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?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 150 by onewithhim]
I didn't mention Hebrews 1:8

[onewithhim]

Please do not state something is fact when you don't know for sure. Be careful about finding fault with Jesus' own guidance of his people. He knows which is the best translation.

Please demonstrate in your own words (not via link) that the NWT is a "Jesus approved"
translation.

IF Jesus has an organization on this earth today, surely he would point it to the best translation, IMHO. We believe that God and Jesus have an organization on the earth today, as Jehovah did in ancient times with the Israelites. Having studied the various Bible versions, including the NWT, for accuracy, Jehovah's people have decided that the NWT is the closest to an accurate rendering that can be found. If this organization has been blessed with the likes of the NWT---from the understanding of Westcott & Hort---we view it as guidance by Jesus Christ who has been intimately guiding his Father's organization since 1914.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 150 by onewithhim]
I didn't mention Hebrews 1:8

Oh, pardon me. You didn't know that the writer of Hebrews 1:8 quoted Psalm 45:6? (Actually, it's Psalm 45:7 in the TANAKH.) Either way, whether you look at Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:7, the argument is the same, is it not?

The Hebrew TANAKH has a different rendering than the NIV.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 153 by onewithhim]
I knew. You seem rather programmed in your response to these texts?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 153 by onewithhim]
I knew. You seem rather programmed in your response to these texts?

You knew what? I said what I said because of my own examination of the verses. If you know so much, then answer my post above about Psalm 45:6. Is it that you don't want to read something just because it disagrees with you? Isn't that what we're doing here---discussing varying viewpoints? I'd like your answer to my post #150.

[2timothy316]

I keep asking for an example, but I see you are done with this thread now, so I guess it is easier to just walk away then backup your own accusations.

In case you missed this part from an earlier reply:

Now then, let's use some common sense here. Who is most likely right with regard to the NWT being an authoritative version?

1. Numerous PhD's that are fluent with Hebrew and Greek, that reject the NWT, often pointing out its many errors.

2. The NWT authors that were not fluent with Hebrew/Greek, and had no formal education in biblical studies/language.


I am done. Reply if you want to, but the only other thing I will be posting here is the response from my biblegateway.com inquiry.

No. Specific examples in Scripture. Just saying 'it has errors' is insufficient. What errors. Show your text in the NWT where it's wrong. If you can't then you should retract your accusation because if you are not willing to support your accusation with scripture comparison then you should retract it. Actually I haven't seen anyone give specific examples yet other than the NWT uses the name Jehovah in the NT. We have a love for God's name and where it appears in the Hebrew scriptures and then the Hebrew scriptures are quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Where the divine name is quoted we kept it. Where in the NT it's speaking of the Almighty the name Jehovah is added. The only ones that have a problem with this are trinitarians. Others that are not, get it. There are even other Bibles that do it. http://restorationstudybible.org/ There is even a KJV with the divine name restored in the NT in it's proper places. With the addition of the name Jehovah it doesn't change the message. It simply gives Almighty God's name proper glory but it doesn't glorify the trinity and for many that is a problem. Which if you look at the 'scholars' that have a problem with the NWT, all the scriptures they point to as having a problem with have something to do with the singled out scriptures that people try to prove the trinity.

[JehovahsWitness]

Could you explain this text?

Psalm 45:6New International Version (NIV)

6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Translated from the NWT

6 God is your throne forever and ever;+
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.*+

QUESTION How should Psalms 145:6 be properly translated?

Psalm 45 speaks of a marriage of a triumphant king; while this may refers to King Solomon*, it is generally accepted to ALSO be a description of the Messiah in kingdom power. Verse 5 reads:

"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" - NIV
"God is your throne forever and ever " - NWT

In the in the first reading, the "O God" indicates the writer is addressing God Himself. While in the second, the indication is that the throne (royal kingdom) of the king, is from God. Which is right?

* American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.


Literally the words in the Hebrew are: throne - God - ever - ever and according to The Masoretic Text it can be rendered:



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2645.htm


And various translations translate the verse as follows:
http://biblehub.com/psalms/45-6.htm

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Your throne, God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. (also see ISV, WEB, & New Heart English Bible)

JPS Tanakh 1917
Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

RSV: Your Divine throne [footnote: Or your throne is a throne of God.]

