Yes, a textual variant is a different version of the same text. Most Bibles do not use the word "God" in 1 Peter 3.15 but the word "Christ." But then again, it should be noted that plenty of Bibles come from mainstream Christians who accept Jesus as God, so it makes no difference to them.
Saename
JoinedPosts by Saename
-
8
Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT
by NikL ini wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.
in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.
yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.
-
-
-
20
How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?
by TTWSYF inso was jesus a fool or a liar?
he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.
math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-
-
Saename
According to the Dictionary of Fairies,
- Christianity – the ability to bend backwards
If you claim to be Christian, you're Christian, yo.
-
8
Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT
by NikL ini wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.
in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.
yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.
-
-
Saename
NikL, you are misinterpreting the footnote. The footnote does not say Jesus is Jehovah. The footnote is acknowledging that there is another textual variant of the Greek text which says, "but in your hearts sanctify God as Lord" as opposed to "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord." Let me translate the two textual variants for you so it is easier:
TEXTUAL VARIANT #1
Κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος.
[...] moreover, sanctify in your hearts Christ [christos] as Lord. Always be ready to make a defense to anyone who is asking you for an account concerning the hope that is in you.
This textual variant is talking about Christ. It's clear because it contains the word christos. It calls Christ "Lord."
TEXTUAL VARIANT #2
Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου
[...] moreover, sanctify in your hearts God [theon] as Lord. Always be ready to make a defense with gentleness and fear to anyone who is asking you for an account concerning the hope that is in you.
This textual variant is not talking about Christ. It does not contain the word christos; it contains the word theon, and as such, it refers to Yahweh. It says, "sanctify in your hearts God as Lord."
So this footnote...
“The Christ as Lord,” אABC; TR, “the Lord God”; J7,8,11-14,16,17,24, “Jehovah God.”
...means that there is one textual variant which reads, "Christ as Lord," and there is also a second textual variant which reads, "God as Lord." The footnote does not equate Jehovah God to Christ. It is merely acknowledging that there are two different textual variants—one refers to Christ, and the other to God.
-
8
Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT
by NikL ini wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.
in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.
yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.
-
-
Saename
It's because of the difference in the Greek texts. There are two main variations:
Κύριον (kyrion meaning Lord) δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (christon meaning Christ) ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος,
Κύριον (kyrion meaning Lord) δὲ τὸν Θεὸν (theon meaning God) ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου
The first one contains two titles "Κύριον" and "Χριστὸν" which mean Lord Christ.
The second one contains two titles "Κύριον" and "Θεὸν" which together mean Lord God. This one also doesn't have the word "Χριστὸν".
Whether you translate the verse as "Lord Christ" (or Christ as Lord) or "Lord God" depends on which Greek text you're using. NRSV uses the first variation and therefore translates to "Christ as Lord.
Edit: This is to say that when the JW Bible with references has "Jehovah God" in the footnote, it does not refer to Jesus.
-
49
Sisters as Ministerial Servants?
by Spoletta inmy wife has been trying to convince me that the organization is hinting at the possibility of making some older sisters ministerial servants.
she is awake to a lot of the false doctrines, but is still clinging to the hope that the org may become more progressive in the future.
anyone else pick up on this?
-
-
Saename
pale.emperor - So just to be safe and not to upset the toddler in the sky that gets very upset for no big reason she had to cover her head.
Toddler in the sky! Ha! It really feels that way!
MS who is fresh out of high school yet cant fathom how to work a simple sound desk (its only a laptop with mp3s on connected to volume knobs for crying out loud - have a go!)
I'd blame the elders here. They don't teach those MSs anything—except for how to preach and how long...
Richard Oliver - You would also have to make the same claim and criticism about many other religions.
And there he is! This WT sympathizer!
No, this topic is about Jehovah's Witnesses and their offensive attitude towards women. It is not about Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other denomination of Christianity. If someone wants to criticise other religions, they are free to do so, but this topic doesn't have to mention other religions. Fair criticism and impartiality are not about mentioning every single Christian denomination when we criticise JWs. We wouldn't have room for it. There are over 1,000 Christian denominations. Just like when someone criticises racism, they don't have to criticise sexism, homophobia, slavery, and every single other social issue in the same topic. That would be nonsensical.
