drbrumley
Well-known member
I have a question for you.
Why do you pick JWs?
do you think other organizations are more biblical than JWs?
thank you.
Obviously
I have a question for you.
Why do you pick JWs?
do you think other organizations are more biblical than JWs?
thank you.
Obviously
Greetings again SonOfCaleb,
Topic 4: JW Teaching Environment, Literature and The New World Translation This topic is partly prompted by your statement. My impression is that JWs are expected to adhere to the official JW teachings, partly because they believe that the JW.Org is Spirit established and guided. I am not sure if private study is encouraged, and if a member comes to a conclusion slightly different to the official line, whether he is able to discuss this openly. I did hear from a JW who claimed he was for a time criticised for his view on a matter, but some years later the official view was altered to agree with his view. He remained a JW.
There is an environment that seems to be uniform, based on the teachings established and maintained by literature, uniform teachings from their Kingdom Halls possibly dictated from JW headquaters and partly by some aspects of the NWT.
I have not studied or used the NWT extensively, but the following citations have come to my attention mainly by reading the JW literature and by discussion with JWs.
Genesis 3:1 (KJV): Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:1 (NWT 2013): Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”
(Footnote: cautious: Or “shrewdest, craftiest”)
John 1:1 (KJV): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 (NWT 2013): In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.
(Footnote: was a god Or “was divine”)
Revelation 5:9-10 (KJV): 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Revelation 5:9-10 (NWT 2013): 9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”
In each of the above there is some evidence of JW bias, and I believe that the KJV is more correct in each instance. The environment that uses the NWT may not question the validity of the translation of these verses and a wrong teaching is more liable if a proper examination of each verse is not considered. My suggestion is that although a uniform environment has some merits, there is a danger that individual study and meditation on the Word is stifled.
Kind regards
Trevor
Remember that time when Russell was on trial in 1913, under oath, and he had to admit that he did not know Greek, nor did the JW translators of the NWT?
The court handed him a Greek new testament and he could not read any of it.
He couldn't even point out the letters of the Greek alphabet.
Now you know why the names of the translators of the NWT are never listed.
Yes he did claim to know Greek.No big deal, though some people delight in taking what SEEMS to be a serious flaw of Russell and distort the truth out of all resemblance to what actually occurred. Charles Russell never claimed to know Greek. He didn't lie.
Greetings again SonOfCaleb,
Topic 5: Who is the King of the North? This is a question that I asked a JW at work many years ago. I will give him a nickname Son of Joshua because he most probably shares your views. I had a few friendly discussions with SoJ, but I moved to a different location, and another workmate in my fellowship continued to discuss with SoJ. We have a traditional view backed up by personal study that the King of the North of Daniel 11:40 and the Rosh of Ezekiel 38:1-2 is Russia. My workmate mentioned this to SoJ in the 1980s, but soon after the USSR broke apart, and SoJ almost laughed at my workmate, suggesting “where is your King of the North now?” Some time later SoJ moved to my location and told me this story, thinking that we had been shown to be wrong in our understanding of these prophecies. I asked SoJ if the JWs had a clear explanation of these prophecies, and at the end of our brief exchange I asked “Who is the King of the North?” At the time SoJ did not give me an answer.
My workmate attends another meeting in our region, but one evening we had a combined Bible Class and he mentioned that he sometimes sees SoJ at a sporting event where they both support family members in friendly rivalry on the sporting field. I haven’t heard if they have resolved some of their differences in a friendly way on the sidelines of the field. By the way, SoJ is very personable, and I have a profound respect for him. He helped me through a difficult circumstance when I was in distress at work, and he took upon himself to protect me when I was in difficulty as a result of my actions. What I had done was as a result of doing the right thing in my estimation, but the way I did it was a bit foolish and wrong. When I could not cope mentally and emotionally he stood in and protected me and took the heat out of the circumstance because of his ability to get along with people, while I was more isolated.
I could go to his house and discuss these matters, or to the local Kingdom Hall, but instead I will ask you SoC, “Who is the King of the North?”
Kind regards
Trevor
Slanderous.I know your faith.
You twist the scripture to suit your desire.
Yes he did claim to know Greek.
He did, and it's in the trial transcript.No he didn't.
