Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 559 by onewithhim]

The Trinity has already been discussed on other threads devoted to its discussion. I would encourage you to go over those threads and see what has already been discussed. The Trinity is not found in the Bible, and that fact has been demonstrated ad nauseum. You are way behind.

Yes, the discussion regarding the Trinity has been discussed ad nauseum Like I said, JW interpretation of Sacred Scripture is in error. Their theology denies the nature of Christ and therefore they have to change and twist Scripture to support their idea.

I do not look to the WT sites to give me what to say. I write from my own thoughts and experiences, thank you very much.

Perhaps that is also part of the problem. Experiences and feelings don’t always equal truth. AND I will ask one more time . . if we are to rely on personal interpretation of Scripture how can one know he is getting it right? If two very sincere truth seekers read Scripture and come to two different conclusions regarding what Scripture means, which one should we believe?

How do you know Charles Taze Russell’s translation is right/true? Where did his authority come from?

JWs have changed and twisted NOTHING. You could see this if you examined the NWT, for example, along with other versions.

Charles Taze Russell didn't have a translation. He took the work of Westcott & Hort and produced a version that was superior to what was available. He could see that the KJV, for example, was lacking because it left out the name of God in all of almost 7,000 places that it originally appeared, except 4 places. He found that the American Standard Version included God's name where it appeared in the original Hebrew, and used that version along with the KJV for almost a hundred years, before the NWT came out. He could plainly see that Bible versions needed re-assessment, because they left out things that appear in the original Hebrew and Greek texts. So he did NO "twisting" of any Scripture. He attempted to straighten out what other translation committees had done to change the meanings of things. The "twisting" is the work of BIASED translation committees, and this can be ascertained by a careful study of various versions, including an Interlinear Version.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

JWs have changed and twisted NOTHING. You could see this if you examined the NWT, for example, along with other versions.

Most Biblical scholars agree that the NWT is problematic. My previous post provided links and excerpts of the JW sloppy and self serving translation.

Charles Taze Russell didn't have a translation. He took the work of Westcott & Hort and produced a version that was superior to what was available. He could see that the KJV, for example, was lacking because it left out the name of God in all of almost 7,000 places that it originally appeared, except 4 places

That is false propaganda you have been fed and this explains it in more detail . .

Is “Jehovah� God’s only personal name? In making this assertion the Watchtower publication disagrees with every book on theology I investigated. All of them state there are multiple personal names of God. They tried to say these names are titles and gave no support for this assertion. If the Bible called God an “it� then you would have impersonal reference to Him.

Each of the many names of God describes a different aspect of His many-faceted character. Here are some of the better-known names of God in the Bible.
EL, ELOAH: God “mighty, strong, prominent� (Genesis 7:1; Isaiah 9:6).
ELOHIM: God “Creator, Mighty and Strong� (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) – the plural form of Eloah, which accommodates the doctrine of the Trinity.
EL SHADDAI: “God Almighty,� “The Mighty One of Jacob� (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5) – speaks to God’s ultimate power over all.
ADONAI: “Lord� (Genesis 15:2; Judges 6:15) – used in place of YHWH, which was thought by the Jews to be too sacred to be uttered by sinful men.
YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH: “LORD� (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14) –Translated in English Bibles “LORD� (all capitals) to distinguish it from Adonai, “Lord.� The revelation of the name is first given to Moses “I Am who I Am� (Exodus 3:14). This name specifies an immediacy, a presence.
All of these can be considered personal names of God. YAHWEH or JEHOVAH (“LORD�) is the most utilized in the Bible and some believe God’s proper name.


Since God is also identified as “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,� without any mention of Jehovah (YHWH), doesn’t this mean that the name Jehovah is not the only way that God can be addressed in the Old Testament?

Jesus never identified the Father as Jehovah. Was Jesus wrong for not calling the Father by his personal name? When He taught us how to pray, how are we to address the Father? Matthew 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.’� Jesus taught his disciples and us to say “Our Father� and not “Our Jehovah.� You need to chastise Him for forgetting to use Jehovah here and all through his ministry. Jesus never said the name Jehovah. Bruce was Jesus wrong?

Why didn’t any of the New Testament writers use the name Jehovah? Were all the writers of the New Testament out of line? Are you going to correct them? There are over 5,700 ancient New Testament manuscripts and none of them ever used the name Jehovah. NONE! Does the Watchtower Organization know more than Jesus and the New Testament writers?

