"Torture stake" vs. "Cross"

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

[JehovahsWitness]

But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

Jehovah's Witness hold the BIBLE and the bible alone to be the only source document to establish their beliefs. While other non-biblical documents may be of historical interest and shed light on the bible canon and language, Jehovah's Witnesses do not defer to ANY of them when it comes to the establishment of their beliefs; thus the Jehovah's Witness view of the ransom (a central teaching) comes from the scriptures alone which we believe to be the word of God.

JW

[Elijah John]

But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

Jehovah's Witness hold the BIBLE and the bible alone to be the only source document to establish their beliefs. While other non-biblical documents may be of historical interest and shed light on the bible canon and language, Jehovah's Witnesses do not defer to ANY of them when it comes to the establishment of their beliefs; thus the Jehovah's Witness view of the ransom (a central teaching) comes from the scriptures alone which we believe to be the word of God.

JW

"Sola Scriptura" like the Evangelicals. This ignores the fact that the NT as we know it is a Church document and emerges from a Church context. It is the RCC that turned Paul's opinions, theological speculation/meanderings, and pastoral advice/ preaching into Sacred Scripture.

The fact that Luther and the Reformers reduced the Canon by omitting the Aprocrapha, does not negate the fact that the Bible (or NT anyway) is of Roman Catholic origin.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]


However the bible canon came about, we accept it as the source document and absolute authority for our beliefs. This is not debatable, it is a fact that I am communicating about the basis for Jehovah's Witness doctrine, presented in response to the suggestion that we should be unduly influenced by non canonical writings.

I am simply presenting a clarification in this regard. You are free to conclude we are wrong to believe as we do.

JW

[2timothy316]

But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

Jehovah's Witness hold the BIBLE and the bible alone to be the only source document to establish their beliefs. While other non-biblical documents may be of historical interest and shed light on the bible canon and language, Jehovah's Witnesses do not defer to ANY of them when it comes to the establishment of their beliefs; thus the Jehovah's Witness view of the ransom (a central teaching) comes from the scriptures alone which we believe to be the word of God.

JW

"Sola Scriptura" like the Evangelicals.

Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses are more 'sola scriptura' than Evangelicals. There are things the Bible says that even Evangelicals don't follow. Those that want to do their own thing will always be brought face to face with the Bible when it comes to JWs. I'm happy to hear someone call us 'sola scriptura' because so many say we aren't. It's actually funny that we are called both sola scriptura and not sola scriptura. Thanks EJ for the support and huge compliment.

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Yes, that's us!

[onewithhim]

But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

Jehovah's Witness hold the BIBLE and the bible alone to be the only source document to establish their beliefs. While other non-biblical documents may be of historical interest and shed light on the bible canon and language, Jehovah's Witnesses do not defer to ANY of them when it comes to the establishment of their beliefs; thus the Jehovah's Witness view of the ransom (a central teaching) comes from the scriptures alone which we believe to be the word of God.

JW

"Sola Scriptura" like the Evangelicals. This ignores the fact that the NT as we know it is a Church document and emerges from a Church context. It is the RCC that turned Paul's opinions, theological speculation/meanderings, and pastoral advice/ preaching into Sacred Scripture.

The fact that Luther and the Reformers reduced the Canon by omitting the Aprocrapha, does not negate the fact that the Bible (or NT anyway) is of Roman Catholic origin.

May I say, "So what?" Jehovah has used many pagan nations to carry out His will when something needed to be corrected or established. E.g., He had warned Israel over and over and over---to return to Him and stop their evil ways. But even after centuries of warnings, they would not stop worshiping the Queen of the Heavens and other pagan Gods, and they treated each other very badly. So Jehovah disciplined them through the Babylonians. Then in 70 A.D. it was the Romans. It's no great thing that the RCC put together the Bible canon....Jehovah has used pagan entities before.


.

[onewithhim]

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

Yes I know that JWs are often demonized. So it also disturbs me when you/your group, demonizes others.

