God has proved his love for you

[kjw47]

Gods plan = mortals to live in an Eden( Paradise) knowing only good, never sick, never without. To live forever not aging like now. That is what Gods plan began, it is still his plan. He created all things with variety for us to enjoy. His word says, he knew us before our kidneys were formed, he knows the exact number of hairs on our heads. Think about that. God could easily see us as we see little ants scurrying about. The creator of all creation thinks about us individually and wants to be our friend. He sent his son to die on our behalf's. He asks us to use our free will out of love for him to listen to his advice. Which benefits us not him. He gave us his written word. Few have bothered to read it and learn about how merciful and loving he is. His son showed us that side while he was on earth. But he also stands for justice. And those who cant be bothered to learn about him and listen to him are choosing not to enter his kingdom and gain eternal life. His name is YHWH(Jehovah) the only true God.
Will you learn to be his friend?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

[onewithhim]

I am surprised that you found fault with those verses that you refer to in the NWT. I thought you understood the rules that allow someone to add a word to enhance the meaning of a verse.

I absolutely do. That's why I find fault with the way the NWT runs roughshod over those rules and changes the meaning of the text.

The KJV, for example, uses many other words to fill in a verse. Sometimes that is necessary.

I agree. In that vein, I defy you to find a case in the KJV where the added word actually reverses the meaning of the text. Perhaps one or more exist; the KJV certainly isn't perfect. The NWT is downright comical, though.

The KJV "paraphrased" as well, and all other versions do this. They just don't put the words in italics the way the KJV does.

They do. I've yet to find a version that isn't guilty of some amount of theological massaging of the text. Some are worse than others, though. In my opinion, the NWT is roughly as hamhanded as the NIV, for example. The NWT, however, makes this claim about itself:

We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.

Whether by accident or artifice, the NWT fails to meet this standard.

Surely you can't find fault with "gives birth prematurely" compared to "miscarriages." Don't they mean exactly the same thing?

Surely you don't believe that alive and dead are equivalent.

And "worship" and "Obeisance"---I think that is quite accurate of the NWT to use each word according to the context.

Claiming a simple context difference is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? What about the context would create more accuracy by using different words in Luke 4:8

In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

and 24:52?

And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

See if you can explain it without invoking an a priori doctrinal position.

In Luke 4:8 it is correct that we should worship Jehovah as the one true God. Since Jesus isn't God, the word "obeisance" can be used, meaning to honor and respect. We don't worship Jesus as God Almighty. This may be a doctrinal position, but it is an accurate one, taking in all the rest of the Scriptures. Jehovah is the only true God, the Most High (Psalm 83:18, KJV), and he deserves our worship. We recognize Him as the only true God. (John 17:3)

[onewithhim]

To Mae von H:

You don't answer my question as to what you meant when you said that you as an ex-JW might be something to think about, or something like that. I will assume that you don't answer because you are an ex-JW and for some reason don't want anyone to know. I will cease posting to you and your unbelievable nit-picking.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

Sorry to jump in, but the Catholics certainly cover this (bolding mine):

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-yo ... ranslation

Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted in a manner to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1, in the NWT, reads that the Word was ” a god” (rather than “God”) because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Also, in Matthew 26:26, the NWT reads “this means my body” (rather than “this is my body”) because JWs deny the Real Presence.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

Sorry to jump in, but the Catholics certainly cover this (bolding mine):

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-yo ... ranslation

Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted in a manner to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1, in the NWT, reads that the Word was ” a god” (rather than “God”) because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Also, in Matthew 26:26, the NWT reads “this means my body” (rather than “this is my body”) because JWs deny the Real Presence.

OK, thank you for your post. Catholics don't know what the Bible says, apparently. John 1:1, "a god," complies with the rules of Greek translation to English. Many Bibles translate that way, and they have been posted on this forum. It's not just the NWT. We don't deny the divinity of Christ. He is divine, yet not God. He is God's Son (John 10:36). He said so himself. The Bible says that Christ was created (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14; Proverbs 8:22-30). Check out the King James version. You are correct in that we do not believe that Christ's body materializes in the emblems that are given to parishioners at the Lord's Supper, or, the Eucharist. If that were so he would have died several times, or at least there would be so much flesh and blood consumed throughout the world that many Christs would have existed. Jesus' presence is in heaven where he sits next to his Father.

