Evangelicals vs. Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I honestly cannot and will not answer your condemnations. You have too many false positives in your tirade.

Sounds like the WTS, in a nut shell.

Obviously you do not read the Bible, and just hope that the JWs cannot back up what they say.

How do I "hope the JWs cannot back up what they say", when I've been explicitly challenging you (them) to "show me a scripture that says x, y, or z".

Makes no sense.

AS for the NWT it is the most accurate rendition of the Holy Scriptures you will ever get....But be good to your self and pick the parts that you disagree with and research those parts.

You might like to read these comments from learned men who are not JWs, but see value where it stands.

In a letter dated December 8, 1950, noted translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote regarding the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.�
Bible translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed

Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.�—The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.

Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.�—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.

Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.�—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.

Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.�—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.

Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators “possessed an unusual competence in Greek.�—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.

In his review of the New World Translation that forms part of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Associate Professor Thomas N. Winter wrote: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.�—The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, page 376.

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.�

Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.� Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “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.


research other Bible and show the reviews, if you can. Do you think your knowledge is superior to the men who gave the above comments on the NWT.

Good thing someone else already answered this, and no need to beat a dead horse.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You clearly do not know anything about the New World Translation. You spew forth just what you have heard about it.

When I see stuff in the NWT that I don't see in virtually ANY OTHER translation/version, then I get suspicious. Unless you can show me ANY OTHER version/translation of the Bible that had/has the word "other" implemented in the context of Col 1:15-17.

That is just one of many down-right deliberate mistranslations of the NWT.

It is a highly respected version of the Bible and is translated very carefully.

Translated by whom? The WTS originally did not give the names of the translated...but after some concerned/suspicious people began to scratch and claw away at it, it was eventually discovered that the translators of the NWT were not well versed in Greek or Hebrew.

The cat is already out of the bag.

Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not base their beliefs on that version ONLY.

Yet, that is the ONLY BIBLE that you will EVER see JW's use.

For almost a century, JWs preached using the King James Version. We will discuss the Bible using ANY version.

Sure, but if there is any contradiction between the NWT or any other Bible, which Bible do you think they will put over the top in this stand-off? The one that they have in their hands, perhaps?

The NWT was favored by JWs because it puts back Jehovah's name in the 7,000 places that it occurs in the original Hebrew/Aramaic, and also in the N.T., especially where Jesus quotes the O.T.

Sure, and Jesus also quoted (made reference to) the Old Testament in the infamous John 8:58 scripture, and look at how the NWT chopped up that scripture. A deliberate and painfully obvious mistranslation.

You see, it isn't about conducting a proper/accurate translation of the scriptures and simply letting the Bible speak for itself. Oh no. With the WTS, it is about translating the Bible so that it fits ones own theology.

Just let the Bible speak for itself. Is that asking too much?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to hoghead1]

So by your own confession you are not a Christian....End of discussion.

So lets see...

1. A religion that was founded by a man that was in to pyramidology.
2. A religion that has made dozens upon dozens of false prophecies.
3. A religion that has had its fair share of accusations of sexual abuse among members.
4. A religion that has brain washed its members to believe that blood transfusions are unBiblical, which lead to the death of many members who refused blood transfusions.
5. A religion that teaches that their way is the truth instead of "Jesus is the Truth".

Yet, he aint a Christian, but Jehovah's Witnesses are? SMH.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to hoghead1]

So by your own confession you are not a Christian....End of discussion.

So lets see...

1. A religion that was founded by a man that was in to pyramidology.

Yes, Jesus was a man. So technically your not wrong.

2. A religion that has made dozens upon dozens of false prophecies.

Did you know that the Catholics, Lutherans, Baptist. Jews and many others have failed to determine the coming of Jesus? Show me a religion that hasn't failed at some prediction. At least Witnesses don't hold on to things like Christmas, the trinity, hellfire and an eternal soul. All of which have been proven false in the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... tic_events

3. A religion that has had its fair share of accusations of sexual abuse among members.

Show me a religion that is immune to some member doing some kind of horrible act. We don't condone such things and we follow the laws of the country we are in concerning such matters.