Yes I have defended JWs here on these boards. Both in my role as a moderator, and as a participant.

I have done so in my personal life too. With some anti-JW Evangelicals I know.

I have attended several meetings, as well had many pleasant conversations with JWs in my home.

Like I said, I just don't like to see anyone demonized. Not Catholics, not JWs, not anybody.

It doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.


.

[Elijah John]

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

Yes I know that JWs are often demonized. So it also disturbs me when you/your group, demonizes others.

Yes I have defended JWs here on these boards. Both in my role as a moderator, and as a participant.

I have done so in my personal life too. With some anti-JW Evangelicals I know.

I have attended several meetings, as well had many pleasant conversations with JWs in my home.

Like I said, I just don't like to see anyone demonized. Not Catholics, not JWs, not anybody.

It doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.


.

What lie?, careful...Jehovah hates false witness too. So I'd advise you to be very certain of your facts before you smear other religions.

And how can you be so certain that your organization doesn't "lie" too?

Why don't you give others the benifit of the doubt before you level charges and judge intent. Lies mean deliberate deception, not mistakes of doctrine.

Did Charles Taze Russell like when he predicted Jesus would return in 1914?

Or was he simply mistaken.

I prefer the more charitable option, that he was mistaken.

Do JWs lie when they say that Jesus was the pre-incarnate Michael the Archangel?

Some thinks so. Others think that is a mistaken doctrine, an unsubstantiated claim.

[Elijah John]

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

Yes I know that JWs are often demonized. So it also disturbs me when you/your group, demonizes others.

Yes I have defended JWs here on these boards. Both in my role as a moderator, and as a participant.

I have done so in my personal life too. With some anti-JW Evangelicals I know.

I have attended several meetings, as well had many pleasant conversations with JWs in my home.

Like I said, I just don't like to see anyone demonized. Not Catholics, not JWs, not anybody.

It doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.


.

I find I have a lot more peace of mind in my life when I give others the benefit of the doubt for good intentions, even if they may be mistaken on the facts.

A lie, on the other hand, involves deliberate deception. Mistakes are not deliberate deceptions.

[marco]

t doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.

God alone knows whose tongue is inclined to untruths. JWs intend to follow the Bible and intend to interpret correctly. Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are millions of devout Catholics who honour God in a way that does not discredit other humans. When we think we are without blemish and have the one true interpretation of what God wants, we should remember Matthew:

Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Christ warned against the Pharisee picking out pieces of law, claiming bright truth while ignoring the basic elements of humanity. And Demosthenes expressed it beautifully : “Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what every man wishes, that he also believes to be true.�

Take care.

[onewithhim]

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

Yes I know that JWs are often demonized. So it also disturbs me when you/your group, demonizes others.

Yes I have defended JWs here on these boards. Both in my role as a moderator, and as a participant.

I have done so in my personal life too. With some anti-JW Evangelicals I know.

I have attended several meetings, as well had many pleasant conversations with JWs in my home.

Like I said, I just don't like to see anyone demonized. Not Catholics, not JWs, not anybody.

It doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.


.

I find I have a lot more peace of mind in my life when I give others the benefit of the doubt for good intentions, even if they may be mistaken on the facts.

A lie, on the other hand, involves deliberate deception. Mistakes are not deliberate deceptions.

I believe that what I consider false religion IS deliberately deceiving the people. All those centuries of popes like the Borgias? They knew that they were putting one over on the people. They did every shady and deceitful thing they could to keep people in the dark regarding their maneuvering to stay in power and keep the wealth coming. Most of the popes and their courts were like that, and even today they follow the same guidelines. They even STILL have an office of the Inquisition. I think that any mind-set that favored the despicable Inquisition is suspect, and should be, in anyone's mind. Would you be one of the people that refused to see what was happening in their back yards in Germany during WWII when millions of people were being incinerated? Such is the seriousness even today.