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
    If there is no other 'falsification' to answer, I will give another 'falsification' by the NWT as given by trinitarian scholar Robert H. Countess.

    ASIARCHES - Countess continues his attack of the NWT’s honesty and accuracy: “In Acts 19:31 the NWT renders the plural of [asiarches] ‘the commissioners of festivals and games.’ The addition of the explanatory, and truly helpful, paraphrase ‘of festivals and games’ is unjustifiable on the basis of NWT principles [?]. More preferable is a rendering like that of the Authorized Version, ‘the chief of Asia,’ or, if desired, simply the transliteration, ‘Asiarchs.’ NWT’s ‘the commissioners of festivals and games’ is not found in Arndt-Gingrich or Liddell-Scott.” - pp. 76-78.
    ...........................................

    “The chief of Asia” is probably a mistranslation, and “Asiarchs” is basically meaningless to modern speakers of English. Obviously the NWT translators decided to make the term understandable. They could have used “Asiarchs” along with a footnote explaining the term, but apparently decided, instead, to include the meaning of the word in the translation itself. All literal Bibles do the same. For example, Luke 21:2 actually says that the poor widow donated to the temple “two lepta.” Lepta were small copper coins of very little value. But not even the very literal NASB translates the name of those tiny, insignificant coins literally: “He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins [lepta].” The unfamiliar term (lepta) is translated by a description understandable to modern speakers of English (“small copper coins”). Exactly the same method has been used by the NWT for the unfamiliar “Asiarchs”!

    “These ‘Asiarchs’ were ten officers elected by cities in the province who celebrated at their own cost public games and festivals.” - p. 327, vol. 3, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson.

    “[Asiarchs] acted, doubtless, as presidents in local festivals as well as in the provincial games” - p. 172, Vol. 1, Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible.

    “[Asiarchs] were not ‘high priests of Asia,’ as some have thought, but delegates of individual cities to the provincial Council ... They were probably assembled at Ephesus, among other places, to preside over the public games and the religious rites at the festival” - p. 282, Vol. 1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

    “[Asiarchs,] Officers chosen annually .... They had charge of the public games and religious theatrical spectacles” - p. 60, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publ.

    “[Asiarch, one selected] to preside over the games to be exhibited that year” - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, p. 80 (#775), Baker Book House, 1977.

    “An Asiarch was one of certain officers elected ... whose function consisted in celebrating, partly at their own expense, the public games and festivals” - p. 178, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, Nelson Publishers, 1983 printing.

    “[Asiarchs -] These officials were chosen on an annual basis to preside over games and theatrical displays.” - p. 61, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

    "... the Asiarchs were called upon to provide games, partly if not solely at their own expense, and to preside over them." - p. 415, Vol. 2, The Expositor's Greek Testament.

    So, once more, even though the NWT's translation differs from what this Trinitarian wants, how is it a falsification of the Bible??
     
    #41 tigger2, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,069
    Ratings:
    +2,245
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    John 1:1c isn't identifying the Logos as the God Who is named in the first two parts of the verse. This fact is standard teaching of Trinitarian churches everywhere--at least those who maintain the historic doctrine of the Trinity as espoused by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. It does, however, ascribe the qualities of "Theos" to the Logos. We can render the same grammatical structures that are present in the Greek using English: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the American, and the Word was American." The "Theos" with the definite article describes a Person. The "Theos" without the definite article describes the qualities and attributes that the Logos possesses.

    And this is perfectly in line with Trinitarian doctrine. We don't teach that the Person of the Father is identical to the Word. That is Sabellian heresy.


    You forget the death knell that made the Sanhedrin condemn Him for blasphemy--that He would come in power on the clouds of Heaven. That is language that is only used for God and for the Son of Man in the Old Testament. This imagery is littered throughout the Psalms and the Prophets. It signifies that the Son of Man has the same divine power and glory as the Father.
     
    #42 Shiranui117, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,499
    Ratings:
    +3,154
    Religion:
    Christian
    Wow, I came so close to agreeing w/ everything you wrote, except this:

    I appreciate your civil response! I'll take this up, later.

