New World Translation.. Dispose of it

[Regardless]

your inaccurate. the witnesses have changed their bible to suit their beliefs. john 1.1 is a prime example of that. thomas said to Christ, my Lord, and my God!

If we were changing the Bible to suit our beliefs we would have changed John 20:28 (where Thomas said “my lord and my God!”) as well. But we didn’t because that is what the greek translates as.
John 1:1 is actually what made me realise the NWT is often more accurate and honest in it’s translation. In John 1:1 two different word are used. Ton theon, and theos. One is the definite form of God. (Literally “The god”) so the NWT translates that “God.” The second is the indefinite form of god. (literally “god”, but with no definite article) so following the rules of greek grammer the NWT translates it “a god”. So why do most English translation act as if the same word was used both times?

Jesus said, no man knows the hour or the day when the end will come. NO MAN.
not even your governing body knows. they are not God. nor do they speak for God.

What date do the JW’s teach will be Armageddon? I was not aware we had one. Can you quote me the Wt where it teaches 1975 will be armageddon? I looked but could not find it.
You do well to quote Matt 24:36. No one knows except God.
(Interesting even Jesus didn’t know what God knew, yet you think him part of the trinity) Jesus also said we must “keep on the watch” Matt 24:42. which religion is doing that? Does your church draw your attention to the seriousness of the times we live in and what is about to happen?

furthermore, life is sacred to God. that means that the society will be held accountable to God for the thousands upon thousands who died without a blood transfusion. died for the society, not for God. …

If that is the case, how many millions have Catholic and protestant churches preached into the trenches to die in war? Will they be accountable? Rev. 18:24 talks of just such an entity. Bloodguilty for all those slaughtered. Do you think that is the JW’s - Who have never killed anyone in war?
As for blood transfusions. Bloodless surgery is becoming the gold standard of medicine. Even the US military is looking into it, because it saves lives. I saw a documentary where the head of surgery in a Berlin hospital said: “No one has ever died of not having a blood transfusion. People die of blood loss, or complications in surgery or trauma. Whether they have a blood transfusion or opt for some alternative is a very small factor.” Medicine is more and more realising it is the better way to go. But our stand on that is because of Acts 15:28, 29. Not because of superior medical knowledge.

your society also uses brainwashing tactics to keep members in line.
your not even allowed to question what the society teaches.that is mind control.

But you can see I have looked into the evidence on all these questions. I’m not believing based on blind faith. Some bits I’m yet to be convinced of. If this is brain washing, bring it on! I’d love a cleaner brain.
Would you change your beliefs if someone showed you evidence you were wrong, or stubbornly stick to falsehood?

further proof that people go to heaven, Jesus said to the man on the cross beside him, today you will be with me in paradise.

Was Jesus in heaven that day? No. It was weeks later. “Today” drew attention to when Jesus made the promise, not when it would be fulfilled.
The Jews believed in the earthly resurrection. (John 11:24.) “Paradise” would have made the man think of Eden. On earth. Not heaven.

… walk away, and burn that “bible” they call the “truth”.

Yikes. I don’t think the seeds of truth will fall on hard soil here.

All the best, and thanks for your reply and comments.

 

[Abeyta85]

Almost to the core of truth, but yet so far, good try though!

I understand you are not able to understand the Holy Trinity, And I can see where you are coming from, not having a strong understanding of the bible.

Perhaps the most common objection to the Trinity is that the numbers don’t seem to add up. Those who don’t accept the idea of a Trinity are usually under the impression that Catholics are content to say that the difficulty can be resolved by taking refuge in the “God is a mystery” argument.

Believing in a mystery does not mean believing in something that is unreasonable or illogical but rather in something you do not have the capacity to ever know completely—such as God. It isn’t something you can’t know anything about; it is something you can’t know everything about.

You’ll still need to demonstrate that the idea of three Persons and one God is not illogical. To begin, explain the difference between being and person. Being answers the question “What?” and person answers the question “Who?” For example, pointing to my mother, the question “What is she?” is answered with, “A human being.” The question of “Who is she?” is answered with, “Janie.”

