Jehovah’s Witnesses are most well-known for their door-to-door preaching, denial of the trinity,accurate end times prophecies and denial blood transfusions (their way of not growing too large).
Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days and made attempts of END OF THE WORLD predictions at least 7 times (I guess the more times you try the closer you will get????)
The Watchtower later stated that it “regretted” the expectations that had been raised regarding 1975 by “persons having to do with the publication of the information.” Heck – why did all the sheep faithfully read the publications in the first place?
Rather than come out and admit that the Watchtower was a false prophet…it was much easier to lay the blame on the sheep (and their raised expectations) They should have received the dates WITHOUT expectation.
Of course blaming others is always the BEST escape route – you save face, and come out all sparkly and respectable.
We prefer blaming others too and read without expectation folks!
DJ
donjobson
itodyaso
seymorespurgeon
truthslayer
Will Farel XV
itodyaso.wordpress.com 
The Watchtower is not a false prophet because it is not a prophet. It is a magazine.
Yes, they should blame the sheep because to be focusing on dates is not right.
But Jehovah’s Witnesses did not set a date for 1975. It was said that it was the end of 6000 years of human history. Anything more is interpreted by the people.
But the promises in the Bible are still there to be fulfilled and your criticisms don’t change that.
You need to learn from JWs to have faith in the Bible as you are lacking it by your ridicule.
LikeLike
Steve: Note first this is a parody site that has an edge and uses humor to make a point. Often in contrasting the JW we are making a point against some other people who teach false doctrine. I am stepping out of character to seriously address your points. I how you understand I do respect your views and only desire that you find true faith in Christ Jesus as I hope you do for yourself.
1. If a person or persons set a date for the return of Jesus and He did not return… it is a false prophecy regardless to it being a literal singular prophet or a magazine that is written by false prophets so you are splitting a very fine hair that means nothing.
2. We agree (See point 1 as to why the sheep need to be on guard against false prophets in whatever form they take, magazine, book or a physical person or people)
3. Again, this a very fine hair that is really a case of double speak… just as your point # one. To say that it is the end of human history would mean the final judgment has come… yet still it is even unbiblical as we will still be humans in the eternal Kingdom… so how would human history have ended when it is obvious it has not and the bible teaches it will not. Even in the JW materials I have read states that those not of the 144,000 will live on earth… will they not be human? Will they be transformed into some god or alien? So if you read your materials you will find either a glaring contradiction to your own teachings or a lie that is not taught in the bible.
4. The Bible’s promises will always be true but lies from twisting the scripture to fit one’s own doctrine is wrong. We are not to change the bible as the Watchtower has to fit OUR doctrines… which is one thing we heavenly ridicule here, we must be changed and transformed into the image of Christ by the power of the Resurrection and the word of God. God’s word will endure forever, yet if we change His promises to fit out own doctrinal views we believe a lie and have forsaken the truth.
You need to learn from the Holy Spirit and not from man to have faith from God. We do not have faith in the bible to save us, but are freely given the gift faith from God in Jesus. Have you read John 5: 39. “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Even your own bible teaches this:
39 “YOU are searching the Scriptures, because YOU think that by means of them YOU will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. 40 And yet YOU do not want to come to me that YOU may have life. JWB
Yet you are staying we are to have faith in the bible, I say have faith in God through Jesus and not only have faith in the bible but eternal Life through the Son of God who can give eternal Life.
Yet, be sure you have the correct Jesus… or all is lost… do not be deceived… challenge your beliefs if you do trust them. If they hold to be true then no problem, yet, if you have the wrong Jesus, all your faith in Him will not matter.
Take care,
iggy
LikeLike
1. JWs have not set a date for the return of Christ.
JWs looked to 1914 as the end of the gentile times and later understood that to be when he became king in the heavens. That did come to be.
1975 was not to be the return of Christ.
JWs like Jesus have the sayings of everlasting life.
LikeLike
Steve,
Rewriting history does not make it truth… seek truth and it will set you free… and who the Son sets free is free indeed. If you look at the older literature of the time it was stating the Return of Jesus… do not be fooled by those who try to rewrite the history of what happened.
Peace.
LikeLike
No history was rewritten.
I have no file that says that 1975 is the end.
1914 was the end of the gentile times. They thought that the end was to come then. Good for them. I don’t fault them for that. I praise them for that.
The fact is that other religions don’t look for the prophesies or keep on the watch.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen a parody/satire site written in behalf of the church. I approve, if only because I do the same thing on the other side. We actually might make pretty good sparring partners. Think about it. (though I tend to spar mostly with the atheist/rationalistic crowd, rather than the church crowd. no real reason for it other than personal preference.)
Not to deny your viewpoint on dates, but here’s another way of looking at the subject:
http://tinyurl.com/cq6pnp
LikeLike
Tom,
I appreciate the grace you are extending. Though I am not sure this is the best forum through this blog. I do have another blog that might better fit “sparing” as you stated.
http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
Note that I have talked to many JW’s in my life and find them very loving and kind people. Most the time I have been blacklisted by them in the towns I live in as I guess I ask the wrong questions. = )
I never want to come across as not appreciating the Jehovah’s witnesses I just see some rather inconsistencies with what is taught as it has been shared with me. To me, to be blacklisted as I was because I asked the wrong questions seemed a lack of faith in the truth as understood.
Now, I personally also see that many can come to Jesus and yet be under wrong teaching or even bondage to a religious sect. This does not mean it is just JW’s, Mormons or whoever, but even with the more traditional views of Christianity.
My central focus is to help people see the freedom in Christ Jesus. To be able to question and reason and to work out their faith. Sometimes though reason fails as Paul teaches. I mean… a man named Jesus died, then rose again from the grave? That is beyond reasoning as even the Greek scholars at Mars Hill saw clearly and stated:
Acts 17: 31. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” 32. When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.”
They did not see that as reasonable that a man died and was raise to life again… they were with Paul about Jesus dying, but how can a man die and yet come to life again?
I noted that you wrote about the Trinity on your blog. Yet I also noted that you seem to not see it reasonable. I see it as most reasonable and easy to understand. If you want you can email me personally
iggy@wwdb.org
Peace,
iggy
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean by being black-listed. We have no such formal designation, though word can certainly spread locally and informally. We have a ministry and we are purposeful about it. We are persuaded of certain things, and we endeavor to present them to others, thinking they, too, might be persuaded. But if we discern that the other primarily wishes to debates or engage in questions that are designed to provoke debate, we tend to withdraw, since such was not our purpose in calling. It’s always a judgement call on the individual Witness, and not everyone’s judgement is the same, but in general, most of us will take the same course eventually.
Many Witnesses would tell you that at one time they searched far and wide for what they have now come to accept as truth. Before that time, while they were searching, most would have been more inclined to debate. After that time, when one’s searching has been satisfied, they are less inclined.
I’ve writen on the Trinity some, but not too much. I find that such discussions rarely go anywhere, yet consume massive amounts of time. In the final analysis, I say “let God sort it out.”
LikeLike
Steve Klemetti say’s-“The Watchtower is not a prophet”
Steve Klemetti is an outrageous ‘hybrid’ APOSTATE he does more damage to the Watchtower than the EXJW.
Are you disfellowshipped yet?
LikeLike
So is this what this blog is about?
Personal attacks by the followers of Danny Haszard?
I am a moderate and thus not a liberal like the apostates nor a conservative like the pharisees.
And I can’t be disfellowshipped because I love Jehovah God and his son Jesus and their followers.
LikeLike
Hello Steve and welcome to the ODMafia site. First, I did not normally come out of character but I would like to address some of the points that you brought up…
1) Steve Klemetti Says: The Watchtower is not a false prophet because it is not a prophet. It is a magazine.
“The Watch Tower” (4/1/1919) P. 6414
“Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period?”
My questions:
a) If the WTS is Not a prophet why should we (or especially JWs) listen to them?..and since they have stated that they are THE channel…is the TRUE channel wrong then?
b) if the the WTS is a prophet then please explain why all of the date setting and then back peddling…
c) God’s prophets stated things that would come to pass, if they did not they failed as a prophet. Do you think that the WTS has passed the test?
see http://sosoutreach.tripod.com/wts/pred.html
Steve, thanks for stopping in, it is my hope that you will continue to hang out with us….ponder, think and ask questions.
