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

[BibleSteve]

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.

Since you brought up the NAB and BeDuhn, let’s see what he concludes:

"While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. Holding a close second to the NW in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB…

"The NW and NAB are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations, better by far than the deeply flawed TEV, certainly better as a translation than the LB and AB, which are not really translations at all, consistently better than the heavily biased NIV, often better than the compromised NRSV.

So, as far as the NT is concerned, both the NW and NAB are pretty good.

Then he goes on to discuss the use of the Divine name in scripture.

He disagrees with the decision of the NW to use “Jehovah” in the NT (the reasons for this are discussed above in the thread" and disagrees with the lack of “Jehovah” in the NAB and others.

Of course, “Jehovah” also appears throughout the NW Old Testament. In this case, the NW is the only accurate translation of the nine we are comparing, since all of the other translations replace the personal name of God, in over six thousand passages, with the euphemistic title “Lord” (given by many of these translations in all capitals, as “LORD,” which my students invariably misunderstand as some sort of emphasis). YHWH does appear in the original Hebrew of these passages, and the only accurate translation is the one that renders that name into some pronouncible form. The NW right does this; the others do not."

Any argument about the “accuracy” of a Bible translation needs to consider the blatent 6,000+ inaccuracies of removing the personal name of Jehovah from His own book.

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

 

[BibleSteve]

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

I am replying to you, Daniel Marsh, and the Catholic priest who wrote that article.

The Watchtower quotes thousands of translations. They specifically reference dozens of translations that support our translation of John 1:1.

But, one came from a ex-Catholic priest who we specifically mention we don’t support due to his involvement with spiritism and you, Daniel, and the Catholic priest are all charging us with “spiritism”.

Why don’t you spend some time thinking about Matt 7:1-4 and do some research on whether the Catholic Church ever ex-communicated this Greber fellow? We distanced ourselves from him… did the Catholic Church?

Also, instead of trying to link us to “spiritism” because of a simple referential quote long discarded, spend some time reading what your church teaches about spiritism:

“Spiritism is the name properly given to the belief that the living can and do communicate with the spirits of the departed, and to the various practices by which such communication is attempted.”

newadvent.org/cathen/14221a.htm

And then ask youself if you are involved with any specific activity trying to communicate to any of the “spirits of the departed”.

Can you think of anything you and other Catholics regularly do that meets this definition?

If you’re really industrious you might do some investigating of this priest who seems to be in good standing with the Catholic Church.

You REALLY shouldn’t be lobbing all this “spiritism” criticism towards us. There is not another group who avoids spiritism more than us.

In summary, trying to charge the WT with “spiritism” is ridiculous… and so I’m done with this tabloid discussion.

 

[BibleSteve]

Here’s some more info if you want to go investigate:

fatherjay.com/

I make no comment or criticism… This would just seem to be of interest to someone like you who’s very concerned about “spiritism”.

 

[cascherman]

Steve,

While we look over the information you provided, please do not act like you are the teacher and we are the student by constantly ‘assigning us homework’, as you so often like you say.

We all have our individual share of knowledge and it seems you like to talk down to us as if we have not read anything in our lives because we have not read Truth in Translation.

So please, while we analyze the info you gave us, try not to patronize.

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Chris,

On your concern about “Jehovah” being used in the New Testament of the NWT, I’d like your comments on this statement from BeDuhn:

“Every single translation that we have compared deviates from the biblical text, one way or another, in the “Jehovah”/“Lord” passages of the Old and New Testament. Past efforts by some translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible, to follow the text accurately in these passages, have not been well-received by the uninformed public conditioned by the KJV. But popular opinion is not a valid regulator of biblical accuracy. We must adhere to the standards equally to all. If by those standards we say that the NW should not substitue “Jehovah” for “Lord” in the New Testament, then by those same standards we must say that the KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB, AB, LB, and TEV should not substitute “Lord” for “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” in the Old Testament”.

Since you agree with his comments about the use of Jehovah’s personal name in the NT, do you agree with his comments about Jehovah’s name in the OT?

The reason I ask, is that it would seem futile to debate the NT side of the issue with someone who doesn’t see the HUGE inaccuracy of eliminating Jehovah’s own personal name from the OT.

 

[VWcrazy]

[In summary, trying to charge the WT with “spiritism” is ridiculous… and so I’m done with this tabloid discussion./QUOTE]

To deny that the Walsetower cited the works of Johannes Gerber- who acknowledged in 1956 that he used Spirits with his translations is not being very honest. Actually, its being dishonest.

 

[BibleSteve]

To deny that the Walsetower cited the works of Johannes Gerber- who acknowledged in 1956 that he used Spirits with his translations is not being very honest. Actually, its being dishonest.

No dishonesty at all. Answered in post #73

Your repeated desire to criticize is described at Matt 7:1-4.

