Posts by stocwach

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Earnest,

The obvious reason why you didn't comment on the creation dilemma is because you have no explanation on how these scriptures can be in complete harmony with your belief system, because the reality is that these scriptures are in complete contradiction with your belief system. The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus has deity, therefore, for you to consider the NWT as a valid translation is baseless, as it has been altered to fit JW theology that Jesus doesn't have deity. You cannot selectively choose scripture that adheres to your beliefs, but ignore others that are in direct conflict with those beliefs. This however, is what the NWT committee has done, yet you still expect us to believe the NWT is a reliable, accurate translation, when you clearly have failed to show why it is so. It certainly is not based on what the actual Greek text says in the scriptures mentioned in this thread.

You say you have no argument that deity in Jesus is the only way these scriptures can be in harmony. If you truly believe that, then why do you subscribe to the accuracy of a translation that is a complete 180 degrees from that belief?

Again, your explanation for ho theos is irrelevant, for it does nothing to recognize the creation dilemma. You either take the entire Bible to be inspired, or none of it. I choose to take it as inspired, and therefore I prefer to base my belief system on what the Bible says, rather then altering the Bible to fit my belief system based on a presumption of what the original author actually meant.

The bottom line is 99% of the population is not going to reference the original Greek to see whether an indefinite or definite article exists. Therefore, I truly believe any translation that closely conveys what the original Greek text actually says proves to be the most reliable for accurate knowledge to be gained by means of the Holy Spirit, and the more translations that are consistent in conveying this also lends credence to being reliable, rather than an isolated rogue translation here and there that is completely altered from the majority, based on one Greek grammar scholars assumptions of what the author was trying to say. As an example, in the case of John 1:1, I have seen considerably more testimony from scholars that state there is no basis for the indefinite article as the NWT portrays it, compared to the few that say there is a basis for it.

It is obvious you are set in your ways, and no matter how much logical reasoning you are presented with, it appears it will not make much difference.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

BTW Earnest--you are wrong again--the definite article "ho" does not appear in the original Greek in John 20:28, nor in John 1:1, nor in Revelation 3:12, so your argument is truly baseless. In fact, the JWs use the indefinite article in John 1:1,which clearly then allows for the Bible to contradict itself, because in context the verse tells us that that the Word has always been and verse three tells us that the Word created everything. To reference Jesus as some sort of sub god is ridiculous. It becomes polytheism if we consider him a "true" god, or the only other possibility then is he is a "false" god, which makes him unworthy of any sort credence whatsoever. Again, all of this is contradictory to what the Bible actually says, and to deliberately insert definite and indefinite articles where it changes the actaul meaning is again condemned by God.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Earnest, your rebuttal is very poor, as you failed to acknowledge the obvious contradiction re: creation. Perhaps you read too fast. Go back at my last post and see if you can reconcile the contradiction with your belief system. Failure for you to come up with an explanation will prove my point.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

I guess we should both be referencing which Edition of the NWT we are using, because I have the "New Edition" of 1981, and Philippians DOES NOT have brackets around "other. We could argue all day long whether this was an oversight, or it was orginally intended to be deceptive, but the bottom line is the reader of this version will never have a clue that this word does not exist in the orginal text, and therefore the reader has been misled. A Bible translation that allows for this to happen regardless of intention cannot be trusted and considered reliable, especially one in which the biased reason why this word was inserted was again to fit the man made theology that "Jehovah" was used in the NT.

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.

Now taking all of this in consideration, ; 1 John 5:20 makes complete sense in referencing Jesus as the true God, which reads more accurately in the KJV;"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, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Clearly taken in context, the previous verses are pointing out that eternal life comes through faith in Jesus, and that we are one with God and one with Jesus, who is also referred to as "he that is true" in Revelation 3:7. Now, you bring up John 17:3. Nowhere there does it say that Jesus is not the only true God. Jehovah's Witnesses use faulty inductive logic to mistakenly presume that Jesus is excluded from God here. This is read into the verse without warrant, again simply to match JW theology. When taking the entire Bible in context with the various Scriptures I've mentioned in this post, it is easy to see here that the contrast of "only true God" in John 17:3 is against idols and false Gods, which falls in harmony with 1 John 5:21 guarding against idols.

As for John 20:28, I am pleased to see that you have signs of a somewhat level head on your shoulders, for acknowledging the difficulty of reconciling your belief system with such a clear contradiction to it. You say however: "Although Jesus didn't rebuke him I don't think that was the time or place for it". You've got to be kidding me? The entire disciples are witnessing this exchange, and you expect us to believe that such a blasphemy as this (if Jesus was merely a separate being) would go unrebuked? I'm sorry, Earnest, but your subjectivity is blatantly obvious.On the contrary, what a more appropriate time to settle the matter once and for all if Thomas was wrong!! You also say "An implied rebuke was given by the writer of the account who concluded that "these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God". I am sure Thomas got the message. Did you?" How in the world do you get a rebuke out of that? Your logic is ridiculous. It is obvious that you are grasping at straws, again especially in light of the entire Biblical context which makes your comment nonsensical.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Sorry Earnest, but your arguments are just too easy to unravel and I can't resist to yet debuff you yet one more time.

One only need to go to John 20:28 which in the NWT says "In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" and then to 1 John 5:20 which says But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Now Jesus would have surely rebuked Thomas if he was incorrect or blashphemous in making such a statement, especially due to the Bible being inspired, God surely wouldn't have allowed such a distortion if it weren't true.