LikeLike
“1)My questions:
a) If the WTS is Not a prophet why should we (or especially JWs) listen to them?..and since they have stated that they are THE channel…is the TRUE channel wrong then?”
You should listen to us (don’t focus on them) because it is the only sensible thing there is. We are the only ones preaching the good news of the kingdom of God.
“b) if the the WTS is a prophet then please explain why all of the date setting and then back peddling…”
The only date setting was something Rutherford did about 1925. He is not what the religion is all about.
The looking to dates for the end is not a bad things but it is shows faith in God’s word and promises.
“c) God’s prophets stated things that would come to pass, if they did not they failed as a prophet. Do you think that the WTS has passed the test?”
I don’t know and don’t care if the WTS has passed this test. My concern is whether *I* have passed that test. But *I* don’t have original prophesies. NO one today does. But we use the prophesies given in the Bible that have not been fulfilled.
LikeLike
Steve, I asked you some personal questions on a different blog about Ray Faircloth, which you’ve never responded to. Do you want to make your way over there and answer them? In case you can’t, I’ll ask them again here, and hopefully we can dialogue:
You seem to truly believe in the JW as an organization. WHY do you believe they are true and correct, as opposed to others? What evidence do you have for it to be true? Further, if you were shown clear evidence that they are not true, would you heed it?
LikeLike
Ray Faircloth is an idiot for leaving because he does not understand the religion. If he wants to understand it he can learn.
I believe JWs are God’s organization because no one else believes that they are.
LikeLike
There is a difference between originating a prophesy (Jim Jones and that Koresh guy in Texas) and misinterpreting an existing prophesy. Jehovah’s Witnesses have never done the former. They have done the latter. But the latter does not classify one as a false prophet. Rather, it identifies one as a serious, though imperfect, Bible student. After all, Jesus disciples also were greatly enthused about his return and were inclined to “jump the gun.”
“When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” Acts 1:6
and
“While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” Luke 19:11
We, too, eagerly anticipate the Lord’s return and take seriously his admonition to “keep on the watch.” A missed date (and there haven’t been too many of them….just once in our lifetime) is understandable under such circumstances. It leaves egg on the face, to be sure, but it doesn’t count anyone as a false prophet. Many church folk have no sense whatsoever of “keeping on the watch.” We do.
When the Watchtower “blames the sheep,” they are including themselves. They don’t present themselves in any other way than as fellow brothers who are taking the lead. They don’t put themselves above anyone. In their enthusiasm, they all got carried away with an idea that was written about only a few times, and always as a distinct possibility, even a likelihood, but never as an absolute. However, it was spoken about much more frequently, by Christians enthused about the prospect of Christ’s return, which only goes to show that you should put greater emphasis on what is written, not what is spoken – a principle that holds true in most walks of life.
http://tinyurl.com/a7bob9
LikeLike
Actually your premise is somewhat off as David Koresh and David Koresh used existing prophecies in the book of Revelation. Yet what you miss is both claim some “special” touch of the divine as the Watchtower Society does. So personally to prove your point I would not use cult leaders that lead their people to death to separate yourself in that way… other than the WTS has not told their people to die for them or kill themselves.
Jesus clearly stated that we will know the season… but that the date is not known. So setting a date or relabeling an already failed set date is really misleading and a denial the there was a failure.
If this was the end of the gentiles and that was true, then why still try to reach the gentile that time has according to your prophets… ended… now would be either judgment or the time when God refocuses on Israel to save them (whichever narrative you may follow)
So to me then the JW by being told to still reach the gentile is not being true to scripture and need to focus on the Jew. So still you have some heavy biblical issues to deal with.
Now I agree to a degree that the emphasis is on what is written and not spoken, yet I guess then one need to hold in suspect if what was written was changed to fit what was spoken… meaning if the bible translation has been changed from the original language to fit the doctrines of the group, one needs to really take a serious look at what was changed.
I challenge you to look at the changes concerning who Jesus is as that is what really matters. If Jesus is just “a god” then we should not be worshiping him for there is only One true God. Also, if Jesus claimed to be God and as John speaks of, “14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.” (John 1:14)
This Word is important and without the proper understanding of “logos” one will fall greatly into error and miss the real Jesus.
LikeLike
“if the bible translation has been changed from the original language to fit the doctrines of the group.”
ANY Bible translation is open to that charge, since there are hundreds, and each will differ from whichever one you happen to be using.
When you refer to Jesus and “a god,” I assume you are refering to John 1:1 and how that verse has been handled in various translations. The NWT has “changed” nothing. If anything, they have drawn upon sources more extant than the most popular Bible translations of today. More extant means more accurate….closer in time to the original.
Scores of Bible translations have rendered John 1:1 as other than “the Word was God.” Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it “and the Word was divine.” Also: the Word “was face to face with God.” (Centenary Translation – Montgomery) “God had the Word residing with him” (Knox) “what God was, the Word was” (New English Bible) We would have no issue with any of these translations.
Moreover, the Coptic translations of John 1:1 translate the verse exactly as the NWT: “the Word was a god.” The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt duirng the 3rd century, at a time when Koine Greek was still used, and therefore the translators could better understand the nuances of that tongue. It is closer in time to the original – closer than the extant manuscripts underlying such popular Bibles as King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and so forth.
Click to access coptic.pdf
That the most popular Bible translations render John 1:1 as “the Word was God” means nothing. These Bibles are all sold on the commercial marketplace, and far-and-away the primary buyers are church folk who believe in the Trinity and would buy nothing else. Were the NWT distributed through that channel, no doubt it would tank. But it is not. It is distributed through non-commercial means, without pre-determined charge, by a network of Christians who love God and his Word. The other Bible translations I mentioned that fail to render John as “the Word was God” are, for the most part, unheard of, not because they are not fine translations, but because they are distributed through commercial channels, buyers of which are primarily Trinity believers.
LikeLike
Again, Tom S&G is defending the undefendable. Lets see what the leading New Testament Scholars have to say about the NWT:
What leading Protestant Greek scholars say about the “New World Translation” :
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT “a frightful mistranslation,..Erroneous…pernicious…reprehensible.. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said “it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated….Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation.” (These words were excerpted from the tape, “Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation”, Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT “a shocking mistranslation…Obsolete and incorrect…It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god…I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures…. it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation.” (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137) the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Hmmm….let’s take a look at 2 other WT bibles on the translation of John 1:1
John 1:1 “At the first was the Word, and the Word was where God was, and the Word was God” The Bible in Living English
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” American Standard Version
What more can I say, ecxept, dream on Tom…
LikeLike
Greg, So you are relying on other people just because of credentials, not because you understand the issues involved.
“Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT “a frightful mistranslation,..Erroneous…pernicious…reprehensible.. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.””
What he said is totally meaningless. Calling Jesus ‘a god’ is not polytheism because Jesus is not seeking the place of God. Jesus was a god in that he was a divine spirit being, but not the supreme being.
LikeLike
The Scholars I quoted have years of experience and knowledge on Koine Greek. They are all recognized worldwide as top notch Greek scholars (unlike Fred Franz). I will take their opinions over a WT drone anyday.
The NWT is nothing more than one of Satan’s many vehicles to divert the vulnerable (and lazy) from investigating and knowing the real Truth.
You just want to blindly defend your own beliefs…I know, I know….it’s hard to be humble.
Greg B
LikeLike
Greg,
Though I understand your position I will add that one thing I learned a long time ago was to not insult those who are being deceived by the WTS or any other organization.
Walter Martin give some great advice in how to converse with such a person.
http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html
The most important thing I have learned is that Jesus loves and died for those who are caught in deception and that if Jesus was willing to die for them as well as myself, then I should respect the person though I may totally disagree with them.