Having that said, you should remember that members on this board do criticise other Christian denominations as well. There aren't that many of those, but it's for a simple reason: this board focuses on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not partiality or unfair criticism. It's simple common sense. We don't have the time to criticise 1,000 Christian denominations. Other people on other boards are already doing it. One forum for one denomination. It's simple as that.
But I don't think your JW brain is capable of comprehending such a complicated topic.
-
22
How Do JWs Reconcile Contradictions Between Mt. and Lk. and Their Birth Stories?
by Saename indoes anybody know how jehovah's witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of jesus' birth as found in matthew and luke?
when i was a jehovah's witness, i wasn't even aware of this contradiction; i simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (luke 2) and the slaughter of the innocents (matthew 2) simultaneously.
but at the time i didn't know that the census took place in 6 ce and that herod the great died in 4 bce, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time.
-
-
Saename
StephaneLaliberte - Census would not require man to go back to town where they were born. [...] Also, the purpose of the census was for taxes. How could the tax man evaluate the belongings of someone when they are not at home, without their possessions?
Ancient history 101.
Half banana - As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) there was never a census in the Roman world at that time, before and after perhaps. The Romans kept very good records and there is none.
The census did happen in 6 CE. It's just that it was a local census—not a census that was carried out "in the whole world" as the Bible tells it. Quirinius became (legate) governor of Syria, and at the same time also Judea became a Roman province. It was a Roman custom to carry out a census in a new territory for tax purposes (assessment of the citizens' properties and their worth) to see how much money they can get from this new territory. Josephus mentions the census in Antiquities Book XVIII somewhere in chapter I (and it's hard to see how he would have a Christian agenda to pursue.)
These include the Mithraic legends of Persian origin, based on ancient astrological lore of the birth of the Son of God in the East who were visited by the three wise men (magi or persian astrologers).
Nope. That's a myth that originates from Gerald Massey's book from 1880s (if I were to place a bet—I'm not completely sure, but his book definitely focused on the false connection between Jesus and Horus, so it's not hard to see how he could also give rise to this false connection.) New Atheists on the Internet keep spreading this nonsense for some reason. They don't bother to check the facts. Mithra (the Persian god) didn't have any magi visit him. Mithras (the Roman god) didn't either. (For some other reason, those Internet naive "freethinking" individuals keep confusing the two gods even though they have nothing to do with each other.)
Luke's account for example recalls (for a Roman audience) the legend of Romulus and Remus where their births were subject to a Herodian type of decree to slaughter all of the new-borns to deny the heroes a life.
Another myth. Amulius wanted to have Romulus and Remus tossed into the Tiber after either killing Illa (otherwise known as Rea Silvia) or hiding her in a dungeon for the rest of her life. There was no decree because Amulius' guards already had Illa and her twin children. If anything, there's a similarity between Romulus and Remus, and Moses because the twins were put in a basket and then tossed into the river, only to be carried away by the waters. It's similar to Moses' birth, but not Luke's Jesus'.
Anyway, Half banana, I must point out that you are confusing the reason as to why I asked this question. I am not interested in the Watchtower's apologetics. I never find it convincing. I am an agnostic atheist in regards to the belief in god in general, and when it comes to the Christian God, I am a strong atheist. The point of me asking this question on this forum was to find out how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the gospels just in case I would debate this point with a Jehovah's Witness in indefinite future. So I know the gospels are making up the story of Jesus' virgin birth to fit their beliefs about the Davidic messiah.
scratchme1010 - I wonder if there's a reason for looking at that particular discrepancy in the bible as opposed to the many others?
Right. No specific reason. Just somehow this question popped into my head, and I have a curious mind.
-
22
How Do JWs Reconcile Contradictions Between Mt. and Lk. and Their Birth Stories?
by Saename indoes anybody know how jehovah's witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of jesus' birth as found in matthew and luke?
when i was a jehovah's witness, i wasn't even aware of this contradiction; i simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (luke 2) and the slaughter of the innocents (matthew 2) simultaneously.
but at the time i didn't know that the census took place in 6 ce and that herod the great died in 4 bce, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time.
-
-
Saename
Hello everyone!
Does anybody know how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of Jesus' birth as found in Matthew and Luke? When I was a Jehovah's Witness, I wasn't even aware of this contradiction; I simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (Luke 2) and the Slaughter of the Innocents (Matthew 2) simultaneously. But at the time I didn't know that the census took place in 6 CE and that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time. Does anyone know if the Watchtower has ever produced any article on this subject?