    Goodnight, my cousin.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  4. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Another accusation of the NWT 'falsifying the Bible' by Trinitarian scholars:

    The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses
    By Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon (in blue)


    ".... If the Witnesses have not translated God’s revelation with care and accuracy—but instead have incorporated their own doctrinal bias in disregard of the Greek text—then it is unlikely that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) is, as widely proclaimed, God’s sole channel for communicating His will to mankind today."
    ........................................
    Here is one of A&W's examples of 'perverting the Word of God':

    Hebrews 9:27 [This verse has the insertion of "for all time" to justify their belief in conditional immortality.]


    "And as it is reserved for men to die once FOR ALL TIME, [i.e., eternally] but after this a judgment." NWT


    "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." NAS


    Again looking at the Kingdom Interlinear (p. 988) we find the addition of the words "for all time" is without any justification. There is no Greek correspondence. Mantey states:


    Heb. 9:27, which without any grounds for it in the Greek, is mistranslated in the J. W. Translation—"And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this is a judgment…." Note that the phrase "for all time" was inserted in the former versions without any basis in the original for it. No honest scholar would attempt to so pervert the Word of God!



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

    But the trinitarian scholar, W. E. Vine, says (of the NT Greek word hapax that was translated “once for all time” by the NWT) in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809: “1. Hapax denotes a. once, one time.... b. once for all, of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.”

    (Also see hapax in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon; the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (‘Little Kittel’), Eerdman’s Publ., 1985; the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, Eerdman’s, 1990; and A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 404.)

    Like so many words (in NT Greek and OT Hebrew as well as in English) hapax has more than one meaning. Either the a. or the b. definition is an honest translation of the Greek word hapax!

    Look at these trinitarian translations of hapax:

    Heb. 9:26 - “He has appeared once and for all” [hapax] - Jerusalem Bible, NJB, GNB, TEV, NEB, Phillips.

    - “once for all” [hapax] - NAB (1970), NAB (1991), RSV, NRSV, REB.
    Heb. 9:27 - “reserved for men to die once for all” [hapax] - MLB.

    - “Destined that men die only once” [hapax] - JB, NJB, Living Bible.

    Heb. 9:28 - “Christ sacrificed once for all[hapax] - MLB.

    - “Christ died only once[hapax] - JB, NJB, LB.

    Jude 3 - “once and for all” [hapax] - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, TEV, ISV NT,

    Phillips.

    - “once for all” [hapax] - RSV, NRSV, REB, NASB, NAB, NAB (1991), Mo, MLB, LB, AT (Goodspeed).

    - "once for all time" [hapax] - GodsWord,

    [[Since I wrote the above, I have seen the following Bibles saying the same about Heb. 9:6 (and I suppose they are also worded that way in the other verses above): CEV; DNLT; EHV; ESV; EXB; ISV; Mounce; NCV; NET; NIRV; NIV; NLT; NRSV; RSV; TPT.]]


    (Also note John 10:38 which does not even have the word hapax, but TEV adds “once and for all” anyway!)

    Even the trinitarian standard, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, Vol. 2, pp. 717, 718, tells us hapax means
    “once in the sense of an event that cannot be repeated. It is so used of the sacrificial death of Christ (Heb. 9:26 ff; 1 Pet. 3:18).... The author of Heb. sees the death of Christ as the once-and-for-all [hapax] sacrifice” - p. 717.

    And

    “Jude 3 urges its readers ‘to contend for the faith which was once for all [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - p. 718.

    Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (Hebrews Chapter 9):

    "Verse 26. For then must he often have suffered. That is, if his blood had no more efficacy than that which the Jewish high priest offered, and which was so often repeated, it would have been necessary that Christ should have often died.
    "But now once. Once for all; once in the sense that it is not to be repeated again--\~apax\~."

    Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament:

    Hebrews 9
    Verses 25, 26

    "For the significance of hapax as used here, see under Heb. 7:27. Its meaning is 'once for all.' The glory of Christ's sacrifice as set forth here consists of the complete, final, and irrevocable nature of the offering. It was not a repeated thing as were the offerings and sacrifices under Judaism but was a 'once for all' accomplishment."

