Is Jehovah's Witness Christain

[Donray]

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith

.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
•Taking verses out of their immediate context.
•Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
•Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
•Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
•Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
•Changing the meanings of words.
•Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
•Adding to the Word of God.

I thought that any Christina church needed to believe in the Trinity otherwise they are not Christian.

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

[Donray]

Donray...you haven't answered my questions there in post #5. Why? You made some important accusations against JWs and yet you haven't clarified what you are accusing us for. When you accuse, you really must allow the defendant to be able to defend themselves. Clearly delineate your accusations.

The following will give you the examples you want.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/jehovahwitness.htm
http://www.soundwitness.org/jw/jw_and_b ... ophecy.htm

JWs created there own version of the bible that matches the founders ideas and beliefs.

If you disagree with the above, why don't you list all the bible scholars that did the translation. Also could you please list the material use for the translation.

It seem they just used a an already existing English translation and made changes to it. So prove this wrong list all the people that did the translation and there qualifications.

PS all of Christians religions also use things out of context, charge the meanings, pick out pieces that support there religion, etc. Look what the Christin Mormons did, created a whole new bible.

Not just picking on the JWs. I am trying to figure out the minimum beliefs that make one a Christian.

[onewithhim]

Donray...you haven't answered my questions there in post #5. Why? You made some important accusations against JWs and yet you haven't clarified what you are accusing us for. When you accuse, you really must allow the defendant to be able to defend themselves. Clearly delineate your accusations.

The following will give you the examples you want.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/jehovahwitness.htm
http://www.soundwitness.org/jw/jw_and_b ... ophecy.htm

JWs created there own version of the bible that matches the founders ideas and beliefs.

If you disagree with the above, why don't you list all the bible scholars that did the translation. Also could you please list the material use for the translation.

It seem they just used a an already existing English translation and made changes to it. So prove this wrong list all the people that did the translation and there qualifications.

PS all of Christians religions also use things out of context, charge the meanings, pick out pieces that support there religion, etc. Look what the Christin Mormons did, created a whole new bible.

Not just picking on the JWs. I am trying to figure out the minimum beliefs that make one a Christian.

No, those sites will not give me the answers I want. I want YOU to answer in your own words my questions to you in my post #5. If you can't, then you don't really know what you're talking about, do you.

And I listed for you in post #37 five things (as you asked) that a Christian must believe.

JWs did not just take an already existing translation and "make changes." They studied WESTCOTT & HORT'S translation work and used their expertise, which went back to the original languages and translated as close to the original meaning as possible. Westcott & Hort are respected the world over.


BTW, you ARE "just picking on JWs," because the theme of the thread is: "IS JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHRISTIAN."

[Donray]

JWs did not just take an already existing translation and "make changes." They studied work and used their expertise, which went back to the original languages and translated as close to the original meaning as possible. Westcott & Hort are respected the world over.

Did I not say that the founders or whoever (and you did not answer my question of who wrote your bible) just massaged a already translated version and just added there spin?

Why are you afraid tell us who wrote your bible and what qualification where/are?

I guess you are admitting that they did not use original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

Again, list the actual people and there qualifications that did the translations and wrote the JW bible.

[tigger2]

[Replying to Donray ]

Donray wrote:

JWs created there own version of the bible that matches the founders ideas and beliefs.

If you disagree with the above, why don't you list all the bible scholars that did the translation. Also could you please list the material use for the translation.

It seem they just used a an already existing English translation and made changes to it. So prove this wrong list all the people that did the translation and there qualifications.

Since JW's have not revealed the names of the writers of their articles and other writings for at least 70 years, it is disingenuous to insist that they do so now.

The real test of a translation is the translation itself, not who wrote it.

1. So why don't you show us where the NWT has just copied from another translation? (By the way many, if not most, compare other translations when they translate their own. In fact many are actual revisions of earlier versions.)

And 2. Please show us where they have dishonestly made changes to an existing translation.

The WTS has used the same Masoretic text used by most Bible translators for the OT. As you can see for yourself, they used the Westcott and Hort text for the NT. Just look at the Kingdom Interlinear, for example.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 64 by tigger2]

Fine, the JW religion has the correct translation of the Hebrew OT and the earliest Greek version of the NT. Any other bible should be discarded.

The JW are correct in the Jesus is not the son of God and the trinity is BS. The JW bible which is the accurate translation and interpretation of the bible should be used as the real source for Christian beliefs.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 65 by Donray]

I take that sarcasm as an admission that you are unable to provide proper evidence for your accusations.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 65 by Donray]

I take that sarcasm as an admission that you are unable to provide proper evidence for your accusations.

