Posts by Earnest

178

God is Jesus

by evangelist in

i am looking for more scriptures that can prove to a jehovah witness that god is jesus, and jesus is god.i found only one verse so far in 1jo:5:20: and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ.

this is the true god, and eternal life.. if you know more scriptures that say directly that god is jesus please tell me the verses the jhw will see plainly that jesus is no way an angel, and he is jehovah god almighty.. my friend said if i can prove by the bible only that jesus is god he will leave the jhw society, and he will know that they are teaching lies and they would be to him a dogma religious sect.

my friend gave me a booklet called should you believe in the trinity?, and is jesus christ the almighty god.

Earnest

evangelist,

That is a convincing array of scriptures to show that God has used miracles to demonstrate his support for individuals (Moses) and communities (Christian congregation). But if you are to maintain that the performance of powerful works is in itself proof of God's approval then you have to explain why Jesus said:

"Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not...perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU!"

He clearly showed that those doing powerful works could still have "worthless fruit" and we know this is true in our day.

Will Power,

You said:

My question about 1thes4:16 has nothing to do with a translation.

Your question on this verse was "How do you accept a passage describing the Lord* Jesus as an angel with a footnote calling this Lord* Jehovah?" and it has everything to do with translation.

The NWT translates this as "the Lord will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet" and is a very literal translation of the underlying text.

The footnote to this verse reads: "The Lord," [Hebrew aleph]ABVg; J7, J8, J13, J14, "Jehovah." What this means is that the codex Sinaiticus (Greek, fourth century), codex Alexandrinus (Greek, fifth century), codex Vaticanus 1209 (Greek, fourth century) and the Vulgate translation by Jerome (Latin, about 400 A.D.) all have the Greek/Latin equivalent of "The Lord" in this verse. It also means that four Hebrew translations (dated 1599,1661,1838 and 1846) substitute "The Lord" with the tetragrammaton in this verse.

What role does translation play? The verse does not explicitly say whether it is referring to the Lord Jesus or to the Lord God. Evidently, the translators of these four Hebrew versions understood it was referring to God and so substituted kyrios (the Greek word for ‘Lord’) with the tetragrammaton. Now what is particularly interesting is how the Hebrew versions translate kyrios in the next verse (v.17). There it says: “Afterward we the living who are surviving will…meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.” The first instance of ‘Lord’ in this verse is only substituted with the tetragrammaton by two of these Hebrew translations (those of 1599 and 1661). The second instance of ‘Lord’ is substituted with the tetragrammaton by all four Hebrew translations as well as J24 (A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, by Herman Heinfetter). This is interesting because it demonstrates that the Hebrew translations do not always concur on the substitution of the tetragrammaton. Clearly, in the first instance of ‘Lord’ in verse 17 the Hebrew translations of 1838 and 1846 did not use the tetragrammaton.

Now your argument appears to be that the NWT is inconsistent because it does not substitutes kyrios (the Greek word for ‘Lord’) with ‘Jehovah’ in all instances where the Hebrew translations have the tetragrammaton. This argument is fallacious for two reasons. Firstly, because the Hebrew translations do not all agree on where the tetragrammaton should be used and so your argument amounts to only agreeing with those translations that use the tetragrammaton regardless of the context or textual support. Secondly, and more important, is the fact that the NWT specifically expresses the translation principles for substituting kyrios with ‘Jehovah’. It says:

To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words kyrios and theos, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give kyrios and theos and the personality with which to clothe them…We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering.

So, the principle for using ‘Jehovah’ in the NT was not because some Hebrew translations did so, but because the NW translators concluded that the Christian writers were using verses, passages and/or expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures which contained the divine name. Only when they had concluded that there was scriptural support for the divine name did they look for agreement from the Hebrew versions. It is quite absurd to suggest that because you concur in some instances with a translation that you must concur in all instances.

Are you saying that the hebrew translations you like for other insertions is wrong in this particular instance but it is still cited in the footnote? I see deception and or sloppiness or both.

I am saying that I don’t think Paul was using a passage or expression from the Hebrew Scriptures in this verse or that the context suggests that ‘Lord’ refers to God rather than Jesus. Hence, the principles laid down for using ‘Jehovah’ in the NT are not applicable in this verse. Nevertheless, the Hebrew translations that do use the tetragrammaton in this verse are still cited for consistency. Similarly, in verse 9 the Hebrew translation by Franz Delitzsch (J17) is cited in the footnote although the translators did not believe there was justification for substituting ‘God’ with ‘Jehovah’ in the text. I am sure that if the NWT only cited the Hebrew translations when they supported the NWT you would be saying how inconsistent it is not to show all instances that they use the tetragrammaton. Rather than deception or sloppiness I see a real effort made to be consistent and allow the reader to exercise their judgement on the accuracy of translation.