[Difflugia]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

I already linked to a conversation with "other" added to Colossians 1, so I'm not sure what more will do. I hope this conversation doesn't just turn into another one where I do your homework for you, only to have you tell me it's not good enough.

There's an easy, but tedious method of finding the added words in the NWT. They stopped putting the brackets in the regular editions, both print and electronic, but they left them in electronic editions of the Reference Bible. Open the Reference Bible in the Watchtower Library to the book you want and do a "find" (CTRL-F) for an open bracket ("["). Hit F3 to keep searching through the current book of the Bible. Most are innocuous (tons of "the [true] God," for example), but every now and then, you find something interesting.

An interesting one in Matthew is at 5:42. Here's the verse from the ESV and NWT:

Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

versus

Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one that wants to borrow from you [without interest].

This one's minor, but it adds a concept not present in the text. The word used for borrow there is a form of δανείζω, which does mean borrow, but in contemporary Greek literature, it primarily means to lend or borrow at interest. That's probably not what Jesus meant and that conclusion would perhaps make for a good footnote in a study Bible, but the NWT translators are putting words into the mouth of Jesus. The ambiguity is legitimately in the Greek text, so they are altering what the Bible says to match how they think it ought to be. Once again, that's a fine paraphrase for a translation meant for liturgical use, but the NWT translators specifically disclaim such paraphrase. Remember:

We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.

This next one is a bit more important as the way one reads the text can depend on doctrine. Here's Mark 1:4, again from ESV and NWT:

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

versus

John the baptizer turned up in the wilderness, preaching baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

Now, what is the relationship of this baptism to either repentence or forgiveness? Once again, the translators of the NWT are placing doctrine into the English translation that isn't in the Greek original and once again, this is exactly the kind of paraphrase that the NWT translators have themselves disclaimed. There's a reason that I don't quote other paraphrases like The Good News Bible, The Living Bible, or the New Living Translation when I'm discussing the relationship between the biblical text and theology. If someone wants to use them liturgically, I have no complaints. If someone wants to represent the text as it is without first going through a doctrinal filter, however, I would either use or suggest a different translation.

See if you can explain it without invoking an a priori doctrinal position.

Since Jesus isn't God

That's the a priori doctrinal position.

This may be a doctrinal position, but it is an accurate one, taking in all the rest of the Scriptures.

That's fine if you're not trying to prove your doctrinal position from the NWT. Since the NWT has doctrine read into the translation, attempting to derive doctrine from the NWT becomes a circular argument. You're just saying that a paraphrase that agrees with you is "accurate."

In the Greek, it's the same word in both places. If someone wanted to do a word study, for example, the NWT obscures that relationship. In one place, Luke says that προσκυνέω should only apply to the Lord God. In another, Luke says that the disciples did προσκυνέω to Jesus. Whether it's an "accurate" doctrine or not, the NWT translators are adding that doctrine into the text where it wasn't before. That's fine for a liturgical paraphrase, but that's not what the NWT translators claimed about their translation philosophy and not an accurate representation of what Luke wrote in Greek.

[Difflugia]

Catholics don't know what the Bible says, apparently.

You've got that backwards. If you ask a Catholic what Matthew 26:26 says, they'll get it right. τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου means "this is the body of me." You can argue with them over whether Matthew's Jesus is speaking metaphorically or not, but that's what the Bible says. If you ask a Witness that relies on the NWT, they'll get it wrong.

[onewithhim]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

I already linked to a conversation with "other" added to Colossians 1, so I'm not sure what more will do. I hope this conversation doesn't just turn into another one where I do your homework for you, only to have you tell me it's not good enough.

You haven't explained HOW the addition of "other" changes the meaning of the verse.
And I've done my homework. It's sad that you won't take what I say seriously.

[onewithhim]

Please give me an example or two showing that the NWT changes the meaning of a verse by inserting a word.

I already linked to a conversation with "other" added to Colossians 1, so I'm not sure what more will do. I hope this conversation doesn't just turn into another one where I do your homework for you, only to have you tell me it's not good enough.