    A final note on hapax comes from the highly trinitarian (and highly anti-Watchtower Society) “cult” expert Dr. Walter Martin. This “born-again” spokesman likes to quote Dr. Mantey in an attempt to show the “mistranslations” and “perversions” of God’s Word by the Watchtower Society. Interestingly, Martin himself interprets hapax in Jude 3 as “once for all time”:

    “ ‘...contend earnestly for the faith once [hapax] delivered to the saints,’ that’s King James, but the [NT] Greek is a little better,” says Martin. “The Greek says, ‘... put up a stiff fight for the faith once for all time [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - Introduction to the Cults, cassette tape recording by Dr. Walter Martin, 1980. - Compare Jude :3 NWT.

    So, then, what can we conclude from Mantey's quote (and Ankerberg and Weldon's agreement): "No honest scholar would attempt to so pervert the Word of God!"?


    Either something is very wrong with their own 'scholarship' or, more likely, considering their education and knowledge, something is very wrong with THEIR honesty.
     
    #44 tigger2, Jul 31, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Ankerberg and Weldon again:

    Acts 20:28 [The phrase "with his own blood" is translated as "the blood of his own (Son)," to circumvent Christ’s deity.]


    "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with THE BLOOD OF HIS OWN (SON)." NWT


    "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood." NAS


    The NWT interlinear appendix justifying this translation (pp. 1160-61) refers to a few manuscripts using "Lord" (i.e., supposedly Jesus) instead of God and mentions "troublesome Greek words." It can offer this translation only by unnaturally translating the Greek and concludes, "The entire expression could therefore be translated ‘with the blood of his own.’"28

    {{The Interlinear hardly 'concludes' anything at this point as the Appendix note is only about one-third completed at this point.}}


    Nigel Turner, an authority who wrote the volume on Greek syntax in Moulton’s three-volume Grammar of New Testament Greek, explains why the Witnesses are wrong at this point:

    {{but see what Moulton himself says in appendix of 1969 Interlinear, p.1160 - quoted below }}



    The dying proto-martyr, St. Stephen, addressed Jesus as if he were God. A pious Hellenistic Jew would not pray at one less than God. It may not be so generally appreciated that St. Paul slipped naturally and casually into the affirmation that he who shed his blood upon the cross was God. The reference is to Acts 20:28, where St. Paul at Miletus spoke to the Christian elders about "the church of God which he bought for himself by his own blood." The blood of God! Some aberrant manuscripts have the inoffensive reading, "the church of the Lord"—implying the Lord Jesus. But they must be rejected on the ground that the more startling or difficult reading is the one likely to be correct; scribes would not invent a conception of such unexpected originality as "the blood of God." We are left with the original and plain statement of St. Paul that Jesus is God, and it worries those scholars who think that it represents a Christology grammatical expedient whereby "his own" is understood as a noun ("his own One"), rather than a possessive adjective. In consequence, standing as it does in the genitive case, one may place before it the word "of": i.e., "of his Own." The expedient lowers the Christology drastically and reduces St. Paul’s affirmation to something like this: "the church of God which he bought for himself by the blood of his Own"—as in the margin of the NEB. It is a theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the Greek. It is unlikely to have been the meaning envisaged either by St. Paul or the writer of the narrative. The easy thing would be for them to add the word "Son," if that was intended.29


    Even the Kingdom Interlinear appendix itself admits: grammatically, this passage could be translated, as in the King James Version and Douay Version, "with his own blood." In such case the verse would be saying that God purchased his congregation with his own blood. That has been a difficult thought with many…the ordinary translation would mean to say "God’s blood."30


    Nevertheless, the more accurate and natural translation is rejected since it cannot be true according to Watchtower theology, which denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

    There are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian “evidence” proposed for this scripture!


    First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, “the church of the Lord.” - NEB; REB; ASV; Moffatt; Updated Bible Version 1.9; RSVCE; WE; La Biblia Reina-Valera (Cf. TPT - 'Jesus' and Lamsa - 'Christ'). Since Jesus was often referred to as “the Lord,” this rendering negates any “Jesus is God” understanding for Acts 20:28.

    Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: “to feed the church of the Lord”!

    And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering “the church of God” at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is “considerable degree of doubt” about this “preferred” rendering. They admit that “The external evidence is singularly balanced between ‘church of God’ and ‘church of the Lord.’”

    Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, “to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” - RSV, 1971 ed.; NCV; NRSV; NJB; NET; LEB; Mounce; Barclay ('of his own One'); New Century Version; Complete Jewish Bible; VOICE; (also see TEV, CEV, and GNB).