Personally I even try to avoid such language as “cult” or “cultist” as that can also be offensive to those. I might add that this blog’s purpose is to stand against those who teach legalism and see that grace is only fit for themselves and others are less worthy of it. I fight against those in my own faith that see that lies and deception are tools to protect truth and think of God as some little old lady that needs help to cross the street. So, really this blog is not about “cults” though I see many of them are very legalistic and have no real understanding of the Grace of God.
peace,
iggy
LikeLike
Yes Iggy,
you are correct. If I was dealing with Steve or Tom in real life….face to face, I would use a different tack, But as this is the internet, I feel it important to use “Shock and Awe” as I will never hear or see these two again in my life.
My purpose is to wake them out of their WT stupor….to salvage some of their laundered grey matter.
Even jesus reverted to “Shock and Awe” in the early church.
Mark 6:11 And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold doves.
I see JW’s as “money changers” in the temple…desecrating the beliefs of Christianity and sucking in the vulnerable to the strongholds of Satan.
Maybe I should just “shake off the dust under my feet” and be done with them…
LikeLike
Yes, the reason that I do not side with the antijws is that they just resort to insults. If they had the truth, they would proclaim it and not insult.
Walter Martin is a cultleader himself. People follow him. I talked to him on his radio program and he was rude and hung up because I got him over 1 Tim 3:16
LikeLike
Just remember Steve K, It was only a few hundred years ago that heretics, if convicted, were severely punished, many times by capital punishment.
JW’s hide behind the “limp wristed” laws of the land…. that’s what allows them to continue their heresy.
Why should I be harsh with your heresy? That is simple … because you are condemning your proselytes to an eternity in the place where only the absence of God exists … yes… something you don’t believe in …. Hell.
A murderer is better off than a heretic in the eyes of God because a murderer only kills the body, but the heretic condemns the soul to an eternal godless existence… perhaps you will experience such an existence … may the lord have mercy on your soul…
Greg B
LikeLike
The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt during the 3rd century, at a time when Koine Greek was still used, and therefore the translators could better understand the nuances of that tongue.
Let’s talk about that. Just b/c I understand what you mean when you say this, doesn’t mean I’m qualified to translate from Coptic or Greek into English.
What were the qualifications of the men who translated the NWT into English?
LikeLike
What in the world does that statement have to do with anything? No one’s asking you to translate from Coptic or Greek into English.
The point is that, in a language closer in time to the actual usage of Koine Greek, the translators rendered John 1:1 exactly as does the NWT today. Viewed in this light, the NWT is not changing John 1:1. Rather, manuscripts well after John penned his letter “changed” the verse, and NWT has restored it to as it should be.
LikeLike
Tom, you didn’t answer the question, which was asking about the qualifications of the men who translated the NWT. I could say I translated Greek/Hebrew/Coptic into English as well, and have my version of the Bible. It wouldn’t mean it’s accurate, b/c I have no basis of knowledge to know how to translate accurately.
What were the qualifications of the group of men, which was kept secret by the JW organization for many years, who came up with the NWT?
LikeLike
See reply to your question below.
LikeLike
Once again, we see that the Enlish rendering of John 1:1 from The Coptic Version Actually DOES agree with most other NT scholars about this passage….lol…JW’s will grasp at anything to avoid the truth….see below for explanation.
Horner, George William, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911: “[A]nd (a) God was the word.”
This reference is to an English translation of John 1:1c in the Coptic dialect known as Sahidic. One feature of Sahidic that makes it interesting in terms of understanding the meaning of the underlying Greek is that it has both an indefinite and definite article. It is thus closer to English than Greek in this regard. The quotation from Mr. Wells is from a section of his paper called “Note on Christology in the Coptic Versions of John.” Though he does not say directly, he implies that the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic translation indicates that the Coptic translator understood the anarthrous theos in his Greek original of John 1:1c to be indefinite (that is, “a god”).
If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT’s rendering. But, as we shall see, appearances can be deceiving.
The full citation of Horner’s Coptic New Testament is as follows:
The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 4 Volumes (Oxford, 1911).
Horner’s English translation of John 1:1c is as follows:
“…and [a] God was the Word.”
Horner’s critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as follows: “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English” (p. 376).
How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the Sahidic original, is not required in English?
The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article itself. We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:
Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in place of [a] grace.
More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a “qualitative usage” [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):
Indefinite Article
one specimen of the lexical class of … ;
one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of … (Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary – Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, “…” in original).
Dr. Layton explains further:
The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we’d omit the English article in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3
Examples of qualitative usage may be found in John 1:33 (which Horner renders “this is he who will baptize in [a] holy spirit and a flame”) and John 3:6:
That which was begotten out of the flesh is [a] flesh, and that which was begotten out of the spirit is [a] spirit (Horner’s translation).
So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written “a god.” He was not equating the Word with the proper name God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us?
I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative reading. In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the definite article. Horner’s translation reads as follows:
“God, the only Son.”4
It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would understand John to have designated the Word “a god” in John 1:1 and “the God” in John 1:18. Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity to the Word in John 1:1.
Click here to see an image with the first few verses of John’s Gospel in Horner’s Sahidic edition. I have blogged on this topic further here.
See also Brian Wright, “Jesus as Theos: Scriptural Fact of Scribal Fantasy,” note 34. I did not have the benefit of Mr. Wright’s article when I wrote my comments about Horner, and he has indicated in private email that he was unaware of my website. Thus, we have each independently arrived at a similar conclusion, for much the same reasons.
LikeLike
Tom,
Now any Bible may be treated in a manner that the translation from the original language is made to fit the group, yet, when the original language is mistranslated to fit the doctrines that is a whole other issue as with the WTS bible.
The Greek in the WTS Bible is mishandled badly at times to fit the WTS doctrines. If you go to any modern day bible they will be honest with you and even mention that some verses in the Bible were not even in many of the original texts. They will also footnote variations on a verse that may be translated a bit different.
Back to Logos, if you do some digging and research… you will find that John was writing against the Gnostic’s yet even more the Logos was the idea of the infinite “Word” or “conversation” that was and is and always will be and through all creation came.
Now, here is the issue I saw at your blog concerning the Trinity. You have a wrong and grossly mistaken view.
If you take Genesis and John 1 and read them together you will see the similarities John is going for. He is stating that Jesus is the very words spoken at creation. I know that the WTS will say that Jesus was the first created, yet, if that be so, then you miss a subtle nuance of the texts.
Genesis 1:1-31
1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.”
Now note that all three of the Trinity is present at the time of creation.
First we have God as in the beginning. Then we have the Spirit of God hovering, then we have the Spoken “let light come to be.” Though I prefer other translations, the literal one would be, “Let be…”
So now if you go back to John 1 you will read:
John 1:1-51
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. (WTS)
And here is the issue, the WTS states Jesus was “a god” and then corrupts monotheism. No Greek scholar would translate this as “a god” as:
It creates two Gods. Jehovah states there is only One God. In fact Paul states this about “other gods”:
“1 Cor 10:18 LOOK at that which is Israel in a fleshly way: Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers with the altar? 19 What, then, am I to say? That what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons. 21 YOU cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; YOU cannot be partaking of “the table of Jehovah” and the table of demons.”
Note Paul calls other “gods” or lesser gods demons?
Now also if you look at the idea of Trinity in a more holistic view, you have
The Father: The Speaker (Gen 1:3)
The Spirit: The Breath (Gen 2:7)
The Son: The Let Be (Gen 1: 3)
Matt 12:33 “Either YOU people make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten; for by its fruit the tree is known. 34 Offspring of vipers, how can YOU speak good things, when YOU are wicked? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things. 36 I tell YOU that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgment Day; 37 for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned.”
As you can see that God does not separate what we say and who we are. God will judge us by what we say as it is who we are.
Now that was what Jesus taught and the Bible states… so if that is true, the God’s spoken words are the “abundance or His Heart” also. Meaning that you cannot deny that what God spoke were His own words, and that of that was the pre-incarnated Jesus being the very Spoken words God spokes. Jesus was the “Let be…”
If Jesus was the “Let be” through all creation came, and you cannot separate a man from his words as they are from his heart, so God’s “Let be..” cannot be separated from Him as the “Word” is His very Heart.
