Showing the JW's where their 'Bible' agrees with the Trinity

[BibleSteve]

Why is the name Jehovah used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears intranslations of the Christian Greek Scriptures intoHebrew,inpassages where quotations are made directlyfrom theinspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864)*contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.

The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6,26) According to Jerome of the fourth centuryC.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280*B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.

Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.

 

[BibleSteve]

From the Appendix of the NWT…

From App 1A and 1C it is evident that the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters ) was used in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he pronounced the divine name. This was in accordance with his determination to make Jehovah’s name known as can be seen from his prayer to his Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. ... I have made your name known to them and will make it known.”—Joh 17:6, 26.

There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.” (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp.*8, 9.)

Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.

Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. (See App 1C §1.) As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky′ri·os, “Lord” or The·os′, “God.”

Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p.*63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name,( יהוה and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky′ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”

We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a “theory,” rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.

RESTORING THE DIVINE NAME

Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work by “J” with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures in various places. They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.

To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words Κύριος and Θεός, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky′ri·os and The·os′ and the personality with which to clothe them.

To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely, 1Co 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name.—See 1Co 7:17 ftn, “Jehovah.”

 

[BibleSteve]

What about the Isaiah prophecy of Prince of Peace and Eternal Father? What about Jesus reciting the psalms on the cross? These things clearly show His presence in the Old Testament as well as the New. And this points out His presence with God the Father eternally.

Hello goofyjim and welcome.

Have you reviewed the information in posts #2 and #4

That is a good place to start in this discussion.

Thanks,

Steve

 

[cascherman]

well, I’ll have to look over all that and I’ll tell you my conclusion maybe tomorrow. I’m pretty tired now.

Oh, and a source or two wouldn’t hurt.

 

[BibleSteve]

well, I’ll have to look over all that and I’ll tell you my conclusion maybe tomorrow. I’m pretty tired now.

Oh, and a source or two wouldn’t hurt.

You asked for Jehovah’s Witnesses reasons for including the Divine name in the NT, so all info is from Jehovah’s Witnesses with quotes from various non-JW sources as noted.

Another excellent discussion of the issue is found in Beduhn’s book in the Appendix… which you will find at Amazon.

 

[AdoptedByGod]

If you are a person who thirsts for truth and values truth more than simple conformity to your current belief system, widen out and read, read, read, other sources.

No thanks, I’d rather read the Bible. And if I were to read YOUR NWT it would point out that:

1. Jesus is saying that He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13) and God saying that He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 21:6)
2. Jesus is saying that His reward is with Him (Rev 22:12) and identifies His reward being Jehovah’s and with Jehovah (Isaiah 40:10).
3. Jesus is saying that He is the Beginning and the End (Rev 22:13) and God saying that He is the Beginning and the End (Rev:21:6)
4. Jesus is saying that He gives the Water of Life (John 4:14) and God saying that He gives the Water of Life (Rev 21:6).
5. Paul attributing the very words spoken by the voice of God (Isaiah 6:8 ) as being spoken by the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25)

Too busy wasting cash on other literature and not spending enough time reading your own…

Andrew

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The point is that most Catholic and Protestant Bible readers are completely oblivious to the fact that their favorite translations are filled with critical errors that were introduced by the inherent bias of the translators.

The RSV and the NRSV are no different in this fact. Even with the best of intentions, the translators have made mistakes and these are documented in this book.

When another translation comes along that specifically and carefully translates the material correctly, you’ll notice the difference and immediately think it’s wrong because it’s different.

Most people will never do the homework to see the truth. Will you?

It’s far easier to just go along with the flow and assume your church or the translators are 100% perfect in every way and it’s those crazy JW’s who have it wrong.

Daniel Marsh, VWCrazy and other JW-critics haven’t taken the time to read BeDuhn’s book. They always have an excuse that they are right and they don’t have read any other sources.

If you are a person who thirsts for truth and values truth more than simple conformity to your current belief system, widen out and read, read, read, other sources.

BeDuhn’s book is an excellent read that will open your eyes.

BULL, I read BeDuhn’s book and was not impressed. In fact, I published a peer review of it in an eariler post in this thread. I also, pointed out that the NWT matches concept by concept with a spiritualists translation of the NT – whom the watchtower has used in their publications. BeDuhn’s book does not stand up to peer review.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Steve,

First off, if Jason David BeDuhn is a genuine scholar and truly wanted to bring out the truth of the translations, and which is most unbiased or most correct, I hardly see how he could come up with the NWT as the choice. How can he support a translation that assumes the tetragrammaton was used in the New Testament and uses Lord and Jehovah interchangably wherever it suits that particular JW belief of Christ and the Father, when there has yet to be ONE source found including YHWH in the New Testament. Do you see the license that gives to make obvious differentiation for every JW to see when Lord is used and it is changed to either Lord or Jehovah, when there is not such differentiation supplied by the manuscripts we have.