All persons are beings, but not all beings are persons. For example, you are one being and one person. But a dog is one being and zero persons. With regard to the Trinity, there is one being, which is God, yet there are there Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not illogical. If one were to say that there is one God and three Gods, or one Person and three Persons—that would be illogical. But one Being and three Persons is not a contradiction.

Also If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, why didn’t the Jews know that? Their great prayer was, “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God!”

There are two things to look at here: Why didn’t the Jews know of the Trinity, and where is there a Triune God in the Old Testament?

Jesus did not stand in the manger and announce his divinity, and neither did God stand on Mount Sinai and give Moses a theological exposition of the three distinct Persons who are one in being and nature, existing consubstantially and eternally. The Lord is like a good teacher who reveals his truth by slowly planting seeds and then evoking the truth of the conclusions from his students. His revelation to the Jews was a gradual process, and so there is no problem if he wished to reveal more of himself to humanity as time progressed. As Jesus said, “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present” (John 16:12).

Similarly, Jesus revealed that his kingdom would be like a mustard seed that grows into the largest of shrubs. There is an organic development in understanding that takes place over time. This is not a mutation or contradiction of a prior understanding, but the natural flowering of truth.

Where are the Old Testament seeds of the Trinity? In Deuteronomy 6:4, one finds the Shema, the Jewish expression of monotheism: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” There are two words in Hebrew for one. Yachid means only one. Echod means a compound unity or a united one—as in Genesis: “evening and morning . . . one day” or “husband and wife . . . one flesh.” This second word, echod, which describes a unity of beings, is the one used to speak of God, who is not by essence a solitude, but a unity of three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Other implicit references to the Trinity in the Old Testament include Gen. 1:26, which reads, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” Since God was alone at the time of creation (Isa. 44:24, Neh. 9:6) with no other gods, this expression of plurality must refer to God himself. At the Tower of Babel God says, “Let us go down,” yet no one else comes down with him (Gen. 11:7).

Still, the Jews did not have an understanding of the Trinity. It was only in Christ that God the Father revealed he had a Son, and that this Son was to send the Spirit. Monotheism was unheard of at the time of ancient Israel, and if Yahweh tried to announce that he was one God in three Persons, it would have seemed to be tritheism (worshiping three gods) to the polytheistic people of the day. God waited for the Christian era to reveal his true nature.

Lets get back to preaching the Good word, for that we must have an accurate translation correct, so why did the JW’s tamper with the bible?

The translation committee responsible for the NWT was kept anonymous, undoubtedly to cover up their complete lack of scholarly qualifications. None of the men who worked on this project had any formal training in the biblical languages, except for Frederick Franz. He was chairman of the committee and had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati without graduating, and was only self-taught in Hebrew.

Its no wonder no other organization uses this translation. Call it truth, but its your own truth, not anyone elses.

Lets continue shall we…

 

[Abeyta85]

In answering this question I may offend some. I apologise. That is not my intention.

Ironically –(after what I have just had to defend) it is History, and the changes from true Christianity that makes me realise the CC is not Jehovah’s organisation on earth today.
You know we understand from the Bible that manyl doctrines of the CC are not taught there.
Where did these teaching come from? Jesus taught his followers to be no part of the world. Like he was. (John 17:16) But that is hard. So in the centuries that followed Jesus, we see such things as Greek philosophy and pagan teaching creeping into or merging with the Christian congregations.
Soon there were many different factions teaching different things.
Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Emperor Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator.
As apostate Christianity came into favor with the political government, it became more and more a part of this world, of this secular system, and drifted away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. (John 15:19; Revelation 17:1, 2) As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices—the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, purgatory, prayers for the dead, use of rosaries, icons, images, and the like.—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

No wonder Jehovah is not using them to do the preaching work today.

Wrong again, sorry.

