Another problem for the WT, Isaiah 44:24

by Chalam 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Chalam

  Here's a problem for the WT with their God Father and "a god" Son theology.

  The WT major on Proverbs 8 and give the title of "master worker" to Jesus and insert the word "[other]" into John 1:3 Colossians 1:16 etc.

  However, there are plenty of scriptural problems, consider this one

  Isaiah 44:24 (New International Version)

  24 "This is what the LORD says—
  your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
  I am the LORD,
  who has made all things,
  who alone stretched out the heavens,
  who spread out the earth by myself This is a huge problem for the WT teaching. It says God did it all, by Himself, alone. The only resolution is that Jesus is God, He cannot be "a god". I assume WT just gloss over this verse as do their readers like so many others? Blessings, Stephen
• 

  designs

  With the swift stroke of a magic wand anything can become anything............but at present you can only smell the fumes of the glue.

  Now for sheer conundrum in metaphysics and philosophy try on the Trinity, a Redunant and Cruel God, that should inspire, let's see.......no one.
• 

  peacedog

  I always thought it was funny that the NWT "translators" chose to include a rhetorical question in their rendering of Isaiah 44:24. They have "Jehovah" asking, rhetorically, "Who was with me?"

  This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the former of you from the belly: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?

  Despite the rhetorical nature of the question and the obvious implied answer of "no one", JWs are forced to answer "THERE WAS ANOTHER GOD WITH YOU."

  Next time a JW tries to tell you he or she believes the bible and is not a follower of men, show them this verse.
• 

  glenster

  I think the most common stance the JWs leaders have used is that nobody could
  imagine phrasing to indicate God's own wisdom personified and sent to people, so
  that can't be what was meant at the time (by John 1:1, etc.), so nobody should
  think it. Except who cares if the JWs leaders say they can't imagine it--they
  did at the time, in the wisdom literature.

  What I have on it is on pp.6b-10 at the next link.
  http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn6b.htm

  "A redundant and cruel God should inspire no one." True. If all there was
  were the bad things about God or life it wouldn't be worth it, but it is. It's
  the 'centric believers or non-believers make the worst problems of the see-able,
  touchable world--no faith or metaphisics required to know it.

  It's been said that nothing has cause more unnecessary hurt over the years
  than belief in God.

  I say take the ones who were on the offense in religious war, not those on the
  defense or a lot of nice believers who didn't take part,
  take the ones who were on the offense in state atheism, not those on the
  defense or a lot of nice non-believers who didn't take part,
  take the ones on the offense regarding race, such as those who lynched African
  Americans or threw them off slave ships like they were just chattel because the
  food supply got low, not those on the defense or who wouldn't take part,
  same with nationality, etc.,
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn43.htm

  and gather all those 'centric people together and nothing has caused more
  unnecessary hurt or death in the world than them--people getting too 'centric.
  That's when the walls of alienation go up, and people distrust or even hate
  who's on the other side, and people get hurt or killed, and you don't need that
  any more than I do. I think that focuses more clearly on the problem and
  doesn't mischaracterize a lot of nice people (as by characterizing them by the
  worst of them or as having a hope commitment to be cruel to others or such).

  We're never going to have all the same believers or non-believers, race, etc.
  We can get more relaxed about the differences. That's the real modern, forward
  thinking way for people to get along.
• 

  Perry

  Excellent catch there Chalam.
• 

  designs

  Perry, Stephen-

  This is where a study of the Jewish Sages and the Literary pieces that came out of the post exile Jewish community are important to study. Jesus paraphrases some of these Rabbis in the Gospels.

  A uber literal interpretation simply breaks down to quickly and leads a reader to extrapolations not meant by the authors....flying rodents and all (the Talmud)! I know you guys get your knickers in a twist over these things but hey we're here to help you as much as anyone.

  -Do a little good each day.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Stephen Good Job!
• 

  moggy lover

  Peacedog raised an interesting point which set me out on a quest to discover why it was that the overwhelming majority of translations that I consulted read the last phrase as a straight nominative "By myself" and why so few, read it as a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] with me?"

  The translations that read as a straight nominative included all those which are well read and easily accessible: NASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, JB, etc. including the four Jewish translations currently available: JPS, Tanach, Harkavi, and Leeser. So does the Ancient Roots Linear OT translation. The two that I could find reading as a rhetorical question were: Young's Lit Version, and the Corcodant literal Version.

  It appears that this is a textual problem and it depends on which Heb text the translator uses. You can get the Hebrew OT in its original consonant only form, and in the later verbal accented form, arranged by a group of ancient biblical scribes of the 2C BC called Massoretes.

  The original reads as a straight nominative: "By myself", but the later accented text, adds a stroke to the word "me". This stroke is evidently called a "kethib" and alters the nominative into a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] by me?" It is thought that the older form of the text is preferable, hence the vast majority reading.

  Anyway, this discussion does not change the thrust of this verse. As peacedog stated earlier a rhetorical question is different from an interrogative, in that whereas the latter can elicit two different answers, the former demands only one, to conform to the proposition stated.
• 

  Alwayshere

  The JWs would probably go to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in OUR image."
• 

  designs

  Scroll 11Q13, could open some minds to discussion, maybe not for others.