-
123
Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses choose to be atheist or agnostic?
by Cassaruby in"traumatic as the initial transition may be, it can lead to the development of a truly personal relationship with these two greatest friends [the father and the son] .
.. "whatever sense of 'belonging' that membership in some religious system may create, it can never compare with the power and beauty and strengthening benefit of the intimate personal relationship the scripture presents .
from reading joseph campbell i've come to understand that there are functions to religion or mythology.
-
-
Saename
Cassaruby - I think there are benefits to reading and understanding mythological books.
I believe the Bible is indeed an important piece of literature. It contains many interesting stories. Of course, I don't believe any—well, most—of it is factual, but I believe it is very significant in our cultures. It is almost impossible to read any of the most popular books that even high school students study in book-clubs without encountering Biblical allusions—such as Stephen King's Carrie and William Golding's Lord of the Flies. At the beginning of Carrie, the main character wishes she could be Jesus' sword when he finally comes to earth to judge the bad people. Additionally, in Lord of the Flies, Simon, as the only sane boy on the uninhabited island, represents a Jesus figure. To fully understand and appreciate such references, which in fact often could foreshadow future events in the novels and changes within characters' personalities, I think it's important to know some of the Biblical stories. However, you don't have to believe in any of that stuff or even to think it comes from God to see that some books are really beautifully written—such as the books of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and even the Song of Solomon.
I can also acknowledge that some of the moral teachings found within the Scriptures could be important in our day and age—albeit there aren't many of those, given the total amount of words in the Bible. However, it's paramount to understand that this does not prove anything about the Bible, especially that it's God-inspired. The same thing applies even to Shakespearean plays. There are many moral teachings that one can find in all sorts of literature—old and new. For example, Hamlet teaches an important lesson about not overthinking stuff, and Macbeth warns people of pride, wrong desires, and false security. Neither play is God-inspired, but, even though the were written in early 17th century, those lessons are still applicable to day. But would anyone believe that Shakespeare is God—or the Son of God—just because he wrote so many interesting plays? No, that would be unthinkable.
So why would anyone believe in the Abrahamic God just because the Bible has some value?
-
123
Why do some Jehovah's Witnesses choose to be atheist or agnostic?
by Cassaruby in"traumatic as the initial transition may be, it can lead to the development of a truly personal relationship with these two greatest friends [the father and the son] .
.. "whatever sense of 'belonging' that membership in some religious system may create, it can never compare with the power and beauty and strengthening benefit of the intimate personal relationship the scripture presents .
from reading joseph campbell i've come to understand that there are functions to religion or mythology.
-
-
Saename
Cassaruby - Mostly I'm curious why a former jehovah's witness would make a direct 180 and run the other way instead of making use of the positive things they discovered.
I think there's a simple reason for that. While being a Jehovah's Witness, you are taught to be gullible and naive. You believe everything the Watchtower says in the publications; you believe everything the elders teach you. Then, one day, the illusion disappears, and you learn that you were just biased all this time. You only trusted information from the Watchtower while dismissing any contradicting evidence.
When that illusion disappears, you become less gullible—much less gullible. When I personally became an agnostic atheist after being a Jehovah's Witness (an unbaptised publisher), I instinctively began to follow evidence wherever it led me. Hence, becoming an atheist wasn't much of a choice. It isn't a choice. One day I realised there is no evidence for God, and the belief disappeared on its own. I didn't choose agnostic atheism. I decided to follow evidence wherever it led me, but becoming atheist wasn't exactly a choice. It was a by-product of the choice I made previously to follow the evidence. The belief in God disappears on its own.
However, I should note that I didn't become an atheist by investigating the Watchtower like many here have done. I do investigate the organisation from time to time (such as the child sex abuse cases), but becoming atheist was something that happened as a result of studying the Bible from the critical point of view. Here is my thought process:
I read Deut. 22.28–29, which is a law given to the Israelites by God (allegedly.) That law says that if a man rapes (the verse uses Hebrew words taphas and shakab which mean "to seize, lay hold of, or capture" and "to lay down [with someone]" respectively) an unengaged virgin, he has to pay her father 50 shekels and then marry her. The woman gets no justice but hey! she gets to marry the man who raped her. Really? That's a divinely inspired law?Here is the most important question to ask when reading this law: Why the hell is it in the Old Testament?