Making changes 61 times, to the word of God…is an atrocity. The 61 citations had they been left alone surely conflict with WT doctrine of today.

Once again your allegations are quite meaningless because you do not tell us where these 61 changes are, you do not demonstrate that they are contrary to the principle of quoting a verse, passage or expression from the Hebrew Scriptures containing God’s name, and you do not show how these verses would conflict with WT doctrine if God’s name had not been used. Now that is sloppiness.

Earnest

178

God is Jesus

by evangelist in

i am looking for more scriptures that can prove to a jehovah witness that god is jesus, and jesus is god.i found only one verse so far in 1jo:5:20: and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ.

this is the true god, and eternal life.. if you know more scriptures that say directly that god is jesus please tell me the verses the jhw will see plainly that jesus is no way an angel, and he is jehovah god almighty.. my friend said if i can prove by the bible only that jesus is god he will leave the jhw society, and he will know that they are teaching lies and they would be to him a dogma religious sect.

my friend gave me a booklet called should you believe in the trinity?, and is jesus christ the almighty god.

Earnest

Will Power,

You asked:

would you expect unknown and anonymous people to change their own interpretation then reprinting to justify their current way of thinking by adding [other] words that change the meaning not clarify because of the study of languages.

I appreciate that English may not be your first language but your question is so disjointed it is meaningless. If you are trying to say that the NW translation is interpretation then say so without having to make a question out of it. If you are suggesting that the underlying text on which the NWT is based is faulty then you will have to give examples if you want me to respond.

textual criticism should be kept to WT rags and kept out of a book that they trick people into thinking it is bible.

You evidently don’t understand what textual criticism is. It is the science of determining what an original document contained based on the available copies and other factors. It is an integral part of Bible translation.

these [22 versions of the NT in Hebrew] are 12th century translations! into hebrew from the greek which never contained the tetragrammaton.

Of course these are Hebrew translations. That’s the point. That these various Bible scholars who translated the NT into Hebrew in 22 different translations believed it legitimate in some instances to substitute kyrios (the Greek word for ‘Lord’) with the tetragrammaton. You may think they were wrong in doing so. But you are clearly wrong to say “you will not find any [bible] scholars to back you up on this one”.

There is an excellent research document on the insertion of the word jehovah…It is titled The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures…you need to read it and decide for yourself.

If you are referring to the book The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures by Lynn Lundquist I am pleased to say I already have a well-thumbed copy. I also have a copy of the book The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli, with a chapter on the tetragrammaton and the New Testament. I have benefited from information in both publications as well as my own research on the subject.

the verse "For the Lord* Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." 1Thes4:16… reference to the footnote. You'll find thatJehovah is this Lord who descends with the call of the archangel...What is your opinion on this?

My opinion is that you clearly don’t understand the relevance of the Hebrew translations cited. Just like all other translations (possibly with the exception of the LXX) the Hebrew translations of the NT were not inspired and should not be treated as such. However, there are specific instances where the translators believe they were justified in substituting kyrios (the Greek word for ‘Lord’) with the tetragrammaton. It does not mean that every instance that they did so you had to agree with their judgement simply because you agreed with their judgement in some instances. Clearly, in this instance the translators of the NWT did not agree with the judgement of the four Hebrew versions which had the tetragrammaton and considering the context I am inclined to agree with them. Why anyone should show hostility because you asked about this is beyond me, but perhaps they also didn’t understand the relevance of the Hebrew translations and reacted out of ignorance.

ernest, serious question:
There they said:
could you please tell me who they are and what qualifications would allow for [translation]?

No, I do not know who the translators of the NWT are or their qualifications. I do know who Raymond Franz claims was on the Translation Committee and have no reason to doubt him. But it is quite clear to me that the Committee called on others who had the necessary skills to assist in translation. I would add to this to say that neither do I know who translated other versions of the Bible in English but find that with a bit of effort it is not difficult to determine the value of a translation. I do find the footnotes and appendixes in the NWT a great help in this.

evangelist,

You say:

To be honest, it's quite pathetic that Mark 16:16 is debated so much like it is. There's no rocket science about that verse. Anybody can see that there are two requirements listed before salvation. The Bible doesn't try to hide them, it says they are belief and baptism. People can either accept what it says, or not accept what it says. Simple.