It is good to hear that private study is encouraged. Nevertheless I gain a hint from the above that the situation is fairly closely controlled and that there is not free and open discussion, even on matters that we use the term “uncertain detail”. We have in our fellowship what I would term the ebb and flow of people and ideas. We do not reinvent the wheel, but many apply themselves to personal study and give good expositional material. My main interests have been Galatians and Isaiah, but what I now understand has been formed by personal study, but more by sound exposition by those who have given excellent studies over the years, both spoken and written, but none of this has come from a central authority in our fellowship.Its greatly encouraged and is a key fundamental of our learning. Although we lean on the governing body for guidance in spiritual matters regarding doctrine.
Its regular for JW's to write into the headquarters of Jehovahs Witnesses with questions or to discuss with more learned ones in the congregation such as minsterial servants, elders or those who are more experienced in the faith. This is not discouraged and is in fact encouraged.
I accept that it is a sincere contribution to add to the many translations that are now available.We believe our translation of the Bible to be an accurate, honest, and objective translation of the Bible text retaining the correct meanings and context as found in the original manuscripts.
Welcome to this thread KingdomRose. I could see that you have been busy with the “Jesus is YHWH” thread, 118 replies and your own two “Jesus is not YHWH” threads, one locked at 304 replies and the second now at 169 replies. In the “Jesus is YHWH” thread I contributed to Post #5, quoting Psalm 110:1 and the exposition of this verse by Peter in Acts 2:34-36 showing to me at least that Jesus is not YHWH, but he is both Lord and Christ, the Son of God, seated at the right hand of God the Father. As I have not read the 581 replies to this subject, and seeing that we are almost on the same side of the fence in that subject, could you please tell me what reply in one of the three threads adequately confirms or denies what I stated in my Post #5?Contrarily, the scriptures that you quote above from the KJV actually show the bias of the King's committee. The men of the committee were trinitarians and translated to conform to that view. The incorrectness of their view in many parts of their version is reasoned upon by many scholars, including Westcott & Hort from whom the NWT comes.
No real problem, but have you checked a proper Bible word dictionary as to the meaning of the word in the Hebrew? Have you checked how this possible biased translation is used in “Let God be True”? What came first, the NWT or the view presented in Let God be True? Or is this now buried in history. I am the librarian for our meeting and I can sometimes trace in our literature going back to 1832 any slight changes and opinions.(1)First of all, why would any fault be found with the rendering of Genesis 3:1? (Subtle, cautious,:idunno: what's the problem?)
On another forum there is a thread running on this subject and by April 29th 17 it has reached 778 responses. I will let you read that thread if you like, but I have not read even one post. Benjamin Wilson was a CoGoAF, not a JW, but the JWs published his book. I imagine that a JW at one time looked at the interlinear portion of his translation and helped to fix the usual JW view of this verse. But again I was to some extent pleased that an alternative is now given in the NWT 2013 margin. I disagree with both the NWT rendition and the alternative in the NWT margin. I agree with Benjamin Wilson’s translation which is found, not in the interlinear portion, but on the right hand column of the 1942 JW edition page 312: “and the LOGOS was God”.(2)John 1:1 is rendered in different ways, and not just by the NWT. Centuries ago there were documents that showed the same scholarship as what is found at John 1:1 in the NWT. Here is a link to the Coptic Versions.
The Emphatic Diaglott of 1891 by Benjamin Wilson translates John 1:1 as "and a god was the word." It is good, proper, Greek-to-English translation.
Do we have an infiltration of JWs here now?
Contrarily, the scriptures that you quote above from the KJV actually show the bias of the King's committee. The men of the committee were trinitarians and translated to conform to that view. The incorrectness of their view in many parts of their version is reasoned upon by many scholars, including Westcott & Hort from whom the NWT comes.
(1)First of all, why would any fault be found with the rendering of Genesis 3:1? (Subtle, cautious,:idunno: what's the problem?)
(2)John 1:1 is rendered in different ways, and not just by the NWT. Centuries ago there were documents that showed the same scholarship as what is found at John 1:1 in the NWT. Here is a link to the Coptic Versions: http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/09/translating-word-was-god-1700-years-ago.html
The Emphatic Diaglott of 1891 by Benjamin Wilson translates John 1:1 as "and a god was the word." It is good, proper, Greek-to-English translation.
The James Moffatt translation renders it "and the Word was divine." "Divine" doesn't mean "God." It means somebody directly from or of God...the angels also being such. Again, just proper translation from the Greek to English.
(3)Revelation 5:9,10 which is rendered "they are to rule as kings over the earth," is not unique to the NWT. It is known that the word from which "over" is translated can mean "on" or "over." Either one. So the NWT is not wrong. Other versions have rendered that word as "over" as well. One version is the Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible (1951), which renders it as:
"And hast made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they shall reign over the earth."