Not all creation is His heart but a product of His Heart. Jesus was before creation.
Even in the WTS Jesus states He was before the founding of the world. “John 17: 24 Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.”
Note Jesus states “before” this means He “was” before creation… not created before… Jesus simply “was” before… this is one passage the WTS did translate correctly.
Jesus was before creation as he was in God as the words of God’s very own heart. Again, the bible does not separate a man’s heart from his words so it will not separate God’s words from His.
If Jesus is God’s spoken Word and this Word became flesh, the Jesus was God incarnate. Meaning Jesus was God and is God. Yes, He was a man, but He was a man that was born of Heaven… the first prototype of all the New Creation.
Now if Jesus is just “a god” then He is a false god and a demon and we should not worship Him… and Jesus received worship and did not rebuke anyone for it. This makes Him one really bad rabbi as a rabbi would quickly rebuke those if they began to worship him.
If you look at what I presented about the Trinity you will see it is reasoned and Biblically supported. It is logical and easy to understand. So to say the Trinity is unreasonable seems … unreasonable to me.
Peace,
iggy
LikeLike
“The Greek in the WTS Bible is mishandled badly at times to fit the WTS doctrines.”
The only example you’ve supplied (John 1:1) I have replied to in my comment above.
“If you go to any modern day bible they will be honest with you and even mention that some verses in the Bible were not even in many of the original texts. They will also footnote variations on a verse that may be translated a bit different.”
Few Bibles do this as thoroughly as does the NWT (large print edition). It not only does what you say -it goes further. It tells WHICH manuscripts and versions supplies/omits/translates differently this or that verse. See, for example, NWT’s treatment of the final verses of Mark, compared to that of the NIV or RSV. NWT is far more thorough:
http://tinyurl.com/qm4cpb
LikeLike
And – I hope you don’t mind – I’ve not responded to the rest of your comment since it deals with Bible interpretation, not Bible translation. Not to say that your view is right or it is wrong. It’s just an additional subject to the one we have been discussing. I stick to the charge of mistranslating the Bible because it is, by far, the most serious charge that has been made against us. Only after that matter is settled – is the Bible translated accurately – can any progress be made on how to understand what it says.
LikeLike
Which is exactly what I asked you about – what were the qualifications of the men who translated the NWT?
LikeLike
Does the qualifications of the translators matter?
It exists.
I have a great car, do I care about the qualifications of the builders?
I had RK surgery done in 1994. It has worked great for 15 years. Do I care about the qualifications on the surgeon?
The NWT is great, so judge it on its merits.
LikeLike
Steve, this is an absolute head-in-the-sand approach to the question. I hope this is not the same approach you use for all of JW theology.
Do the qualifications of the translators exist? Absolutely. If I said I translated a copy of the OT & NT from the original languages, and presented it as accurate to you, and said that you need to follow it and “judge it on its merits”, would you blindly accept it, or would you do a little investigating to see if I had any training at all in ancient languages?
Gosh, I hope you’d do some investigating. But judging from your answers, maybe you would just follow blindly.
Hard to compare a car or RK surgery to the inspired Word of God, don’t you think? Especially since neither cars nor RK surgery require translations for us to be able to understand them?
C’mon Steve, you’re following blindly…
LikeLike
Did you miss the part where I said that the NWT is great and it should be judged on its merits. It’s merits are that it is a great translation.
Since people don’t know the translators of the KJV or RSV or ASV or NIV, why don’t you hassle them for using that without know it?
LikeLike
The NWT translation committee has remained anonymous from the onset. One effect of this decision is that it encourages the reader to focus on the merits of the work itself, rather that the “qualifications” of those who produced it. Is the work any good or not? One ought to be able to determine that without knowing the qualifications of the translators. That holds true in any other aspect of life. Why should it not hold true here as well?
When my wife and I moved into our present house, we inspected it closely for quality. We even hired an inspector. Satisfied on those points, we purchased it. But we don’t know who built it, nor does that worry us. The qualifications of the builders are evident from what is built.
LikeLike
One does not know the qualifications of the translators of the KJV or others.
The fact is that the translators have a record of serving God.
LikeLike
Since neither you nor Steve seem to know (or care) about the translators of the NWT, allow me to give you some information on it. The translators of the NWT, and their qualifications, are as follows:
Frederick Franz – Was probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati. He had 21 semester hours of classical Greek, and some Latin. He partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year. He was self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.
George Gangas – No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek, and he translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.
Milton Henschel (somewhat questionable) – No training in biblical languages.
Karl Klein (somewhat questionable) – No training in biblical languages.
Nathan Knorr – No training in biblical languages.
Albert Schroeder – No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.
Further, Franz’s primary training was in Classical Greek, not biblical Greek. He dropped out of a survey course on that topic. He was self-taught in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, which is commendable, but does it qualify him as a Bible translator? Many people can have a very limited knowledge of New Testament Greek attained through private study (no formal training), and any person can take classes on New Testament Greek or do self-study in this area with the help of books and language dictionaries. However, I seriously doubt that would qualify them to serve on a Bible translation committee. In fact, in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1954, Mr. Franz failed a simple test on his Hebrew language skills. On cross-examination, Franz was asked to translate a particular verse from Genesis (2:4) from English to Hebrew. He refused to do so. Some proponents say he could have, but chose not to – but if he could, and he knew that by not doing it it would reflect poorly, why not just do the simple translation? Surely a person who had translated the entire Bible could translate a single verse in a court of law under oath, right?
You can download a copy of the transcript, so you can see it’s not made up, if you like, at:
http://www.lulu.com/content/762879
To hide behind the cloak of “we want God to get the credit” is ludicrous, and attempts to deflect criticism. Google any current translation of the Bible (NIV, NAS, KJV, etc…) and you can find a list of the people who translated, and their qualifications, and they can be checked to see if they have the requisite qualifications to perform the duty.
Would you let a career janitor perform your RK surgery? Would you let a biology teacher assemble your car? Then why would you accept a version of the Bible from people who weren’t qualified to assemble it? You really need to think about that, guys.
LikeLike
If they aren’t qualified to translate it, how do you explain the fact that it exists and helps millions?
It is like someone had successful surgery, then you say the surgeon was not qualified. Ask the patient who is healthy and out and about.
JWs are spiritually healthy as a people and that is from having a good Bible.
LikeLike
Good enough, Steve. You’re happy with your head in the sand. I won’t try any further.
Good luck.
LikeLike
And you are happy not explaining what you mean.
And you are happy not explaining how, if they have no training in Biblical languages, the NWT exists and delivers the same message, even a better message than the other translations.
LikeLike
It’s been explained, Steve – see my replies above already, showing the qualifications of the people who supposedly translated it.
You’re trying to operate from the given position that it’s a “true” translation, and using that as your basis for arguing. If the point being argued is whether the translation is good or not, the basis for arguing CAN’T be that it’s already true, which is what you’re doing. It’s not even logical.
Steve, I’m done, buddy. If you can’t see that, then there’s not much else I can say. It’s laid out pretty clearly above already.
As I said, good luck.
LikeLike
Really this argument is interesting… As I have even known atheists who are fluent in Greek and Hebrew who would say that WTS did a poor job in translation. So I see that when most other scholars will say this and even my atheist friends would laugh at the WTS translation,then why would I as an outsider trust that it is a good translation.
So the proof is on the WTS to prove with credible scholars that it is a good translation.
The facts point that it is not… to just say it is true and not produced credible facts to back that claim does not make it true and shows a lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the person stating the claim. I am not saying that Steve is honest or dishonest, as I do not know him, more that blind trust in someone else’s words without credible backing is a dangerous place to be and leaves one in the possibility to be deceived.
A quote that is attributed to Propaganda Minister Joel Goebel for the Nazi party stated, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” I see that this may be the case in the WTS translation of the bible…
LikeLike
“So the proof is on the WTS to prove with credible scholars that it is a good translation.”
No, the burden is on the translation to show that it is a good translation. That is done by the results. The fact that over 7 million are using it in the ministry and meetings in a fruitful way is proof that it is a good translation, where as the other translations and versions do not have a ministry with results.
