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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 80 by onewithhim] But they had been appointed the first members of the governing body and therefore everybody had to believe them or be disfellowshipped. That might be construed as scoffing but isn't that your understanding ?

I don't get what that has to do with what I posted in post #80.

[onewithhim]

Isn't it odd.....Jesus' disciples had NO formal higher learning and yet they had the credentials to teach the Good News of God's Kingdom to the world.

Are these the same disciples that believed in demonic possession instead of medical conditions such as epilepsy?

If the Bible says it was demonic possession, then that is what it was. There have even been modern occurrences of it. May I ask---you have degrees in theology but yet you make statements that make it seem like you don't really respect the Bible?

[tam]

It was just an explanation that when the Bible uses a 'cloud' in reference to Jesus' return think obscured. Men of Gali-lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky. So his return will be the same as his exit. Obscured. Thus why the angel said, 'why are do you stand looking into the sky' since they will not see him coming from the sky.

Peace to you!


This explanation is ignoring the part about them having SEEN Him go up UNTIL the cloud obscured Him from their sight. If He is returning in the same way that He left (and He is, as the text also corroborates) then He will descend in a cloud UNTIL He is once again SEEN.


The text does not state that they were only perceiving Him going up; and since He returns in the same manner as He left, then His return is not merely perceived but SEEN.



You are focusing solely upon the cloud, but ignoring (or not seeing) the TRUTH that they SAW Him (literally) go up before the cloud hid him from their sight.


"This [Jesus] who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky"



Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

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.

You are all wet. None of those men translated the NWT. The NWT was rendered from translating work by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. This is nothing that has been hidden. The NWT stays true to this text-base of Westcott & Hort, and does not draw in readings from inferior traditional texts, as happens with the NASB, AB, the LB and others. The members of the NWT committee are anonymous (because they didn't want personal credit for God's Word), just as the members are anonymous for the New King James Bible and the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible.

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.

(See Truth in Translation by BeDuhn, pp.8,38)


And where on earth do you get the idea that the WT doesn't want its members educating themselves with Biology and Astronomy?? That is a real laugh! We are encouraged to learn about Science. Much of the articles in our magazines are scientifically based. We learn more about our Creator when we learn Science.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

The members of the "translation committee" are known. And none had university degrees. Franz, who served as head haunch, testified, in open court, in England, that he could not read Hebrew. He sais the translation was done by the Holy Spirit communicating with the Watchtower office. Probably, it really isn't a translation at all, just a paraphrase quote, bludgeoned here and there to suit the Society's tastes, from previous translations.

[postroad]

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.

. Do you see the irony in this statement?

[onewithhim]

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.

If you are going to quote Wiki, at least give credit to the source so that it is not plagiarized. You left out a part:

Jason BeDuhn wrote that the NWT's introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not an accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy".[292]

He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed].

He was only comparing 8 translations, not every translation. He has since been blasted and ridiculed by countless scholars holding PhD's that are fluent with biblical languages.



If you want a review of the NWT by one of the world's most prominent NT scholars of the 20th century: http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

Dr. Metzger earned a PhD in Greek Studies from Princeton. He served as a professor at Princeton for decades. He was a member of the board for the American Bible Society as well as the United Bible Society. He was elected president of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas and Society of Biblical Literature.

The man had more credentials with regard to the NT Greek than most other people on the planet. This is what he had to say about the NWT:

"It is manifestly impossible to attempt to refute in one brief article even a fraction of the distortions of Biblical interpretation perpetrated in the voluminous writings of this sect."



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.

Sadly, you are distorting the truth of a matter, and very slickly at that. Dr. BeDuhn said in his book that the NWT was superior to most other versions, and gave detailed reasons. Have you actually read the book? If not, don't trash it.

Having lauded the NWT throughout his book, BeDuhn ended it by saying that he didn't like the NWT inserting "Jehovah" in the New Testament, because in the manuscripts that he personally is familiar with, the name of God doesn't appear. He thinks that God's name---even though it would be in a quotation---should not be in the New Testament only because it has been left out of those Christian Greek Scriptures, for whatever reason.