If you are concerned about spiritism, why not do what Jesus says and focus your concern on your own organization.

www.fatherjay.com

Has this guy been excommunicated? Any official statements from Catholic Headquarters distancing themselves from him?

I have no information about this fellow other than he claims to be a Catholic Priest involved with spiritism.

Please let me know what you find.

 

[VWcrazy]

[No dishonesty at all. Answered in post #73
/QUOTE]

Dishonest and denial.

If you are concerned about spiritism, why not do what Jesus says and focus your concern on your own organization.

www.fatherjay.com

Has this guy been excommunicated? Any official statements from Catholic Headquarters distancing themselves from him?

I have no information about this fellow other than he claims to be a Catholic Priest involved with spiritism.

Please let me know what you find.

Now it seems you are trying to side-step the issue and change the subject. Typical JW technic.

But let’s get back on track with the false NWT translation,

 

[BibleSteve]

[No dishonesty at all. Answered in post #73
/QUOTE]
Dishonest and denial.

 

[BibleSteve]

But let’s get back on track with the false NWT translation,

OK, tell me specifically… in your detailed analysis of checking the NWT against other translations, what have you personally observed?

Or, are you simply a copy/paste guy repeating what you’ve read in various anti-JW books and websites?

 

[NanaR]

VWcrazy;3394553:

Your attempt to make a mound of of a molehill is funny. Have you ever attempted to get a copy of the articles you’re criticizing? Or, just looking at anti-JW books or websites?

What you don’t realize is that if I pull these articles for your review, you’ll see the point of them was to denounce the spiritism that was spreading through Peru, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Haiti. And, how in such lands the Catholic people, even up to 90 per cent, mix spiritism or voodooism right in with Roman Catholicism, practicing both at the same time with no objection or penalty by the priests.

Would you really like to go down that direction? It’s not going to be pretty for the Catholic Church and it’s certainly going to show your criticism to be pretty ridiculous.

Steve,

This discussion is supposed to be about the NWT. As for the articles in question, I have read them all, thank you very much. I spent many years of my life reading them, believing them, and teaching them.

The Catholic Church condemns demonism and voodoism in no uncertain terms. That not all of her children follow her direction is sad, but then there are well over a BILLION Catholics in the world (compared to 6 or 7 million Witnesses).

The topic of this thread is NOT the Catholic Church. The topic of this thread was an assertion that even the NWT of the Bible (which has been repeatedly edited to remove references to worship of Jesus and subtly changed in many places to place him in a position below his rank of God) can be used to show the agreement of Holy Scripture with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Rather than systematically proving your point, you have been all over the place. Comparing an article by Fr. Pacwa with the National Enquirer was a bit over the top.

Maybe you need to cut back on the caffeine.

Have a nice cup of camomile tea and we’ll talk in the morning.

And yes, I’m patronizing you.

How does it feel?

By the way, I’m going to pray extra hard for you tonight.

The day I woke up to the truth about God and His Church, I hit my knees to ask for forgiveness for all those years of leading people away from Him.

I pray that someday you will do the same.

Your sister (whether you like it or not),

Ruth

 

[BibleSteve]

Now it seems you are trying to side-step the issue and change the subject. Typical JW technic.

Remember, it was Daniel Marsh, Nana, and you that brought this issue up. I’m simply showing how silly and unbalanced your criticism is.

Even though JW’s have denounced spiritism from the beginning, denounced Greber, and his Bible, a Watchtower writer in 1962made the SERIOUS SIN of writing an article about John 1:1 and was discussing how 12 Catholic and Protestant translations wrote this differently than the standard KJV. There were 12+ footnotes at the bottom of the article, referencing all these translations, various supporting material, and a single mention of Greber’s translation in a footnote!

Wow! That is really a serious sin. I figured with your “anti-spiritism” meter set so high, you’d be hopping mad to find a Catholic Priest actually practicing spiritism in your midst. But, I guess not.

Of course, there was that other SERIOUS sin in 1975 where the Watchtower was discussing how different translations dealt with translation ambiguity at Matt 27:52. And a single mention of how Greber’s translation dealt with this.

Man! That’s bad! They actually mentioned Greber’s translation!

Because the Watchtower is so anti-spiritism, after an internal review, they decided to not quote Greber any more.

Several years later, in 1983, they specifically AGAIN denounced Greber and his translation.

Now, if you, Daniel Marsh, or Nana want to hold the Watchtower to such a high standard to not ever mention Greber and his translation, I would simply assume you’d also be on the look out in your own church for any possible hint of a person involved with spiritism. Wouldn’t that be consistent?

But I guess not. It seems like all your focus is outwards looking for things to criticize about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Why is it you’re so concerned over some passing quote in a Watchtower article 40-50 years ago, but you couldn’t care less about this Catholic priest overtly practicing spiritism?