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses(that’s you), Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

Lets play!

1.“The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

1. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

3.Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).

For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries.

Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism “pagan” fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices.

**The charge of paganism just doesn’t work. **

[SIGN]God Bless[/SIGN]

 

[Abeyta85]

All i can say is that it’s still a bible and therefore still the word of God. It should still be treated with respect and burned or buried just like any other bible. (Just like you would do with a KJV or NIV, even if it is incomplete or inaccurate it is still the word of God and should be treated accordingly)

just my :twocents:

I understand what your saying, thank you for your reply. I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut. I am undecided still.

 

[Abeyta85]

Cont…

you spoke about consistency from the Catechism, The doctrine of primacy has never changed. The Catholic Church does not teach anything that was not believed in the first millennium. However, the language used to express these doctrines has evolved over time. The Latin West uses a different theological language than the East. I think Ratzinger was merely saying that the East should not be expected to accept the theological language of the west; they should be permitted to express the doctrine of primacy in their own way. For an example of this, one should look at the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. In the Roman rite, we celebrate the Assumption but the Eastern Christians refer to this event as the Dormition; both believe in the same doctrine, but express it differently.

A similar problem arises when one considers the dictates of the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Barnabas, having been confronted in Antioch with an argument between Jewish converts and Gentile converts about whether the Gentiles must observe certain Jewish laws (especially concerning circumcision), went to Jerusalem to discuss the matter with the other apostles. The council concluded with the following statement in a letter: “*t has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (Acts 15:28-29).

Here we have what seems to be the apostles teaching, at a Church council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that it is immoral, among other things, to consume blood or to eat the meat of an animal which has been strangled. Yet, how many Christians are cautious enough to be certain that their food does not contain blood or that the animal they are consuming was not killed by strangulation? Doesn’t their Bible teach that they should?

They have unknowingly subscribed to the idea that the apostles imposed these requirements as disciplines which could later be changed.

Other examples could be cited, but the point is clear: Scripture itself is not always sufficient to distinguish between authentic Christian doctrine and authoritatively imposed discipline. Quite simply, the Bible is not the single-source answer to all questions concerning the Christian faith. One must look also to Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. One must look to the Catholic Church.

We as Catholics, too, must recognize within our own Church the authority to teach doctrine, impose discipline, and discern between the two.

Bottom line, Disciplinary has changed, but never the Doctrine.

I am sorry, your argument does not hold water. Good try!

Let’s be quite clear on a few matters. First, the Catholic Church has never changed any defined doctrine or anything else that is part of the deposit of faith. Disciplinary matters—such as priestly celibacy and abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent—can and do change, but these items are not part of the deposit of faith. The Church may change or dispense with these matters as it sees fit.

For changes in Catholic teaching to be grounds for accusations of false religion, those changes necessarily would have to involve a contradiction between two infallibly defined propositions. This simply has not happened in the Church’s entire history, just as Christ promised (Mt 16:18).

Now, in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation Bible, Proverbs 4:18 reads, “But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.”

A close look at the preceding verses shows that the passage is contrasting righteous people with wicked people. The “path” in this context refers to their respective lifestyles or life situations, not to the development of doctrine as the Watch Tower Society (WTS) would have us believe.

The “bright light” represents the righteous person becoming increasingly obedient to God’s commands and living a virtuous life. There is no warrant whatsoever for claiming this passage deals with an increased understanding of Bible prophecies.

Second, what the WTS calls “refinements” or “adjustments” are in actuality instances of it having made false predictions or having taught false interpretations of Bible passages. When this fact comes to light (no pun intended), the WTS scrambles to disguise these blunders, alleging that its understanding was not fully developed and thus needed an “increase of light.”

In other words, when the WTS changes a doctrine (by reversal, flip-flop, or outright elimination) or when it wants to slough off a false prophecy, it asserts that “new light” has been received and has enabled it to better “understand” a teaching or prophecy. The former teaching (“old light”) is then discarded, and the “new light,” which is called a “refinement,” supposedly brings the WTS to a fuller understanding of the prophecy or teaching in question.

