IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep 103 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  larc:

  Whether Bleep is really a Witness or not I do not know. But in fairness to him the WT does teach that only the Father can create.

  In the Watchtower of January 1, 1986, (page 29) it says:

  "Not even the firstborn Son who served at creation as His 'master worker' can measure up to Jehovahs degree of greatness. He himself admitted this, saying when on earth as the man Jesus Christ: 'The Father is greater than I am.' (John 14:28) And despite being his Fathers 'master worker,' he never laid claim to the title of co-Creator. He glorified God as being the one and only Creator.Compare Genesis 1:26, 27; Proverbs 8:30; and Matthew 19:4."

  The footnote to this paragraph reads:

  "It is significant that Genesis 1:26, when referring to Jehovah and his 'master worker' together, says 'let us make,' whereas the next verse [Gen. 1:27] uses the word 'create' when referring to Jehovah alone. Of this Hebrew word for 'create,' "A Dictionary of the Hebrew Old Testament in English and German," by Koehler and Baumgartner, says: 'In the O[ld] T[estament] [this] is a theological term the subject of which is God exclusively.'"

  Also, in the article on "Jesus Christ" in "Insight on the Scriptures" (Vol. II, p.52) it says:

  "Not a co-Creator.
  The Sons share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.Mt 19:4-6."

  My own view on this is that it is splitting hairs. I think it probably is true that the author of Genesis was deliberately using the two different words, "make" and "create", in Genesis 1 but I am not clear in my own mind that he cannot be described as co-creator in view of Colossians 1:16: "by means of him all things were created".

  There is clearly a difference between the creative act of Jesus and Jehovah. 1 Corinthian 8:6 speaks of God the Father "out of whom all things are" and Jesus Christ "through whom all things are". John 1:3 also says that all things "came to be through him" whatever that means.
  Maybe it does mean that he didn't create, that he was more a passive than an active medium of creation. I think of him as being more active but, hey, what do I know.

  Anyway...I just thought Bleep should get his moment of glory because they are few and far between.

  Earnest
• 

  larc

  Earnest, thank you for the detailed information, regarding creation. I believe what you quoted is a clear change from previous beliefs. (I have been out since 1965). Prviously, they emphasized the scripture in Collosians that you mentioned near the end of your last essay. Now, on the issue of the reserection, do they teach today that all will be reserarcted, in a post above I gave several references to the contrary. I have since reviewed some of the books and they are ambiguous, in my opinion. I think it is in the WT where they are more specific about some not having a hope of a resurection.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  I wonder if Bleep is a real WT????
• 

  Earnest

  larc:

  I think you may be right. I did find one instance (Watchtower of January 15, 1951 [page 63]) where it was speaking of the word "elohim" in Genesis 3:5 and says "if it means gods, then it could refer to Jehovah God and his co-creator and only-begotten Son, the Logos."

  No doubt subsequent to that they came across Koehler and Baumgartner's article on "create" and/or other information and changed their view.

  On the other question, they do not teach that all will be resurrected but apart from a very select few (Adam, Eve, Judas come to mind) the attitude is that Jehovah is the judge and we really cannot pre-empt his judgement. It's a bit late for me to do research now but I'll see what I can find in the next day or so.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 12 August 2002 20:9:4
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  I see you have made another feeble attempt to somehow explain the creation dilemma with your own theology,although you have disguised it conveniently as a portrayal to help larc get some questions answered. You still have failed in reconciling how the scriptures I quoted you can possibly fit in with the rest of your theology. I will repaste my point I made to you long a few days ago tha you STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBJECTIVELY EXPLAIN:

  You said "it would seem that by "context" you mean your understanding of scripture. But if you believe that "firstborn of all creation" means "the one who is born first (of all creation)" then the context certainly implies "other" when it refers to the rest of creation."

  I believe based on what the Bible says as a whole, in other words, the Bible must in general itself be taken in context. You have said in a previous post that what you are defending you believe to be true, rather than defending the organization itself. Consider this: John 1:3 KJV says speaking of Jesus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But if we read Isaiah 44:24 KJV: "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" So the Bible is in absolute contradiction here if Jesus was created by God and is the firstborn of creation in the literal sense as you believe, because if this was the actual intentional meaning of the author in Colossians, then Jesus would have been with God as a separate being when everything else was created! The bottom line is the only way anyone objectively can truly reconcile harmony in these Scriptures regardless of what one believes is by acknowledging that Jesus has deity.

