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?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 163 by 2timothy316]

I can give plenty of examples,

I'm waiting for just one.

but I am not going to waste my time on it because I don't give two flips about trying to prove my point to 4 JWs over the internet. My point was made several posts ago, and BG.com just solidified it.

So BG.com is your authoritative source for good Bible translations and every translation they have on there are the best translations available? Do you agree? Also, all the time you have 'wasted' replying to me and JW about what you could give, could've been spent actually giving us examples. So from the evidence 'a waste of time' is not your motive, because to keep saying 'I could but its a waste of time' over and over is truly a waste of time.

Google is your friend. Feel free to type in "why is the NWT a bad translation" and you'll get over 350,000 results.

And in those results how many base their opinion on doctrine vs the actual translation of the Hebrew and Greek? Again, credulity.

So you go by Google searches for truth right? Here's one. https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=is+deism+wrong 263,000 results

[ttruscott]

What are you getting at? I wonder why you would dismiss the variance in these texts as irrelevant? This verse is a main proof text for the divinity of Christ. I am just interested in what the correct translation is.

The secular meaning of these verses are indeed irrelevant - only the meaning ascribed to them by the Holy Spirit has any validity at all. There is no scripture or Spiritual Truth cannot be corrupted to suit the ends of the evil one.

Seek GOD, not your own understanding the scripture.

[ttruscott]

Are you suggesting the good lady was less than honest with you and withheld key information that was instrumental in the decision?

Not a logical deduction at all but a try to introduce moral shaming for accepting her view...not up to past standards.

[onewithhim]

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.*+

QUESTION How should Psalms 145:6 be properly translated?

Psalm 45 speaks of a marriage of a triumphant king; while this may refers to King Solomon*, it is generally accepted to ALSO be a description of the Messiah in kingdom power. Verse 5 reads:

"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" - NIV
"God is your throne forever and ever " - NWT

In the in the first reading, the "O God" indicates the writer is addressing God Himself. While in the second, the indication is that the throne (royal kingdom) of the king, is from God. Which is right?

* American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.


Literally the words in the Hebrew are: throne - God - ever - ever and according to The Masoretic Text it can be rendered:



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2645.htm


And various translations translate the verse as follows:
http://biblehub.com/psalms/45-6.htm

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Your throne, God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. (also see ISV, WEB, & New Heart English Bible)

JPS Tanakh 1917
Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

RSV: Your Divine throne [footnote: Or your throne is a throne of God.]

NEB: Your throne is like Gods throne.

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version): Thy throne given of God.

The Bible in Living English (Byington): God is your throne.

GNB: The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.

REB: God has enthroned you for all eternity.

NJB: your throne is from God.

The above demonstrates that, while the text itself is somewhat ambiguous, several translators have favored the reading that the writer is speaking about the king's divine support (a throne from/of God) rather than calling the King in question God. Of further note is the fact that verse 7 reads in the King James Bible

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee ...

Since the psalmist says the king in question is anointed BY God, it seems reasonable to conclude the preceding verse was not referring to that same king AS God. Indeed renowned scholar of Biblical Hebrew, H. F. W. Gesenius in renders Ps. 45:6, thy throne shall be a divine throne. - see Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament


CONCLUSION The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God...), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God...) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is, Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock. - Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.



Further Reading (An examination of parallel verse of Hebrews 1:8
http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogs ... o-god.html

Very nice! (I think I explained that in my post #150, but everyone seems to have skipped over it.)

TO POSTROAD: Any comment on #150 as well as JW's post, postroad? What do you have to say about this?

And AMERICAN DIEST hasn't commented on my posts #144, #147, or #148. What's the old saying? "Cat got your tongue?"



.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 116 by benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 113 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 124 by benchwarmer]

Here is the answer from www.biblegateway.com:

Elizabeth, Feb 17, 13:12 EST:
Hi Chris,

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your question. The Watch Tower Society petitioned us to include the New World Translation in our database. After extensive internal discussion, it is Bible Gateway's view that the New World Translation represents a theological tradition different enough from our other Bibles that it is inadvisable to present it alongside them. We want to make sure that the Bibles on our website are within the bounds of our statement of faith, which you can find here: https://www.biblegateway.com/about/faith/

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have more questions.

God bless!

Elizabeth
Bible Gateway Customer Support



Well now...

The NWT failed to meet the criteria that 55 other translations passed, that are included in their database. Nothing else needs to be said.

YES A WHOLE LOT NEEDS TO BE SAID. They clearly stated that the NWT doesn't conform to their beliefs, as do the versions that they included on their list. They are obviously showing their own BIAS when they accept only versions that can adapt to their own theological viewpoint. It doesn't matter if the Bibles are following the rules of grammar for Greek and Hebrew or not.

They already believe in the Trinity, so they will accept versions that pander to that bias.

You can accept that fact or not. Whatever you choose, it's your prerogative.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 174 by onewithhim]

What do you want. You interpreted the text as you are taught. Other believers how they were taught. If you think God is a glorified chair, go for it.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 174 by onewithhim]

What do you want. You interpreted the text as you are taught. Other believers how they were taught. If you think God is a glorified chair, go for it.

I interpreted the text as I could see with my own eyes. Can you explain how "God" could also HAVE a God? Tell me what YOU think those two verses mean, esp. since you have been apprised of the knowledge that "Your throne, O God" is not the best possible translation of that verse.

[American Deist]

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.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 177 by onewithhim

I hadn't realized exactly how crude and pathetic the Greek and Hebrew language was. So I don't even care anymore. What a crappy book the Bible turns out to be. What is the point of debating God's book of multliple choice answers, especially with someone who will (and obviously has over your many years of study.) change their position with the whim of a group of self appointed men in New York. You would change your position tomorrow if the GB found new light.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 147 by onewithhim]

BeDuhn, as I have said, is not a biblical scholar. and yes, his book has been criticized for providing some real "howlers" for those who know Greek, such as saying that Greek is a "masculine" language. His field is comparative religions. Metzger is just not another academic. He is considered one of the great deans of NT studies. Also other major biblical scholars, such as Barclay, Rowley, Mantey, have blasted the NWT. There is solid evidence Goodspeed did, too. incidentally, Mantey is on the record for saying he was appealed the Society said he was in support of the NWT. C.H. Dodd was also cited by the Society s in support the NWT, but what he really said (1977) is, "in fact, the Nicene homoousios is a perfect paraphrase."