In my posted letter to Angela (Jehovah’s Witness) I wrote: “Forcing the word Jehovah [by the New World Translation] into the New Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; some of which date back to the second century. Instead the New Testament uses the words “Lord� [Greek: Kurios] and “God� [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text. This interlinear published by the Watchtower Organization shows how kurios (Lord) and theos (God) were changed to Jehovah in the English translation. Stating God’s name was left out of the King James or any other version of the Bible is false. Angela, I suggest finding a Kingdom Interlinear at your hall so you can see for yourself. When your organization says they removed the name, they are lying to you.� Bruce why do you follow an organization that blatantly lies to you?

Theology books say the names of God represent His character; they tell us who He is. Through God’s many names we learn He is personal, powerful, caring, and much more. So why do the Jehovah’s Witnesses say God’s only personal name is Jehovah? One reason is it gives them the air they are the only true religion that properly worships God. It sets them apart. The other reason is by pointing to “Jehovah� as the one personal name, they can attack the doctrine of the Trinity.

Bruce wrote that by addressing God by His personal name Jehovah would be similar to speaking to the King and calling him Bill. By using this one personal name, Jehovah’s Witnesses are trying to make believing in the Trinity a contradiction. The definition of the Trinity is one God subsists in 3 persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. If God’s name is Bill then we believe in one Bill subsisting in 3 persons. Does that seem odd to you? Who would believe that? Their tactic is to reduce the Triune God from 3 persons down to one person. They believe in one personal God, Jehovah, and that Jesus is a second god; a lesser god; a created being.

What Jehovah’s Witnesses teach is heresy. The Bible teaches 3 premises: 1) there is only one God, 2) there are 3 distinct persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and 3) each person is God. I can supply 28 verses that clearly teach there is only one God. All other so-called gods are false gods such as Satan, idols, and human leaders. None of the false gods are the one true God by nature. Paul writes about false gods in Galatians 4:8 “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.� Paul implies that there is only one God by nature and all others are false.

The issue of one God was important at the council of Nicea in AD 325. It was there Arius brought forth his teaching that Jesus was “a god� a created being; a similar belief held by Jehovah’s Witnesses. This false teaching was soundly rejected by the Bishops (300+ to 2) in attendance. Arianism was labeled a heresy by this early church council. Today this false teaching has been restored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. To claim Jesus is a lesser god, a mighty god is polytheism (belief in more than 1 god). The early church taught there is only one God and rejected this belief. Today classical Christianity supports that rejection.

If you would like verses in support of the 3 premises go to the series I wrote called “Loving the Trinity.� It is the Jehovah’s Witnesses rejection of the Trinity that motivate them to make a big name about the single personal name of God. In their denial of the Triune God of the Bible they are worshipping a false God

http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/why ... gods-name/

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

JWs have changed and twisted NOTHING. You could see this if you examined the NWT, for example, along with other versions.

Most Biblical scholars agree that the NWT is problematic. My previous post provided links and excerpts of the JW sloppy and self serving translation.

Charles Taze Russell didn't have a translation. He took the work of Westcott & Hort and produced a version that was superior to what was available. He could see that the KJV, for example, was lacking because it left out the name of God in all of almost 7,000 places that it originally appeared, except 4 places

That is false propaganda you have been fed and this explains it in more detail . .

Is “Jehovah� God’s only personal name? In making this assertion the Watchtower publication disagrees with every book on theology I investigated. All of them state there are multiple personal names of God. They tried to say these names are titles and gave no support for this assertion. If the Bible called God an “it� then you would have impersonal reference to Him.

Each of the many names of God describes a different aspect of His many-faceted character. Here are some of the better-known names of God in the Bible.
EL, ELOAH: God “mighty, strong, prominent� (Genesis 7:1; Isaiah 9:6).
ELOHIM: God “Creator, Mighty and Strong� (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) – the plural form of Eloah, which accommodates the doctrine of the Trinity.
EL SHADDAI: “God Almighty,� “The Mighty One of Jacob� (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5) – speaks to God’s ultimate power over all.
ADONAI: “Lord� (Genesis 15:2; Judges 6:15) – used in place of YHWH, which was thought by the Jews to be too sacred to be uttered by sinful men.
YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH: “LORD� (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14) –Translated in English Bibles “LORD� (all capitals) to distinguish it from Adonai, “Lord.� The revelation of the name is first given to Moses “I Am who I Am� (Exodus 3:14). This name specifies an immediacy, a presence.
All of these can be considered personal names of God. YAHWEH or JEHOVAH (“LORD�) is the most utilized in the Bible and some believe God’s proper name.