No I provided you with many WEB sites that state the problems.

What I concede is that JW is the only true Christian religion and that Jesus is not God. but a separate deity that you worship.

I concede that you think what you believe is true and no amount of debate would change your mind.

I concede that the JW religion will never tell how there interpretation of the bible came about.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 67 by Donray]

Since JW's have not revealed the names of the writers of their articles and other writings for at least 70 years, it is disingenuous to insist that they do so now.
The real test of a translation is the translation itself, not who wrote it.

1. So why don't you show us a few scriptures where the NWT has just copied from another translation? (By the way many, if not most, compare other translations when they translate their own. In fact many are actual revisions of earlier versions.)

And 2. Please show us a few scriptures where they have dishonestly made changes to an existing translation.

3. JWs do not worship Jesus! They worship the only true God, the Father (John 17:3).

[tigger2]

Donray wrote:

No I provided you with many WEB sites that state the problems.

OK, to give you a kickstart, here are some quotes from one of your sources:

“The orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity has always been: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit being three distinct co-eternal persons, sharing one indivisible Divine essence.�
….

“ …we can understand quite plainly the usages of the term monogenes, not in the Jehovah Witnesses' sense of creatureliness, but in the true biblical sense of "uniqueness," i.e., ‘the unique or only Son of God,’ generated in the womb of a woman by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ ‘The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13).� - bible probe.com

………………………………...

The trinity doctrine as believed today was not a part of Christian doctrine before 381 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Theodosius insisted that the HS be added to the "godhead" and enforced it upon the Church throughout his empire.

“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian .... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT [New Testament] and other early Christian writings.� - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings.

“In this period [1st century A.D.] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members prayed three times a day and fasted twice a week like Jews... They professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. .... Within individual congregations they continued to think, argue, and act like their Jewish counterparts.� - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

“Speculative thought began to analyze the divine nature until in the 4th century an elaborate theory of a threefoldness in God appears. In this Nicene or Athanasian form of thought God is said to consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally eternal, powerful and glorious.� - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 6, p. 619, “Christianity�.


As for the above statements by your source which condemn the JWs understanding of certain scriptural knowledge, I’ll start with the claim by your source concerning Titus 2:13 above:

Titus 2:13

This is a disputed scripture (even by trinitarian scholars) and is therefore unworthy of inclusion as “proof.�

Bible translations (mostly trinitarian) old and new:

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious [F9] appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Note: 'F9 glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ' - http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?l= ... &oq=&sr=1

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

“Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Cristou Ihsou). …. According to A.V. [KJV] two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced. 155� - Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.

And, finally, concerning Titus 2:13, the steadfastly trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament (vol. 4, p. 195) says specifically of Titus 2:13:

"On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument - [Sharp's Rule] - is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτὴ� ['savior'] in I Tim. i. I, iv. 10 [1:1; 4:10]."

If you have any honest interest in the subject of Sharp’s Rule (which includes Titus 2:13), you will see my whole study of it here:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ule.html

My next post will discuss your source's use of monogenes.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 69 by tigger2]

Next let’s see what the NT Greek term monogenes really means:

Onlybegotten " (monogenes)

Monogenes is frequently mistranslated in certain scriptures by trinitarian translators as “only� or “unique.� But “only� is intended by NT writers by monos (see John 17:3 for example - “only [monos] true God.�

Anything that is "begotten" or "born" (or a "son"), then, is something that at one time did not exist and then was brought into existence. (E.g., Adam, the creation by God, was called the "SON of God" - Luke 3:38.)

This does not refer simply to Jesus' earthly existence but also to his original heavenly existence as shown by 1 John 4:9 which refers to the time when Jesus was "in the beginning with God," even "before the world was." - (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24). At that time he was already "the only-begotten [monogenes] Son." - 1 John 4:9, NASB, ASV, KJV.

Even the highly trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 813, admits that Jesus was the Father's "only-begotten Son" before he came to earth.

Since angels are called "gods" and "sons of God" in the Bible itself (see DEF-4, 5), Jesus cannot properly be called the "only" god or the "only" Son of God as some trinitarians want to translate monogenes ("only-begotten") at John 1:18. But they (as trinitarians) still don't like Jesus being described as "only-begotten" because they insist on his eternal existence (as God).

So some try to claim that the last half of the word mono-genes is not from ginomai ("to come into being" ['born']) but from genos ("kind"). Hence, they claim, the term refers to "the only one of a class or kind." Thus some trinitarian translations speak of Jesus as the "only Son" rather than the "only-begotten Son" of God (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9) - KJV, ASV, NASB.