In other words, no one has any evidence that the word Lord used to describe Jesus Christ and the word Lord used to to describe Jehovah were not intended to be one and the same, by the manuscripts that we have at this time. It was chosen between the two wherever the NWT translators found in appropriate.

How can an unbiased scholar write a whole book defending a translation that takes such an obvious and significant liberty pertaining to the name of God in the NT.

**The Watch Tower Society will want to selectively quote BeDuhn's book because he compliments portions of the New World Translation.** On the other hand, considering what Truth in Translation also says about the New World Translation in areas of its weakness, the Watch Tower Society will need to proceed cautiously when quoting Truth in Translation. **BeDuhn devoted an entire appendix (The Use of "Jehovah") to the 237 occurrences of "Jehovah" in the New World Translation Greek Scriptures (New Testament). In that appendix he essentially denies the most prominent feature of the New World Translation's Greek Scriptures when he disputes the appropriateness of using Jehovah in the New Testament**. We will consider that subject in the Appendix comments.

**In spite of my high praise for Truth in Translation, I do not agree with everything BeDuhn says. He also stumbles on his own bias in several places.** I will comment on that where it is appropriate. I think it is fair to say this. On a first level, the translation principles BeDuhn describes are objective and are of extreme value. His academic qualifications demand that he be taken seriously. All of us from any theological persuasion need to carefully consider what he has to say regarding these translation principles.

On a second level, BeDuhn chooses a number of passages to use as illustrations. Until I read the last chapter in which he explains his purpose for that choice,*] I** was becoming increasingly uncomfortable that he selected the passages in order to defend his personal view of Jesus and the Spirit (spirit). **We need to pay careful attention to what the author says on this second level because he can teach us a great deal. This is where the theoretical meets the everyday application in the English New Testament translation we use. Nonetheless, because **this second level involves considerably more subjective material,** all of us as readers have the responsibility of cautiously weighing his comments before reaching our final conclusion.

*] In Chapter 13, BeDuhn says, “I could only consider a small number of samples in this book. Another set of samples might yield some different configurations of results. But the selection of passages has not been arbitrary. It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance, the verses that are claimed as key foundations for the commitments of the belief held by the very people making the translations. Choosing precisely those passages where theology has most at stake might seem deliberately provocative and controversial. But that is exactly where bias is most likely to interfere with translation. Biblical passages that make statements about the nature and character of Jesus or the Holy Spirit are much more likely to have beliefs read into them than are passages that mention what Jesus and his disciples had for lunch.” (p. 165)

**Finally, there is a third level in which BeDuhn is merely reflecting his own belief.** As a reader, we are free to accept, modify or reject his point of view, but there is still much he can teach each of us in this final area also.

May I suggest that Truth in Translation is a superb book. If both opponents and proponents of the New World Translation would apply the author's principles to their own translation selection, we would all reap the benefit of reading Bibles which better reflect the intended message of the New Testament authors.

Our web site ([www.tetragrammaton.org](www.tetragrammaton.org)) is devoted to a study of the presence (or absence) of the Tetragrammaton*] in the New Testament autographs. As such, our site is not a forum for discussing theology or even Bible translations.

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

well, I’ll have to look over all that and I’ll tell you my conclusion maybe tomorrow. I’m pretty tired now.

Oh, and a source or two wouldn’t hurt.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Samuel+and+Kings%3A+%E2%80%9CAnd+we+find+the+name+of+God%2C+the+Tetragrammaton&btnG=Search

watchtower.org/e/na/article_06.htm

I think it is fairly clear that his “source” is the watchtower.

 

[BibleSteve]

No thanks, I’d rather read the Bible. And if I were to read YOUR NWT it would point out that:

1. Jesus is saying that He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13) and God saying that He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 21:6)
2. Jesus is saying that His reward is with Him (Rev 22:12) and identifies His reward being Jehovah’s and with Jehovah (Isaiah 40:10).
3. Jesus is saying that He is the Beginning and the End (Rev 22:13) and God saying that He is the Beginning and the End (Rev:21:6)
4. Jesus is saying that He gives the Water of Life (John 4:14) and God saying that He gives the Water of Life (Rev 21:6).