In the case of the WTS, however, we do see current teachings contradicting earlier teachings and doctrines going back and forth between opposite interpretations. This is not maturation but mutation.

[SIGN]Amen![/SIGN] *

 

[Abeyta85]

Again,

How do you seek truth? Test it. How do we know what church is the true church?

The Bible and History.

Ignatius of Antioch

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Thank you, I have been blessed to speak with you! You really have put everything is perspective for me about my faith, and have made it stronger.

I will tell you one thing, I like Jehovah Witnesses, every JW i have met is very nice. That is something we as Catholics can learn from.

God Bless my friend, take it easy!

[SIGN]Elvis has left the building! [/SIGN]

 

[Regardless]

Cont…

…

[SIGN]Amen![/SIGN]

Very nice Abeyta85.

Thanks for your last three posts. Alot of information for me to digest. I have copied it onto a word document and will work through it again at leisure.

Your explanation of how a person and a being are different was interesting.

Will have to read, think, meditate and pray on it all. Please do so with what I have posted also. We can both learn alot I think.

All the best.

 

[MerryCatholic]

Regardless;

What date do the JW’s teach will be Armageddon? I was not aware we had one. Can you quote me the Wt where it teaches 1975 will be armageddon?

Me:
answering jehovah’s witnesses by jason evert page 162 :"these same witnesses have felt disappointed, cheated, betrayed, and ashamed when the dates predicted for the beginning of armageddon have come and gone. the watchtower has led its readers to expect armageddon to occur in 1914, 1918, 1925, during world war II, in 1975, and before the last members of the “generation of 1914” died. an instructive list of watchtower reversals was published in 1990

page 165: 1974- in preparation for 1975, the year armageddon would allegedly take place, many witnesses quit jobs and sold their homes: " reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end".

from page 162 - 165 Jason outlines all the false predictions the watchtower society has made regarding armageddon. those words you see in the last paragraph are from your own society. witnesses of that age do not like to talk about the false prediction of 1975, or any other predictions that did not come to pass. why would they? its humiliating.

Regardless:
If that is the case, how many millions have Catholic and protestant churches preached into the trenches to die in war? Will they be accountable? Rev. 18:24 talks of just such an entity. Bloodguilty for all those slaughtered. Do you think that is the JW’s - Who have never killed anyone in war?

Me:

Maybe not in war, but chidlren have died needlessly for the society without a transfusion. there are documented cases of it where a transfusion would have saved their lives.

Regardless:
But you can see I have looked into the evidence on all these questions. I’m not believing based on blind faith. Some bits I’m yet to be convinced of. If this is brain washing, bring it on! I’d love a cleaner brain.

Me:

jw’s are taught not to question the society or to have independent thinking and you cannot deny that fact.

Regardless:
Would you change your beliefs if someone showed you evidence you were wrong, or stubbornly stick to falsehood?

Me:
The Catholic Church is the One True Faith, and its not wrong. It comes from Jesus Himself.

Regardless:
Was Jesus in heaven that day? No. It was weeks later. “Today” drew attention to when Jesus made the promise, not when it would be fulfilled.
The Jews believed in the earthly resurrection. (John 11:24.) “Paradise” would have made the man think of Eden. On earth. Not heaven.

Me:
your society believes in an earthly paradise. we believe in heaven. oen day, all our souls will be reunited with our earthly bodies at the end of time.

Regardless:
Yikes. I don’t think the seeds of truth will fall on hard soil here.

Me:
My faith is real. it is timeless. and its Catholic. it comes from God.

 

[Zooey]

To OP:
I would either keep it (for apologetic purposes, and marked as suggested, that it is NOT a reliable Bible), or destroy it in a respectful manner (burn it or bury it).
As much as you may be tempted to make a show of its destruction, that has the very real danger of causing scandal. (Imagine someone seeing you online, & not understanding the problems with the NWT, thinking, “Look at that! Some guy is burning a Bible! )”.