 

[VWcrazy]

BibleSteve,

Once again (typical of a JW), YOU are trying to change the subject. The topic is about the flawed NWT translation. It took the Watchtower several decades to renounce Gerber’s work. It wasn’t as if the moment they had discovered his using spiritialism that he was rebuked, it was a few decades.

Since the Watchtower’s doctrines simply didn’t match with Scripture, the simply changed Scripture to fit their doctrines.

We’re still praying for 'ya to leave the Watchtower behind and come into the Faith.

 

[lurdes]

I appreciate the sincerity of the invitation. However, when I read the Bible and look at what the Catholic Church teaches, I see huge differences.

and i guess when you read the NWT is more accurate

 

[lurdes]

If you had read the book you would realize the foolishness of your statement. The book wasn’t written to defend the NWT.

The book reviews 9 modern translations and lays out specific evidence anyone can see for themselves of the bias that has crept into all of the translations.

I personally take time to read books outside my religious affiliation.

You might consider doing it sometime too.

Biblesteve you have to be careful if the watchtower know that you are reading other writings besides the JW’s writings you could get censor

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Biblesteve you have to be careful if the watchtower know that you are reading other writings besides the JW’s writings you could get censor

Lurdes, the only way a JW could have the conversations that Steve has had with the people he has had them with here, would be if he is counting the time he talks on these forums as Field Service time. A JW would be disfellowshipped for being here for any other reason. Maybe Steve is an inactive JW. I don’t know.

 

[cascherman]

Dear Chris,

The reason I ask, is that it would seem futile to debate the NT side of the issue with someone who doesn’t see the HUGE inaccuracy of eliminating Jehovah’s own personal name from the OT.

I really don’t know how many times I have to say I care very little about DeBuhn’s book, as you very well know, I have not read it and I don’t care to debate it.

But, my issue with the name Jehovah pales in comparison to inserting a name that is not there in the New Testament, concerning the NWT, so try not to divert me once again. Whether or not the Watchtower has good reason to believe YHWH was in the NT and still should be does not give the right to insert it and expect people to hold it as a credible change, without CURRENT evidence. There is none, we have 2nd century manuscripts that DO NOT include the tetragrammaton.

 

[cascherman]

Lurdes, the only way a JW could have the conversations that Steve has had with the people he has had them with here, would be if he is counting the time he talks on these forums as Field Service time. A JW would be disfellowshipped for being here for any other reason. Maybe Steve is an inactive JW. I don’t know.

Actually, I have been told by two JW’s that anything religious other than JW material is considered to be created by satan to lead them away from the organization.

But, I think I remember Steve touching on this previously, but I will not say one way or another about Steve’s involvement. That is his prerogative.

 

[BibleSteve]

Biblesteve you have to be careful if the watchtower know that you are reading other writings besides the JW’s writings you could get censor

That is not true. Watchtower publications regularly quote non-JW material. My library is filled with Bibles, Dictionaries, Concordances, Commentaries, etc.

I hate to see people have such mis-informed opinions against JW’s… but there seems to be no end to the misinformation and disinformation out there.

 

[BibleSteve]

I really don’t know how many times I have to say I care very little about DeBuhn’s book, as you very well know, I have not read it and I don’t care to debate it.

But, my issue with the name Jehovah pales in comparison to inserting a name that is not there in the New Testament, concerning the NWT, so try not to divert me once again. Whether or not the Watchtower has good reason to believe YHWH was in the NT and still should be does not give the right to insert it and expect people to hold it as a credible change, without CURRENT evidence. There is none, we have 2nd century manuscripts that DO NOT include the tetragrammaton.

Dear Chris,

OK, it’s fine. I’m getting a very clear picture here.

I’ve been trying to have an intelligent discussion with you but it’s like pulling teeth.

You object to the use of “Jehovah”, so I point out links to the Catholic Encyclopedia talking about “Jehovah” and point you to all the Bible Characters who’s names are based on “Jehovah” and you won’t expend any effort to simply Google their names. When I give you the list of names, you want me to point you to the specific scriptural verses. When I do, you disappear without comment.

When you object to using “Jehovah” in the NT because “it’s not accurate” according to “current evidence”. And yet “current evidence” is overwhelming that the Tetragrammaton was in the orginal Hebrew text.

If what is in original manuscripts is the basis of your concern, why aren’t you consistent in your concern?

You demand evidence of the tetragrammaton in the NT before using “Jehovah”, but when it’s provided in the OT, you don’t care?

Asking a simple question like this gets me the statement “I’m simply trying to divert you”?

You complain and can’t imagine why an author like BeDuhn makes a conclusion, but you haven’t and won’t read the book… and after your complaint about BeDuhn’s conclusion, you couldn’t care about his book anyway.

I’m looking for a good conversation with other Bible students, but I’m not finding it here…

I’ve pointed you at some good resources. If you ever have some sincere interest check 'em out.

I’m going to be wrapping up my conversations here… the signal to noise level is just too low.