Since God is also identified as “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,� without any mention of Jehovah (YHWH), doesn’t this mean that the name Jehovah is not the only way that God can be addressed in the Old Testament?

Jesus never identified the Father as Jehovah. Was Jesus wrong for not calling the Father by his personal name? When He taught us how to pray, how are we to address the Father? Matthew 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.’� Jesus taught his disciples and us to say “Our Father� and not “Our Jehovah.� You need to chastise Him for forgetting to use Jehovah here and all through his ministry. Jesus never said the name Jehovah. Bruce was Jesus wrong?

Why didn’t any of the New Testament writers use the name Jehovah? Were all the writers of the New Testament out of line? Are you going to correct them? There are over 5,700 ancient New Testament manuscripts and none of them ever used the name Jehovah. NONE! Does the Watchtower Organization know more than Jesus and the New Testament writers?

In my posted letter to Angela (Jehovah’s Witness) I wrote: “Forcing the word Jehovah [by the New World Translation] into the New Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; some of which date back to the second century. Instead the New Testament uses the words “Lord� [Greek: Kurios] and “God� [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text. This interlinear published by the Watchtower Organization shows how kurios (Lord) and theos (God) were changed to Jehovah in the English translation. Stating God’s name was left out of the King James or any other version of the Bible is false. Angela, I suggest finding a Kingdom Interlinear at your hall so you can see for yourself. When your organization says they removed the name, they are lying to you.� Bruce why do you follow an organization that blatantly lies to you?

Theology books say the names of God represent His character; they tell us who He is. Through God’s many names we learn He is personal, powerful, caring, and much more. So why do the Jehovah’s Witnesses say God’s only personal name is Jehovah? One reason is it gives them the air they are the only true religion that properly worships God. It sets them apart. The other reason is by pointing to “Jehovah� as the one personal name, they can attack the doctrine of the Trinity.


What Jehovah’s Witnesses teach is heresy. The Bible teaches 3 premises: 1) there is only one God, 2) there are 3 distinct persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and 3) each person is God. I can supply 28 verses that clearly teach there is only one God. All other so-called gods are false gods such as Satan, idols, and human leaders. None of the false gods are the one true God by nature. Paul writes about false gods in Galatians 4:8 “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.� Paul implies that there is only one God by nature and all others are false.

The issue of one God was important at the council of Nicea in AD 325. It was there Arius brought forth his teaching that Jesus was “a god� a created being; a similar belief held by Jehovah’s Witnesses. This false teaching was soundly rejected by the Bishops (300+ to 2) in attendance. Arianism was labeled a heresy by this early church council. Today this false teaching has been restored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. To claim Jesus is a lesser god, a mighty god is polytheism (belief in more than 1 god). The early church taught there is only one God and rejected this belief. Today classical Christianity supports that rejection.

If you would like verses in support of the 3 premises go to the series I wrote called “Loving the Trinity.� It is the Jehovah’s Witnesses rejection of the Trinity that motivate them to make a big name about the single personal name of God. In their denial of the Triune God of the Bible they are worshipping a false God

http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/why ... gods-name/

"Sloppy and self-serving" translation---you call the NWT! That is ridiculous. It is the most carefully rendered version that exists, and there are scholars who feel THIS way. Someone on one of these threads posted a list of scholars that praise the NWT, and I wish I could remember where it was.

Professor Jason BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, has said that the NWT is the best translation available today, and the next in line is the New American Bible. If someone wants to learn about translation, I recommend getting this book. The author has no religious ax to grind, no connections to JWs, and has merely searched for the truth when it comes to translating.

You say that bringing attention to the fact that Jehovah's name is left out of the Bible when it's supposed to be there, 7,000 times, is "false propaganda"? Where do you get that idea? I have studied that issue for quite some time, and I assure you that it is not "false propaganda."

To say that God has MULTIPLE personal names is not correct. He has ONE personal name, and that is YHWH, translated most familiarly as "Jehovah." ("That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most high over all the earth." Psalm 83:18, KJV) Anyone who says he has many names doesn't know what they're talking about. When another name is attached to "Jehovah," it is merely a special PLACE that someone has conjoined with the name "Jehovah" to honor this certain place or thing, like an altar or a city.

For example: JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH means "Jehovah Himself is There," and it is applied to a CITY seen by Ezekiel in a vision.

