Wondement think about it. If we had to work for atleast 1 percent of our salvation then Christs death and physical resurrection was meaningless. Jesus did what we couldnt do.
yogosans14
JoinedPosts by yogosans14
-
36
I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT
by yogosans14 inday after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.
they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .
dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.
-
-
-
36
I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT
by yogosans14 inday after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.
they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .
dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.
-
-
yogosans14
Matthew 24:36 no where states Jesus isnt God. Im not here to argue about my beliefs bt Matthew24:36 is a verse I used to use to disprove the Trinity (which JWs when I talk to them still think the Trinity means were saying Jesus is the father but really they are 2 seperate persons). Jesus is both Man and God. He hald limitations and he had to grow in knowledge. I can More in depth but to long to type.
Now concerning John 1:1 I understand why logically it would make sense for the NWT to be correct because like I and all of you this is what we have been taught. But think carefully about kt now...
If Jesus is a god then isnt that polytheism?
If Jesus is a god and Jehovah is the only true God is Jesus a false or true God? If he is a true God then he is NOT the only true God
If Jesus is not God then why does he tell people to come to him and not the father (Matt 11:28)?
Now im not here to debate I realize most here want nothing to with religion after coming out of a cult. I understand and am not here to judge. Some one quoted the scripture about working out r salvation. It never says to work FOR salvation which JWs do, I woild know. EPHESIANS 2:8-9 clearly state salvation is not based upon works but by Gods grace through faith in Christ.
Hope I helped a little.
-
36
I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT
by yogosans14 inday after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.
they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .
dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.
-
-
yogosans14
Amen brother!
-
36
I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT
by yogosans14 inday after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.
they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .
dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.
-
-
yogosans14
Day after day Jws are constantly fighting with me over the Internet that the NWT is the most accurate translation and then they prove it By quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines. They tell me I'm biased and there rendering of John 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but I have researched there so called "supporters" and I have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.
Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)
In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!
They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it! "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."( Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)
Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105 )
It makes me very upset that the WT is allowed to misquote on purpose without being sued. I know most here don't believe in the Trinity but I do now and I attend a baptist church now and I must say I've grown a lot more with God then I have ever have. I no longer have to work for my salvation. It's was bought with the his blood on the cross at Calvary.
just my rant.
-
14
Have you seen witnesses texting during meetings?
by yogosans14 ini was dragged to the hall last sunday and wendsday and this woman infront of me was using her phone for the study articles and when we were getting up to do a song i saw her quickly sending a text, which shocked me because i know they dont allow that.
are the jws getting more and more leniant?.
-
-
yogosans14
I was dragged to the Hall last sunday and wendsday and this woman infront of me was using her phone for the study articles and when we were getting up to do a song I saw her quickly sending a text, which shocked me because I know they dont allow that. Are the JWs getting more and more leniant?
-
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.
all [other] things have been created through him and for him.
" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
-
-
yogosans14
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." ( Col. 1:15-17 , for context. The New World Translation--Emphasis added. Note the NWT's addition of 'other' into the text four times. This is discussed here).
The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh ( John 1:1 , 14 ), is not a created thing; but that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15 . The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and it is not used here.Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family ( Luke 2:7 ), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20 , 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:
- Gen. 41:51-52 , "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." (NASB)
- Jer. 31:9 , " . . . for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (NASB)
Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family, and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh ( John 1:1 , 14 ) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15 . They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
It was a interesting read :p
-
5
Giving the Pharisees a JW mindset to expose the folly of JWs' anti-blood arguments.
by Island Man inparallels have often been drawn between the pharisees' condemnation of healing on the sabbath, with jws' condemnation of life saving blood transfustions.
in a question on y!a, i attempt to hightlight the folly of jw anti-blood arguments and reasoning by equipping the pharisees with comparable arguments for refuting healing on the sabbath.
since the pharisees are portrayed as being wrong for condemning jesus' healing on the sabbath, then giving them jw-anti-blood-like arguments and reasoning should hopefully help jws to see that such reasoning used by them is wrong.
-
-
yogosans14
Nvm that wasnt my question lol but I did ask a sinilar question and got stupid answers like "atleast I dont support war"
-
14
144,000 are only born again disproved by 1 verse.
by yogosans14 in1 john 5:1 says everyone (not just special people) but everyone who believes that jesus is the son of god is born of god.
born of god is the same thing as born again.
the jw theology is so easy to refute i dont see how anyone can read the whole nt and still be one..
-
-
yogosans14
1 John 5:1 says EVERYONE (not just special people) but everyone who believes that Jesus is the son of God is born of God. Born of God is the same thing as born again. The JW theology is so easy to refute I dont see how anyone can read the whole NT and still be one.
-
5
Giving the Pharisees a JW mindset to expose the folly of JWs' anti-blood arguments.
by Island Man inparallels have often been drawn between the pharisees' condemnation of healing on the sabbath, with jws' condemnation of life saving blood transfustions.
in a question on y!a, i attempt to hightlight the folly of jw anti-blood arguments and reasoning by equipping the pharisees with comparable arguments for refuting healing on the sabbath.
since the pharisees are portrayed as being wrong for condemning jesus' healing on the sabbath, then giving them jw-anti-blood-like arguments and reasoning should hopefully help jws to see that such reasoning used by them is wrong.
-
-
yogosans14
Weird just a couple of days ago I asked a question on YA comparing the same thing your talking about, maybe you saw my question lol
-
40
Is it true that the GB is soon planning on ditching the 1914 doctrine?
by yogosans14 inor atleast tweaking it again... apparently there has been rumors of this coming out of bethel.
.
-
-
yogosans14
Or atleast tweaking it again... Apparently there has been rumors of this coming out of Bethel.
The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh ( John 1:1 , 14 ), is not a created thing; but that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15 . The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and it is not used here.