So, there is actually NO evidence of "JW bias" anywhere in those scriptures. I have shown that there was this "bias" as you call it, in versions far pre-dating the NWT and even the KJV in the case of John 1:1, and evidence of similar translation in works other than the NWT in the case of Revelation 5:10. There is no real substantive evidence that the KJV is "more correct," in any of these examples.
The Emphatic Diaglott of 1891 by Benjamin Wilson translates John 1:1 as "and a god was the word." It is good, proper, Greek-to-English translation.
Benjamin Wilson was a CoGoAF, not a JW, but the JWs published his book. I agree with Benjamin Wilson’s translation which is found, not in the interlinear portion, but on the right hand column of the 1942 JW edition page 312: “and the LOGOS was God”.
Nice to see you both patting each other on the back. “In the mouth of two witnesses ..” may not necessarily establish the truth of this matter, especially when SoC ignores my post and yet to see if KR answers. Possibly to clarify, the reason why I stated that Benjamin Wilson was a CoGoAF is that he was not a Trinitarian, but he did not see the need to fiddle with the translation of John 1:1 in the way that JWs have done, and one way is that they misquote Benjamin Wilson. Also it is interesting that in the interlinear portion of the purple NWT 1969 (I do not have a more recent edition) the situation is reversed, as it has “and god was the Word” in the interlinear portion dropping the "a" of "a god" in the Diaglott, and yet in the translation “the Word was a god” still appears, possibly because of previous editions of the NWT. They then have a couple of pages in the appendix to justify their translation.Excellent post. I didn't have time to go into detail as have been somewhat busy hence my brevity.
They saw him ascend visibly. I discussed this with SoC fairly thoroughly. Your answer avoids the simple and clear teaching of Acts 1:11 and Acts 3:19-21. I do not accept the JW concept of a physical body as I believe in the resurrection of Jesus in his body, which was then changed into an immortal BODY, not an ethereal spirit. I would also be interested in how you understand Zechariah 14:4.Jesus WILL return in a similar way to how he ascended in the first century. That is: he was blocked out from the disciples' view by the clouds. So, he ascended in a manner which the disciples could not see. The angel clearly implied this by saying that Jesus would come back in the same manner---obstructed from view.
Why would he return to a physical body to live on Earth. Does it diminish Jesus Christ in any way to say that he is in heaven and will rule from there?
I believe it is Russia. I have a different understanding of the KoTS in Daniel 11:40, as he was in the south in 1917 pushing at Turkey.The events of Daniels prophecy are still being played out and as an organisation we do not know who the King of the North is.......yet. We are also encouraged by the governing body not to speculate. But it is my 'own' opinion, that based on recent world events the KoTN is more than likely Russia. As you've accurately mentioned Russia was the KoTN up until its disbanding under the USSR where the KoTS gained a symbolic victory over his adversary.
Prophecy is also given for us to anticipate some aspects of what will happen. The outworking will be much greater than our anticipation, as evidenced by prophecy fulfilled at the first coming, eg Micah 5:2, Isaiah 53:1-12.I haven't read Caleb's reply to that, but I'm sure that he and I AND SoJ will agree. We do not know yet. We can tell only by looking BACK on what has already happened. Now it looks like Russia again. We won't be able to say for sure until the end.
I apologise, but as the 144,000 in your estimation will be greater than John the Baptist I guessed. Perhaps you call the 144,000 “little flock” and those on earth “other sheep”.It's interesting that you call the people on Earth during Christ's Reign "the servant class." Where did you get that idea? No JW ever referred to people living in Paradise on Earth as the "servant class.".
I think Jesus is saying that all in the Kingdom will be greater than John the Baptist was during his mortal lifetime. He will be in the Kingdom of heaven.We still do teach that no one before John the Baptist will be in heaven with Jesus. In fact, not even John the Baptist will be there. We'll get to know him HERE. (Matthew 11:11)
It is of heaven, not in heaven."The Kingdom of heaven" has within its parameters a "courtyard" which includes the physical Earth. The SEAT of the government is in heaven. The government's CITIZENS live on Earth. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be citizens of the heavenly government who will live here on the earth, the Kingdom's courtyard.
Greetings again SonOfCaleb and KingdomRose, Nice to see you both patting each other on the back. “In the mouth of two witnesses ..” may not necessarily establish the truth of this matter, especially when SoC ignores my post and yet to see if KR answers.
Topic 4: JW Teaching Environment, Literature and The New World Translation (cont’d).