  Earnest, perhaps you were passing on this comment in your last post for me:" but, hey, what do I know" ? Please only respond if you can OBJECTIVELY explain how the creation dilemma does not contradict one other aspect of the rest of your theology, and not some other long winded irrelevant post like your last one to me that failed to answer my question.
• 

  Earnest

  stocwach:

  I fear you are suffering delusions of self-importance. I assure you that both my respect for larc and my conviction you have no interest in opinions other than your own precludes me from playing the little games you suggest.

  You ask me to comment on Isaiah 44:24 where God says "I, Jehovah, am making all things, stretching out the heavens alone, spreading out the earth - who was with me?"

  As with any scripture you can consider the surrounding verses to understand what he was talking about. Chapter 44 is that wonderful passage where Isaiah demonstrates the absurdity of idols. He tells of the man who uses wood for a fire to warm himself, to bake food and then uses the same wood and makes it into a god to deliver him. The point he is making in the chapter is that there is no other God and that those gods that they do make out of iron or wood are completely useless. And in the verse in question God contrasts what He has done with the uselessness of those false gods. None of them were there when Jehovah was making all things.

  That meaning is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the chapter rather than isolating the verse. The Israelites knew that the angels were with God at the time he "spread out the earth". (Job 38:4-7) They knew that God had not been alone when he said "let us make man in our image". But they had no need to pluck the verse out of context because the theme of this passage in Isaiah was the theme of their deliverance - there is no god like our God.

  larc:

  You're absolutely right about the resurrection. The WT does teach that there are quite a number who will not get a resurrection although it is not specific apart from a few.

  In an article on "Repentance" in "Insight on the Scriptures" (Vol. II, p.775) it says:

  "Since Adam and Eve were perfect creatures, and since God's command to them was explicit and understood by both, it is evident that their sinning was willful and was not excusable on the basis of any human weakness or imperfection. Hence, Gods words to them afterward offer no invitation to repentance. (Ge 3:16-24) So, too, with the spirit creature who had induced them into rebellion. His end and the end of other angelic creatures who joined him is everlasting destruction. (Ge 3:14, 15; Mt 25:41) Judas, though imperfect, had lived in intimate association with God's own Son and yet turned traitor; Jesus himself referred to him as 'the son of destruction.' (Joh 17:12) The apostate 'man of lawlessness' is also called 'the son of destruction.' (2Th 2:3) All those classed as figurative 'goats' at the time of Jesus kingly judgment of mankind likewise 'depart into everlasting cutting-off,' no invitation to repentance being extended to them.Mt 25:33, 41-46."

  In addition, the Watchtower of April 1, 1982 (p.26) says:

  "Not All the Dead Will Be Resurrected.
  Now, the Bible definitely shows that some end up in the symbolic Gehenna before the 1,000-year Judgment Day begins. Jesus told the unrepentant scribes and Pharisees that they and their Gentile proselytes were 'subjects for Gehenna' or, literally, 'sons of Gehenna.' (Matthew 23:15, 33-35; see also John 9:39-41; 15:22-24.) If even a proselyte of the Pharisees became a subject for Gehenna 'twice as much so as themselves,' how much more so Judas Iscariot, who made a heinous deal with them to betray Gods Son! Jesus implied this when he called Judas 'the son of destruction.' (John 17:12) Similarly, unrepentant apostates go, at death, not to Sheol, or Hades, but to Gehenna. (Hebrews 6:4-8; 2 Peter 2:1) The same is true of dedicated Christians who persist in willful sin or those who 'shrink back.' (Hebrews 10:26-31, 38, 39) These are merely examples to show that some, even in 'this system of things,' have committed the sin for which there is no forgiveness, not even in the system of things 'to come.' (Matthew 12:31, 32; compare 1 John 5:16.) They will, therefore, not be resurrected."

