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?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 175 by onewithhim]

First, accurate translation, then theology. It would appear to me that the Society worked in reverse here. The translation of John I as saying "a god" is out of immediate context and also breaks the rules of Greek grammar. Furthermore, were the "translators" of the NWT to have followed through with their cock-eyed concept of what an anarthrous noun means, they would have had to translate s "a god" John 1:6, 1:12, 3:2, Matt. %:9, etc., which they were obviously not willing to do.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 170 by JehovahsWitness]

"Lord Jehovah," which the NWT unduly inserts around 239 times in the NT is totally inappropriate. "Jehovah," to start with, is mistranslation. The "a god" translation of the prologue to John is clearly wrong, out of the immediate context and breaks the rules of Greek grammar. And, as I just said in my previous post, if the "translators" of the NWT had followed through, at least been consistent, with their cock-eyed concept of what an anarthrous noun means, they would have translated as "a god" John 1:6, 3:2, 9:16, and Matt. 5:9, etc., which they obviously did not do.

[2timothy316]

It doesn't matter if the Bibles are following the rules of grammar for Greek and Hebrew or not.

That is where the NWT fails. It does not follow Hebrew and Greek grammar, and that is evident to anyone that has studied those languages.

Give us an example.

[onewithhim]

It doesn't matter if the Bibles are following the rules of grammar for Greek and Hebrew or not.

That is where the NWT fails. It does not follow Hebrew and Greek grammar, and that is evident to anyone that has studied those languages. Countless scholars over decades have been saying that. It does not sink in with you guys.

The authors of the NWT did not want their names published because they knew they were not fluent with the biblical languages, and did not want to be ridiculed by academia. Unfortunately for them, their names were leaked and as already pointed out, none of them were fluent in Hebrew or Greek. Franz even admitted in English court that he could not read anything in Hebrew. Yet those same people are claiming that the NWT is authoritative and accurate? ](*,)

The arguments the JWs have presented here are nothing new. You guys keep repeating the same old stuff that has been spread for several decades now. I guess if you repeat a falsehood long enough, it becomes true.

I have been browsing various forums for over 20 years. There is NOTHING that a JW can tell me that I have not already heard before. You won't convince me of anything. That's why I don't bother. Not worth my time and effort.

You make accusations that you do not back up. You say that the NWT doesn't follow the rules of grammar for Hebrew and Greek, and I have asked you to show me where that is not done. I also asked you to find a point that BeDuhn makes concerning Greek grammar, in his book, and then explain why his view is not correct. Take just one example. You haven't been willing to do any of that.

Didn't you READ what was posted here about the NWT committee using the work of Westcott & Hort---respected by everyone in the scholarly community? The NWT people didn't translate the Bible. It was Westcott & Hort. Pay attention.

If you have any Christian love or human compassion, wouldn't you want a JW to see your point of view? Instead of merely criticizing, like you do, why don't you explain what you're trying to say using SPECIFIC EXAMPLES? We have asked you many times.


.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 183 by 2timothy316]

American Deist wrote:

"That is where the NWT fails. It does not follow Hebrew and Greek grammar, and that is evident to anyone that has studied those languages."

More often than not the criticism of the NWT includes its translation of John 1:1c as the very worst of 'errors.' We can probably see some of that in this discussion.

We may find statements similar to this:

"The translation 'a god' in John 1:1c is obviously wrong, and breaks the rules of NT Greek grammar." As examples, some even give such ridiculous examples of how the WT should have translated an anarthrous 'god,' (according to their rendering of 'a god' at John 1:1c) - John 1:6, 3:2, 9:16, and Matt. 5:9, etc., which they obviously did not do.

I'm pretty sure many of these trinity-supporters have been shown their error in this, but most just continue on as though they were unaware of falsity of such 'evidence.'

For any who are new to this 'evidence' that the NWT does not translate honestly at John 1:1c, here is what the NWT translators know even from respected trinitarian NT Grammar sources.

The use of the definite article with the nominative case theos when it is not otherwise modified (especially not by genitives and prepositions), normally (and always in the Gospels) indicates "God." The other noun cases theou, theon, theo, etc. also may use the definite article irregularly.

Therefore, 'the god (ho theos) of the world' may or may not be 'the god' ("God"). 'The god' here is modified by the genitive 'of world,' and thus is not a proper example since the modifying genitive noun makes the article usage and non-usage with the nominative 'god' uncertain.

But if theos is in the nominative case (ends with sigma or 's') and is modified with the definite article only, it means, in the Gospels at least, 'God.'

So here is a look at the "evidence" for the "false" translation of the NWT:

John 1:6 - theou (genitive, not nominative).
John 3:2 - theou (genitive, not nominative).
John 9:16 - theou (genitive, not nominative).
Matt. 5:9 - theou (genitive, not nominative).

These examples are improper since article usage or non-usage with them is uncertain.

Since John 1:1c uses an unmodified theos without the article it was not intended to mean the Almighty God. And since all other uses of unmodified nominative count nouns without the article in the Gospels are translated as indefinite (a man; an apple; a prophet; etc.), the unmodified theos w/o article in John 1:1c should be rendered likewise: "a god."

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 185 by tigger2]

Those examples are not at all re9idculous; they are right on. If the "translators" of the NWT were correct in there assertion that an anatropous "God" means "a god," those passages should have been translated as "a god." which the NWT was unwilling to do.

Since in John 1, the "God " is clearly referring right back to "the God," it should be translated as "God," not "a god." Plus, such a translation breaks Colwell's rule, which states that Greek has a custom of omitting the article before a definite noun.

The examples you gave where translators translated an anarthrous noun as "a" are not comparable examples and could have also been translated with "the." It's just that it reads more difficult in English that way. Also, there is the matter of inflection. I would have pout the definite article in, as this gives the passage more emphasis. But that is just me.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 184 by onewithhim]

I already know the "translators" really didn't translate anything. They couldn't; they had no background in Greek or Hebrew. That's what makes calling it a "translation" is complete nonsense and totally misleading, not to mention the fact it is most inaccurate, as I have already explained.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 184 by onewithhim]

See my Post 182, for why the NWT is an inaccurate translation. I think I explained matters very clearly there. Since it's right on tap here, I'm not going to repeat it.