    The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow “with the blood” in this scripture. This could be translated as “with the blood of his own.” A singular noun may be understood to follow “his own.” This would be referring to God’s “closest relation,” his only-begotten Son.

    Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

    “something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23, 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

    Trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

    “it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or ‘of the Son’] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or ‘of his own’] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

    And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:

    “Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [‘through the blood of the own’], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean ‘with the blood of his Own.’ (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that ‘his Own’ (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to ‘the Beloved’.”[*]

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

    [*]
    This is more than just a theory. Notice how Acts 20:28 was actually rendered by an early Christian writer (ca. 250-299 A.D.):

    “...to the Church of the Lord, ‘which he has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved...’” - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 424, Vol. vii, Eerdmans Publ., 1989 printing.

    Not only has this very early Christian writer used “Lord” here, but he has shown what the understanding of “the blood of his own” was at this time when the language of the New Testament was still used and clearly understood.
    .............................................................

    Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV’s “the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or ‘beloved’ ]” is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

    Although the UBS Committee didn’t actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that “some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [‘his own Son’].” - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.); NRSV; NJB; NET; Today’s English Version; etc.

    Note the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

    "I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

    "If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.

    Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can’t honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.

    Furthermore for Ankerberg, et al. to claim the NWT rendering of Acts 20:28 is a "mistranslation" is specious, at the very least!
     
    #45 tigger2, Jul 31, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,499
    Ratings:
    +3,154
    Religion:
    Christian
    Okay, I’m back, finally!

    Just curious...of course you identify the Son of Man as Jesus. But when you wrote, “That is language that is only used for God and for the Son of Man in the Old Testament.”...who do you identify here as God?

    (Hope to continue this tomorrow...it’s late here.)
     
  7. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Where does the Bible ever say that God is coming on the clouds?
     
  8. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,069
    Ratings:
    +2,245
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
  9. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,069
    Ratings:
    +2,245
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    It depends on the situation. Sometimes I use "God" to refer to the Father, and sometimes I use the word to refer to the whole mystery of the Trinity.
     
  10. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT in a July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society attributed to Mantey (when he was 84!), which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting.

    His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his Grammar to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in his book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1c. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that Mantey's own translation found in his Grammar does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey himself in pp. 148-149 of his A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb), and which Mantey himself has translated as, “and the place was a market” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.”

    Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1. Also examine the translations of parallel Greek constructions at John 4:19 (“a prophet”); John 18:37 (“a king”); and in the ancient Greek Septuagint at Judges 6:31 (“a god”); and 3 Kings 18:27 (“a god”).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Mantey next berates the NWT’s “mistranslating arche tes ktisoos” as “beginning of the creation” at Rev. 3:14 even though this is the literal rendering of the NT Greek. But how do most trinitarian Bible translations themselves translate Rev. 3:14 ? - The KJV has “beginning of the creation.” So do the NKJV; ASV; NASB; RSV; MLB (1969 ed.); Douay; Byington; Darby; Lamsa; Lattimore (1979); New Century Version; Phillips; Rotherham; Third Millenium Bible; Webster; Revised Webster (1995); Wesley’s New Testament; Weymouth; and ISV NT.

    How is it, then, that the NWT is “mistranslating ... as ‘beginning of the creation’”? Are all the above translations (including KJV) "mistranslating"?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,499
    Ratings:
    +3,154
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why not just stick to the Apostle Paul’s statement @ 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. “One God.” That’s pretty clear. So is Jesus’ words at John 17:3.

    At least you don’t go with “Jesus is the Father”! You don’t, do you? You accept the Trinity as stated in the Athanasian Creed, right?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,069
    Ratings:
    +2,245
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Yes, this is why we do not worship three Gods. The Trinity is neither Sabellianism, where God wears three masks and has a puppet show (which many places in the Gospels do not allow), nor is it Arianism, where the Son and Spirit are reduced to being mere creatures unlike the Father (which John 1:1 and John 10:30 do not allow).

    The so-called "Athanasian Creed" is at best an early medieval document which naively was given the title "Athanasian", even though it reflects Augustine's theology more than it does St. Athanasius'. At worst, the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed (as it should properly be called) is a forgery, and in either case it doesn't do the greatest of jobs in describing the nature of the Trinity. I believe in the Trinity as is described by the Fathers and by the Ecumenical Councils.
     
