Jehovah's Witnesses Bible

[Ross]

Much debate has taken place over the change the Jehovah's Witnesses made to John 1:1 rendering GOD as 'a god'. Virtually all references made to the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the NWT of the Greek Scriptures included adjustments to the literal rendering of the Koine' Greek to English, with the notable exception of John 20:28.

This translation of the Greek Scriptures was performed in secret by a Translation Committee led by the President and Vice President without the knowledge of the Governing Body who had no option but to accept this once it was revealed, as back then the Governing Body had little power.

After this they produced the Hebrew Scriptures, and It didn't take long for them to carry out similar unfaithful translation.

Almost every Bible ever written translates the second part of Genesis 1:2 as it appears to us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text:

"And The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters"

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the Spirit of God, The Holy Spirit, is a none intelligent, none personal form of Gods power, likened in their literature to electricity that makes things work or happen.

Their official description and interpretation of the Holy Spirit is 'Gods active force'.

Genesis 1:2 reads in the New World Translation:

" and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

Is this not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into scripture you have ever seen?

[2timothy316]

Its not what I think but what trinity you believe in. Do you agree with the trinitarian in the linked article that says that Jehovah is Jesus? I want to figure out if all trinitarians have the same doctrine. Right now, it doesn't seem so, comparing what you say with what the trinitarian said in his article. After all it was you said that, "I am not aware of any theological concept that states ' Jehovah was part of a Trinity.' Well, I have made you aware that there are trinitarians that believe Jehovah is part of the trinity by saying Jehovah is Jesus. Or Jesus not part of the trinity? Or is your fellow trinitarian wrong?

Firstly Timothy, I have never actually claimed to be a Trinitarian.

Good for you!
So you're of the belief that Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

That is not what the Trinity concept is, nor is it my belief

I know that is not what the trinity concept is. I am unclear as to what your concept actually is.

I explained it in post 80. Here it is again:

I personally have always had reservations about the 'three persons' as a description, however I am in no doubt whatsoever that the Bible teaches the first bit:

that The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the same ONE God,

But not a trinitarian, explain this.

[2timothy316]

And you have inadvertently admitted that The Holy Spirit has an office, a position, a role, an identity, a reputation, and an authority.

So does the law when someones says, 'in the name of the law', yet the law isn't a person. Yet law has all the things you mentioned.

[2timothy316]

Thanks for the reply, however, I'm not sure why you think it teaches that the three have "but one name." It clearly mentions three separate entities. I'm not sure that any of the titles used are names.

I'm commenting on the contents of the verse. It does not support the claims you have made.
Tcg

Mat 28:19

"In the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit"" one name, three entities.

Either they have separate names, one name, or it means as: In the name of the law.

Which is it?

I didn't make any claims. I was attempting to draw out what the position of Timothy was on this.

You just did and you did previously when you stated this: "Matthew 20:28 declares that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit have but one name." Of course, this was before you provided the correct reference. No matter, Mt. 28:19 doesn't teach what you claim it does.

Don't expect me to describe Timothy's position. I'm not Timothy. I'm commenting on your position and your failure to support it.


Tcg

I share TCGs view that Mt. 28:19 "doesn't teach what you [Ross} claim it does." In my post I gave what I know of the meaning of 'in the name of' at Mt 28:19 which scriptural support that the term "in the name of" doesn't always refer to an actual name or even a person but in just the office a position of authority. TCG is of course free to weigh that information as they wish, I was just sharing an actual scriptural explication based on places where 'in the name of' is used in the Bible. I am however, perhaps like TCG, waiting on a scriptural explanation from Ross rather than an explanation based on personal eisegesis to explain their claim. Perhaps show in the Bible where the term 'in the name of' refers to an actual name, as I do not know of one.

[2timothy316]

The use of the term 'in the name of' is a Greek idiom to indicate the recognition of office and work of what it is speaking of. In the Mt 28:19, 20 it is recognizing the work/positions of Jehovah, Jesus and God's holy spirit.

We have something similar in the English language. Ever heard of the term, "Stop in the name of the law"? There is even a song called, "Stop in the name of love". It doesn't actually mean that love has a name or that all the laws carry one name. It is telling a criminal that is running to stop in the recognition of the law or as the the case of the song, stop breaking hearts(?) in the recognition of love.

Thus at Mt 28:19, 20 Jesus' followers are commanded to baptize people in recognition of three different office positions and the authority each one position holds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well at last we agree on something; and you recognise the true meaning of a name when it refers to the Almighty.

This hasn't been what disagreement has been about.

[Ross]

But Jehovah is the Father to whom we must pray. What is any kind of relationship when peoples' names are omitted? The Father deserves a name just like anyone. Even animals have names. Rocks have names. Why not the Father? The Bible makes it clear what God's name is, and God indicates that we should use his name, does he not?

Your above is exactly what circular reasoning is.

