Witchtower twists yet another scripture 2Cor 12: 8 -10 Nov 15 WT

by hamsterbait 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hamsterbait

  November 15 study edition, p24 para 5.

  "Regarding his "thorn in the flesh", Paul made fervent pleas to Jehovah (the scripture actually says The Lord) Read 2 Cor 12: 8 - 10) God did not miraculously relieve paul of the "Thorn in the flesh". Instead, God strengthened him to endure it. Jehovah's (WHOSE???) power thus became manifest in Pauls weakness"

  First : The verses say Paul entreated "The Lord" whom he actually meant becomes clearer in v9 where Paul says quite plainly that it is not Jehovah's power but the power of CHRIST JESUS.

  Since he makes it clear, the Lord answering Paul in v9 "my power is being made perfect in weakness" is also Jesus NOT Jehovah., and therefore the Lord he entreated in v8 must also be Jesus since it is this "Lord he entreated." Nowhere in those verses indicated that Paul did not entreat Jesus in prayer.

  Yet the Witchtower persists in saying we should not entreat Jesus, or worship him. (and, yes - they changed Heb 1:6 from " let all God's angels worship him" to "do obeisance to him". In all other instances of the greek word for worship, they use "WORSHIP" except Heb 1:6. Showing they do transalate with doctrinal bias, whilst denying this fact.

  HB
• 

  sir82

  All of 2 Corinthians chapter 12 is rather problematic for JW orthodoxy.

  You think those are severe contortions they go through to try to explain vss. 8-10? Check out the hoops they dance through, over, under, and around in explaining vss. 1-7. Somehow Paul for the first and only time in all his writings refers to himself in the 3rd person ("I know a man...")...and the "3rd heaven" doesn't really mean mean "the 3rd heaven"....it's quite nuts.
• 

  WTWizard

  All they do is use that as an excuse for Jehovah to not answer prayers, and still get praise. To keep me celibate and not allow me to attract the opposite sex--how the fxxx is preparing me to endure a life of stark celibacy going to help them?

  This sure sounds like something that Almighty Lowlife Scumbag would pull off. And that's on top of the fact that the washtowel can't even get Jehovah (who is the one that refused to remove the problem--and He should have been fired on the spot) straight from Jesus. Just one more reason to believe Jesus was just a man that was doing the exact same work that Satan was attempting, rather than a perfectly obedient son of Jehovah.
• 

  civicsi00

  I'm not surprised they twisted this scripture. If the R/F would only read the context of the scriptures, they would know that Paul was entreating Jesus.

  The WT actually gets away with changing the bible to suit their needs. Take Acts 7:59 as an example. In their current translation, their bible states that Stephen made an "appeal" to Jesus. But if you look in the 1984 edition of their own Kingdom Interlinear, they have a footnote that reads "prayer". So obviously Stephen was praying to Jesus. But the WT only knows how to deny this and a host of other biblical teachings.
• 

  Jeremy C

  These Scriptural contortions would have been much more difficult to pull off had the Watchtower not produced its own Bible back in the 1950s. Arbitrarily placing the name of Jehovah into various versus which contained the word "Lord" (and where the context was clearly referring to Jesus) lends credence to the way in which they twist the verses in 2 Corinthians chapter 12. The insertion of the name Jehovah into the New Testament of the New World Translation also helps to bolster the Watchtower's re-writing of first century history. It also shores up their argument that true Christians must spread and exalt the name Jehovah instead of Jesus.

  Instead of allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves, the NWT translators already had a pre-conceived idea of what certain versus "should be saying". Not only has the Watchtower claimed to resurect the true Christian Gospel in our modern era, but they have also made the claim to restore New Testament versus to what they "originally said" (i.e. what the Watchtower wants them to say). I don't know how anyone can see this as anything other than pure hubris, and self-serving arrogance!
• 

  reniaa

  this is another instance I wish we did have earlier translations of NT I found this interesting info though in wiki

  One of the most ancient fragments, the papyrus codex designated Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 P46, is dated prior to AD 200 and contains nine of the Apostle Paul's letters. In the Chester Beatty Papyri, we find ?S and sometimes TS with a horizontal bar above them in citations of the Hebrew Bible where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text. These are abbreviations for kyrios (?????? "lord") and theos (?e?? "God") normally known as nomina sacra ("sacred names"). The abbreviations may not have been part of the autographs but may have been substituted as a shorthand some time later. An alternative thesis has been advanced that YHWH would have been present in NT autographs only to be substituted by the nomina sacra.

  An article by George Howard in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review set forth this thesis that YHWH appeared in the New Testament and that "the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ." [1] His position was included in his article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, where he stated: "There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first penned." [2]
• 

  Shawn10538

  It is only speculation and a line of reasoning. Evidence would have to be some ancient manuscript of the time actually SAYING "YHWH was in the New Testament. I am not saying that it is not REASONABLE to think that YHWH might have been in the NT. But, evidence? There is none. No hard copies with YHWH have ever existed as far as we know now, end of story. They can theorize, reason all they want, but until the produce an actual copy with YHWH written in plain sight, it is just speculation to say otherwise.
  
  A line of reasoning does not and can never justify actually writing in a word that is not there in the manuscript.
• 

  reniaa

  I just wanted to point out that if the most ancient of copies can make at least one expert sit up and say you know we don't have the originals so there is a logical chance by looking at this that they recognise the tetragramation,

  This probably something we'll never know and if we did find a manuscript that contained it, I don't think it would rock the world, people would just explain it away as them quoting from OT scriptures lol and yet it's lack is used to try and prove trinity ^^
• 

  justhuman

  WT just loves to twist scriptures. Remember when Stephanos was stoned by the Jews? He is praying to Jesus, but the WT changes that and inserts Jehovah,while in the Original Greek manuscript clearly shows that Stephanos was praying to Jesus, and before he died he said Lord(refering to Jesus)accept my spirit...

  There is nothing new regarding WT. As times go by they are driffting way from Jesus, making themselves(GB) equal to Jesus our Saviour

  Such a shame
• 

  Guest with Questions

  Sorry hamsterbait, I feel that I hijacked your thread. I should have started a new topic. I will contribute to yours later. Off to work now.