  14. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Luke 23:43 - Punctuation

    Dr. Mantey also complained about the NWT's “attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after ‘today’ in Luke 23:43,” when he knows better than anyone that none of the earliest manuscripts (up to the 9th century A.D.) originally had capitalization or punctuation! Later copyists have added punctuation wherever they felt it should be!

    Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capital-ization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning - as explained in the Kingdom Interlinear footnote for this verse.

    For example, at John 8:58, most (if not all) text writers have left ego eimi uncapitalized. However, some respected trinitarian Bibles (such as NASB, TEV, and Phillips) have ignored the text writer’s preference and used capitalization here in an attempt to make this verb appear to be a Name: “I AM.” Are these popular trinitarian Bibles also guilty of “deliberately deceiving,” then, by choosing their own capitalization?

    Clearly, for Dr. Mantey to even hint that punctuation can be precisely determined at Luke 23:43 is totally dishonest. We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating this scripture to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

    “Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise.”

    And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa’s translation admits:

    “Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.”

    "George Lamsa, the Aramaic scholar and translator, referring to Luke 23:43, puts the comma after the word 'today', explaining that what Jesus said was a common Aramaic idiom (Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native language), 'implying that the promise was made on a certain day and would surely be kept' (Lamsa)." [Gospel Light, and New Testament Commentary, George M. Lamsa, Copyright 1936 and 1945, A. J. Holman Company, Philadelphia, PA] - http://www.believershomepage.com/today.htm (by Hal Dekker)

    The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

    https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/06/the-significance-of-a-comma:-an-analysis-of-luke-23:43

    A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W.Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

    "'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.' The words today being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in...His kingdom, He promises a presence in association (meta, 'with') Himself. And this promise he makes on that very day when he was dying.... Thus we are saved (1) the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question on its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the [KJV] as inspired; and we also place this passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as 'Verily I say unto you this day,' etc.; 'I testify unto you this day.' etc. Deut.vi.6; vii.1; x.13; xi.8;,13,23; xii.13; xix.9; xxvii.4; xxxi.2, etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxii.43."

    Yes, there is no reason to deny the rendering of Luke 23:43 as, “I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”

    Mantey knows better, but deliberately deceives in order to attack the JWs again!

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

    A couple examples from the Hebrew Scriptures of the OT in modern Bibles:


    (NKJV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish"

    (NASB) Deuteronomy 30:18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

    (RSV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you this day, that you shall perish"

    (GodsWord) Deuteronomy 30:18 "If you do, I tell you today that you will certainly be destroyed"

    (MKJV (Green)) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you today that you shall surely perish"

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

    (NASB) Zechariah 9:12 "Return to the stronghold, O prisoners who have the hope; This very day I am declaring that I will restore double to you."

    (KJV)  "even to day do I declare [that] I will render double unto thee;"

    (TEV) "Now I tell you that I will repay you twice over"

    (RSV) "today I declare that I will restore to you double."

    (JPS) "even to-day do I declare that I will render double unto thee"  

    (BBE) "today I say to you that I will give you back twice as much"

    (God'sWord) "Today I tell you that I will return to you double blessings."

    (CEV) "because today I will reward you with twice what you had."

    (NJB) "This very day, I vow, I shall make it up to you twice over."

    (NAB) "This very day, I will return you double for your exile."

    [Also compare Deut. 5:1 and 6:6]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    DIAKONOS - Dr. Countess accuses the NWT of being “inconsistent” for rendering diakonos with the word “minister” (and various forms of “minister”) in all but one of its uses (“servants” - Mt. 22:13). He also criticizes the NWT for translating the noun diakonos as though it were a participle (“those ministering”) twice in Jn 2:5, 9. - p. 77.


    But even the “most literal” modern Bible of Christendom, the NASB, translates diakonos three times as “deacons,” seven times as “minister” and 19 times as “servant(s)”! How consistent is that? As for translating a noun as though it were a participle, this is done in all translations (and in all other combinations of parts of speech) in order to make something as clear as possible to modern readers.

    For example, the related diakonia is rendered in these various ways at Ro. 15:25 in these literal Bibles: “a ministry” [noun], NRSV;to minister” [verb infinitive], KJV; “in the service” [noun], NIV;aid” [noun], RSV; “ministering” [participle], ASV; ”serving” [participle], NASB.