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 14 August 2002 13:24:0
• 

  larc

  Earnest, I want to thank you for the respect you showed to me, and the very detailed, thoughtful responses to my comments and questions. I wish the dialogue between you and me on this forum was the norm, rather than the exception.
• 

  Earnest

  larc, you make respect so easy. A toast to dialogue!

  earnest (enjoying a rather good port)

  Edited by - Earnest on 14 August 2002 3:11:49
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  I guess that's the best you can do, and if that's how you reconcile it, so be it, yet again the entire Bible TAKEN IN CONTEXT does not substantiate your beliefs.
• 

  bchamber

  Someone on one of the other topics, when he found out that I am an expert on English Bible translations, made a statement to me "you can therefore attest that the New World Translation Bible...is the most scholarly Bible in circulation. It is certainly a refreshing translation that brings the Creators message into our living language".

  I would like for you to read my response to that person. It follows with some additional info.

  Yes, the NWT is easy to read and understand, mainly, because it was written in the English we use today.

  However, there is NO perfect translation of the Bible. There is always something lost when translating from one language into another. Also, ALL Bible translators are bias mainly because of their own religious beliefs.

  This is also true of the NWT.

  Knowing that, you can then understand my next statement. All translations are the Word of God. It doesnt matter how well the translation is or how bad it is, they are all the Word of God. Do translators make mistakes as well? You bet they do. Does that make their work something less than the Word of God?

  The NWT does have a lot of good points that speaks for the translators. Were they bias in their work? Yes, they were as can be seen in many scriptures. This is NOT the place to get into that.

  In answer to your unasked question, yes I do use the NWT just as I do my other 1,435 different English translations that I have. I do have a copy of every Bible the WTB&TS published. This includes the two different copies of the Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson that they published. Did you know there were two different ones? Until I wrote an article about it, I don't think many other people knew that fact. The WTB&TS does not state anywhere that they changed Wilson's Diaglott. I found the change and confronted them with it and they gave me all kinds of reasons which just doesn't justify changing someone else's work with stating so on the title page.

  One last item, would I recommend the NWT to people? Yes I would. However, I would want them to know the above facts first first.

  The NWT has a lot of very good points that would recommend it. However, it is no where near a perfect translation. The men who worked on this Bible may not have been fluent in the origial languages and may have taken the good from this taranslation and that one to put the NWT together. They did use some very good expressions that are not in anyother translation that I have investigated and so they did do some original translating on their own.

  Another point you may not realize is the the men who worked on the KJV did exactly the same thing as the NWT men did. The KJV men were directed to follow 15 guidelines in putting together a new Bible. One of them was to take the good from the previous translations to make their KJV. 90% of the NT is Tyndale's N.T. They took parts of Coverdales Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Rheims/Douay Bible, Geneva Bible, along with very little new translations of their own and made the most important work of all time. So don't criticize the men who put the NWT together. It is still God's word.

  Oh, one thing I noticed from one of the other replies. Yes, you can use almost anyother translation when reading the WT and Awake magazines. Why, because they quote from them when it supports their viewpoint. If you were to use just your own translation when reading the magazines, you will find a lot of places that do not agree with your Bible. That is where you nust be very careful.

  Let me take a small amount of space to show you why I collect English Bible translations.

  I now have approx. 1,435 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many (around 200) non-canonical books as well.

  Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.

  Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?

  Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?

  What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?

  "Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints (although I do read a lot of it). I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?

  Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages even if the original autographs were to be found. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.

  Thus, our 1435 or more translations and versions.

  I, personally, use the RSV, Green's Interlinear, ERV for my study Bibles. However, I do use whatever is necessary in order to better understand.

  My most favorite Bible is a small translation of the Psalms by King James, dated 1632. Did any of you know that King James was a scholar and did a translation himself?

  One other tidbit is that I have approx. 10 different scripture comparisons on the Web at a JW site and I am NOT a JW. If interested, I will give whoever the address.

  Yes, I am an expert in English translations of the Bible. Let me tell you just a little bit about me.

  I am the Director of The Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation, a non-profit organization accepted by the IRS. IRS #509(a)(1) & 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), Fed. #38-2633578, State of MI #733-568

  I operate BMRFBooks (Our outlet for donated books not used)

  I am Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors

  I am an Author. My book is titled: "Catalogue of English Bible Translations; A Classified Bibliography of Versions and Editions Including Books, Parts, and Old and New Testament Apocrypha and Apocryphal Books" William J. Chamberlin. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991.

  (Still in print after 11 yrs. This is a 898 page reference book which set a new standard in its field.)

  I am an author of 47 published articles.

  Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 15:37:45

  Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 15:39:38