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?

[Tcg]

You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim.

And beyond that, Ross is claiming not to be making claims when in fact they are. When a poster takes this stance, it is clear that further discussion with them will not be productive. Suffice it to say, Mt. 28:19 does not support the claim Ross has made.


Tcg

[Ross]

You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim.

ms when in fact they are. When a poster takes this stance, it is clear that further discussion with them will not be productive. Suffice it to say, Mt. 28:19 does not support the claim Ross has made.


Tcg

Good Sir,

I have made several attempts to engage you in this conversation; have invited you to comment, and have proposed several questions to you, all of which you have declined to respond to other than with aloof and negative replies.

[Tcg]

You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim.

ms when in fact they are. When a poster takes this stance, it is clear that further discussion with them will not be productive. Suffice it to say, Mt. 28:19 does not support the claim Ross has made.


Tcg

Good Sir,

I have made several attempts to engage you in this conversation; have invited you to comment, and have proposed several questions to you, all of which you have declined to respond to other than with aloof and negative replies.

You have made 0 attempts to support your claim. There's nothing else to do given your refusal to at least attempt it.


Tcg

[2timothy316]

You're not addressing the Mt 28:19 claim.

ms when in fact they are. When a poster takes this stance, it is clear that further discussion with them will not be productive. Suffice it to say, Mt. 28:19 does not support the claim Ross has made.


Tcg

Good Sir,

I have made several attempts to engage you in this conversation; have invited you to comment, and have proposed several questions to you, all of which you have declined to respond to other than with aloof and negative replies.

You have made 0 attempts to support your claim. There's nothing else to do given your refusal to at least attempt it.


Tcg

So, there are attempts to 'engage you in the conversation' and 'have invited you to comment' and 'proposed several questions to you'. Yet nothing from him to support the claim. Supporting the claim has nothing to do with what anyone says in conversation, invited comments or in answering questions. I don't understand why the claim depends on someone else's comments and how they answer questions. When I explained the scripture, I did not need anyone to engage in conversation, need someone to comment, or ask questions. I shared what I knew based on other scriptures and then let the reader accept it or reject it. Which Ross didn't say if he accepted or rejected it and why he did or didn't.

[Ross]

So, there are attempts to 'engage you in the conversation' and 'have invited you to comment' and 'proposed several questions to you'. Yet nothing from him to support the claim. Supporting the claim has nothing to do with what anyone says in conversation, invited comments or in answering questions. I don't understand why the claim depends on someone else's comments and how they answer questions. When I explained the scripture, I did not need anyone to engage in conversation, need someone to comment, or ask questions. I shared what I knew based on other scriptures and then let the reader accept it or reject it. Which Ross didn't say if he accepted or rejected it and why he did or didn't.

Oh you poor badly treated Jehovah's Witnesses. All martyred and persecuted, so unfair!

Aloof. Defensive. Evasive. Blocking others posts. But you expect special treatment.

[Ross]

All in an attempt to bury this:

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

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.'

[Ross]

And the comments of Mr Tcg, trolling, and then attempting to divert the content of discussion, is exactly what is meant by the expression 'straw man.'

[onewithhim]

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.

Have you ever studied geometry or algebra? Therein is what may be called "circular reasoning." It's not necessarily untrue.

[2timothy316]

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.

Have you ever studied geometry or algebra? Therein is what may be called "circular reasoning." It's not necessarily untrue.

From what I can tell, the only way for Ross to make his case is to convince us of his doctrine. If he can convince us of his doctrine then we can be convinced to use eisegesis to see Mt. 28:19 the way he interprets it. However, its not working because we reject his doctrine and the use of eisegesis to explain Mt 28:19. He can't support his claim without someone agreeing to his doctrine first. That is why all the questions and attempts to get us to engage. His support depends not on references or the Bible, but on us changing our minds about his doctrine.

[Ross]

From what I can tell, the only way for Ross to make his case is to convince us of his doctrine. If he can convince us of his doctrine then we can be convinced to use eisegesis to see Mt. 28:19 the way he interprets it. However, its not working because we reject his doctrine and the use of eisegesis to explain Mt 28:19. He can't support his claim without someone agreeing to his doctrine first. That is why all the questions and attempts to get us to engage. His support depends not on references or the Bible, but on us changing our minds about his doctrine.

Anyone with even half a brain can see that I did not make a claim, but instead, posed a question that caused you to fall into a trap, and subsequently admit the true meaning of 'name' with regard to Almighty God.

Matthew 28:19 clearly demonstrates by your testimony that this principle applies to The Father, The Son, and also to The Holy Spirit.

There is no defence presented because you have none; only a 'straw man' ( a diversion from the topic under discussion.) Shame on your religion and it's tactics.