The New World Translation randomly inserts the name Jehovah into both these texts to make it appear as if it is referencing Jehovah here instead. This is inaccurate of course, and reads awkwardly, but I suspect you'd have to deal with this if you wanted to make this argument to a Jehovah's Witness.
Is this valid reasoning for Trinitarian Doctrine?
by Flat_Accent 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Flat_Accent
Interesting, all very interesting.
I know New World Translation takes out kyrios and replaces it with Jehovah in most instances of the New Testament, where the accurate translation would be Lord. I always seemed to switch off whenever they tried explaining it, though.
Glenster it'll take me a day to read all that! But I'll have a look this weekend.
No intention to Hit & Run the thread, or spark a name calling session lwt. I was just curious and wanted to throw it open to everyone.
-
Band on the Run
I know from reading many academic books and questioning Episcopal priests is that there is no scripture that either supports or denies the Trinity. Both beliefs are extrapolitions from the scripture. Also, in our curent society, it is very difficult to read the scriptures fresh, anew as when they were written, many years after the events.
I read quite a bit about it in the past but abandoned my quest for Truth. Now I don't think it matters much. Scriptures were written by the Church to explain the past. Any scripture would only be the view of one actor. The four gospels were cannonized with complete knowledge that they contradicted each other. Attempts at one super gospel where everything jived was forsaken. The four were supposed to represent a larger truth- and I suspect, there were not enough votes for any one single gospel.
The Trinity smacks of Greek influence to me. It does not seem remotely Jewish. If the doctrine were so important even as late as the writing of the gospels, I believe the formula would have been express, as it is in the Nicene Creed.
It may not be fancy answer but,recently, a priest, said its exact wording was unimportant. Everyone experiences difference aspects of God/spirituality in their lives. The Trinity is just an awkward grope to express the many manifestations of God. Many more could have been included.
It took about three hundred years for the formation of the Nicene Creed, which is every bit a politcal document as a religous one.
I do not support the Society's view at all. There is no clear scriptural text, only conjecture.
-
Leolaia
The New World Translation randomly inserts the name Jehovah into both these texts to make it appear as if it is referencing Jehovah here instead. This is inaccurate of course, and reads awkwardly, but I suspect you'd have to deal with this if you wanted to make this argument to a Jehovah's Witness.
It isn't just a matter of inserting Jehovah into the text; the passage in ch. 22 also conveniently changes the speakers from Jehovah to Jesus by introducing a second series of quotation marks (note the end quotation-mark in red):
8 Well, I John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things. 9 But he tells me: “ Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.” 10 He also tells me: “ Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near. 11 He that is doing unrighteousness, let him do unrighteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still.
12 “ ‘ Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Happy are those who wash their robes, that the authority [to go] to the trees of life may be theirs and that they may gain entrance into the city by its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie. ’
16 “ ‘ I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star. ’ ”
17 And the spirit and the bride keep on saying: “ Come!” And let anyone hearing say: “ Come!” And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free. 18 “ I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.
20 “ He that bears witness of these things says, ‘ Yes; I am coming quickly.’ ” “ Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” 21 [May] the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ [be] with the holy ones.Note that contrary to this scheme, the phrase "I am coming quickly" refers to Jehovah in v. 12 and Jesus in v. 20.
-
mP
@Flat
The 3 scriptures from revelation that you cite are very interesting in that none of them actually says Jehovah or Jesus, but rather uses other interesting phrases and terms.
Im sure you probably agree that the concept behind "Alpha and Omega" is in simple terms, something that never ends, like a circle. The grand circle in those times is of course the zodiac. Zodiac actuallyt means circle of animals. YOu can verify this very easily by looking up wikipedia. The idea behind A&O is of course that hte zodiac is inifinite just like time, the years always repeat and the sun always travels thru the zodiac.