There's an easy, but tedious method of finding the added words in the NWT. They stopped putting the brackets in the regular editions, both print and electronic, but they left them in electronic editions of the Reference Bible. Open the Reference Bible in the Watchtower Library to the book you want and do a "find" (CTRL-F) for an open bracket ("["). Hit F3 to keep searching through the current book of the Bible. Most are innocuous (tons of "the [true] God," for example), but every now and then, you find something interesting.

An interesting one in Matthew is at 5:42. Here's the verse from the ESV and NWT:

Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

versus

Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one that wants to borrow from you [without interest].

This one's minor, but it adds a concept not present in the text. The word used for borrow there is a form of δανείζω, which does mean borrow, but in contemporary Greek literature, it primarily means to lend or borrow at interest. That's probably not what Jesus meant and that conclusion would perhaps make for a good footnote in a study Bible, but the NWT translators are putting words into the mouth of Jesus. The ambiguity is legitimately in the Greek text, so they are altering what the Bible says to match how they think it ought to be. Once again, that's a fine paraphrase for a translation meant for liturgical use, but the NWT translators specifically disclaim such paraphrase. Remember:

We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.

This next one is a bit more important as the way one reads the text can depend on doctrine. Here's Mark 1:4, again from ESV and NWT:

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

versus

John the baptizer turned up in the wilderness, preaching baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

Now, what is the relationship of this baptism to either repentence or forgiveness? Once again, the translators of the NWT are placing doctrine into the English translation that isn't in the Greek original and once again, this is exactly the kind of paraphrase that the NWT translators have themselves disclaimed. There's a reason that I don't quote other paraphrases like The Good News Bible, The Living Bible, or the New Living Translation when I'm discussing the relationship between the biblical text and theology. If someone wants to use them liturgically, I have no complaints. If someone wants to represent the text as it is without first going through a doctrinal filter, however, I would either use or suggest a different translation.

See if you can explain it without invoking an a priori doctrinal position.

Since Jesus isn't God

That's the a priori doctrinal position.

This may be a doctrinal position, but it is an accurate one, taking in all the rest of the Scriptures.

That's fine if you're not trying to prove your doctrinal position from the NWT. Since the NWT has doctrine read into the translation, attempting to derive doctrine from the NWT becomes a circular argument. You're just saying that a paraphrase that agrees with you is "accurate."

In the Greek, it's the same word in both places. If someone wanted to do a word study, for example, the NWT obscures that relationship. In one place, Luke says that προσκυνέω should only apply to the Lord God. In another, Luke says that the disciples did προσκυνέω to Jesus. Whether it's an "accurate" doctrine or not, the NWT translators are adding that doctrine into the text where it wasn't before. That's fine for a liturgical paraphrase, but that's not what the NWT translators claimed about their translation philosophy and not an accurate representation of what Luke wrote in Greek.

I think your understanding of what Luke wrote in Greek is out in left field. I think he spoke of that that you put in italics as referring to Jesus, as does the other verse. Actually, It's hard for me to answer this because you don't give the verses' locations. Also, I can't see where any of your comparisons are different in meaning. And the NWT is indeed as close to the meaning that the writer intended as any version. They don't add doctrine to the text. They harmonize their translations with the rest of the Scriptures.

[Difflugia]

You haven't explained HOW the addition of "other" changes the meaning of the verse.

First, this is an extraordinarily disingenuous expectation. If "other" didn't change the meaning of Colossians 1:16, the translators wouldn't have added it. There's a word for "other" and Paul didn't use it and the grammar doesn't imply it, so why would the translators add it if not to change the meaning of the verse?

Second, adding "other" narrows the theological possibilities in a way that isn't necessitated by the immediate context. Without the "other", Jesus may be outside of the set of "created things," or even "things." Adding "other" brings Jesus into that set. That's a significant theological difference.

Considering the apologetic hairs you've been willing to split over much more straightforward wordings, I have to believe that you know this, but are trying to minimize the obvious implication with word games.

And I've done my homework.

Then surprise me.

It's sad that you won't take what I say seriously.

I agree.