WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team 212 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wayne L

  Hi. I'm a new member, not a Witness, but an armchair religious student. After studying religion for 35 years, trying to disprove Witness doctrine, I admit defeat.

  It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of JWs major beliefs by using only Protestant and Catholic writings ( especially Catholic). To start, I will point out that the title of this topic is wrong. The NWT rendering of John 20:28 is correct. It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of the NWT by using modern Cath and Prot bibles, especially the Cath " New Jerusalem Bible" (1965). This bible is so close to the NWT that you won't believe it. And it's the current official bible, if I'm not mistaken. It has put the name Yahweh back in all it's 7000 places!

  In the official Catholic "Dictionary of the Bible" 1965, it says (about J. 20:28) - "Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, 'My Lord and my God'. This quote is self-explanatory. I have numerous other non-JW proofs that support their stance on this verse for those interested.

  As an aside, this same Catholic work says on the same page (about John 1:1) - it "should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" Sounds like what JWs have been saying, isn't it?

  As another aside, I came across an anti-Witness site which had a lengthy blog about the Watchtower society not allowing its members to surf the net. Then I picked up a WT mag and guess what. It had their web address on it. Yes, I will also reveal the numerous lies told about JWs by those who do not have facts, to any interested parties. Thanks, Wayne
• 

  Narkissos

  Welcome Wayne L.

  I will point out that the title of this topic is wrong. The NWT rendering of John 20:28 is correct.

  Indeed, but for this very reason it is problematic to WT doctrine (whence the irony in the thread title, I guess).

  It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of the NWT by using modern Cath and Prot bibles, especially the Cath " New Jerusalem Bible" (1965). This bible is so close to the NWT that you won't believe it. And it's the current official bible, if I'm not mistaken.

  You are mistaken. The JB is one of several Catholic Bible editions (officially approved, as others, inasmuch as it has got the Catholic imprimatur, at least in the original French edition), not the official bible.

  It has put the name Yahweh back in all it's 7000 places!

  Yahweh, not "Jehovah," probably in a bit less than 7,000 places, and all in the Old Testament where it belongs. The major NWT forgery being that it adds "Jehovah" in the New Testament where no form of Yhwh ever occurs in the Greek manuscripts.

  In the official Catholic "Dictionary of the Bible" 1965, it says (about J. 20:28) - "Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, 'My Lord and my God'. This quote is self-explanatory. I have numerous other non-JW proofs that support their stance on this verse for those interested.

  From your armchair you have apparently caught the WT habit of truncating quotes. I'm afraid you'll have to explain how this one supports the WT stance -- even out of context...
• 

  Wayne L

  Narkissos, thanks for your reply.

  1 - John 20:28 is not problematic for JWs, only trinitarians. The title presupposes that they do have a problem with it.

  2 - Excuse my typo. I meant "New Jerusalem Bible" 1985. And, yes the English edition is official, with stamps of approval. I can't imagine these works actually being pored over, though. What do you think? Rubber Stamp?

  3 - The reason I rounded off to 7000 is because it ranges from about 6828 to about 6973 in various versions. I do not know, for instance, how many times it appears in "American Standard Version" 1901 (Jehovah, not Yahweh). This was the first successor to KJ that put the name back where it belongs. In case you were implying that "Yahweh" versus "Jehovah" makes a difference, I have never read anything convincing as to why one would abandon the divine name altogether because it may be incorrect. Nobody knows how YHWH or JHVH was pronounced or spelled, with any certainty. There is nothing in scripture about such an issue. Using that logic,Trinitarians should stop using the name "Jesus" as this is definitely incorrect.

  As to the divine name in the New Test., the NWT is not the only version to do this. Even the KJV indicates it in 4 places (in OT quotes) by "LORD". There are scholars who believe that Jesus knew the divine name and read it in its original form. It is believed by some that some NT manuscripts contained it. Its abandonment by Jews ( which persists to this day in various degrees) is based on superstition, and not scripture. To hold to the notion that it is fraudulent to attempt to reinstate God's name in his own book is somethig I cannot fathom. There are far too many other extreme errors and biased mistranslations in bibles ( especially KJ) that I can't imagine dwelling on something that ( in my humble opinion) God would favour, an attempt to acknowledge him after millennia of neglect and abuse. Only my opinion.

  4- The quote from "Dictionary of the Bible" was not truncated. It was entire, and nothing elsewhere modified its meaning. This Catholic work has pretty much put the lie to the Trinity doctrine. It and New Jerusalem could be used by JWs.