LikeLike
I find it laughable that both Steve Klemetti and Tom S&G deny that the WTS has a) made false prophecies and b)claimed to be a prophet. Perhaps I can refresh your memories (or perhaps you’ve never read your own back issues of the WT)…
For a video version please see 2 excellent videos that prove WITHOUT a doubt that JW’s are false prophets:
from the Watchtower of April 1st, 1972, page 197
“So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them dangers and to declare things to come?…These questions can be answered in the
affirmative. Who is the prophet?…This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible
students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses…Of course it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? Please see here for a scanned copy:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/R6xhcBdCbuI/AAAAAAAAAKE/o3VVaXrUGis/s1600-h/WT197204012p197a.jpg)
Since the WT invited us to show their record..Let’s review it and see for ourselves!
The Time is at Hand, 1910 edition (notice the date of the edition…4 years before 1914), pg 239.
“…Just so it has been in this harvest: Our Lord’s prescence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and a half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878, when kingly judgment should begin in the house of God. It is here that Rev. 14:14-20 applies, and our Lord is brought to view as the Reaper crowned. The year A.D. 1878…clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as KING of KINGS (emphasis added)by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord…”
What scares me the most for you as JW’s, is that all the past, present and future false prophecies made by the WTS were/are/will be pronounced to the world using the divine name; YHWH, Yahweh or Jehovah. I only have to refer you to the 3rd of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Greg
LikeLike
I find it laughable that you have to reach, er, stoop so far to where you go to one paragraph from a Watchtower 36 years ago and a book from 1910 and use that to define a whole religion. No, that is not how the religion is defined.
I can only speak for myself and I did not make any false prophecies.
Also go to the website highlighted by my name and you also will not see any false prophesies. That is what defines the religion.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, Steve K, you actually cannot speak for yourself, because you are a member of “God’s Organization”… (cough, cough, swallow, spit). You only have the authorization to regurgitate that which the WT spoon feeds you. The present time is no, and I emphasize NO different than in 1910.
You have no authorization to preach ANYTHING outside of WT limits (doctrine)….you know it, I know it and everyone reading this post knows it…..so please don’t be cute….you fool, no-one here buys the drivel…
You won’t defend against anything that I’ve posted…why? Because everything I’ve posted is The Truth….you know it, and I know it…you are nothing more than a drone for the WTS…
The Truth Will Set You Free…try it…you will see.
Greg B
LikeLike
Not true at all.
I do speak for myself.
I am a member of God’s organization, and proud to be so, but that does not mean that I can’t speak for myself, my religion or my brothers.
The WT does not spoon feed me anything.
The present time is different than 1910, the reason is that I was not alive in 1910.
I don’t need authorization to preach as I get it from God. As far as anything outside of WT doctrine… there is no such thing as WT doctrine. The governing body is the overseers of the worldwide congregation and as a congregation we teach what the overseers teach, and also because it is right and best understood.
Greg B, you really don’t know what you are talking about anyway. Your knowledge of JWs is only what you read on anti-JW websites. You have not posted anything to defend. Nothing you posted is true. You copied from antiJW websites and quoted out of context a 1972 magazine. You think that defines Jehovah’s Witnesses and it does not.
What defines JWs is what is in the website under my name. You are nothing more than a drone for Danny Haszard and Randall watters if you want to play that game.
I am free.
LikeLike
Those quotes are but a few out of hundreds of quotes. If I quoted them all, I’d have to write full time for this website, lol.
Here’s a recent one (like I have hundreds …. they’re not hard to find you know):
“…Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s PROMISE (emphasis added)of a peaceful and secure new world BEFORE the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.” all Awake! magazines before 1995 (I think)on page 4.
So…this generation of 1914 are now approx 110 years old… Do you still hang on to this prophecy Steve K? Can you answer that for me? Lol…If I were you, I’d be ambarrassed about that one… lol. Isn’t it interesting that the WTS stopped printing that false prophecy in the Awake! magazine…I wonder why? Do you think they stopped printing that false prophecy because they knew it would never be fulfilled (like so many others from the WTS)?
You have it wrong Steve K. You don’t speak for yourself….you represent “The Organization” every time you knock on some unsuspecting stiff’s front door. The false prophecies that “The Organization” (cough, cough, spit)adhere to are represented by YOU, because you represent the WTS.
I’m sure that I won’t see any false prohecies on your website….even the simplest of men know when to give it a break….now it is just a general hint like, “The time is at Hand”….”you better join us cause the time is near.” Sound familiar Steve K? Lol…
Greg B
LikeLike
Steve,
With all due respect, you are falling into so many logical fallacies I cannot even begin to unravel them. You argument is not a reasoned one at all.. So if your case is true then Mormons and your average Christians versions also bear the same type of fruit you stated.
In fact to use your case, there are more mainstream christian denominations that bear even more fruit than in your assertion about the WTS version… so logic would dictate (using your logic here) that there are much better versions available that would bear greater fruit… so YOU should use them instead.
Yet, that does not prove anything… again, you made an assertion and did not back it up with a real fact. The “fact” you gave hurts you cause and case more than it helps.
The biggest fallacy you fall into is this:
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. ]]
Again, if your statement is TRUTH then it should be very easy to prove. So to me if you cannot prove something as the validity of your trusted translation easily, then I personally cannot see it as logical or well reasoned.
iggy
LikeLike
Mormons and your “average Christian”‘s using the popular Bibles that you are not criticizing are not practicing Christianity as a whole. If that were the case, then they would be preaching the kingdom and the Bible rather than preaching prop 8. They would be letting God’s word do the talking and converting.
LikeLike
Steve,
I think as one of those average Christians myself I think I know more about what one does or believes… to a degree you are right… but again, instead of giving a reasoned answer you give nothing… so, to me you offer nothing for me to trust as to why your version of the bible is better.
Again, simply produce a couple of Greek Scholars who endorse the WT translation and you might have a better case… but a non answer is still NO answer… and according to the bible you should be able to give 15. But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to “give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” So far you are batting zero… as to giving a reason… at least one that is logical and well reasoned…
BTW I often critique those average Christians for not preaching the Kingdom… yet many, many do… I think someone has sold you a bill of goods that includes lies about people who you consider “average”…
God does not see favorites… He sees Jesus and what He has done and what we do in faith with that Truth. All else is meaningless works that will be burned away.
Again though you did not stay on the point you tried to make… You stated that the fruit was the proof and I stated that even the cult of Mormanism can state that… Even more that the “average” CHristian can even claim you point more than you claim. You seem to want to toss out assertions and then not back them.
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. And yet so far you refuse to do this.
iggy
LikeLike
“to me you offer nothing for me to trust as to why your version of the bible is better.”
No one is arguing that one version or translation is better than the other. It does not matter. All teach the same thing using the noncontroversial scriptures.
The KJV teaches that Jehovah is God. Ps 83:18
that Jesus is the son of God John 3:16
There is no arguing those scriptures.
Luke 1:32-25 says that Jesus is the son of the Most High who is Jehovah.
Heb 9:11,24 says that Jesus is the high priest.
Deut 18 says that that Moses was the prophet of Jehovah and there would be another like him. That is understood to be Jesus.
Those preclude Jesus from being God so when you factor in the controversial scriptures, they bring in contradiction. If John 1:1 says that Jesus was God, then how can God be his own high priest? IF Jesus was Jehovah, how can Jesus be Jehovah’s prophet if he was Jehovah?
We don’t have those questions, we have answers.
LikeLike
Don’t we commonly point to the marvels of creation as proof of God’s wisdom, love, and so forth? Do you mean to say that if there was no Bible, we’d have no way to determine whether creation was any good or not since we’d not know the qualifications of the one who built it?
The qualifications of the builders are evident from what is built. And….not to lose track of the original point….the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1 agrees word for word with the Coptic translations of the 3rd century, all produced while Koine Greek was still being spoken, and before the trinitarian renderings that would serve as the basis for Bibles such as the KJV.
LikeLike
Tom, you’ve yet to address the qualifications of the NWT translators.