To Regardless:
I think it is only fair to point out that you are treading very close to the line in regards to the rules of these forums. It is one thing to explain, even argue for your faith. It is quite another to press it on the rest of us.
Just saying…You might want to re-read the rules of the road.

 

[Abeyta85]

To OP:
I would either keep it (for apologetic purposes, and marked as suggested, that it is NOT a reliable Bible), or destroy it in a respectful manner (burn it or bury it).
As much as you may be tempted to make a show of its destruction, that has the very real danger of causing scandal. (Imagine someone seeing you online, & not understanding the problems with the NWT, thinking, “Look at that! Some guy is burning a Bible! )”.

To Regardless:
I think it is only fair to point out that you are treading very close to the line in regards to the rules of these forums. It is one thing to explain, even argue for your faith. It is quite another to press it on the rest of us.
Just saying…You might want to re-read the rules of the road.

You are very correct. I think I will just keep it, for apologetic purposes. Set the example of a good Catholic Christian. Thank you.

God Bless!

 

[MerryCatholic]

To OP:
I would either keep it (for apologetic purposes, and marked as suggested, that it is NOT a reliable Bible), or destroy it in a respectful manner (burn it or bury it).
As much as you may be tempted to make a show of its destruction, that has the very real danger of causing scandal. (Imagine someone seeing you online, & not understanding the problems with the NWT, thinking, “Look at that! Some guy is burning a Bible! )”.

To Regardless:
I think it is only fair to point out that you are treading very close to the line in regards to the rules of these forums. It is one thing to explain, even argue for your faith. It is quite another to press it on the rest of us.
Just saying…You might want to re-read the rules of the road.

i think its a good reminder for all of us in life to remember policies of forums and so on. good point zooey.

 

[Regardless]

To OP:

To Regardless:
I think it is only fair to point out that you are treading very close to the line in regards to the rules of these forums. It is one thing to explain, even argue for your faith. It is quite another to press it on the rest of us.
Just saying…You might want to re-read the rules of the road.

I am upsetting people.

I though I was answering questions by being polite, quoting scripture, using logic and siting well established history in doing so.

My apologies. I will not post any further on this topic if that offends.

All the best.

 

[MerryCatholic]

I am upsetting people.

I though I was answering questions by being polite, quoting scripture, using logic and siting well established history in doing so.

My apologies. I will not post any further on this topic if that offends.

All the best.

i don’t think its that your upsetting people. we don’t mind a good debate, but it has to fall within the guidelines of CAF. we all have to read the guidelines when we sign up for CAF.
Post, but do keep it within the rules. Discussing Scripture is a good thing, but it has to
be kept within the limits established by CAF. Same as religious debates. People can become very passionate about what they believe. I am as you have seen, a very passionate Catholic that’s because I love my faith with everything that I am. I know you love yours as well. So let’s have a wholesome discussion rather than letting our passions take over a post. I liked zooey’s comment. It was correct. its a reminder to all of us

 

[Abeyta85]

I am upsetting people.

I though I was answering questions by being polite, quoting scripture, using logic and siting well established history in doing so.

My apologies. I will not post any further on this topic if that offends.

All the best.

Regardless.

No worries, it was my fault too. I get very passionate about my faith, and I see you do as well. That is great! I do appreciate the talk we had, it learned new things I had never know about my faith. When someone is debating with me, i go and read and learn, come back and present the answer and why i support it.

Speaking with you was a great opportunity, and you did not offend me at all.

[SIGN]Cheers![/SIGN]

PS I will keep the NWT for apologetic reasons.

 

[Regardless]

Regardless.

Speaking with you was a great opportunity, and you did not offend me at all.

[SIGN]Cheers![/SIGN]

PS I will keep the NWT for apologetic reasons.

Good. I’m pleased to see no hard feelings.

All the best in your studies.