I have no quarrel with what you say here but I should remind you that it was your reference to Mark 16:18 that prompted me to reflect on the dubious support for that passage. You had posted to funkyderek:

M'r:16:18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
This is a statement made not by Wiggleworth, but it is from Jesus Christ HIMSELF saying this will happen and shall happen, people will recover, by laying on of hands.

My entire argument is that God does not expect us to perform “powerful works” in order to prove the truth and the use of this verse to suggest he does lacks authenticity. If the truth of who God is cannot be determined by his Word then no amount of miracles is going to do so.

Earnest

178

God is Jesus

by evangelist in

i am looking for more scriptures that can prove to a jehovah witness that god is jesus, and jesus is god.i found only one verse so far in 1jo:5:20: and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ.

this is the true god, and eternal life.. if you know more scriptures that say directly that god is jesus please tell me the verses the jhw will see plainly that jesus is no way an angel, and he is jehovah god almighty.. my friend said if i can prove by the bible only that jesus is god he will leave the jhw society, and he will know that they are teaching lies and they would be to him a dogma religious sect.

my friend gave me a booklet called should you believe in the trinity?, and is jesus christ the almighty god.

Earnest

Will Power,

You asked:

How do you accept the slick words in [brackets]?

If you sincerely want answers to your questions then it would help if you supported your allegations with examples. But in general, brackets would be supplied when the English equivalent does not do justice to the Greek/Hebrew meaning and so the bracketed words are necessary to convey the full sense of the original. However, that is a matter of translation whereas the question I assume you were responding to was a matter of textual criticism, the underlying text on which the translation is based.

How do you accept a passage describing the Lord* Jesus as an angel with a footnote calling this Lord* Jehovah?

If you sincerely want answers to your questions then it would help if you supplied the scripture to which you refer.

How do you accept the fact that the anonymous writing committee have inserted the word Jehovah into the new testament?

That same writing committee gave their reasons for substituting ‘Lord’ with ‘Jehovah’ in an appendix to the NWT. There they said:
"To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from available Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures to confirm our rendering."
As there are at least 22 versions of the NT in Hebrew which are cited for support it is clear that there are other Bible scholars who believe it legitimate in some instances to substitute kyrios with the tetragrammaton in the NT. My own view is that it would have been more accurate to have the rendering ‘Jehovah’ as a footnote rather than in the main body of the text, but I accept it the same way that I accept the AV has substituted ‘Lord’ for ‘Jehovah’ 7000 times in the OT. Neither substitution affects my appreciation of the translation although I think both can be misleading to the casual reader.

Did you know that the re-prints of your NWT are on-going

I would expect a translation to be regularly revised as advances are made in textual criticism and linguistics (the study of the original languages).

Did you know that secular history outside of the Watchtower has nothing to do with Satan but are based on well researched facts? and that by looking at 2 sides of the coin for yourself instead of just taking someone elses version of both sides you can learn how to be responsible for your own spiritual well being.

Yes.

Earnest

178

God is Jesus

by evangelist in

i am looking for more scriptures that can prove to a jehovah witness that god is jesus, and jesus is god.i found only one verse so far in 1jo:5:20: and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ.

this is the true god, and eternal life.. if you know more scriptures that say directly that god is jesus please tell me the verses the jhw will see plainly that jesus is no way an angel, and he is jehovah god almighty.. my friend said if i can prove by the bible only that jesus is god he will leave the jhw society, and he will know that they are teaching lies and they would be to him a dogma religious sect.

my friend gave me a booklet called should you believe in the trinity?, and is jesus christ the almighty god.

Earnest

Will Power,

You asked:

Ernest, is this your reasons why the NWT adds words to the bible?

As you supply no substance to your allegation it is a meaningless question. But in the research I have done on textual criticism I have always found that where the text of the NWT differs from that of the AV in substance rather than in translation that the NWT has better textual support.

If you know of anything to the contrary I would be interested to know the Greek/Hebrew textual support of the example(s) you give. Do please keep in mind we are talking of textual criticism which is objective, not of translation which is subjective.

