would you want to be part of any religion that changes the bible on purpose?...

by oompa 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  oompa

  ...and makes it say what they want it to in order to fit their doctrines??? nearly every jw and non would answer NO! I wish i had started off my last elder visit with that question. It is VERY easy to prove that WT has done this with the NWT. If you look in the Insight Book under "jehovah" and go to Use in The Christian Greek scriptures, you will see that FDS acknowledges that (near quote) -"there are no existing ancient copies in the entire world that contain the name Jehovah"!!!! and there are over 10,000 of them...

  it also says under that heading that it used to be there but apostates removed it (from every freakin copy??...satan is damm thorough!)...and if god let satan remove his name, what the hell else has he let satan change???......plus, wt says they only "restored it when it is quoting Hebrew scriptures that used the divine name"...but they DONT tell you they ADDED it dozens of times where there is NO QUOTE from the hebrew scriptures...like everytime it is used in Revelation....(rev 22:18,19 comes in handy there)............oompa
• 

  mraimondi

  you mean like every so called christian religion out there?
• 

  choosing life

  Adding the name Jehovah in the Greek Scriptures when not quoting a scripture from the Hebrew Scriptures is dishonest. It shows that they have taken on the job of deciphering which verse refers to God and which to Jesus.

  They are controlling readers minds rather than allowing them to decipher the meaning of the scripture for themselves. If they didn't, persons just might realize that in some verses, Jesus and God are called by the same names such as "alpha and omega".

  Hope you are doing well, Oompa.
• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  Well I wouldn't want to be part of any religion that changes the Bible by accident! (sorry Oompa, couldn't help myself)

  But seriously, I see the NWT issue as being a good example of how the Witnesses are just like every other (false) religion in this respect. The Catholic and Protestant translators in the Middle Ages changed the Bible to fit their doctrines (see 1 John 5:7 in the KJV as a particularly bad example).

  When Fred Franz and the NWT "translators" took it upon themselves to add the Name to the New Testament without a single shred of textual support, they put themselves in the same category as the KJV translators who added "and these three are one" to 1 John 5:7.
• 

  hamsterbait

  Is this to do with self respect?

  I had a ding dong fight with my Mom a few weeks ago. It started over the AC 2, v AC 5 "In private homes" v "from house to house." She admitted the translation was inconsistent, where the GB claimed the NWT translation committee were. But then sidetracked into:

  She actually said that "looking at all those young brothers at the Kingdumb Hell, giving talks etc , they are all so much more nicely turned out than men in the world, it is still the best way to live EVEN IF IT ISNT TRUE"

  I almost choked.

  Are JWs being taught NON self respect? I cannot see it is true, and keep it secret for obvious reasons to others here. I indulge in transcendental giggling now, over my self-confessed hypocrite status.

  Sad to say I would NEVER shun a loved one becouse they did not believe what I do. But JW famblies will stab you in the back at the drop of an elduhs hat...

  HB
• 

  keyser soze

  If they changed it to make it somewhat plausible I might consider.
• 

  mindmelda

  I agree that the Witnesses are among the worst at reading in there what they want. I've always said that they should have done what the Mormons did and just wrote their own Bible. LOL

  My mom always comes back with that "I'd want to be a JW even if it wasn't "the truth" and even if "Armageddon doesn't come in my lifetime" and "even if there's no New System".

  The only thing that tells me is that it's crossed her mind (I'm sure it crosses most JW minds, but then they hurry up and drink some Watchtower Koolaid to cure it) occasionally that it's all a bunch of horse hockey. Because it's normal to be skeptical of big claims of anything.

  People don't stay in high control Bible sects or cults because they believe the Bible, which is pretty hard stuff to pin down and subject to varying interpretation, but because they believe that the sect or cult they're in is the "chosen" one by God. Mind control accomplishes that, not the Bible.

  There's guilt enough to go around if you're comparing most religions and religious people to Christ's example. There's room for improvement in the "not judging" and "forgiveness" departments all the way around when it comes to organizations. They tend to have a higher potential for screwing up than individuals when it comes to religion, simply because they have more power to abuse.

  Nearly everyone who believes in God would love to believe they have God's favor...it's just that these "high control" groups take it to another level and throw some mind control in there in some attempt to remove what is perfectly normal skepticism and doubt. They confuse faith in the supernatural with things like unquestioning obedience and loyalty to THEM. Or they're not confused and they're just playing it for all they can get out of the members.
• 

  donuthole

  I haven't met a Bible that hasn't been massaged to support some doctrine or another. I touched on this recently in a blog article. Excerpt below:

  Opponents of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes call them to the carpet for how their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders John 1:1. Whereas most translations have some form of “and the Word was God” the Watchtower, to support their anti-Trinitarian theology, has translated this, “and the Word was a god.”

  Pro-Trinitarians though have resorted to similar creative translating just a few verses down. Whereas the text says that Jesus was “the only-begotten Son” this presents some difficulty for a Trinitarian theology where Jesus is said to be co-eternal with the father. To be begotten implies a beginning, something that the Trinity denies for Jesus. To alleviate this doctrinal difficulty; modern translations have substituted “One and Only” and “the only one” in the place of “only begotten.” (Even the venerable King James Version is not immune to this kind of Scriptural tampering for it adds the Trinity formula at 1 John 5:7.)

  Notice in both cases how the primacy of a doctrine alters the Scriptures. I have to ask, what then is more sacred, the doctrine of men or the written Word of God?
• 

  drew sagan

  would you want to be part of any religion that changes the bible on purpose?...

  Sounds pretty fun if you ask me.

  Time to start the First United Church of the Jefferson Bible Students. Who wants to join?
• 

  thomas15

  DONUTHOLE SAID: "Pro-Trinitarians though have resorted to similar creative translating just a few verses down. Whereas the text says that Jesus was “the only-begotten Son” this presents some difficulty for a Trinitarian theology where Jesus is said to be co-eternal with the father. "

  As a non-JW or non-ex-JW I don't like to get involved in trying to justify certain doctrines as I don't want to wear out my welcome on this board. But let me say this, the doctrine of the trinity does not fall because of the translation "only-begotten son" or the removal of 1 John 5:7 from non- KJV Bibles. Rather than me tell you what "only begotten" means I would humbly ask that you take a look into the phrase and see if maybe you are not understanding it correctly. I don't think you are, for what it is worth.

  If you take the first part of John 1:1 "In the beginning, was the word..." The word was in the beginning. What comes before the beginning? If something already existed "in the beginning", then it must be eternal.

  There are three articles in the English language, a, an and the. "a" and "an" are called indefinate articles, "the" is called a definate article. The use of the indefinate article "a" in John 1:1 in the NWT "and the word was a god" means that the word is one of several or many gods. If the WT wanted to render this verse to indicate Jesus is a lesser god than Jehovah, they should have translated the verse in English "and the word was the god". By replacing the indefinate article "a" with the definate article "the" solves the problem of the indefinate article referring to one of many or several "gods" but then showcases the folly of the concept as the Bible teaches that there is only one true God. In other words, the rendering in the NWT "and the word was a god" only works for people what want, by force of will, to believe that Jesus is not God, or one with the Father.