JEHOVAH-JIREH means "Jehovah Will Provide," and it is a PLACE on a mountain in the land of Moriah (where Abraham found a ram caught in a thicket to offer instead of Isaac).

JEHOVAH-NISSI means "Jehovah is My Refuge," and it is an ALTAR erected by Moses after a battle with the Amalekites.


There are more, but this shows you that those names are not "other names for Jehovah." They are names of PLACES or ALTARS that had been built to honor Jehovah. There are also TITLES that are given to God, and these are NOT names. It is amusing that you would have an objection to that reasoning. They can NOT be considered personal names of God.

How can you say that there was no mention of "Jehovah" when God told Moses He was the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob? There certainly WAS mention of God's name, Jehovah.

"Tell them, 'JEHOVAH, the God of your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." (Exodus 3:15, The Living Bible; see also Young's Literal Translation)


Jesus certainly DID use his Father's personal name. If you think not, you don't know Jesus. He would not bow to the Jews' silly superstition of not pronouncing God's name. He said to his Father that he had made His name known and would continue to make it known (John 17:6,26). There is no reason whatsoever to think that when he was quoting Scripture from the Hebrew Scriptures he would not pronounce Jehovah's name which would appear in that particular verse.

The writers of the New Testament undoubtedly DID use Jehovah's name. Sometime during the second or third century A.D. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.) and replaced it with Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God). For further comment, check out the Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard, Vol.96, 1977, page 63.

The teaching of the Trinity is heresy. The Bible doesn't teach it. It is pagan and blasphemous. Jesus said of the Father, Jehovah, that He, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) How can anyone object to Jesus' own words? Your idea that the Bible teaches THREE GODS IN ONE is so obviously erroneous that it is COMICAL to see people like you falling for it. What do we call THREE GODS? POLYTHEISM, not monotheism. You seem to object to MONOtheism. How sad that you worship three Gods instead of one.

All your balderdash about Arius and the Council of Nicaea shows that you have very surface knowledge of the events. Depending on what was politically fashionable, Arianism was accepted for a time and then his ideas were rejected. Constantine decided what would be taught as doctrines---an unbaptized pagan!---and the bishops went along with him, as the churches have done down through the centuries with every head of state they could manipulate (and BE manipulated by).

You are in a precarious place, denying the Sovereign of the universe and opting to worship a TRIUNE God that originated with pagan religions long before Christ walked the earth. I will pray for you.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

"Sloppy and self-serving" translation---you call the NWT! That is ridiculous. It is the most carefully rendered version that exists

Yes, carefully rendered and calculated to support JW theology


,

and there are scholars who feel THIS way. Someone on one of these threads posted a list of scholars that praise the NWT, and I wish I could remember where it was.

Yes, and my link debunked your small list by showing your scholars are obscure/not well known and many more prominent scholars find the NWT very problematic

You say that bringing attention to the fact that Jehovah's name is left out of the Bible when it's supposed to be there, 7,000 times, is "false propaganda"? Where do you get that idea? I have studied that issue for quite some time, and I assure you that it is not "false propaganda."

I assure you that it is. JW’s wrongly added the name Jehovah and offered the explanation that it was in the original translation. The previous link I listed explained why that is not true.

To say that God has MULTIPLE personal names is not correct. He has ONE personal name, and that is YHWH, translated most familiarly as "Jehovah." ("That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most high over all the earth." Psalm 83:18, KJV) Anyone who says he has many names doesn't know what they're talking about. When another name is attached to "Jehovah," it is merely a special PLACE that someone has conjoined with the name "Jehovah" to honor this certain place or thing, like an altar or a city.

For example: JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH means "Jehovah Himself is There," and it is applied to a CITY seen by Ezekiel in a vision.

JEHOVAH-JIREH means "Jehovah Will Provide," and it is a PLACE on a mountain in the land of Moriah (where Abraham found a ram caught in a thicket to offer instead of Isaac).

JEHOVAH-NISSI means "Jehovah is My Refuge," and it is an ALTAR erected by Moses after a battle with the Amalekites. . . .

Did you even read what I posted? It thoroughly explained why this argument often offered by the JW’s is inaccurate.

The teaching of the Trinity is heresy. The Bible doesn't teach it. It is pagan and blasphemous.

I could post pages and pages of Scriptural support of the Trinity. Let me know if you’re interested. It is something all of Christendom believed and taught. But yeah, I’m sure you’re right – I’m sure it took until the 1600 when Russell came along for people to really get it – LOL!

Jesus said of the Father, Jehovah, that He, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) How can anyone object to Jesus' own words?

