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

[BibleSteve]

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

I have to chuckle at the irony here. Didn’t you say you liked the NAB?

“In chapter Four, we saw that the NW and NAB handle the Greek word proskuneo most consistently, accurately translating it as “give homage” or “do obeisance” rather than switching to “worship” when Jesus is the recipient of the gesture.” BeDuhn page 161, 162

So, the very thing you are complaining about the NWT is what the NAB translation does so well also. Accurately translate the Greek word proskuneo as it should be… instead of switching it to “worship” as the other inaccurate translations do.

I’m ending my participation in this thread. I don’t think there’s any fair or useful conversation going on here with all the insults from VWCrazy and tabloid insulting claims towards Jehovah’s Witnesses from other posters. When Catholic posters have the right to insult and divert the thread with anti-JW claims and I’m criticized for either ignoring or answering, it’s clear I’m wasting my time on ears that aren’t listening.

 

[AdoptedByGod]

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?

This does not make any difference to my points. The relevant words still come from Jesus.

Andrew

 

[VWcrazy]

I don’t think there’s any fair or useful conversation going on here with all the insults from VWCrazy and tabloid insulting claims towards Jehovah’s Witnesses from other posters.

Tabloid insults? I think you mean historical fact. BibleSteve, you are STILL denying the truth. The Watchtower supported Gerber’s translations even though in 1959 he he acknowledged using spirit mediums.

Actually, I think the rest of us should feel insulted by the way you seem to twist the truth and attempt to play the martyr. But as Christians, we continue to pray that you will leave the Watchtower and their false teachings and doctrines and turn to Christianity.

 

[lurdes]

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.

the reason I say that is because my sister is a JW and every time I ask her to read something the Pope wrote or anything on the history of the Church she say she is not allowed to read anything that doesn’t come from their congregation.

 

[SerenaHC]

BibleSteve says he has left this thread. He seems to have a sincere desire to know God and scripture. We should all pray for him, to have his eyes opened, his mind opened, and his heart opened to the beauty and truths of our Catholic faith.

For my part, I sincerely hope he’s not tracking the time he spends on these threads toward his monthly quota. It will diminish my regard for him. But we’ll never know.

 

[cascherman]

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.

Well, that will happen when a superior being is speaking with such a dumbling like me. J/K

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.

Okay, let’s put this on the back-burner for a while, and lets talk about what I’ve been trying to ask you for many many posts now. I’ll admit I jump around a little, but somewhere in my discombobulated brain, I might have a slight amount of order. So lets try to find it.

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.

Yes, the hebrew text. Meaning the Old Testament. Am I right when I say that a summary of your argument is that the apostles knew the tetragrammaton was in the Hebrew scriptures because that is was they used (with the septuagint which also had the divine name) so they would naturally when writing use the name because they were taught to use it from the Hebrew scriptures when writing about God in scripture?

This is partially what I understood from your long posts a while back. Yes, No?

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”?

Forgive me for trying to keep the debate somewhat simple, focused on one thing at a time. Question-answer-question-answer style. you know… instead of question-counterquestion-question-counterquestion-answer. I find I don’t get very far with that. So, let’s concentrate on this for a few minutes and then we can move on to my ‘problems’ with the name Jehovah.

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 won’t deny that I had a misconception about the book. I assumed he supported the NWT in its entire translation. I did not know he disagreed with some parts. This idea of mine somewhat comes from the Watchtower citing him several times in many articles that I have read (yes, dumblings like me can read) when the credibility of the NWT comes up. I assumed one wouldn’t cite a source that supports and then criticizes one’s translation. But, I do not have the book and I am trying to save money at the time, so I probably won’t be buying it for this conversation. We will try to get by without it by not even referencing it anymore. Deal?

So, I’ll conclude this with a semi-simple question. We agree there is solid evidence the tetragrammaton was in the Hebrew scriptures (we are more or less certain of this, right?) That you know of, is there any manuscript of any New Testament documents that shows support for the use of the tetragrammaton in the New Testament other than the logic that the apostles would use it because they knew it?

 

[Judewang]

I didn’t go thru the whole forum but I think the JW are contradicting themselves by quoting one part of the Bible to disprove another part. I used to get one JW Evangelist who would come our house to talk about the bible and sell some of their materials.

Initially I was rather impressed by their ability to quote the Bible because in my place, not many Cathoilics are able to do that - perhaps because the way we evangelize is not the same.

But after some time they began to show contradictions when I asked him “Who is Jesus to You” - Is He God or not? Well, the classic way they would deal with this basis question (in the sam manner Jesus himself asked his disciples…Who do you think I am?") - is to quote more passages - here and there. Example - " the Father is greater than I.(John 14:28).

Suddenly, what came to my mind was to ask him, if John was the same evangelist who wrote,"In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1) - which clearly refers to Jesus Christ - than how can contradict himself? - It’s either that JW evangelist was correct or John the Evangelist was wrong. But can he be wrong when he is one of the 12 who has seen, heard and lived with Jesus.

Another thing I think is that even though they appear well versed with the Bible passages, they seem to approach the Bible as some kind of intellectual source of knowledge that they hope, would trigger a faith experience. why I am saying this is because when we talked about Genesis - the life of Abraham for example, I was not impressed with their explanation - But when another Catholic friend explains the story of Abraham, it becomes alive (more than an intellectual knowledge) because he could relate the life of Abraham with his own. I think this is what matters and not a show of how much one can quote the Bible here and there. By his explanation and sharings, I am not beginning to go deeper into the Catholic faith - by way of rediscovering my baptism.

I think at the end of the day - what we are striving for is to KNOW him as He knows us by name - not just to know the words He spoke. Whether He is part of the Trinity or not is secondary because if we are given the grace to know him - the Holy Spirit will tell us the truth because what the HS tells us all comes from the Son who is with the Father from the very beginning.

Judewang