And answer me this – do you believe the NIV, KJV, or NAS versions are all “good” translations?
LikeLike
You have yet to address why it is relevant when the work has been complete for 50 years.
I believe that the NIV, KJV and ASV are good translations. The NIV less though. JWs learned from those before the NWT.
LikeLike
Steve, I’ve asked your opinion of the translators – thus far you haven’t given it. I asked that question first, before any question you asked of me. Thus far, your only response has been, essentially, “it’s a good translation b/c a lot of people use it and it’s correct.” I can say that about other translations as well, which don’t say the same thing as the NWT – so which translation is right, and why?
If the others I mentioned are also good translations, as you say they are, then I assume you believe that the rendering of John 1:1, among other verses, is also “good.” If not, how could you call it a “good” translation?
LikeLike
Let’s compare.
1 Tim 2:4
Who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” New International Version
or
“whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth” New World Translation
Knowledge vs accurate knowlege.
epignōsis
precise and correct knowledge
a) used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine
Since gnosis mean knowledge, then epignosis is a fuller, more exact, real clear understanding of the subject.
Thus the NWT is more accurate than others.
Paul used epignosis for a reason, rather than gnosis.
In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person “knowing” and the object known; in this respect, what is “known” is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship, e.g., especially of God’s “knowledge,”
Greek: epiginosko
Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown:
denotes (a) “to observe, fully perceive, notice attentively, discern, recognize” (epi, “upon,” and No. 1); it suggests generally a directive, a more special, recognition of the object “known” than does No. 1; it also may suggest advanced “knowledge” or special appreciation; thus, in Rom 1:32, “knowing the ordinance of God” (epiginosko) means “knowing full well,” whereas in verse 21 “knowing God” (ginosko) simply suggests that they could not avoid the perception.
LikeLike
Tom,
Once again, just name a couple of scholars that back up your assertion… all I am asking for is at least two…
Both you and Steve have made assertions about the WTS Bible translation yet neither have produced anyone who will back your assertions. I know of not one credible Greek Scholar that would say “a god” as the WTS states… in fact that is inconsistent with the rest of the Scripture.
If you are depending on “a” and that Jesus is just “a” god, then again you have the issue of worshiping two Gods… There is only One God…
And God Himself states He is our salvation… so that would negate that Jesus saves us if He is just “a god”.
If Jesus is a “spirit creature” then Jesus lied to Thomas as to not being a “ghost” or “spirit”… If Jesus was just a man, then he could not save us as he would be only able to save himself…
Each man must pay for his own sin… and if Jesus never sinned then he paid for his own sin and won his own reward and did not win it for anyone else. For the bible teaches that only God can forgive sin. Which Jesus did frequently and also did on the Cross for mankind.
Again, to just in an “a” is foolish… as even in your own translation Jesus claims to be equal with Father God.
In Isaiah 44: 6 “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.
Isaiah 46: 12. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
i am sure we would all agree that this is Jehovah God…
Yet, In Rev Jesus uses this same phrase for himself… which makes him either a liar and untrustworthy, a demon, or God.
Rev 1: 17 And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.
Now when did God die? And if it is Jesus then why is He using the very title Jehovah used to SET HIMSELF apart from other “gods”?
Again Jesus is either committing great blasphemy by stating he is equal with Jehovah God, or a demon, a mad man or equal with Jehovah as He stated.
You will now need to either disagree with the WTS own translation or agree with it and have a major contradiction in it that shows that Jesus is stating He is equal to Jehovah…
Again, to trust in an “a” when even your own translation teaches the opposite seems a dangerous thing.
Please look carefully at the text… be honest with what it is saying… if it is true then what I have shown you is also true.
iggy
LikeLike
“Both you and Steve have made assertions about the WTS Bible translation yet neither have produced anyone who will back your assertions. I know of not one credible Greek Scholar that would say “a god” as the WTS states… in fact that is inconsistent with the rest of the Scripture.”
No I haven’t made any assertions because it is not necessary.
It does not matter what your Greek scholars say about John 1:1. Those Greek scholars would agree that John 3:16 says that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. As such he, the word, could not be God. It is not that the NWT is inconsistent but that the Bible in all translations have to be consistent.
“In Isaiah 44: 6 “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.
Isaiah 46: 12. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
i am sure we would all agree that this is Jehovah God… ”
Yes, we agree that is Jehovah God.
“Yet, In Rev Jesus uses this same phrase for himself… which makes him either a liar and untrustworthy, a demon, or God.”
No, Jesus did not use the same phrase for himself. Read it in context.
“Rev 1: 17 And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.
Now when did God die? And if it is Jesus then why is He using the very title Jehovah used to SET HIMSELF apart from other “gods”?”
That is the point. The context is death and resurrection. Jesus was the first one to die and be resurrected by God to immortal heavenly life and the last. First and Last.
:Again Jesus is either committing great blasphemy by stating he is equal with Jehovah God, or a demon, a mad man or equal with Jehovah as He stated.”
Or you are not reading it in context.
The fact is that Jesus can not be God and save. God can not die, can not be the sacrifice and not be the priest or prophet. Jehovah’s son Jesus was those things. Separate and not equal persons.
LikeLike
Steve/Tom,
Are you both polytheistic?
LikeLike
Define polytheistic.
LikeLike
It’s an easy question, Steve – do you REALLY not know what “polytheistic” means? Or are you afraid to answer?
LikeLike
Brad that has been my main point… if Jesus is “a god” and then saves us, then Jehovah lied by saying He alone saves us. So I see that the JW has two Gods… this is more in line with Hinduism where there is a hierarchial structure of “gods” where there is the One Creator and then the lesser gods… this is in no way what the Jews believed let alone has ever been taught in Christianity… Certainly Paul never taught it if he refers to these “gods” as demons.
Jesus refers to men as “gods” in that they know good and bad, but not that they are deity. Also to state as the JW does that Jesus was a “spirit” misses that there was a bodily resurrection. In fact Jesus then lied to Thomas saying that he was not a ghost or spirit…
I see the teachings like this from the WTS make Jesus a liar and a lesser god… and that is not what the bible teaches.
And just stating it does; does not make it so… so there is also no “reasoning” and a great lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to answering simple questions.
I have yet to receive an answer to why Jesus would dare use the same title as Jehovah by a JW and I have asked this question or many… I know they talk about it in their meetings, but if they want to convert someone like me, there has got to be well reasoned and consistency in the theology… and there is not.
LikeLike
Obviously Jehovah can not save us alone. He needs Jesus. So you read that out of context.
There are not two Gods. There is Jehovah the almighty and his son Jesus. There are also myriads and myriads of angels. There is one God. Those others can be called theos as they are divine spirit beings. But that is not polytheism since they are not worshipped as the divine being, the creator.
You don’t know what the teachings of the JWs or the WTS are to comment on them.
It does not matter what title Jesus used. It does not change who he is.
The problem with the antiJWs is that they do not have a religion or even Christianity to preach. If they did why are they focusing on criticizing the NWT rather than preaching the word?
LikeLike
So is the son Jesus some hybrid non human?
Now it is interesting that again, your critique of Christianity is off base…
If what you assert is true, then why do you bother with antiJW’s and go and preach the gospel?
I preach the gospel and spend very little time talking to JW’s… mostly because I see that most are not willing to really look at what they believe… and mostly because most will not give me answers as you have still to do… most seem dishonest as far as the reality of not knowing or caring about giving real answers… I see religious phonies and legalists who add to the Gospel works salvation. Can you give an honest answer to the questions I asked? When did God die? Not one JW has ever answered that as seem to disappear when I ask that? I pointed to the scripture from your own scripture which stated this… and still no answer. And I might point out I am neither the author or did I come to you to push my faith on you! You came here to argue and try to prove me wrong and convert me! By your own definition you are an anti-Christian…
I am anti religion as it is opposed to a relatioship with Jesus…
Now IF you have the wrong Jesus… and the bible teaches there are more than one… you may have a false one and thus not be saved so you are just as anyone who needs the real Jesus to be saved… is seeking to help someone find true salvation a waste of time? According to your statement it is… but I do not see it that way at all… the lost need a Shepherd… the sick need a Doctor… the dead need Life.. and the Life is in the Son…
So once again Steve, your assertion works against your argument and is illogical and not very well reasoned.