Yes, how can they . . .


30 I and the Father are one.� –John 10:30

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. - John 14:9-11

First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is something the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently.

Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, and the word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man, He would naturally and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: 'And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God.' (Isaiah 37:20).

The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4); and as a man, He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God; but it is not a phrase that excludes Christ, for Christ Himself said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28.

Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; and Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God, but the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized.

Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31.

Fifth, Jesus identifies Himself with the Father. Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in Jesus (John 10:38). Jesus is one with the Father (John 10:30). They are not divided in essence. So, in one sense Jesus is in the Father; and if the Father is the only true God, then Jesus is the True God. Also, in 1 John 5:20, Jesus is called the only true God: "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." Jesus is not contradicting the word.

Sixth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem--if we use their logic.

1. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 4, NASB).

1. Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord.

2. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." (John 1:9-10).

1. Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light.

3. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18, NASB).

1. Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense.

4. "I, even I, am the Lord [YHWH}; And there is no savior besides Me." (Isaiah 43:11).

1. We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior.

5. "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone works wonders." (Psalm 72:18, NASB).

1. Jesus performed many miracles. But if the Lord [YHWH] is the one who alone performs wonders, how then can it be that Jesus also?

6. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB).

1. According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic you would have a problem.

2. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (NASB). Since God is alone created all things, how could Jesus have done it? For more on this subject see the JW paper on Col. 1:16-17.

As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine.

https://carm.org/john-173-only-true-god

So, so much more, but going to leave it there.

You are in a precarious place, denying the Sovereign of the universe and opting to worship a TRIUNE God that originated with pagan religions long before Christ walked the earth. I will pray for you.

I’ll take the prayers, but am afraid JW teaching is illogical and mistaken. Please think about it. The JW’s have some very different teachings with the rest of Christendom. They are not things that can be supported by being believed by the Early Church. And the only way Scriptural connections can be made to support their beliefs is to accept the translation that their own religion produced. An unauthorized translation by a group of five men in the 1600’s. Sounds a little sketch. Not to mention all the Scripture that I and others can provide proving things like the Trinity, and divinity of Christ.

Here are some things JW’s have waffled on. So how do you know they won’t change their teachings again? Maybe next month they will accept the Trinity.


The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT, 7-1879, 7-8). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT, 6-1-1952, 338). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT 8-1-1965, 479). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT 6-1-1988, 31). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed., 179). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).


"There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army" (WT, 4-15-1903, 120). Due to conscience, Jehovah’s Witnesses must refuse military service (WT, 2-1-1951, 73).


"We may as well join in with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event [Christmas] . . . " (WT Reprints, 12-1-1904, 3468). "Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah . . . What is their source? . . . Satan the devil" (WT, 12-15-1983, 7).


"Everyone in America should take pleasure in displaying the American flag" (WT Reprints, 5-15-1917, 6068). The flag is "an idolatrous symbol" (Awake!, 9-8-71, 14).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/stumpers ... -witnesses

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 564 by RightReason]

I'm not going to reply to you any further. I already explained why. I have answers for anything you bring up, but you are not interested in answers.....you want to berate and tear apart. I stand by Matthew 7:6, as Jesus instructed.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

I'm not going to reply to you any further. I already explained why. I have answers for anything you bring up, but you are not interested in answers.....you want to berate and tear apart. I stand by Matthew 7:6, as Jesus instructed.

I’m not sure how showing the Scripture that contradicts JW theology is berating and tearing apart. Like I said, I love God and my fellow man. My desire is that we all be together with God in heaven some day.

“One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life . . . “ –Psalm 27

All God's children desire to dwell in their Father's house. How could they not?

[onewithhim]

"Evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth." (Psalm 37:9, KJV)

"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever." (Psalm 37:29, KJV)


.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 567 by onewithhim]

"Evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth." (Psalm 37:9, KJV)

"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever." (Psalm 37:29, KJV)

Already been discussed. “inheriting the earth� was spoken to the Israelites.

The word translated "earth" can also be a translation of aretz, "land". IOW, the land of Israel:

Psa 37:9 For the wicked shall be cut off; but those who wait for the LORD shall possess the land.

Psa 37:11 But the meek shall possess the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity.

Something to take note of is that the Greek word for 'earth' (γην, gen) in Matthew 5.5 and LXX Psalm 36.11 can just as well be translated 'land' or even 'ground'. The same is true for the Hebrew word (�רץ, 'erets), used in Psalm 37.11. So to fully grasp which definition of 'earth' is being used, we should understand it as it is used in conjunction with 'inherit' (Greek κλη�ονομεω; Hebrew ירש).