I usually see and speak briefly to a JW each week when I go shopping. I have mainly listened to her account of her involvement with the JWs without discussing different views. On the last occasion she had difficulty when she knocked on a door and was abused verbally and she still conveyed some of the feeling of her bad experience. Then she said that JWs must be right because we are the only ones persecuted, and then she mentioned the situation in Russia as proof. This reminds me of Elijah saying that he alone was left. I briefly mentioned that we have had difficulties in some our mission areas.
On the previous occasion I asked if they had had their annual meeting around the time of the Jewish Passover. She said yes, and I think she called it the “Memorial”. Possibly SoC and KR could confirm this, but I understand that the JWs only remember the bread and the wine once a year, and even then most of the members do not partake. Only the few who claim to be amongst the 144,000 partake and I do not know how many are in each meeting.
I find this extremely strange and different to our circumstance. We fellowship and partake of the bread and wine each week, seeing the need to remember the death and resurrection of our Lord. On any occasion that I have missed this through sickness or otherwise, I feel a sense of loss. Even though we renew every day, this is the central focus of our week, a central focus of our fellowship.
I need to apologise for reacting quickly and in that manner. I thought I had responded correctly to KR’s comment regarding Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear portion of the Diaglott. He claimed “It is good, proper, Greek-to-English Translation” and I assumed that he was stating this with respect to John 1:1. Rather than responding to my comment you simply endorsed KR’s post. But I should be more patient, and recognize that more or less we will not resolve any differences, but simply be stating our differences.You're not a mind reader so id prefer if you didn't make these incorrect assumptions. Truth is obviously 'subjective' hence why we're discussing the matter as we have different positions doctrinally. If i want to commend KR for a post its my perogative to do so on the matter. Whether that sits well with you is not relavent. But do not make the wrong assumption that i do so merely to score points. I am not on this board to score points with anyone. If i was i wouldn't even bother to answer your posts. Regardless i have answered your questions to the best of my ability. So im not sure what questions you claim i've ignored.
This could be true, but as I mentioned to my friend that we have had some trouble. Possibly there is some difference because of numbers and another major difference is that we keep a very low profile in some of these totalitarian counties. I am conscious of some of this because some of our members from our meeting are very much involved in mission work, traveling overseas, and one is now in permanent residence in a difficult region, in part caring for refugees from religious persecution.The witnesses have been somewhat of a bell weather for most global religions in respect of religious freedoms especially Christianity. No religion outside of the Witnesses has experienced more direct persecution than us.
I am not sure if you are quoting Hebrews 10:24 with respect to the annual day. We would apply this to our weekly Memorial, and partly to Sunday School, Sunday evening discussion group, Wednesday Bible class and other activities as they are arranged. I have only met one JW, of whom it was said by others, that he was among the 144,000. He took the year 1975 off work, but returned in 1976 when he ran out of money. I did not converse with him, but met him in company with SoJ. He impressed me as being very quiet and reserved. My friend has also mentioned another Australia-wide annual gathering in September, and she attended a larger version of this two years ago, possibly Asia-Pacific occurring every ten years.Correct we celebrate the 'Memorial' of Jesus Christ death yearly which falls on the week of the Jewish passover which we call the 'Memorial'. The Memorial as instituted by Jesus effectively supercedes the 'passover' that was once celebrated by the Jews of antiquity.
As already mentioned only the annointed EG members of the 144,000 part take of the emblems the bread and wine. The rest of us 'The Great Crowd' are just observers. The memorial is our most attended event yearly and runs into 10's of millions of observers. Last year memorial had over 20m attendee's world wide.
Paul exhorted us at Hebrews 10:24 "24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near." This is one if not the primary reason for our fellowship at our congregrations. To enhance our faith and love for Jehovah.
I agree with you in part, and I hope that some of the differences mentioned already will help to compare JW teachings with the Bible. When I first mentioned to SoC that I had a different perspective on many issues concerning Bible teaching than that held by the JWs, I had in mind a number of other differences. But I have been reticent to discuss some of these as they are views held also by most Protestants, possibly including yourself. I will give one example, I believe that the sacrifice of Christ was representative and not as a substitute. On the other hand I hold some views in common with JWs, views that most Protestants do not share. Two examples are that most Protestants believe in the immortal soul, and that they go to heaven when they die, while I believe only in the resurrection when Christ returns. My aim was avoid too many side discussions, and I am reasonably happy with the various topics and Scripture that have been mentioned. My brief reply to you is that I believe that many Protestants do not teach the truth of the Apostolic Gospel, but a mixture of truth and error.There is no comparison. JW's don't teach the Bible.