NEB: Your throne is like Gods throne.

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version): Thy throne given of God.

The Bible in Living English (Byington): God is your throne.

GNB: The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.

REB: God has enthroned you for all eternity.

NJB: your throne is from God.

The above demonstrates that, while the text itself is somewhat ambiguous, several translators have favored the reading that the writer is speaking about the king's divine support (a throne from/of God) rather than calling the King in question God. Of further note is the fact that verse 7 reads in the King James Bible

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee ...

Since the psalmist says the king in question is anointed BY God, it seems reasonable to conclude the preceding verse was not referring to that same king AS God. Indeed renowned scholar of Biblical Hebrew, H. F. W. Gesenius in renders Ps. 45:6, thy throne shall be a divine throne. - see Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament


CONCLUSION The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God...), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God...) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is, Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock. - Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.



Further Reading (An examination of parallel verse of Hebrews 1:8
http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogs ... o-god.html

[William]

[Replying to post 134 by William]
What are you getting at? I wonder why you would dismiss the variance in these texts as irrelevant? This verse is a main proof text for the divinity of Christ. I am just interested in what the correct translation is.

What I am saying is that the translations you are complaining about don't appear to make any twist in the meaning sufficiently to make it different for that.

Translations are really interesting.

NIV 'what is gods throne?
NWT 'GOD is gods throne.
NIV "what is justice?"
NWT "Uprightness"
NIV 'What symbolic ornament does GODs Kingdom use to identify itself? "Justice".
NWT 'What symbolic ornament does GODs Kingdom use to identify itself? "Uprightness".

Q: Is Uprightness a necessary aspect of Justice?
Q: Is GODs Uprightness a necessary aspect of Justice?

Can you explain your complaint as to the NWT translation in this please.

Q: Why do you think one translation is correct and the other incorrect?

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 116 by benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 113 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 124 by benchwarmer]

Here is the answer from www.biblegateway.com:

Elizabeth, Feb 17, 13:12 EST:
Hi Chris,

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your question. The Watch Tower Society petitioned us to include the New World Translation in our database. After extensive internal discussion, it is Bible Gateway's view that the New World Translation represents a theological tradition different enough from our other Bibles that it is inadvisable to present it alongside them. We want to make sure that the Bibles on our website are within the bounds of our statement of faith, which you can find here: https://www.biblegateway.com/about/faith/

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have more questions.

God bless!

Elizabeth
Bible Gateway Customer Support



Well now...

The NWT failed to meet the criteria that 55 other translations passed, that are included in their database. Nothing else needs to be said.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 116 by benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 113 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 124 by benchwarmer]

Here is the answer from www.biblegateway.com:

Elizabeth, Feb 17, 13:12 EST:
Hi Chris,

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your question. The Watch Tower Society petitioned us to include the New World Translation in our database. After extensive internal discussion, it is Bible Gateway's view that the New World Translation represents a theological tradition different enough from our other Bibles that it is inadvisable to present it alongside them. We want to make sure that the Bibles on our website are within the bounds of our statement of faith, which you can find here: https://www.biblegateway.com/about/faith/

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have more questions.

God bless!

Elizabeth
Bible Gateway Customer Support



Well now...

The NWT failed to meet the criteria that 55 other translations passed, that are included in their database. Nothing else needs to be said.

Ah so they discriminate based on doctrine not translation. They don't have scholars policing the Bible translations added...interesting.

We want to make sure that the Bibles on our website are within the bounds of our statement of faith, which you can find here: https://www.biblegateway.com/about/faith/

From their link.

Statement of Faith for Bible Gateway

Doctrine of God. There is only one true God. He exists eternally as three persons " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit " each fully God yet each personally distinct from the other. God is the creator of everything.

Also, don't expect Biblehub.com to accept the NWT either. Not based on translation but they base their choice by a 'faith statement' as well. Guess what theirs says...

http://biblehub.com/faithstatement.htm
Statement of Faith

b) We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Sounds like someone is rushing to to believe something without first examining all the evidence. Who here is familiar with the term 'credulity'?

I remember someone saying there wasn't a conspiracy discriminate involving the trinity? Care to rephrase? Perhaps someone is ready to actually show us the mistranslated scriptures? Maybe ready to do their own investigation rather than just believing what some else says? See what all the fuss is about.