 

[SnakeMauler]

It’s just a book. Throw it away. Don’t get worked up about it.

 

[Zooey]

i don’t think its that your upsetting people. we don’t mind a good debate, but it has to fall within the guidelines of CAF. we all have to read the guidelines when we sign up for CAF.
Post, but do keep it within the rules. Discussing Scripture is a good thing, but it has to
be kept within the limits established by CAF. Same as religious debates. People can become very passionate about what they believe. I am as you have seen, a very passionate Catholic that’s because I love my faith with everything that I am. I know you love yours as well. So let’s have a wholesome discussion rather than letting our passions take over a post. I liked zooey’s comment. It was correct. its a reminder to all of us

Thank you.
I hope Reagardless was not too upset. I just felt like he might get into trouble, & that would be very .

 

[richlo]

I grew up a JW so it was interesting reading this.

First, let me give you a little insight of how JW view the Catholic Church and continue till this day with very negative teachings at their meetings. The Catholic Church is called Babylon the Great - in other words Catholics are the worst of the worst. Anyone who is not JW is called WORLDY people and they use this in derogatory manners (I was going to the Kingdom hall from 5 -19 years of age - dad is a preciding elder of the congregation and also is a traveling one now).

The JW have the wrong understanding of the Trinity - this is quite evident reading here and in myself knowing. Furthermore, the NWT is probably the MOST accurate in the O.T translation since they do use the divine name where it always has existed in the past but when it comes the the N.T, it is probably notably the WORST translation.

Now many will sit here and argue John 1:1 - this is not a very good text to fight with honestly. You have to draw lines still to point more than just if HE IS GOD or IS A GOD. What you want to look at is John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-17 where the word [OTHER] has been inserted and completely changes the doctrine and Jesus divinity, when left unadulterated, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-17 are spiritual twins and are not conflicting each other. As you may know or not know, Jesus is Michael the Arch Angel in their eyes - I never understood that one…

You can use their own material to prove this point. They had a Greek to English interlinear translation done back in the 1960 called KIT (Kingdom Interlinear Translation). Also you can show them that the divine name even here is nowhere to be found.YES, they will talk about the Septuagint where it was removed but existed in the Hebrew manuscripts but as we know the Septuagint is a translation and not the original so we can easily cross reference that, but the 5000 partial and full Greek manuscripts spread the Europe and Asia all have this very common trait where the name does not exist. Thus as a JW they walk a fine line here basically saying that it was removed without trace and without a proof - so it begs to ask yourself as a JW

1. if the name was removed, then what we have translated from is corrupt thus not holy
2. What gives us as JW the authority to ADD the name when it never was there.
3. Who translated the NWT (no names ever where given - that’s the first bad sign of someone hiding)
4. Could something else have been removed?

the below is the link PDF download of the WT own KIT

ia311221.us.archive.org/1/items/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0/wtclassic/Kingdom_Interlinear-Greek_Scriptures_1969.pdf

Im done arguing with JW and currently signed to start my RCIA classes and come back to where Jesus told Peter, upon this rock I will build my church and not even the gates of hades will prevail against it…

The above is proof enough that the JW are not the ones, they have existed barely over 100 years (depends if your including the Russell years). What happened to the other 1800 years or so prior - dark ages…I dont think so…this will go against exactly what Jesus said to Peter.

The Catholic Church has survived since biblical times…

Hey to my JW friends:

How is that GENERATION OF 1914 that will live to see the end of times coming along…wait that got changed in 1995…NEW LIGHT!!

I have to agree with Russell on the below - see bolded (added by me) area to get to my point

If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with god there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from god must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. New light never extinguishes older light, but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light. So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another." (Watchtower Feb. 1, 1881, Reprints p. 188)

 

[Abeyta85]

Thank you for the awesome information.

God Bless my friend!

 

[Big_Dummy]

Bias in New Testament Translations? A Defense of the Deity of Christ [Paperback]
Thomas Howe (Author)