    And this same word (diakonia) at 2 Tim. 1:18 is also rendered: “services” [plural noun], NASB;service” [singular noun], RSV, NRSV;ministered” [verb], KJV, ASV;helped” [verb], NIV.

    The real question should be: why does the NWT consistently render diakonos with some form of “minister” (with the single exception of Matt. 22:13) and doulos as “slave”? We can see that other literal Bibles frequently render both diakonos and doulos as “servant(s)” (cf. Acts 4:29 [doulos] and Jn 2:9 [diakonos] in KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV, for example).

    The reason for the NWT rendering can undoubtedly be found in the actual meaning of the two NT Greek words. What is the difference between diakonos and doulos?

    diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work; not in his relation, either servile, as that of the doulos, or more voluntary, as in the case of the therapon, to a person” - Thayer, p. 138 (#1249), Baker Book House.


    Diakonos is generally speaking, to be distinguished from doulos, ... diakonos views a servant in relationship to his work; doulos views him in relationship to his master.” - p. 265, W. E. Vine, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1983 printing.

    “The difference between [diakonos] and doulos (slave), is important for our understanding of diakonos. doulos stresses almost exclusively the Christian’s complete subjection to the Lord; diakonos is concerned with his service for the church” - p. 548, Vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

    So, if you were to translate diakonos and doulos correctly, you would try to choose words that at least suggested the difference between them. The translators of the NWT obviously decided that “minister” (for diakonos) suggested the idea of service and emphasized that person’s work or activity rather than his subjection. And, of course, they decided that the term “slave” (for doulos) emphasized his subjection (or “relationship to his master”) more than his relationship to his work. Most objective people would readily agree.

    As for rendering it as 'ministering' specifically in John 2:5,9, we have the example of Rotherham's Bible:

    5 His mother saith unto them who are ministering--Whatsoever he may say to you, do!

    9 And, when the master of the feast had tasted the water, now made, wine, and knew not whence it was,--though, they who were ministering, knew, even they who had drawn out the water, the master accosteth the bridegroom....


    The NWT has attempted to distinguish between the uses of diakonos and doulos in such a way as to honestly show the originally intended meanings. It has done this more consistently than other literal translations. Countess’ criticism of this is unfounded and hypocritical!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    "Is" Translated as "Means"
    Another strong criticism of the NWT concerns the occasional translation of "means" for the NT Greek verb estin ("is"). Zondervan's So Many Versions, 1983, (written by trinitarian Bible scholars Kubo and Specht) particularly objects to this (p. 102) and says of 1 Cor. 11:24-25 in the NWT:

    "The Greek verb is 'is' and should have been translated thus. [The NWT's] concern for accuracy and literalism seems to be set aside whenever the literal text conflicts with their theological position."


    It is certainly no secret that the Greek verb "is" (estin and its related forms) may be (and often is in certain verses in most Bible translations) translated as "means," "represents," "symbolizes," etc. This understanding is clearly shown in NT Greek lexicons. The respected Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, for instance, plainly states this on p. 176. (Also see W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 722.)

    Actually, to see the truth of this, we only need to examine the following translations of "is": Matt. 9:13 RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NEB, REB, NAB, AT, JB, NJB, etc.; Matt. 12:7; Matt. 13:38; Mark 9:10; Luke 8:9; and Eph 4:9 RSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, NAB, JB. (Also see John 17:3 GNB, AT, and C. B. Williams, and see Rev. 19:8 NIV, AT.)

    Even the NIV (highly praised by SMV) has translated "is" as "leads to" at John 12:50 - "his command leads to [estin] eternal life." (To be consistent NIV should have done this at Jn 17:3 also.) - Cf. LB, CBW, and AT.

    And the acclaimed Bible scholar and translator, Dr. James Moffatt, even rendered the scripture in question (1 Cor. 11:24-25) as: "This means my body …. This cup means the new covenant" - The Bible - A New Translation, Harper and Row, 1954.

    And the footnote for 1 Cor. 11:24 in the NIV Study Bible says: "The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body given for sinners." In other words, "this bread means (or symbolizes) my body" - Zondervan, 1985.

    Even to imply that it is improper to translate this verb as "means" is dishonest in the extreme!
     