However, even if we accept the claim that genos is the correct source word for monogenes, we need to examine the claim of some trinitarians that genos does not include the meaning of "begotten"/"made." The Greek word genos has "offspring" and "birth" as some of its meanings even in my trinitarian NT Concordances (Young's Analytical Concordance of The Bible; Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible; and New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, p. 1640).

The trinitarian W. E. Vine in his highly-regarded An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 805, admits that genos is "(akin to ginomai, to become), [and] denotes an offspring."

Yes, even the trinitarian RSV and NEB were forced to use the proper meaning of "offspring" for genos itself at Rev. 22:16 - "I Jesus ....am the root and offspring [genos] of David." Compare Acts 17:28, 29 - "'For we indeed are his offspring [genos].' Being then God's offspring [genos], we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, silver or stone..." - RSV.

According to certain trinitarians, then, the above scriptures plainly state that Jesus must be one of the kind [genos] of David [or of the David kind]- Rev. 22:16, and Christians and non-Christian Athenians must be of the God kind [genos] - Acts 17:28, 29. This is obviously ridiculous and the proper meaning of "begotten" or "made/produced" cannot be avoided in these scriptures! Christians (and the men of Athens whom Paul was speaking to) were made or created by God and are His genos ("offspring" or "begotten") in that sense!

And, if we want a more neutral source, we could go to a secular authority - the ultimate authority for speakers of American English - Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged). In tracing the source of the prefix gen- this outstanding reference book tells us it comes from the Greek genos which comes from "the stem of [the Greek] gignesthai to be born." We can see then that the Greek word genos literally must include the meaning of "birth," "production," "creation" [whether you choose to translate it as "race," "kind," etc. or not] and cannot mean an only kind (which has always existed)!

And, perhaps more important, that same highly-regarded authority tells us that the suffix -gen comes from the Greek suffix -genes [as in monogenes above] which means "born, fr[om] root of gignesthai to be born." (Also see -gen in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.) Here we can see that the Greek suffix in monogenes actually comes from gignesthai (not genos which some trinitarians prefer but which also comes from gignesthai anyway) and it truly, properly means to be born. Gignesthai itself is simply the infinitive form ("to be born") of gignomai (or ginomai) which are present tense forms of this same passive verb. - see pp. 168, 85, 86, and 97 in Marshall's New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan, 1962.

Even the very trinitarian NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible agrees that genos comes from ginomai [or gignomai] which means "to come into being" - p. 1640.

And respected trinitarian scholars Liddell and Scott tell us (under "monogenes") that monogenes is from gignomai. Then (under "gignomai") they say that gignomai means "to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born .... 2. of things, to be produced" - An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press.

Notice what famed trinitarian scholar of New Testament Greek, Dr. Alfred Marshall, tells us about ginomai (also written gignomai):

"The verb now before us [ginomai], on the other hand, denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb is therefore not used of God, save as He is relatively to the creature, as in Heb. 11.6 ['God... becomes (ginetai) the rewarder of those seeking Him.']." - Notice that the NWT is one of the few Bibles which translates this verse correctly.

E. Robinson's A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the definition of monogenes as "only born, only begotten, i.e., an only child."

W. E. Vine says about monogenes: "only begotten ([monos] and genos
, offspring)" - p. 811.

W. J. Hickie's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1963 ed.) also gives: "only begotten."

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by G. Kittel (Vol. iv, pp. 738-741, 1967 ed.) says, speaking of the use of monogenes in the New Testament,

"It means 'only-begotten.' ... In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; [and John] 1:18
the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.... In [the writings of John, monogenes] denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In John 'monogenes' denotes the origin of Jesus. He is 'monogenes' as the only-begotten."

And even the very trinitarian Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and the equally trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible both tell us that monogenes is derived from monos ("alone") and ginomai ("to come into being") and means "only begotten"! - p. 1667, NAS Exhaustive Concordance (cf. Strong's #3439 and #1096).

So it is not surprising that the famous NT scholar (and a trinitarian, of course), the Rev. Alfred Marshall, translated monogenes in his most literal, word-for-word rendering of John 1:18 as "only begotten," p. 265, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975.

‘Monogenes’ literally, honestly, means “only-begotten� or “only-born.� Many trinitarian-translated Bibles mistranslate this as though it were the NT Greek word ‘monos’ (‘only’).

My next post will examine your sources use of ‘God manifest in the flesh’ as quoted in a previous post above. Then it will be your turn to show a few of the JWs translational 'errors' that insense you so much.