Dear Andrew,

Here’s a simple homework exercise for you. Read these 2 scriptures very carefully and then think about who actually uttered all these quotes you mentioned to John. Who’s mouth actually opened and talked directly to John?

(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John,

(Revelation 22:16) “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”

Did you notice it was the angel doing all the talking? Why was that?

 

[BibleSteve]

BULL, I read BeDuhn’s book and was not impressed.

Dear Daniel,

I’m glad you took the effort to read his book. Why not take just one of the scriptures he analyzed… (something other than John 1:1 which has been argued ad-nasuem) and explain Debuhn’s analysis of it in detail and then explain your analysis. Then finally, explain why your opinion should be considered of greater value than his.

 

[BibleSteve]

BULL, I read BeDuhn’s book and was not impressed.

Careful Daniel, your Trinitiarian bias is showing as you dismiss anything that doesn’t match your own belief system

Here’s very positive comments from other readers of the book.

 

[BibleSteve]

Daniel,

Here’s a part of your post #67 you choose not to highlight:

The conclusion of the non-JW reviewer of BeDuhn’s book?

May I suggest that Truth in Translation is a superb book. If both opponents and proponents of the New World Translation would apply the author’s principles to their own translation selection, we would all reap the benefit of reading Bibles which better reflect the intended message of the New Testament authors.

 

[BibleSteve]

I also, pointed out that the NWT matches concept by concept with a spiritualists translation of the NT – whom the watchtower has used in their publications.

The Watchtower quotes from and references thousands, upon thousands of non-JW publications, translations, and reference materials. Thousands of references are made to Catholic and Protestant Bible translations.

One of which was from a Catholic priest named Johannes Greber who produced a translation of the New Testament.

I have looked for some statement from the Catholic Church distancing themselves from Greber and his “The New Testament Translation”, but I haven’t found one. Please provide if you have it.

In contrast, the Watchtower specifically distanced themselves from Greber in this 1983 Questions from Readers:

■ Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?

This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on “God’s Spirit World” to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: “His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.” The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament.

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject all forms of spiritism. In our analysis of scriptures like John 1:1, we reference dozens of translations that translate it different than the KJV.

To argue a “spiritism” link based on a single translation referencing 2 scriptures, which has been overtly rejected is simply a low-blow…

Please come up a level in your criticism.

 

[AdoptedByGod]

Dear Andrew,

Here’s a simple homework exercise for you. Read these 2 scriptures very carefully and then think about who actually uttered all these quotes you mentioned to John. Who’s mouth actually opened and talked directly to John?

Dear BibleSteve,

Those very words come from Jesus (see Rev 22:16) - and thus backs up my point…

(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John,

(Revelation 22:16) “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”

So either the Angel is saying he is the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End, has the Reward - or Jesus is saying that…

Obviously, the words have come from Jesus (who sent the Angel to convey them to John).

Take another look at Rev 22, and you will see that it is the words of Jesus doing the talking between verses 12-16.

Did you notice it was the angel doing all the talking? Why was that?

No it is plainly obvious by following the quotation marks that Rev 22:12-16 are Jesus’ words (qualified by “I, Jesus”).

God Bless,

Andrew

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Andrew,

I was hoping that as a serious Bible student you would realize that every word in the Book of Revelation was spoken to John by the angel who was speaking in 1st person for someone else and acting as a spokesman and representative of someone else.

Please reread the scriptures I mentioned again. Do you see that fundamental point?

 

[NanaR]

The Watchtower quotes from and references thousands, upon thousands of non-JW publications, translations, and reference materials. Thousands of references are made to Catholic and Protestant Bible translations.

One of which was from a Catholic priest named Johannes Greber who produced a translation of the New Testament.

I have looked for some statement from the Catholic Church distancing themselves from Greber and his “The New Testament Translation”, but I haven’t found one. Please provide if you have it.

In contrast, the Watchtower specifically distanced themselves from Greber in this 1983 Questions from Readers:

■ Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?

This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on “God’s Spirit World” to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: “His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.” The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament.

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject all forms of spiritism. In our analysis of scriptures like John 1:1, we reference dozens of translations that translate it different than the KJV.

To argue a “spiritism” link based on a single translation referencing 2 scriptures, which has been overtly rejected is simply a low-blow…

Please come up a level in your criticism.