4. A religion that has brain washed its members to believe that blood transfusions are unBiblical, which lead to the death of many members who refused blood transfusions.

Brainwashing is not a scientific fact. It has never been proven so it doesn't exist.

Acts 15:29 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." We follow this. Why do you hate us for following this?

5. A religion that teaches that their way is the truth instead of "Jesus is the Truth".

The Bible is truth. Or do you not agree with 1 Timothy 3:16,17?

[jgh7]

4. A religion that has brain washed its members to believe that blood transfusions are unBiblical, which lead to the death of many members who refused blood transfusions.

Brainwashing is not a scientific fact. It has never been proven so it doesn't exist.

Acts 15:29 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." We follow this. Why do you hate us for following this?

If I understand this correctly, are you defending the refusal of blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? It's one thing for a grown adult to refuse it for themselves, but I imagine they could refuse it for their children when it would have saved their child's life. I find that abhorrent and evil.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to marakorpa]

What? That crazy? I'm not only Christian, I have my Ph.D. in Christian theology.

Your Ph.D. in "Christian" theology means nothing. All that theology is misleading and spurious. It is the teaching of "wolves that will enter in among you," as Paul warned at Acts 20:29,30. You have clung to the twisted falsehoods of the men who started the great Apostacy that went from the end of the 1st century right up to today. You didn't get a Ph.D. in true Christian teaching, so don't brag about that. The pagans of the 1st century would be giving you a high-five.

[2timothy316]

If I understand this correctly, are you defending the refusal of blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? It's one thing for a grown adult to refuse it for themselves, but I imagine they could refuse it for their children when it would have saved their child's life. I find that abhorrent and evil.

If you don't want to follow the Bible then don't. If your faith is in blood as the only thing that can save a life, then so be it. If you think life in this broken down world is all there is for your child, then so be it.

As for JWs we believe the Bible, that this is not all there is to life. There is eternal life for those that follow God's commandments in the Bible. Where as those that give their children blood knowing Jehovah doesn't approve will have to answer to God not to people for breaking the commandment found in the book of Acts. So it's not a lack of caring or love that we don't force blood transfusions on our children but the ultimate display of faith in Jehovah. There are no guarantees blood will save anyone. But with Jehovah life IS guaranteed. Many are told blood will save them and die anyway. Or take blood and it's the blood that kills them. Why don't you shame those folks?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... usion.html

Because they don't get the bad press, that's why. It's not easy to find an article like the one above. Because newspapers get more readers when it's a religious person dying for their beliefs. Yet a person dies from a blood transfusion, it is hardly a story at all. It's because you parrot what you are told to say about blood and JWs by the media.

[onewithhim]

I agree with tam that "there is no error in Christ."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 359 by For_The_Kingdom]

You have been challenging JWs to answer your stuff with "x,y & z" and they haven't been able to answer you....is that what you're saying? Far from the truth! You have been getting answers to everything you bring up. At least be THAT honest.

[onewithhim]

4. A religion that has brain washed its members to believe that blood transfusions are unBiblical, which lead to the death of many members who refused blood transfusions.

Brainwashing is not a scientific fact. It has never been proven so it doesn't exist.

Acts 15:29 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." We follow this. Why do you hate us for following this?

If I understand this correctly, are you defending the refusal of blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? It's one thing for a grown adult to refuse it for themselves, but I imagine they could refuse it for their children when it would have saved their child's life. I find that abhorrent and evil.

What is abhorrent and evil is your refusal to really look into the facts about blood transfusions. There is a tremendous amount of current information about bloodless medicine and its advantages. Check it out. Doctors are finding out that JWs were right all along. I just had 5 hours of surgery without blood, and my surgeon said, "Oh, I do it all the time!" There are alternatives that are cheaper, no side effects, and the patient recovers in less time.

If anyone has died "because they didn't have blood," guess what----they would've died ANYWAY. You are promoting a LIE, that people will die without somebody's blood transfused into their bodies. Do the research and stop promoting the lie.