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?

[Ross]

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

[Tcg]

Matthew 20:28 declares that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit have but one name. What do you think about that?

Matthew 20:28 states the following: "even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Are you sure this is the reference you intended?


Tcg

Sorry, I meant Matthew 28: 19,20.

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.


Tcg

Are you then of the same opinion as Timothy?

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


Tcg

[Ross]

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.

[Tcg]

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

[Ross]

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

How else is it possible to read:

"in the name of... followed by three?

Unless you claim the Holy Spirit has a name?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #84]

They are listed as three independent persons.

Interdependent, by all accounts.

By all accounts NOT interdependent. The Father doesn't need the Son to go on existing, and perfectly happy He would be.

"According to the good news of the happy God..." (I Timothy 1:11)

I am of course relating that to the overall unfolding of our reality, not arguing that God could exist without any other being existing and be perfectly happy in that situation, because - well other beings exist, so perhaps that is an aspect of God's "happiness".

Yet, according to the legend, Jesus was necessary to God, as were so many other "Men of God" necessary. I think that perhaps you are being pedantic and straying from the storyline?

"Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that one does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19)

The Son does need the Father to exist and function.

And The Father needs others in order for the stories to unfold the way that they have.

[LittleNipper]

The New Testament reveals new mysteries not found in the Old Testament: https://versebyverseministry.org/bible- ... -testament

[onewithhim]

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.

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.'

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?

"That men may know that thou, whose name is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, King James Version)

"And God said to Moses again, 'You shall say to the sons of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever.'" (Exodus 3:15, The Interlinear Bible in Hebrew, Greek and English Hendrickson)

[Ross]

But Jehovah is the Father to whom we must pray. What is any kind of relationship when peoples' names are omitted?


"And God said to Moses again, 'You shall say to the sons of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever.'" (Exodus 3:15, The Interlinear Bible in Hebrew, Greek and English Hendrickson)

"Father" is the name that Jesus indicated we should use. He also used that very same name. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that only the Father is YHWH of which there is no known correct pronunciation.
There is no 'Jehovah' or even YHWH in any extant manuscript of the NT.

And your entire reasoning is based on your assumption that YHWH was only The Father in the Masoretic Text or Hebrew Scriptures.

Can't you see that you are using circular reasoning to explain away clear scriptures and fact?

[onewithhim]

But Jehovah is the Father to whom we must pray. What is any kind of relationship when peoples' names are omitted?


"And God said to Moses again, 'You shall say to the sons of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever.'" (Exodus 3:15, The Interlinear Bible in Hebrew, Greek and English Hendrickson)

"Father" is the name that Jesus indicated we should use. He also used that very same name. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that only the Father is YHWH of which there is no known correct pronunciation.
There is no 'Jehovah' or even YHWH in any extant manuscript of the NT.

And your entire reasoning is based on your assumption that YHWH was only The Father in the Masoretic Text or Hebrew Scriptures.

Can't you see that you are using circular reasoning to explain away clear scriptures and fact?

"Father" is not a name. It is a title and indicates that there is a person behind the title who must have a name. It is quite clear that "Jehovah" is the name of God and Jesus always referred to his Father as God. In fact he said to the Father, Jehovah: "YOU are the only true God." (John 17:3) No circular reasoning involved.