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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[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

VERY interesting admission. So there was no mention of GREEK or HEBREW, no mention of academic failing, no mention of the qualifications of the translators... only mention of {quote} "theological tradition" ie traditional beliefs and "the bounds of [their] statement of faith". In short it evidently was not about what was academically more accurate but whether it matched what the religious leaders of christendom have traditionally taught.

It was a "faith" issue not an intellectual one. What a little gem!

Duly bookmarked.


JW

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 160 by 2timothy316]

Or, it could be that the NWT is just a bad translation, not authoritative, and so many others reject it because it is highly paraphrased and obviously written to promote a particular group's beliefs.

As previously stated, nothing else needs to be said.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 160 by 2timothy316]

Or, it could be that the NWT is just a bad translation, not authoritative, and so many others reject it because it is highly paraphrased and obviously written to promote a particular group's beliefs.

As previously stated, nothing else needs to be said.

There is no 'could be' to it. They said the reason they don't is because of their 'faith statement', yes their doctrine. Isn't one of your concerns that people insert their own doctrines into the Bible. Yet here is a group saying that they pick translations for that very reason! Yet you still will not engage in why it's a bad translation and show examples of paraphrasing. There are like 4 of us waiting for you to give examples. Your refusal is being noted. I mean you can't even give just one?

[American Deist]

VERY interesting admission. So there was no mention of GREEK or HEBREW, no mention of academic failing, no mention of the qualifications of the translators.

The office secretary that answered the email did not go into detail about their decision. Like so many others, she probably wasn't going to waste any more of her time on it than necessary.

[JehovahsWitness]

Or, it could be that the NWT is just a bad translation, not authoritative, and so many others reject it because it is highly paraphrased and obviously written to promote a particular group's beliefs.

As previously stated, nothing else needs to be said.

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

She made no mention of the quality of the translation or even of opposition to it, the only mention was of {quote} "theology" ie dogma, and {quote} "faith" ie what they believe. In short their critria for selection was by their own written admission, faith based.

That's quite an admission to make. Thanks again this will I assure you be duly circulated should anybody suggest in future that their decision had anything to do with the academic quality of the NWT or a lack of religious bais on the part of the website.

Excellent,

JW

[2timothy316]

VERY interesting admission. So there was no mention of GREEK or HEBREW, no mention of academic failing, no mention of the qualifications of the translators.

The office secretary that answered the email did not go into detail about their decision. Like so many others, she probably wasn't going to waste any more of her time on it than necessary.

Isn't one of your concerns that people insert their own doctrines into the Bible. Yet here is a group saying that they pick translations for that very reason!

So you're speaking for the 'office secretary'? Or are you assuming as you go? Credulity.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 163 by 2timothy316]

I can give plenty of examples, 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.

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

[American Deist]

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

Nope, I am saying she did not want to waste any time on it other than was necessary to provide a simple answer. But nice try at a spin job.

That's the point that you guys don't get. We don't care about the NWT. We do not recognize it as authoritative. It butchers Hebrew and English translations, and if you want some examples you can go look them up for yourself. I am not wasting my time on something I care nothing about.

See you in the next thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 164 by American Deist]

The office secretary that answered the email did not go into detail about their decision. Like so many others, she probably wasn't going to waste any more of her time on it than necessary.

I am saying she did not want to waste any time on it other than was necessary to provide a simple answer.

So even though you have in black and white, the two reasons for their decision (theological bias and faith) are you claiming those were not the key reasons but she simply had no time to present the truth? If so, that aguement is a little weak wouldn't you say?

Nobody expected a 12-page thesis but had the NWT been excluded on the basis of its poor quality it seems reasonable she would have said so; how long does it take to type "poor quality", "academically lacking" or not up to our high academic standards"?

No there is no wriggling put of this I'm afraid we have it all in writing.


Sorry,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I can give plenty of examples, but I am not going to waste my time ...

Well that's mighty convenient isn't it.

If you do decide to give actual examples of mistranslaction on the part of the NWT rest assured we will be there to respond. In the meantime, thanks again for passing on the email, it will prove very useful to me in the future.

See you in the next thread.

If this one is anything to go by...I am looking forward to it.



Peace out,

JW