So you see Earnest, you are incorrect in saying that "obeisance" being chosen by the JWs to fit their theology is no different than other Bible's translating the word "worship" to fit another theology. The word "worship" has nothing to do with fitting a particular theology. It has to do with conveying what the author's intention was, which is easily deciphered when considering other verses such as above. The JWs would have complete justification in "obeisance" IF JESUS REBUKED THOMAS, but unfortunately for them, HE DIDN'T. This only proves that the NWT is simply altered to fit the theology, rather than again allowing the Bible to dictate what the theology is.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

BTW Earnest,

Of course words are added all the time in various Bibles, and I'm well aware it occurs quite frequently. There is nothing wrong with this, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT CONTEXT!!!!! The NWT does not follow this rule, and therefore cannot be trusted.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Earnest, my mistake, I meant Philippians 2:9, and I am sorry to say once again you are wrong in your defending the NWT as being honest and forthright in that it adds brackets to words inserted. In Colossians it does, but Philippians it doesn't!!!!!!!!!! They just couldn't be quite honest enough for this blatant distortion now could they?

It is not up to the translator to decide what should be added. It is up to the translator to translate based on what the original author wrote, and to add words to the text is condemned by God.

The bottom line is the NWT cannot be trusted, because it is obvious that it has been altered to fit JW theology. Even where the NWT Translation Committee attempted to be forthright by explaining how they determined when the divine name should appear in the NT, they blatantly disregarded their own rule in 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15!!!!!! You cannot deny this, so don't bother with your drivel, because it doesn't change this obvious deception.

Earnest, you may believe they were correct in doing so, but it puts you in the same hypocritical boat. It is not the translator's option to be selective in taking the divine name out in passages that clearly identify Jesus. It the author intended the reader to understand the verse to mean "Jehovah" when he quoted a verse that contained the divine name, then he unequivocally intended each time! You can say all you want and rant and rave, but this is a fact that cannot be disputed.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Sorry Ernest, but you first lose all credibility when you use the biased "Aid to Bible Understanding" as an apologetic reference source. You expect us to believe that all the Bible translators throughout the centuries in their using "holy" as the primary meaning for "hosios" have it wrong, and instead, an organization that has blatanly false prophesied on numerous occasions throughout the years and flip flopped on doctrine finally got it right 35-40 years ago by saying "loyal"? Since you appear to like doing research, show me just one more Bible translation that uses Revelation 15:4 NWT rendering.

I'm curious to hear what your ridiculous justification is for the NWT blatant use of also adding words to text (which the Bible condemns btw--you are aware of that earnest) in order to change the context when it again, doesn't fit with manmade JW theology. Let's use the examples of:

Philippians 2:5, adding the word "other" (again, this is not just an alternative word translation choice by the NWT--a Greek word doesn't even exist where this has been inserted!!!!!!!!). This one verse as it ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK (not the NWT) in the NT easily stands alone as one that clearly refutes your apologetic justification for "Jehovah" being used in the NT. Obviously this would be contrary to JW theology and a serious blow, so the GB conveniently approved (thank's to Fred Franz I'm sure) a little addition to the text.

Hmmmm, let's see, then we have 1 Colossians 1: 15-17, where the word "other" is again inserted, but this time a total of 4 times!!!!!!!!!!! Obviously the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT is a serious blow to JW anti-Trinitarianism, so again, the words were conveniently inserted to fit the theology. Ernest, how in good conscience can you be apologetic to such a deceitful organization??????

Still not convinced at the heresy evidence here? Ok, how about this: In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9,28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek .Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. Here the NWT selectively gave different meanings to the same Greek word to fit their theology!!!!!!!!! It's interesting that in the 8 times that "hosios" occurs, the NWT in that case was consistent in translating it to "loyal", obviously because it wasn't in conflict with their theology.

Earnest, I could go on and on and on with additional blatant distortions in the NWT, but these alone are sufficient to cause you to really take a hard look at the obvious bias of the translation, which proves it cannot be trusted as a valid translation, especially knowing that the average person that JWs are quoting to in field service have no idea of these consistenties, yet will presume the Bible must say these words, and say " I guess JW's are right". It's utter deception, and the Bible specifically forbids it.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Earnest,

I'm sorry, but obviously all the reference sources you point out hasn't opened your eyes to how blatantly distorted to NWT is compared to other translations.

JW's have altered their Bible to fit their man made theology, rather than letting the Bible dictate theology.

Just one example can be found at Revelation 15:4. The KJV reads:

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."

The NWT translates the Greek word "hosios" as loyal!!!!!!!!!!! The word "loyal" is not even found anywhere in the KJV, and their isn't even a definition that comes remotely close to "loyal" according to Strongs for the word "hosios". Here is the full text from the NWT:

Who will not really fear you, Jehovah, and glorify your name, because you alone are loyal? For all the nations will come and worship before you, because your righteous decrees have been made manifest.

This is a gross distortion!!! Obviously, the Governing Body had a hard time with this one, because if they had been forthright and presented it as the Greek author had intended, it would be a serious blow to their anti Trinitarianism thinking, because clearly Jesus is also spoken of as the Holy One in Acts 2:27, with the same Greek word for Holy being used! Since Revelation says that God is alone holy, and Jesus is also spoken as such, it clearly shows for their not to be contradiction in Scripture that Jesus has deity!

The most incredulous aspect of this is if the author's intention was the convey the meaning of "loyal", he would have used the Greek word for "faithful", which is "pistis" or "pistos".

I'm sorry Earnest, but you really must do more research before emphatically trying to sell your deceptive JW apologetic approach.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

stocwach

Earnest,

How can you be so naive?

The bottom line is the WT simply has changed their Bible to fit their man made theology, rather than letting the Bible dictate their theology.

The problem is since JWs are programmed not to think independently, sadly the majority of the rank and file will never see the incredulousness of the matter.