We can see in the next scripture that the writer is again talking about the heavens and the stars. The morning star is of course Venus, this yet another name for Satan. Xians like to pretend that the Bible has many names for Jehovah and countless others for Satan. The truth is none of these text are referring to these two characters. The truth of course is they are referrig to other spiritual entities. THe Bible and Jewish history is just an attempt to pretend Jehovah has always been one but history shows they actually worshipped and more importantly acknowledged that other gods also existed. Exodus 3 itself tells us that Abraham did not know Jehovah by that name but knew him supposedly as El Shaddai. How absurd is that, Abraham supposedly one of Jehovahs greatest friends did not even know his "true" name. Why would Jehovah have so many names ? There are nearly 100 in the OT, the actual fact is of course there are actually other gods that over time were merged into one. We see the same synthesis in Xianity, where pagan saints became saints, and the sun became Jesus as we see in the xmas story.
We can see ourselves today that David in this sense is also in the stars. The star of David is also astrological.
-
leavingwt
Flat_Accent: I didn't mean any disrespect to you, by my comment. Rather, it was an observation from my time here that threads about the Trinity can grow into dozens of pages.
-
leavingwt
Flat_Accent: Below are two audio files that offer the best explanation of the Trinity, with a JW audience in mind. Upon leaving the WT, I studied The Trinity. I quickly discovered that WT argues against a strawman explanation of The Trinity. They do not argue against what the Catholic Church teaches. (Years ago, I discussed this topic, at length, on this thread.)
(You'll need either RealPlayer or the latest version of VLC player to listen to these files.)
-
Emery
The way I understand the Trinity is that YHWH likes to do role-play and reveals himself in 2 additional forms. The overall doctrine is suppose to stay monotheistic and yet has many characteristics of polytheism. I've had discussions with an Orthodox Rabbi regarding the matter and he pointed out that throughout Judaic history the Jews never believed or taught that the messiah would be YHWH in the flesh or that he needed to die for the atonement of mankind. The messiah would be a Son of God, similar to that of the prophets and of King David.
There is no historic record among the Jewish commentaries and books of old that God exists in a Triune fashion. During the Messianic Age, the messiah was to "fear God"-Isai 11:2-3, go to war, rebuild the temple, and rule as king over the earth. Knowing the messianic promises found in the Hebrew scriptures, hebrew commentaries, and analyzing the proof claims written in the gospels, seem to me like a disconnect. Which is why belief in the Trinity is so hard for me to deal with.
-
Bobcat
Leolaia said:
It isn't just a matter of inserting Jehovah into the text; the passage in ch. 22 also conveniently changes the speakers from Jehovah to Jesus by introducing a second series of quotation marks (note the end quotation-mark in red):
(Quote of Revelation 22:8-21)
Note that contrary to this scheme, the phrase "I am coming quickly" refers to Jehovah in v. 12 and Jesus in v. 20.
I was trying to follow the logic of your post. I see the point about the insertion of the quotation mark at the end of verse 15. If I understand correctly, it is an attempt by the NWT to make the speaker of verses 12-15 different from the speaker of verse 16. (Nice attention to detail by the way.)
I'm confused a bit though. The way I am reading your comments, in the comment before the quote of 22:8-21, it sounds like you are saying that the inserted quotation mark is just as improper as inserting the Tetragram.
But in the comments after the quote it sounds like you are saying, "contrary to this scheme [of inserting the extra quotation mark at the end of vs.15], the phrase "I am coming quickly" refers to Jehovah in v. 12 and Jesus in v. 20.
In other words, it sounds like you first say the speaker of verse 12 should be the same as the speaker of verse 20. And then you reverse that in the comment after the quotation of verses 8-21.
I just got off of work. So it could be that I'm just not up to any analytical thinking right now. If I'm misreading your comments, I apologize.
Take Care
-
Leolaia
Sorry, I was a little unclear in my wording....I wasn't referring to what is supposed to be the reference in the text but what the reference actually is the NWT. My point is that the quotation marks make the speaker in v. 12-15 (Jehovah, since the speaker cannot be Jesus) different from the speaker in v. 16 and 20 (clearly stated as Jesus). What is contrary to that scheme is the fact that the SAME THING is said about both...."I am coming quickly" is what Jehovah is made to say in v. 12-15 and what Jesus is made to say in v. 20. Of course, one could say that both Jesus and God are coming together, but in view of the fact that v. 20 is repeating what was just said in v. 12, the most parsimonius reading is that both statements are made by the same person.