW's organisation!
    islam-bible-50000-errorsawake-sept-8-1957a.jpg islam-bible-50000-errorsawake-sept-8-1957b.jpg
    There are not 50,000 errors in a Bible, as Jehovah's Witnesses claim!
     
  15. Wasp

    Wasp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2019
    Messages:
    927
    Ratings:
    +216
    It's good you can admit that much at least.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Wasp

    Wasp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2019
    Messages:
    927
    Ratings:
    +216
    Where does it say Jesus is God?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,118
    Ratings:
    +237
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Dont you know?
    Why was Jesus condemned by the High priest?
     
  18. Scheherazade

    Scheherazade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Ratings:
    +22
    Religion:
    Undecided
    John 1:1c and John 8:58-59. You as a Muslim believe in the reliability of the Bible, or is this just for argument's sake?
     
  19. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,493
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    As it should be. So read 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Shoot, read John 17:3, and John 4:23-24....all words of Jesus.
    Who is God ? Not Jesus, but his Father.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    OP: ".... I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god.'

    "So disregarding 1:1c..."

    I guess so many of you are ignoring my OP because John 1:1c is so important to trinitarian apologists.

    .......................................

    For those who insist on beating this dead horse, here is the proof, again, that it is most trinitarian translations which falsify this important scripture. My personal study:



    http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

    and,

    http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

    and my original study of this:

    http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/definite-john-11.html

    I notice that most posters here are not criticizing a NWT 'falsified' verse, but just Trinitarian arguments about JWs in general. I am answering only those who stick to the subject: "Where does the NWT Falsify"
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...