Again, I have asked at least two questions that have just gone unanswered and instead straw men arguments are put up to deflect the fact you are unwilling to give an answer as your faith… in fact I see more reasons from your own statements NOT to believe.
If you have the wrong Jesus you are lost… I have had a life changing experience and have been given a new Life in Christ Jesus… I was reborn… I have my testimony as to the workings of Christ in my life…
Is your burden light as Jesus said it would be? Mine is! Is that load you carry heavy and life draining? I bet if you answer honestly you will say you are weary and heavy laden with the guilt and pain of not being good enough…
I have none of that as Jesus took that away with my sin!
I am a new man in Christ… the old is dead and gone… can you say that?
I hold to the teachings of Scripture and the Power of the Resurrected Life of Christ Jesus… I pray you will find it also.
iggy
LikeLike
Steve,
A man or angel cannot save us… that is taught clearly in Hebrews…
A spirit cannot save us…
Only God is our salvation… you cannot have a “god” be our salvation and God be our salvation…
If you can’t see how illogical that is… really then prayer is the only thing left for you.
iggy
LikeLike
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Jesus is the last Adam. Thus to provide the ransom he must be as the first Adam.
Jesus is neither God nor sinful man. He was the divine son of Jehovah God who became a perfect man who offered that perfect life as a ransom for mankind. That is what the Bible teaches and JWs teach.
Thus it is not an angel that provided that ransom. And JWs don’t teach that. It is not a sinful man either.
“Only God is our salvation… you cannot have a “god” be our salvation and God be our salvation…”
You are wrong. If Only God is our salvation, then why would he need Jesus? Why would he need the temple/tablernacle as a model of the Christian temple?
That is your problem, you don’t understand the temple in shadow or reality.
LikeLike
Oh, and why would God allow a “god” to sit on His Throne? Would that not be blasphemy? Jehovah alone is King of His Kingdom… He would not set aside that position to some “god”.
God alone is our salvation… and the JW denies that.
iggy
LikeLike
Jehovah allowed David and his descendants to sit on his throne. The physical throne in Jerusalem. A covenant was made with David that his seed, descendants would sit on Jehovah’s throne. Jesus is his descendant. Thus Jesus sits on Jehovah’s throne as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. But it is not physical Jerusalem, but heavenly Jerusalem as Heb 12 says.
LikeLike
Steve I am talking about the Throne in heaven where Jesus sits now… this is not the same throne that you are talking about…
Yes, it is a heavenly throne… and there is only One King… and God is the only King of His own Kingdom. On earth there were earthly kings, yet if you read, God did not want that in the beginning, that was Israels choice which God granted. There is only one Sovereign over God’s Kingdom and that is Jehovah Himself.
If God let a man or a spirit sit on His Throne then He has allowed Himself to be usurped.
Also you still have not answered when God died… you stated he did not yet I quoted the passages from the WTS translation that clearly state that Jesus is saying he is the first and last… which is what Jehovah stated of Himself… so Jesus equates himself with Jehovah.
Now either Jesus is God and became a man through the incarnation, died and rose again… being the Just and the Justifier, or Jesus is a liar or worse for equating himself with Jehovah.
Again,just stating, “God never died” does not show me you are honestly working and looking at your OWN bible. Try it… and I pray that the Father God opens you eyes to His Truth.
iggy
LikeLike
“divine son of Jehovah God” sounds very biblical yet I see it is a play on words…
ADJECTIVE:
di·vin·er , di·vin·est
Having the nature of or being a deity.
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
Superhuman; godlike.
Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
Heavenly; perfect.
I am curious as to which definition you are using.
As if you are stating “Divine” as in “Having the nature of or being a deity.” Then you have more issues as one cannot have the nature of being of deity without being Deity.
We now have a new nature, but we are not “divine”
If you are stating the other ones you are still making Jesus a little god and thus not the true God and then he cannot be our salvation as Only Jehovah is our Salvation… So if Jesus saves us, and is not Jehovah, then Jehovah lied and we can be saved apart from Jehovah… If Jesus is just a god, then we are saved by a god that is not Jehovah.
Psalms 86: 9 All the nations whom you have made will themselves come,
And they will bow down before you, O Jehovah,
And will give glory to your name.
10 For you are great and are doing wondrous things;
You are God, you alone.
So the Psalmist lies as he states that Jehovah is God and the only God?
Also, Jesus usurped God when he forgave sins… only God can forgive sins.
Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith he said: “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” 21 Thereupon the scribes and the Pharisees started to reason, saying: “Who is this that is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins except God alone?” 22 But Jesus, discerning their reasonings, said in answer to them: “What are YOU reasoning out in YOUR hearts? 23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24 But in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on the earth to forgive sins—” he said to the paralyzed man: “I say to you, Get up and pick up your little bed and be on your way home.”
Now the Pharisees saw Jesus forgiving sins without the ritual that was needed by the Law given to Moses. If the ritual was met, then the priest would “forgive” someone. Yet, the authority of the priest was given by God. Yet, Jesus forgave people of sins though they did not do the rituals and this is the point… “Only God can forgive sin.”
We now can forgive sin against us, yet, God still is the One that will forgive the sins of those who sin against Him… meaning He has final say as to their forgiveness not man.
If Jesus was not God, then by forgiving others of their sin against God would be blasphemy as the required righteous rituals had not been met.
The Son of Man/Son of God was Born of Heaven… yet, again you miss that firstborn does not always mean born first.
Esau and Jacob make that point clear… Though Esau was the firstborn he gave that up and Jacob became the first born… so it is not just that one can be born first but also the position.
Also the phrase “Firstborn of creation” if you look at the Greek can be translated easily as “The Source of creation”… Is Jehovah the Creator or is Jesus?
It is clear if you just read it, that Jesus is the Heir of all creation, but that does not mean he was “created” or “born first”.
I am sure you have heard all that before and as I stated, I believe only prayer will bring you to the truth.
May the peace of Jehovah rest on you and bring you truth.
iggy
LikeLike
The rule of Solomon was a prophecy of Jesus’ rule.
Jesus is the Christ. Christ means anointed. He was anointed as king and priest by Jehovah.
If Jehovah did not want Jesus to be king, he would not have anointed him as king. Thus what you are doing is to separate Jesus from the one fulfilling the prophecies of the anointed, the king.
Jehovah is the first and last in relation to his Godship.
Jesus is first in last in the aspect of his being dead and being raised up by Jehovah. He was the first one raised by Jehovah to immortal life in heaven and the last one as Jesus will raise the rest.
Context.
Jesus is the son of God who became a perfect human through the incarnation, died and was RAISED from the dead. He did not rose again. Rise is active tense. If he could actively rise, he was not dead. IF he was not dead, he was no savior. Your beliefs are from the devil since they deny Jesus the kingship, the anointed, the Christ and that he died and is savior.
LikeLike
Steve,
Yes context… Jesus is stating he is the First and Last as Jehovah did in Isaiah… Jesus is stating HE is salvation… is He or is God alone?
Yes, Jesus did rise, yet also past tense he rose… yet, are you now saying Jesus did not die!?
That contradicts your own bible!
1 Cor 15:3 For I handed on to YOU, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; WTS
So now Paul is a liar? He states Jesus died… you state Jesus did not… I believe Paul to be more of an authority than you on that… and mostly it is illogical as you state that Jesus is the firstborn of the dead yet… did not die?
How can he “rise” from the dead when He never died?
This is another gospel and one that was not taught by Paul and is not even taught in the WTS bible.
iggy
LikeLike
Is the Watchtower Now hinting at the year 2034 for Armageddon?
The WTS just never knows when to give it a rest! They refuse to repent from their sins, such a stiff necked people. But, the worst part is this; they are using the divine name to hint at yet another false prophecy!
