The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

How can Jehovah's Witnesses be the "one true church" if they themselves make mistakes and revise their doctrine, dogma and practices?

Exhibit a) before the NWT (New World Translation) of the Bible was published, Jehovah's Witnesses used the American Standard Version (ASV). Both translations honor the name of Jehovah but there are stark differences.

The NWT is the only translation (that I know of) which has Jesus "impaled on a stake" instead of crucified on a cross, as virtually every other translation posits.

The first volume of the NWT was originally released in 1950.

How can JWs be the "only true church" if it was evolving, fallible and subject to revision?

And exhibit b) how can JWs be the only true church with dimly supported and strange doctrines such as the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before the Nativity?

Exhibit c) How can the JWs be the only true church if they falsely predicted that Jesus would return in 1914?

And when that return did not materialized, they revised their prediction and now conveniently claim his return was "invisible".

"One true Church" or fringe sect?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 80 by onewithhim]

In today's world, you need those credentials for teaching in higher education. And I don't think it is appropriate to demonize or cast aspersion on individual's seeking a higher education. That's a Watchtower Society tactic that I find extremely undesirable.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 96 by 2timothy316]

I have to agree with Ameerican Desist. I logged 1750 hours as a clinical-psychology trainee in the VA. I saw a patient actually rip off strong leather supports. Also one of the patients actually ripped one of the hospital's pool tables off the floor and threw it through the window on the nursing station. With some patients, it took a dose of Thorazine equal to what you would give an elephant, to calm them down. Sorry, but your sources aren't accurate. Indeed, if you take a look at military literature, there are many examples of superhuman strength being exhibited in battles. Even hear of McCullough's Leap? He and his horse jumped off a cliff up 300 feet and landed safely below. That's firmly documented. So is th4e case of one of Washington's soldiers carrying a 1200-pound canon on his shoulder, which is now on a postage stamp. Washington himself called him a one-man army or wrecking crew.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 97 by American Deist]

As I mentioned in a recent post, I was a clinical- psychology trainee in the VA. I saw patients do things like that. So I'm with you on this one.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 98 by 2timothy316]

Where does the OP state that the Bible is authoritative and what does that mean? The NWT is under discussion, but I don't view it as authoritative at all.

[American Deist]

The NWT is under discussion, but I don't view it as authoritative at all.

Neither do I.

None of the "translators" were even fluent with Hebrew or Greek. When the NWT came out in 1950, the committee that worked on it requested that the Watch Tower Society not publish the names of the "translators." Gee, I wonder why?!

Eventually the beans were spilled when Walter Martin identified Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel as the "translators." The only one of those men that had any college education was Franz, and he dropped out after 2 years.

What I find interesting is that the Watch Tower Society discourages its college students from taking courses like biology and astronomy. Can't have them learning about evolution or how the Earth is not the center of creation!

As a side note, www.biblegateway.com refuses to list the NWT as a recognized translation.

And before anyone gets bent out of shape, here is a snippet from the rules for this sub-forum:

No single translation trumps another, and when differences of opinion arise regarding various translations, Hebrew and Greek sources will have a greater authority. Sticking to a single translation to prove your point, when the majority of translations disagree, is not allowed, and your point must then be proven by deferring to the original language in which it was written.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 100 by American Deist]

So you have nothing showing someone breaking Roman iron shackles and fetters. Ok Thanks.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 105 by American Deist]

Many JWs don't use just the NWT. We use several. Read the book "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn.

"Written with the student and interested public in mind, Truth in Translation aims to explain what is involved and what is at stake in Bible translation. It begins with brief treatments of the background to the Bible and its translation, the various approaches to translation, and the specific origins of nine translation versions in wide use in the English-speaking world today. It then proceeds to compare those versions on nine points of translation, ranging from individual terms, to difficult passages, to whole categories of grammar. The book serves to inform readers of the forces at work shaping the meaning of the Bible, to help in their selection of Bible translations, and to act as a critical catalyst for the improvement of Bible translations through more careful attention to the risk of bias in the translation process."

Guess one of the translations he calls the most accurate and non-bias...

David BeDuhn wrote: The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers."Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

There are many more professors and the like that call the NWT one of the most accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek available.

[JehovahsWitness]

As a side note, www.biblegateway.com refuses to list the NWT as a recognized translation.

How do you know it was bible gate that refused to list the NWT rather than the other way round? The NWT is copyrighted like most Translations and posted on there own website, so permission may well have been denied to post it except there.


And before anyone gets all bent out of shape about that I'll post a link as proof that JW have indeed there own website.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books






[/quote]

[Checkpoint]

As a side note, www.biblegateway.com refuses to list the NWT as a recognized translation.

How do you know it was bible gate that refused to list the NWT rather than the other way round? The NWT is copyrighted like most Translations and posted on there own website, so permission may well have been denied to post it except there.


And before anyone gets all bent out of shape about that I'll post a link as proof that JW have indeed there own website.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books

Why would such a denial be a policy?

One would have thought having the NWT alongside other translations would be seen as a positive move toward wider acceptance.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 109 by Checkpoint]

I'm not saying it is, I don't know, I'm saying it is a possibility since the Watchtower Society has not to my knowledge given permission to any other website to platform it's publications.

In any case the Watchtower Society is one of, if not the, largest publishing company in the world, publishes the most widely circulated magazine in the world and is currently #1 in Alexa's Christianity Catagory* (having toppled the mighty "biblegate" itself) maybe they are following a policy of "If it ain't broke..."




* I do believe no Catholic websites make the top ten. The Vatican website is nowhere to be seen.