Earnest

178

God is Jesus

by evangelist in

i am looking for more scriptures that can prove to a jehovah witness that god is jesus, and jesus is god.i found only one verse so far in 1jo:5:20: and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ.

this is the true god, and eternal life.. if you know more scriptures that say directly that god is jesus please tell me the verses the jhw will see plainly that jesus is no way an angel, and he is jehovah god almighty.. my friend said if i can prove by the bible only that jesus is god he will leave the jhw society, and he will know that they are teaching lies and they would be to him a dogma religious sect.

my friend gave me a booklet called should you believe in the trinity?, and is jesus christ the almighty god.

Earnest

Evangelist,

You asked how I know that there have been missing and added parts to the Bible. Well, consider. Until the advent of printing in Europe in the Middle Ages all copies of the Bible were done by hand. ALL of them. This resulted in both intentional and unintentional changes.

Intentional changes included:
(i)changes involving spelling and grammar;
(ii)harmonistic corruptions, for example the different versions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke have been harmonised in some manuscripts;
(iii)addition of natural complements, for example including the 'scribes' with the 'chief priests' in Matthew 26:3 (by many copyists);
(iv)clearing up historical and geographical difficulties;
(v)conflation of readings (when a scribe found the same passage was given differently in two or more manuscripts);
(vi)alterations made because of doctrinal considerations;
(vii)addition of miscellaneous details;

Unintentional changes included
(i)errors arising from faulty eyesight;
(ii)errors arising from faulty hearing;
(iii)errors of the mind, which would include those that arose when the scribe forgot exactly what the older copy said between the time he looked at it and his writing it, usually a matter of seconds...but it happens;
(iv)errors of judgement, when words and notes in the margin of the older copy were incorporated into the text of the new manuscript;

If you want examples of any of these errors I would recommend another book by Bruce Metzger, namely The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (1964,OUP,pp.186-206) where they are well documented.

The result of these various changes, both intentional and unintentional, is that of the thousands of copies of the Greek NT no two are identical. Each one is different to a greater or lesser degree. If you cannot accept this then try writing out one of the gospels in its entirety and see if you can do it without error. Most unlikely. This does not mean that the text we have is unreliable. In most instances it is not difficult to establish the original text, as I tried to show in the case of the last chapter of Mark. But to suggest that the text has never been altered shows a complete ignorance of the history of the Bible.

Earnest

37

Who Mediates?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

as most jws no longer have jesus as their mediator, how do they conclude their prayers?.

......and so, dear father, we approach you now in the name of the 144,000. amen?.

i only recently became aware of this change where jesus is mediator to just a select few.

Earnest

Ozzie,

Did Eve expect the same punishment as Adam? Or was she deceived and expected no punishment at all? That's what Milton suggests in Book IX of Paradise Lost where the serpent says to her:

do not believe
Those rigid threats of death; ye shall not die.
How should ye? by the fruit? it gives you life
To knowledge; by the Threatener? look on me,
Me who have touched and tasted, yet both live
And life more perfect have attained than Fate
Meant me, by venturing higher than my lot.
Shall that be shut to Man which to the beast
Is open? or will God incense his ire
For such a petty trespass, and not praise
Rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain
Of death denounced, whatever thing Death be,
Deterred not from achieving what might lead
To happier life, knowledge of good and evil?
Of good, how just? of evil-if what is evil
Be real, why not known, since easier shunned?
God, therefore, cannot hurt ye, and be just;
Not just, not God; not feared then, nor obeyed:
Your fear itself of death removes the fear.

And Eve concludes:

In the day we eat
Of this fair fruit, our doom is we shall die!
How dies the Serpent? He hath eaten, and lives,
And knows, and speaks, and reasons, and discerns,
Irrational till then. For us alone
Was death invented? or to us denied
This intellectual food, for beasts reserved?

And even Adam reasons:

Nor can I think that God, Creator wise
Though threat'ning, will in earnest so destroy
Us, his prime creatures, dignified so high,
Set over all his works; which, in our fall,
Dependent made. So God shall uncreate,
Be frustrate, do, undo, and labour lose-
Not well conceived of God; who, though his power
Creation could repeat, yet would be loth
Us to abolish, lest the Adversary
Triumph and say: "Fickle their state whom God
Most favours; who can please him long?
He ruined, now Mankind; whom will he next?"-
Matter of scorn not to be given the Foe.

I write this not to prove a point, but to share a love. You haven't lived if you haven't read Milton.

Earnest

17

Why do JWs segregate themselves?

by WinstonWigglesworth in

i was wondering today about how jw are not allowed to socialize with wordly people.

how can they judge other religions if they aren't allowed to witness religous practises other than their own?

my friend is a jw, so to better understand her religion i participated in one of her religious gatherings...yet when i invited her to my church she wasn't allowed.