  I am trying to go between post and reply page as I have a bad memory, but can't figure out how. Minimizing to tray doesn't seem to work. Is there a way? Or have both in the same window? Thanks, Wayne
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Wayne,

  Just copy and paste the post you are responding to into your reply box, then you have it all available on the same page to check up and quote from if you need.

  John 20:28 is not problematic for JWs, only trinitarians.

  Care to explain why?

  Also, you have not explained why you think your quote from the Dictionary of the Bible is problematic to Trinitarians. I sincerely don't get it (so far).

  And, yes the English edition is official, with stamps of approval.

  Sure, I just meant it is not the (only) official Catholic version as you first put it (there are other Catholic Bibles around with the same nihil obstat, imprimi potest and imprimatur).

  Side question: do you believe the New Testament was correctly transmitted to us or not? If you do, why do you?
• 

  Wayne L

  Narkissos. Forgot to explain my take on the quote. The article (God) containing this quote goes a long way into differenciating Jesus from the Father. To me the fact that J. 20:28 was not pounced upon by Catholic scholars as another Trinity "proof text" is telling. The wording "titles which belong to the Father" seem to have a different meaning to me. To me it implies that they don't belong to Jesus, but are an acceptable statement but don't support the Trinity. I concede this is not strong support of my position, but better things are yet to come. Wayne
• 

  Wayne L

  Hi Narkissos. Copying and pasting isn't working. I can copy but it won't allow pasting. Have to work on it. I have Vista if that means anything.

  Our correspondance may be more about semantics and correct wording than anything else. Problematic to Trinitarians. I suppose I mean the same thing you mean when you say problematic to JWs. It's a "wording" thing. John 20:28 is not a problem to either group. The argument is the problem.

  My method of Bible study is based on the "hostile witness". I love when Catholic and other scholars admit that JWs are correct. And being a Sherlock Holmes fan, I love a good clue.

  I have 100s of "clues", where one by one the scholars have retranslated a word here and a phrase there, nearly always in the Witnesses' favour. When a Catholic bible finally admits that yes, Jesus may have had brothers and sisters (NJB), you know you're onto something good. They would never admit that JWs are right. They just quietly translate their bibles and write their works and hope nobody notices.

  I do notice. It's in the details, I like to say. As to your Q about the NT. There are scholars who believe the original Matthew contained the divine name and others who believe that OT writings with the name existed in Christ's day and later. Do we have the copies close to the originals? It's fairly unanimous that we do, as I've never seen this disputed, apart from the rumoured Hebrew Matthew text. The Name was certainly not in any other NT books that I know of.You must have read the JWs explanation of why they put it in their NWT ( in OT quotes). It has been done by others. And when you consider the serious mistranslations put out by the Catholic and Protestant churches, I don't think it worthy of mention.

  The worse bible ever produced, the KJ, still stands today, with it's 1000s of mistakes, nearly 7000 alone just in the divine name! Why is everyone focusing on NWT when my research shows it to be up there with New Jer. for accuracy? Have you ever sat down with the NWT and NJB? I have. It's fascinating! Thanks, Wayne
• 

  5go

  Hi. I'm a new member, not a Witness, but an armchair religious student. After studying religion for 35 years, trying to disprove Witness doctrine, I admit defeat.

  Sorry but a

  Or better yet, How long has it been since you stopped going to meetings?
• 

  Wayne L

  Hi, 5go. The term was "armchair" student. All my teachers are probably dead. I went to the "school of hard knocks". !'m 55 years old. Have never been a Witness but have had a lifelong friendship with one, so I can correct some misconceptions about them, should the need arise. I'm not religious and have never gone to church. Anything I say on religion is "fact", not emotion. Feel free to tear down any cherished beliefs you think I should have. Thanks, Wayne PS - Is there a way to reverse these threads?. The recent post at the beginning?
• 

  5go

  Feel free to tear down any cherished beliefs you think I should have. Thanks, Wayne

  You screwed up in adding cherished now I know your an exjw that hasn't been exposed to the truth about the truth.

  Were you baptized or just a family member
• 

  5go

  Your trying hard to diguise it but we have seen our share of exjw apologists they always try to sound inteligent but their subconscience betrays them and it shows in their posts. By the way exjw does not automaticly make against jw's. Don't want to hurt you to much.