  17. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Many anti-NWT 'scholars' decry the NWT's translation of "in Christ," "in "God," etc., as "in union with."

    But Ralph P. Martin tells us that the phrase ‘in [ἐν] Christ Jesus’ is regularly used by Paul to mean “ ‘in union with Christ’, which is often tantamount to ‘in the fellowship of his people’.” - p. 99, Philippians.


    Phil. 1:1, 'in union with' - AT, CBW, GNB, GW; ISV; TEV.

    Thayer:
    "ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord ....
    ἵνα εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, that I may be found (by God and Christ) most intimately united to him, Philippians 3:9 .... Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of spiritual fellowship or union with Christ;" - p. 211, #1722.


    In fact, the authoritative, trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says of some of the NT uses of the preposition ἐν (“in”) specifically as found in the phrase “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ):

    (a) Incorporative union: .... “those who are in union with Christ Jesus” (Ro. 8:1).... (b) Sphere of reference: “I know a Christian man” (2 Cor. 5:21). “We make our boast in the sphere of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:3)... (c) Agency or instrumentality: “They are justified ... through the redemption accomplished by Christ Jesus” (Ro. 3:24). “The veil is not lifted because only through Christ is it removed” (2 Cor. 3:14). (d) Cause:.... “All will be made alive by virtue of their connexion and solidarity with Christ” ( 1 Cor. 15:22). (e) Mode:.... (f) Location: .... “Have this attitude among you that also characterized Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). (g) Authoritative basis: “We urge you on the authority of the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:1).” - p. 1192, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.


    How is it that so many anti-NWT 'scholars' condemn the NWT for translating ἐν Χριστῷ honestly? Who is really being dishonest here?
     
  18. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,801
    Ratings:
    +226
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit - making the former into a created being instead of the Creator, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit by making him into some kind of Star Wars Force instead of the Third person of the Godhead.

    And since JW's don't believe Jesus is Jehovah God, then John 8:24 signals their eventual downfall. With sins not forgiven, Hell is the only place left for them.

    "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” - John 8:24


    Thereafter, the Jews asked Jesus who he was. Jesus answered them in John 8:58 by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." That's right - Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Burning Bush. John 8:59 then noted, "At this, they (the Jews) picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Why did they want to stone him? Not for claiming to be a man, but for claiming to be God.

    But the Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't stomach such a clear representation of the deity of Jesus as that.

    "So strong was Jesus’ affirmation of deity in John 8:58 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible (the (NWT) had to mistranslate the present active indicative verb, eimi (“am”) turning it into a past tense: “I have been”. From this, the JW’s argue that Jesus was not claiming to be deity (“I am”), but rather He was claiming to be “older” than Abraham was (as Michael the archangel), which incited the Jews to want to kill Him. However, what immediately refutes this false notion is:

    1) Simply, the Greek text contains the PRESENT indicative verb eimi (“am”) and not any kind of past tense. This clearly shows that the NWT purposely altered the Greek NT text, from the present “I am” (viz. the Eternal One) to a past “I have been” (as if Jesus was merely saying that He is older than Abraham) to fit the distinctive theology of the WT (WatchTower)." - cited from Christian Defense dot org.

    That's satanic, IMO, to de-deify Jesus Christ.

    And so, the JW's lead many into perdition by virtue of their massive revisions to the Bible and by their subsequent false and demonic teachings based on their corrupted mistranslations.
     
  19. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,801
    Ratings:
    +226
    Religion:
    Christian
    I remember back about 50 years or so talking to two Jehovah's Witnesses. We were looking at John 14:16-17: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."

    Back then I predicted to the two JW guys that, because the JW's don't recognize the Holy Spirit as a person - as the 3rd Person of the Trinity - that they would have to redact John 14:16-17 to make the Person of the Holy Spirit into an "it" or something like that, and they did just that. Now the JW New World Translation reads, 16 "And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you."

    The JW's changed the Holy Spirit from a "him" and a "he" to an "it" in order to depersonalize God the Holy Spirit in an attempt to negate the Trinity. And they've done a lot of things like that. And once again, the earliest manuscripts don't conform to the JW's redactions on that.
     
  20. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    148
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    JW
    Thank you for your Christian post.

    See posts 28, 38, 39 above.
     
Loading...