Bible Steve:

For over 20 years, the Watchtower Society publications quoted Greber with FULL KNOWLEDGE of his spiritistic involvement. So the 1983 “question” was sort of “too little, too late”. The 1956 Watchtower calls Greber an “ex-priest”, a 1962 Watchtower calls Greber a “former priest”. If you have actually read what Greber believed, you know that after his spiritistic experiences, he attacked the Catholic Church. Even ordained Catholic priests can leave the Church (as he obviously did). Father Mitch Pacwa discusses Greber here:

How The Watchtower Relied On A Spiritualist Bible Translation

There is no evidence that his translation was approved by the Church, or that the Church gave any credence to his rantings. The Church had no need to denounce him, as he had already attacked them and so shown that he no longer considered himself Catholic.

A good friend of mine put the whole Bible - God question this way:

The Bible is like a finger pointing to God. What should we do, contemplate God, or analyze the finger? I choose to contemplate God, who has revealed Himself through Holy Tradition as well as Holy Scripture.

BeDuhn chose 2 translations as best – the New World Translation and the New American Bible. I’ll take the New American Bible, thank you very much. It is the one currently used in Mass in my parish. And it includes ALL the books of the Bible.

My personal take on the whole thing is that God prevented the Watchtower organization from totally corrupting the Holy Scriptures. After all, it is His Scripture that we are talking about.

Still praying for you, Bible Steve.

Pax,

Ruth

 

[BibleSteve]

This is National Enquirer, tabloid level criticism.

Are we going to start hearing your complaints about the alien love child father by Russell or Rutherford with Reptilian aliens who were channeling angels between drunken binges and meetings to discuss Illuminati issues along with former presidents at secret society meetings?

There is no end to the crazy Internet information out there that tries to tie the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses to spiritism, demonism, aliens, secret societies, etc.

Posting links to these type of sites or making accusations like these fall into the same degraded level of ridiculous criticism.

Bring it up a level folks. You’re really embarrassing yourselves.

 

[NanaR]

Dear Andrew,

I was hoping that as a serious Bible student you would realize that every word in the Book of Revelation was spoken to John by the angel who was speaking in 1st person for someone else and acting as a spokesman and representative of someone else.

Please reread the scriptures I mentioned again. Do you see that fundamental point?

Then Bible Steve, why did the Watchtower of September 15, 1962, say this on page 559, paragraph 32:

32 Yet, three years before that, when Jesus began his public career in the land of Israel, Nathanael recognized Jesus’ connections with King David, saying to him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (John 1:49) And in the vision to the apostle John the royal connections of Jesus are emphasized a number of times. **In Revelation 3:7 Jesus himself says: “These are the things he says who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David.” **In Revelation 5:5 an elderly person says of Jesus: “Look! The Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered.” Finally, in Revelation 22:16, we read: “I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.” Although Jesus on earth spoke of himself as “Jesus the Nazarene,” he had really been born in King David’s native town of Bethlehem but had merely been brought up in Nazareth. (John 18:5-7; 19:19) There Joseph his caretaker came to be looked on as his father. His forefather David had an earthly kingdom; but Jesus’ heavenly kingdom is something grander and more beneficial to all mankind.

This is in an article designed to disprove the Trinity, but notice that the Watchtower says that Jesus himself is speaking in Revelation 3. Also in Revelation 22:16, the grammar would make no sense and the following sentence would make no sense unless Jesus himself was speaking. The angel is not the root and offspring of David – the Lord Jesus Christ is.

So don’t be saying that other people are not “serious Bible students” just because they don’t agree with you.

I don’t know how you keep straight what you are supposed to believe, since the Watchtower changes its doctrine more often than most of us change our cars. This is in contrast to the Catholic Church which used the same Catechism for 400 years before making some minor edits to make it more understandable to a 20th/21st Century audience.

Pax,

Ruth

Who will continue to pray for you, just because she can!

 

[NanaR]

This is National Enquirer, tabloid level criticism.

Are we going to start hearing your complaints about the alien love child father by Russell or Rutherford with Reptilian aliens who were channeling angels between drunken binges and meetings to discuss Illuminati issues along with former presidents at secret society meetings?

There is no end to the crazy Internet information out there that tries to tie the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses to spiritism, demonism, aliens, secret societies, etc.

Posting links to these type of sites or making accusations like these fall into the same degraded level of ridiculous criticism.

Bring it up a level folks. You’re really embarrassing yourselves.

Bible Steve:

Who are you replying to?

The article I referred to was written by a well-respected Catholic priest and includes references that I can find in the Watchtower, Aid to Bible Understanding, etc.

So if you are answering me, then I guess we are done.

Still praying for you though,

Ruth