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?

[American Deist]

Why would such a denial be a policy?

One would have thought having the NWT alongside other translations would be seen as a positive move toward wider acceptance.

It is not listed on www.biblegateway.com because most Christian denominations do not recognize the NWT as being authoritative.

Too many bad translations done by a group of people that were not even fluent with Hebrew or Greek. Countless scholars that ARE fluent with Hebrew and Greek have pointed that out over the decades.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 106 by 2timothy316]

I am sure there are feats of strength videos out there. I just wasn't going to waste my time looking them up for you. You asked for a reason, I gave a valid medical one that others here even agreed with, and you stayed in denial. I don't feed trolls.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would such a denial be a policy?

One would have thought having the NWT alongside other translations would be seen as a positive move toward wider acceptance.

It is not listed on www.biblegateway.com because most Christian denominations do not recognize the NWT as being authoritative.

Too many bad translations done by a group of people that were not even fluent with Hebrew or Greek. Countless scholars that ARE fluent with Hebrew and Greek have pointed that out over the decades.

Okay, do you have a statement from the website authorities stating that to be the reason?

You sound very sure about that so I'm sure you'll have no problem providing some proof - official statement, newspaper article, a reference stating something along the lines of "We the committee that runs bible gate.com would like it to go on record that our reasons for not listing the NWT are as follows...."

Over to you,

JW

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 106 by 2timothy316]

I am sure there are feats of strength videos out there.

Not so sure I see to provide one. I couldn't find a video of a person breaking Roman shackles and fetters. If proving yourself right is a waste of time, that's cool too. A lot of assertions flying around on this thread.

Assertion definition, a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

[American Deist]

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.

[benchwarmer]

Why would such a denial be a policy?

One would have thought having the NWT alongside other translations would be seen as a positive move toward wider acceptance.

It is not listed on www.biblegateway.com because most Christian denominations do not recognize the NWT as being authoritative.

Too many bad translations done by a group of people that were not even fluent with Hebrew or Greek. Countless scholars that ARE fluent with Hebrew and Greek have pointed that out over the decades.

Okay, do you have a statement from the website authorities stating that to be the reason?

You sound very sure about that so I'm sure you'll have no problem providing some proof - official statement, newspaper article, a reference stating something along the lines of "We the committee that runs bible gate.com would like it to go on record that our reasons for not listing the NWT are as follows...."

Over to you,

JW

As much as it pains me to agree with JW I'm gonna have to take his/her side until evidence is given one way or the other.

It should be noted that the NWT MAY not be included for the very reasons AD gives and does line up with the following:

https://support.biblegateway.com/hc/en- ... e-Gateway-

Our decisions about which Bibles to include in Bible Gateways online library are most importantly guided by a Christian perspective, expressed in our Statement of Faith. We understand that there are differences of opinion and theology within the Christian family, and that the many different Bible versions available reflect differing but legitimate efforts to translate Gods unchanging Word. In discerning which Bible translations reflect a broadly held view of Christian orthodoxy, we prayerfully rely for advice on a team of respected Bible scholars and publishers from across the broad spectrum of Bible publishing and academia.

See also:

https://support.biblegateway.com/hc/en- ... e-Bible-[i][/i]

However, I can find no definitive reason given. Only a representative of the site would be able to provide the actual reasons. Or maybe even someone from the JW side. It could be a copyright issue, format issue, time to implement issue, ... who knows.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 116 by benchwarmer]

I contacted them asking for a specific reason. Awaiting the reply.

[American Deist]

I'd like to pause a moment and state that I don't have a problem with JWs as people, I just reject the NWT as an authoritative version of the Bible. I am not attacking them as individuals. I just call into question a very biased, poorly translated book that the Watch Tower Society put out.

[2timothy316]

I'd like to pause a moment and state that I don't have a problem with JWs as people, I just reject the NWT as an authoritative version of the Bible. I am not attacking them as individuals. I just call into question a very biased, poorly translated book that the Watch Tower Society put out.

So what exactly is the biggest reason what you dislike the NWT so much? What part do you think is so inaccurate? Is it the use of God's name? Or What?

[American Deist]

[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.