Earnest

OldHippie, you asked:

What about the so-called "privileges"; for rather obvious reasons, it's a bit difficult to be appointed an auxhilliary prioneer if one does not report hours, but what about ministerial servant / public prayers / literature distribution etc. - are you given any of these jobs?

At the time I concluded reporting field service was affecting my motivation I had been a ministerial servant for ten years, had given public talks, conducted cong. book studies, been responsible for literature distribution etc. What I have found is that I can do most things short of official recognition. I am not and will not be approved as a ministerial servant/elder. Hence, no more public talks (other than the Ministry School). No conducting cong. book studies. Public prayers are ok and so is leading field service in a semi-official capacity. My impression is that attitudes will differ from one congregation to another but there is probably an official edict that you cannot be appointed as a ms/elder if you do not report field service.

Earnest

37

Who Mediates?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

as most jws no longer have jesus as their mediator, how do they conclude their prayers?.

......and so, dear father, we approach you now in the name of the 144,000. amen?.

i only recently became aware of this change where jesus is mediator to just a select few.

Earnest

Will Power,

You said:

Where does Jesus promise everlasting earthly life outside of the WT literature?

As the context of the discussion is what the WTS teaches it is irrelevant whether it is outside of the WT literature.

AND WHOSE VIEW is that bible is for annointed only?

As the context of the discussion is what the WTS teaches this is obviously the WT view.

In the 7 instances in the NewT where I have found the word sheep, not once is the word "other" there.

The word "sheep" occurs 40 times in the NewT. Try John 10:16 for "other sheep". The Greek word translated "other" is allos and is similarly translated at John 4:38; 6:22,23; 7:12, 41a; 9:9b,16; 10:21; 12:29; 15:24; 18:16,34; 19:18,32; 20:2,3,4,8,25,30; 21:2,8,25 as well as 58 other occurrences in the NT.

Are you a Jew or a Gentile?

I am a Gentile.

Now that I have answered your questions perhaps you would like to answer mine:

If you really think everyone goes to heaven where do you think Adam expected to go (a) before he sinned (b) after he sinned. And why do you so answer? Where do you think Eve (who was deceived) expected to go after she sinned, and why do you so answer? Finally, where do you think they went...and why do you so answer.

Ozzie

Earnest

37

Who Mediates?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

as most jws no longer have jesus as their mediator, how do they conclude their prayers?.

......and so, dear father, we approach you now in the name of the 144,000. amen?.

i only recently became aware of this change where jesus is mediator to just a select few.

Earnest

Will Power,

The quotation to which you allude was part of the original article that Ozzie referred to. I simply mentioned it in order to show that after saying that "promises of everlasting life [in the Christian Greek Scriptures] are directed to spirit-anointed Christians" it also said that "Jesus definitely promised everlasting earthly life".

Whether or not you think Jesus did promise earthly life is neither here nor there. I was not trying to establish that. I was just saying that the view that "most of the Christian Greek Scriptures are directed to spirit-anointed Christians" was qualified by many references to the other sheep.

If you really think everyone goes to heaven where do you think Adam expected to go (a) before he sinned (b) after he sinned. And why do you so answer? Where do you think Eve (who was deceived) expected to go after she sinned, and why do you so answer? Finally, where do you think they went...and why do you so answer.

Earnest

1

Are miracles by faith or psychosomosis?

by Earnest in

psychosomosis?

no, it's not in my dictionary either.

but 'psychosomatic' relates to disorders caused or aggravated by psychological factors and so i use the term to refer to healing caused or expedited by psychological factors.

Earnest

Psychosomosis? No, it's not in my dictionary either. But 'psychosomatic' relates to disorders caused or aggravated by psychological factors and so I use the term to refer to healing caused or expedited by psychological factors. In other words, because you believe you are healed the body actually does heal itself.

This is well-documented to the extent that whenever drug trials are carried out placebos are also used to determine the percentage of people who would have healed anyway simply because they thought they were taking an effective drug. In a sense to have faith you are healed is the same as psychosomatic healing. Both occur because you believe you have been healed. In one case you believe God has done it, in the other - a drug. My question is whether there is a difference.

Clearly, resurrecting the dead is on a different level. So is healing of people who don't have the capacity for belief e.g. brain-damaged or mentally retarded. But do you think that all healings in the Bible were the direct hand of God or that some had nothing to do with God at all?

Earnest