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/2034.html
http://www.jwfiles.com/2034.htm
Watchtower, Dec 15, 2003 pgs 14-19
1914 + 120 = 2034
1. Noah’s time of the end lasted 120 years before the deluge.
2. We are already 90 years into our time of the end that started in 1914.
3. The mention that in 1914 Jesus took EPOCH-MAKING action.
Maybe you would like to comment on this WT article Steve K or Tom…what do you think about it? Is 2034 the next date for Armageddon?
But the bigger hurdle for the WTS before 2034 is the year 2014. In 5 more years (2014), what will you say to those you ask you, “Hmmm, could you tell me what Jesus Christ has been doing for the last 100 years?”?
Perhaps you could refer them to Matthew 28 and point out to them that true Christians have been evangelizing the world since AD 33, over 2000 years!! Where was the WTS then? Oh ya, I forgot, they didn’t come into existence until 1874!
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you…
And, behold, I am with you ALL the days until the end of the world. Amen.
Greg B
LikeLike
The Watchtower never predicted 2034.
They never said 1914+120
You people made that up.
LikeLike
I think you must study the WT article and expand on your expanation. A denial without explanation is useless, meaningless. Have you even read the article? I think not.
It is obvious that the WTS has implied that 1914 + 120 = 2034…..The implied meaning is the beginning of a prophecy…sort of like a “trial balloon” if you will. The WTS will test out the waters to see if this “pre-prophecy” has any legs…ie…any momentum to bring in new proselytes.
Greg B
LikeLike
IT was not implied, you inferred that.
And they don’t make prophesies.
Looking to what the Bible described as the kingdom is not a prophesy, it is showing faith in the Bible.
LikeLike
“Maybe you would like to comment, Steve K or Tom…..”
I’m on it. Give me a little time to look it over.
LikeLike
No Probs Tom, take your time…I’m very curious as to your (and Steve K’s) comments on this article.
Greg B
LikeLike
While I’m waiting for your comments on the 2034 prediction, let’s go back 10 years to Awake! March 22, 1993 pg 11 para 2-4.
“Jesus also indicated that this composite
sign would be completed during the life of the
generation that saw it begin in 1914.”
At Matthew 24:32-34, he said: “Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.”
“To see this old world-with all its wars…With this prospect ahead, no wonder many have such eagerness for Jehovah’s new world of righteousness to hurry up and replace this old one filled with sorrow, crime, sickness, and death! No wonder their eagerness is so
great that they are PRONE to SET EARLY DATES (emphasis added) for its arrival! NOW, however, there are not just bits and pieces of the sign of its incoming to tempt us into sounding false alarms. NOW we can see the COMPLETE composite sign unfolding to give SOLID foundation for our eager expectation of this wicked world’s end and Jehovah’s new world to supplant it.”
Q1. Maybe I’m dense, but where in the NT does Jesus indicate this composite sign would be completed during the life of the generation that saw it begin in 1914?
Let us not forget, that this “prediction” was pronounced to the world (25,000,000 copies in over 80 different Languages)using the divine name….That, my friend, makes it a prophecy.
Deu 18:20 But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in My name which I have not commanded him to speak or who shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah has not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.
Let us also not forget that the YOUNGEST of the generation of 1914 would be 111 years right now.
2009 – (1914 – 16)= 111 … 16 being the age of discernment.
Q2. Do you know ANY JW’s that are 111 years old and still alive?
Q3. If your answer to Q2 is yes, are you still standing by this prophecy?
These are all valid qusetions that I would appreciate you anwering.
Greg B
LikeLike
There was never a 2034 prediction.
That is simply opposers reading between the lines and finding things that were not there.
I just searched the WT library for 2034 and there is no reference.
And a question for you?
Tell me about the 88 reasons why the rapture was to happen in 1988?
I know one reason was 1948 (when Israel was established as a nation) + 40 ( the length of a generation).
see, two can play at that game. You all are false prophets too.
LikeLike
I think you must study the WT article and expand on your expanation. A denial without explanation is useless, meaningless. Have you even read the article? I think not. I read it…did you?
It is obvious that the WTS has implied that 1914 + 120 = 2034…..The implied meaning is the beginning of a prophecy…sort of like a “trial balloon” if you will. The WTS will test out the waters to see if this “pre-prophecy” has any legs…ie…any momentum to bring in new proselytes.
Also, to answer your question on the rapture….Lol, this is a normal ploy (of those without an answer to my argument)to divert any attention to the subject at hand… Where did that question come from anyways?? It has absolutely NO relevance whatsoever to this debate… lol.
But anyways, to answer your question; any “wack-job” that has predicted the rapture was to occur in 1988 is just as bad and cultish as the WTS with their false prophecies…and I would condemn them just as I condemn you. 99% of Christendom would also condemn a wack-job who prophesied the rapture in 1988.
Anyways, I am not a dispensationalist. but nice try.
So, now, I’m just waiting for your answers to questions 1,2 and 3…from the above post. Time is precious Steve k…I can’t wait forever…Armageddon may arrive before you answer my questions… Lol.
Greg B
LikeLike
Hey! I just noticed something in your post that I failed to notice before…
“see, two can play at that game. You all are false prophets too.”
Does that mean that you admit that the WTS is a false prophet? “…You all are false prophets TOO (ie..also) .”
Hey, If this “wack-job” claimed that the rapture would occur in 1988….then yes, I agree with you…he is a false prophet just like the WTS.
As far as Israel as a nation goes…well I’m not sure what your implications are there…but we could discuss that in another post if you like…it is a good subject.
Greg B
LikeLike
Nah…there’s nothing to it – 2034, that is.
It’s hard to tell when the end of this system will come. It could well be sooner, “right around the corner,” as they say. World conditions sure aren’t getting any rosier, are they? And the prediction of Peter has also turned out to be right on the money:
“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 2 Pet 3:3-4
LikeLike
Well, we shall see if the WTS expands on this 2034 “prediction”…time will tell.
Greg B
LikeLike
The weirdest thing to me is this 1914 date… for when Jesus spoke of the “generation” it was that very generation that was standing in front of him as he spoke… then they saw his death, burial, Resurrection, Ascension and finally the destruction of the temple in 70ad… all the “signs” had been fulfilled and after the destruction of that temple came the age of the gentile. We are still in the age of the gentile or else none could be converted and any effort would be a waste as Paul states: “the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” If the full number has come in then there is none left to convert!
The end of the age of the gentile means NO MORE GENTILES WILL BE ALLOWED! That is what Paul meant in Romans when he stated that He who grafted on wild branches can brake those off as he did the natural branches in Romans 11.
So here is my point.
Many of the teachings of WTS happened many years ago they have been fulfilled well before WTS was conceived!…. and when it is stated that end of the age of gentiles is now here, then the JW would be in great disobedience to try to convert a gentile… let alone a waste of time as they are all saved that would be saved… it is now the time of Israel to lose their hardening and be able to see Jesus as Messiah.
Romans 11: 25. I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
26. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
So to me most of the JW talk is utter nonsense in light of historical and biblical contexts… it shows a lack of historical knowledge and even less biblical understanding… granted I have seen worse in some mainstream Christianity… yet I would not consider them truly mainstream….
iggy
LikeLike
Yes, I agree totally with you iggy.
Greg B
LikeLike
I took a back seat to the conversation when it veered in a direction in which I didn’t feel I had much to say. But coming back to your issue of scholarship, I did find a recent book by a Jason Debuhn, which examines 9 popular translations and concludes the NWT contains the least bias of any of them. In fact, I put it in its own post:
http://tinyurl.com/pnyz36
LikeLike
Still Tom, what about the larger, and more prevalent, group of Hebrew & Greek scholars (such as Bruce Metzger), who do NOT believe the NWT to be accurate? What do you say to them?
And while you can quote Debuhn, nobody seems willing to tackle the question of: what about the known translators of the NWT, and their inherent qualifications (or lack thereof) to translate from the original languages to English? To simply say, as Dave has, that it is a good translation b/c it has “helped” a lot of people, is ludicrous.
What do YOU say?
LikeLike
What do I have to say to them? I have covered that in the post I linked to.
And the qualifications of the translators I will deal with in another post, probably my next one.
LikeLike