To 'inherit the land' is to possess and dwell in the specific geographical region that God promised to Abraham.

When we find the phrasing used in the Psalms (only eight times, five of which are in Psalm 37), it is historically probable that the above is the intended meaning: to dwell in the land of Israel. This is most obvious in Psalm 44.3 and 105.44, both of which are psalms about the entry of the Israelite tribes into the land of Canaan to 'inherit' it.

Within this context, we see that even when Jesus uses the phrase 'inherit the land', it should not be understand in an arbitrarily global sense, but within his historical context: an Israelite speaking to other Israelites, about who will inherit the land of Israel, and how they should act in order to do so.


https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... -the-earth


Matt.18:3 "and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."


For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. –Matthew 5:20


2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.�-John 14:2-4


Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. -Colossians 3:1-2

[JehovahsWitness]

The word translated "earth" can also be a translation of aretz, "land". IOW, the land of Israel

LAND or EARTH?

The Hebrew word translated as "land" or "earth" is erets. There is no scriptural reason to limit ERETS systematically to refer a small region of the planet or to the land of Israel. Indeed even the various translations that render "erets" land in Psalms 37:29 translated the same word as EARTH elsewhere. For example the King James Version renders erets "land" in Psalms 37:29 but render the same word 712 times as "EARTH"

PRIMARY MEANING

Further, according to (Gesenius, Brown, Driver, and Briggs; 1951) ERETS primary meaning is EARTH as in planet, note the following :

 1. EARTH, a. whole earth ([as opposed] to a part) b. earth, [as opposed] to heaven, sky c. earth=inhabitants of earth ; 2. LAND : a. country, territory b. district, region 3 GROUND, a. surface of ground .b. soil, as productive"

Old Testament Word Studies by William Wilson says of ERETS : The earth in the largest sense, both the habitable and uninhabitable parts; with some accompanying word of limitation, it is used of some portion of the earth’s surface, a land or country.

So the first and primary [1a] meaning of the Hebrew word is our planet, or globe and all things being equal, should be the prefered position of default in the absence of an indicative of limitation (for example coupling the word with a distinct reference to region region or to the territory of a nation, such as "the land of Shinar" or "the land of Egypt"

A FUTURE GLOBLAL RULE

"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" - Isaiah 11:9 (King James Bible

"He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" - Psalms 72:8 (King James Bible)

The bible frequently implies a future global rule often attributed to the promised Messiah. Commenting on the above passage at Psalms 72 Matthew Henry's Commentary states:

This is a prophecy of the kingdom of Christ; many passages in it cannot be applied to the reign of Solomon. There were righteousness and peace at first in the administration of his government; but, before the end of his reign, there were troubles and unrighteousness. The kingdom here spoken of is to last as long as the sun, but Solomon's was soon at an end. Even the Jewish expositors understood it of the kingdom of the Messiah. Observe many great and precious promises here made, which were to have full accomplishment only in the kingdom of Christ.

Having established then that the bible does indeed contain promises of a future global rule using the Hebrew erets, that the primary meaning is earth (rather than a restricted region) we can ask, what did Jesus refer to when he promised that the meek would "inherit the earth"?

QUESTION: Did Jesus promise the meek inherit the earth or just the land of Israel alone?

The bible promises a time when Jesus will return and destroy all wicked people. Is it reasonable to conclude then that he will subseqently restricted the survivors of this event to one small region of the planet? If as he explicitly stated, he himself is the promised Messiah, is it not reasonable to presume his rule will be global rather than region and that these "meek" would be somehow connected to it.

CONCLUSION Although the Hebrew word translated as "earth" can indeed refer to a restricted region, its primary meaning is the planet or the peope thereon. When Jesus pointed to a future inheritance of that earth, it is reasonable he was speaking in terms of the Messianic promises which would have global benefits.

JW

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 569 by JehovahsWitness]

We've had this discussion already. No where are we to believe the word indicates a literal planet earth, especially in context of Scripture as a whole . . .

We are to see the face of God and be with Him in heaven. This is clear in Scripture. JW's picking and choosing which words they want to declare literal and which ones they don't conveniently supports whatever their current theology happens to be. Though, this could change tomorrow -- hard to keep up.

Matt.18:3 "and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."


For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. –Matthew 5:20


2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.�-John 14:2-4


Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. -Colossians 3:1-2