Your mention of the NWT being "not bias-free" might give someone the very wrong idea. BeDuhn brought out the point that MOST versions of the Bible are not bias-free. Every version has its biased committee. He feels that the NWT sticks the closest to translation rules. The only bias he sees that merits some criticism is the usage of Jehovah's name in the N.T.

Post some proof of how BeDuhn has been "blasted and ridiculed," please. So far it's just your say-so.

Metzger has been quoted in many different ways. And he's just one scholar out of many. He is obviously biased toward a trinity slant on everything. BeDuhn has no such ax to grind.

Jehovah'sWitness and others have posted lists of scholars that find the NWT to be very good. Your word isn't anything in stone.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 119 by 2timothy316]

Because like so many others, I too have studied Hebrew and Greek. That comes with having a Th.D., as biblical language studies are required in a graduate program. When you KNOW something means X, but someone that lacks the necessary education writes it to mean Y, it tends to irritate.

Explain why BeDuhn is wrong in his explanations of Greek grammar rules. Take one of the chapters in his book and go through it paragraph by paragraph. Surely you can do such a thing. You have criticized the book and BeDuhn's scholarship, so put your money where your mouth is. If you can criticize it so thoroughly you must have read it. So take a chapter---there are at least three that are short---and dismantle it paragraph by paragraph, if not sentence by sentence.

I'm interested in your response.

.

[Elijah John]

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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 130 by 2timothy316]
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.*+

I have explained it a few times before. I guess you missed it. Your translation didn't pay any attention to the original text that Hebrews 1:8 is quoting. Your version follows the KJV and figures that it is correct because it is so old, I would imagine.

The Jewish Publication Society renders the verse which Hebrews quoted from as this:

"Your divine throne is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity." (PSALM 45:7, The Hebrew/English TANAKH)

Now, this doesn't say what the versions that follow the KJV say. What is a "divine throne"? (DIVINE, as you might recall, doesn't mean that someone is God, but refers to "directly FROM God or a god," according to Webster.) "Divine throne" quite obviously means that the Messiah's throne has God's backing! God has given the throne to the Son and will support the Son on his throne forever. So why does the NIV say, "Your throne, O God"? Pure BIAS.

"Ho theos is used in Heb.1:8. Since ho theos usually means 'God,' and there are hundreds of examples of this, it is more probable that in Hebrews 1:8 ho theos means 'God.' [And not 'O God.'] The translators of most of the versions [that laud the KJV] have chosen the RARER, LESS PROBABLE way to translate ho theos. By taking it to mean 'O God,' and by putting 'is' after the two nouns ('throne' and 'God') and before the prepositional phrase 'forever and ever,' they read the verse as, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.' The KJV, NASB, NIV, NAB, AB, and LB choose to translate this way, and do not alert their readers to the uncertainties of the passage. The NRSV and TEV also put this translation into their text, while pointing out the translation options in a footnote [that is, it could be translated to say 'God is thy throne'].

"The more probable translation is 'God is your throne,' the translation found in the NWT and in the footnotes of the NRSV and TEV. Three giants of modern N.T. scholarship---Westcott, Moffatt, and Goodspeed---came to the same conclusion independently. The fact is, if this verse were quoted in the N.T. in reference to anyone else, the translators would have not hesitated to translate it as 'God is your throne...' It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who ALREADY BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred." (Truth in Translation, BeDuhn, chapter 9, pp.99-101)

In addition to that, the very next verse shows what a big problem "your throne O God" sets forth. How can God HAVE a God??? Read verse 9 of Hebrews 1: "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, GOD, YOUR GOD has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions." (NASB) Clearly, the Son is not God. Verse 9 refers to the Son's God. A better translation is needed for verse 8. And going back to the Hebrew version in Psalm 45 is one good way of finding one, and rest assured that the writer of Hebrews followed THAT line of thinking, rather than the spurious NIV version.


.