[Ross]

Its not what I think but what trinity you believe in. Do you agree with the trinitarian in the linked article that says that Jehovah is Jesus? I want to figure out if all trinitarians have the same doctrine. Right now, it doesn't seem so, comparing what you say with what the trinitarian said in his article. After all it was you said that, "I am not aware of any theological concept that states ' Jehovah was part of a Trinity.' Well, I have made you aware that there are trinitarians that believe Jehovah is part of the trinity by saying Jehovah is Jesus. Or Jesus not part of the trinity? Or is your fellow trinitarian wrong?

Firstly Timothy, I have never actually claimed to be a Trinitarian.

Good for you!
So you're of the belief that Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

That is not what the Trinity concept is, nor is it my belief

I know that is not what the trinity concept is. I am unclear as to what your concept actually is.

I explained it in post 80. Here it is again:

I personally have always had reservations about the 'three persons' as a description, however I am in no doubt whatsoever that the Bible teaches the first bit:

that The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the same ONE God,

But not a trinitarian, explain this.

The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the same ONE God.

That is not the full Trinitarian concept.

[Ross]

The use of the term 'in the name of' is a Greek idiom to indicate the recognition of office and work of what it is speaking of. In the Mt 28:19, 20 it is recognizing the work/positions of Jehovah, Jesus and God's holy spirit.

We have something similar in the English language. Ever heard of the term, "Stop in the name of the law"? There is even a song called, "Stop in the name of love". It doesn't actually mean that love has a name or that all the laws carry one name. It is telling a criminal that is running to stop in the recognition of the law or as the the case of the song, stop breaking hearts(?) in the recognition of love.

Thus at Mt 28:19, 20 Jesus' followers are commanded to baptize people in recognition of three different office positions and the authority each one position holds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well at last we agree on something; and you recognise the true meaning of a name when it refers to the Almighty.

This hasn't been what disagreement has been about.

You deliberately omitted the content of my post which was:


So to the Lords Prayer:
"You must pray then this way: Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be your name."
It is exactly the same thing: Not a name like Joe or Tim or John or even Jehovah, but the reputation, the glory, the qualities, or as you put it the office of The Father that should be honoured and glorified. What the Father stands for and represents. Jesus did not tell us to pray to 'Jehovah.'

My question about Mat 28;19 was designed to draw you out and obtain exactly your response, in which you have inadvertently described the true meaning of name when it refers to God.

Now please answer the above if you are able without some weak circular reasoning.

[2timothy316]

The use of the term 'in the name of' is a Greek idiom to indicate the recognition of office and work of what it is speaking of. In the Mt 28:19, 20 it is recognizing the work/positions of Jehovah, Jesus and God's holy spirit.

We have something similar in the English language. Ever heard of the term, "Stop in the name of the law"? There is even a song called, "Stop in the name of love". It doesn't actually mean that love has a name or that all the laws carry one name. It is telling a criminal that is running to stop in the recognition of the law or as the the case of the song, stop breaking hearts(?) in the recognition of love.

Thus at Mt 28:19, 20 Jesus' followers are commanded to baptize people in recognition of three different office positions and the authority each one position holds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well at last we agree on something; and you recognise the true meaning of a name when it refers to the Almighty.

This hasn't been what disagreement has been about.

You deliberately omitted the content of my post which was:

Yes because you're trying to change the subject with a straw-man. You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim. You're throwing any scripture with the word name in it and it's not fitting. I'm done here. I'm placing you on my ignore list. I will not see your posts any longer.

[JehovahsWitness]

...In my post I gave what I know of the meaning of 'in the name of' at Mt 28:19 which scriptural support that the term "in the name of" doesn't always refer to an actual name or even a person but in just the office a position of authority.

Exactly

[Ross]

The use of the term 'in the name of' is a Greek idiom to indicate the recognition of office and work of what it is speaking of. In the Mt 28:19, 20 it is recognizing the work/positions of Jehovah, Jesus and God's holy spirit.

We have something similar in the English language. Ever heard of the term, "Stop in the name of the law"? There is even a song called, "Stop in the name of love". It doesn't actually mean that love has a name or that all the laws carry one name. It is telling a criminal that is running to stop in the recognition of the law or as the the case of the song, stop breaking hearts(?) in the recognition of love.

Thus at Mt 28:19, 20 Jesus' followers are commanded to baptize people in recognition of three different office positions and the authority each one position holds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well at last we agree on something; and you recognise the true meaning of a name when it refers to the Almighty.

This hasn't been what disagreement has been about.

You deliberately omitted the content of my post which was:

Yes because you're trying to change the subject with a straw-man. You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim. You're throwing any scripture with the word name in it and it's not fitting. I'm done here. I'm placing you on my ignore list. I will not see your posts any longer.

I made no claim. I drew you out, if a little bit sneaky, to say something that you normally would avoid at all costs. I agree with your religion's analysis of Mat 28;19; but my question prompted you to testify to something that Jehovah's Witnesses normally will not admit. And my further post is obvious uncomfortable for you. I understand.