Other laws that inspire questions are those from Exod. 21. These laws explicitly support slavery. When I was a Christian (Jehovah's Witness), I reconciled these laws with my faith by saying that (1) Christians are not under the law anymore, and (2) the whole world back then was primitive morally, so it's no surprise the Jewish society also reflected this primitiveness. I rationalised that God could not have forced the Jews to have laws against rape and slavery because Jews were just too backwards morally. They needed time to grow up as a society. But I also realised that this rationalisation is simply too problematic.
Firstly, it's true that Christians are not under the law anymore (theologically speaking.) But that's not the issue. The issue is why those laws are in the Old Testament in the first place (and additionally the New Testament also supports slavery [Eph. 6.5]). The Old Testament is supposed to be of divine origins—inspired of God. But if it contains laws that support slavery and rape, does it mean God also condones these things? If not, why are these laws in HIS goddamn collection of books? They shouldn't be there.
Secondly, saying that God could not have given the Jews laws against rape and slavery because Jews were just too backwards morally, and because the whole world was simply primitive is also highly problematic. Most importantly, the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent. Why couldn't he just rewire the minds of the Jews so that they could accept these laws? Is he not "omnipotent enough"? Moreover, there are other laws—nonsensical laws, I may add—that this Christian God did include in the Bible despite the fact that these other laws are simply ridiculous. I'm talking about laws such as these: don't eat pork, don't eat shrimps, and don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk. How are these laws relevant to morality? They're not! They are downright idiotic. They don't benefit the society. And yet he forced the Jews to accept these laws, but he could not have forced the Jews to accept laws prohibiting rape and slavery? Really?
You would've hoped that the whole thing gets better in the New Testament. And it does—to some degree. The New Testament at least has laws that tell you to love your neighbour, etc. But you cannot focus on the good laws and ignore the bad ones. The bad ones are still there! There—in the supposedly divinely inspired collection of ancient books written by ancient authors who knew nothing about science. And we're supposed to listen to these books? Well, let me list some of the ridiculous laws it has:
1 Tim. 2.11–14
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Rom. 1.26–27
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the man, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
1 Cor. 11.5
[...] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.
Eph. 6.5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; [...]
Do you see what's wrong with these verses? They do not reflect a morally superior God. In fact, I would say they lack morality. What is so good about these verses? How the hell do you find "truth" in these passages (not the Watchtower "truth" but the "ultimate truth" mainstream Christians say there is in the Bible)? I mean, sure, you can cherry-pick the good verses and ignore the ones I cited. But why are you doing that? Because the verses I cited don't fit the modern world? If they don't fit the modern world, what do you conclude about the Christian God? Did he inspire these passages? If so, are those his moral values? If not, why are they there?
You may know that 1 Tim. and Eph. are forgeries not actually written by Paul. So why are those forgeries in the New Testament? Did God inspire the Bible but forgot to protect it from forgeries and interpolations? If so, why are we to trust anything from the Bible? For all we can actually know, all of this could have been written by some wackos from the first century. If there are forgeries in the New Testament, why should we trust that everything else but these forgeries was written by divinely inspired writers? There is no way to trust the Bible. There's simply no way. When you consider what I wrote about the Old Testament, there's just no way. How could this have been written by God?
What does inspiration even mean? Does it mean that all those writers of all those books wrote word for word what God told them? That would be ridiculous because it would show what kind of ridiculous moral values God has. And if not, then does inspiration mean that those writers of the Bible got the basic idea of what to write from God but actually wrote the words for themselves? If so, it still shows the basic idea of God's ridiculous morality. Or does inspiration mean that God made those writers just "wise" in some ambiguous, undefined sense (anyone would want to define it?), and then these authors wrote on paper (papyrus, ha!) their own ideas? But if they wrote their own ideas, not God's, why should we trust some ignorant (meaning: lacking knowledge) people from the Antiquity? They were obviously sexist, racist, and god knows what else...
There's simply no way to trust the Bible. All the objective evidence suggests it contains outdated values of people from the Antiquity. There's no "enlightenment" from God.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Saename
Richard Oliver, you are so f*cking unbelievable.
"only applies to the anointed"? SO WHAT!?!?!? Nobody has the right to tell anyone, whether he or she is a "regular" or an "anointed," that he or she can't have a sexual life because the Bible condemns it.
I will neither read nor respond to this thread any longer.
