- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Now for my two cents:
I am perturbed this morning somewhat. I was reading one of my favorite authors last night (James R. White) who is a HUGE deity of Christ defender. He wrote of all the Athanasius went through believing Jesus was God. How he at times had to flee from his life from the Arians and he never wavered in his belief. That is a great story as I admire many who stand for their faith even in the face of death. But poor Arius never gets any words in his defense. From what I understand he went through as much if not more for NOT believing Jesus was God. “There was a time when the Son was not,” over against, “there was never a time when the Son was not.” Then Dr. White goes on to quote, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God…begotten not made…” of the famous creed and then stated, “a Christianity without the diety of Christ is no Christianity at all. It bothered me much. I may not no where I stand as of yet, though I do not find any case where if one believes that Christ is not God, he is damned.
Anyway, I can see this has become a sort of antogonistic thread. Nick, I don't think you can make stabs at JW's without any grounds. It seems sir that you make a poke at them without any defense and run with it, maybe in the hopes that you will pesuade someone? I do not know so I am reluctant to say.David, well sit how are things? I do have some inquiries sir of the JW. You seem to have answered my 1914 question with a thorough reply to which I say, thank you sir.
We may agree to disagree on Christmas.
Your position on the Trinity makes some sense, though I hesitate to make a leap over to that belief.Now, here is a flaw I see in the Kingdom Hall's teachings. The 144,000 in Revelation. I do not see where Russell (if I am correct in saying he began this?) came to a hermeneutical conclusion that the 144,000 are the elect of those who will reign with Christ while the majority of us will reign on earth. The 144,000 are seen without a doubt as Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel, not Gentile. Where in all of the NT are they seen as the only ones who will be with Christ reigning. The quote of them reigning as kings and priests seems only applicable to all of the Epistles as a whole. I will be waiting expectantly.
Hi Casey,
You say
“Anyway, I can see this has become a sort of antogonistic thread. Nick, I don't think you can make stabs at JW's without any grounds. It seems sir that you make a poke at them without any defense and run with it, maybe in the hopes that you will pesuade someone? I do not know so I am reluctant to say. “My hope is salvation and freedom for all who are under the yoke of oppression by men, to set the captives free, and so I try to not attack the person but the false doctrines that are fair game. They oppose the leadership and teachings of our Master and rob others of safety in Jesus.
Many come here to trawl for new followers to their human doctrines but it is right to point out the flaws in those doctrines that put at risk allegiance to the Master for those who adopt them.
It is part of our service to God that the plants not planted by Him are pulled out.
Hi casey,
We are not soothsayers.
If we are just a 'feel good' club consoling the lost
and not challenging them to be brave and to test the foundations of their faith
whom are we serving?Quote Anyway, I can see this has become a sort of antogonistic thread. Nick, I don't think you can make stabs at JW's without any grounds. It seems sir that you make a poke at them without any defense and run with it, maybe in the hopes that you will pesuade someone? I do not know so I am reluctant to say.
Yes, Casey, I've noticed the same sometimes. Sometimes we can have actual conversations with Nick. Often, not.
It also doesn't help when he states so called JW beliefs that aren't JW beliefs at all, such as this, a page back:Quote Hi david,
Belief alone never saved anyone.
Obedience to what belief shows us is more important.
The JW's cannot save.
They strive to enter the 144,000 yet none can say they are “good enough”
You have to understand Casey, Nick has a couple things in his head that are concrete, unchangeable. One of those things is that God is not a trinity. Another, is that all organized religions are false. You have to be a loner, not part of any group, only fellowshipping with Jesus, and a few others who don't even really believe what he believes, in order to be on the true path. Everything he hears that he can use against JW, he does, and sometimes doesn't question it. It's sad. I hope it is as clear to others as it is to you what he is doing.david
Casey, I'll get back to you on your question. But I think I must have spent a lot of time in the “what is the kingdom” thread, discussing the 144,000. You may find some answers there, before I can answer you. I just got home, and have to leave for work again in 5 hours.
dave
“Protestants, however should be quick to question any such notion of absolute religious certainty, The concept of the individual's responsibility before God is deeply ingrained in Protestant theology. We cannot say “the pope told me to do that” or “the prophet instructed me to believe that doctrine.” God hold us individually responsible for our beliefs and actions. This was one of the great scandals of the Reformation: the idea of the plowman and the merchant carrying and reading the Bible was unthinkable to the medeival Catholic theoligan. How could the layman understand religious things without asking the priest?”
“Many people fulfill their their longing for 'certainty' in religious matters by swearing allegiance to a particular leader or system. For example Roman Catholics find the idea of an infallible pope very 'comforting,' for when things get confusing they always have a source of certainty and absolute authority to turn to. In a similar many Mormons look to the Prophet and the Apostles in Salt Lake City, and Jehovah's Witnesses look tothe Governing Body in Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.” – James R White, King James Only Controversy pg 94 paragraph's one and two.Well, that pretty much says it all I would have to say…Casey Sean Smith
We look ot the governing body in brooklyn in the same way that the early Christians looked to the governing body in Jersualem.
The apostle wrote:
“Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7)
To whom did Paul refer when he said, “Remember those who are taking the lead among you” or “are governors of you”—New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote.”?
Paul spoke of those “taking the lead,” or governing. (Verses 7, 17, 24) The English word “govern” is derived through Latin from the Greek ky·ber·na′o, meaning to “steer a ship, direct, govern.” Christian elders govern by using their “abilities to direct” (Greek, ky·ber·ne′seis) in providing leadership and guidance in local congregations. (1 Corinthians 12:28)But the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem served as a body to give guidance and counsel to all the congregations. (Acts 15:1, 2, 27-29) Today, therefore, a governing body of elders provides spiritual oversight for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.
MATTHEW 24:14
“And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”How would such a work get accomplished without oversight, organization, etc?
From the beginning, Jesus’ anointed followers were organized. As the number of disciples multiplied, local congregations were established and elders were appointed. (Titus 1:5) After 33 C.E., the 12 apostles acted as an authoritative central governing body. As such, they took a fearless lead in the witness work. (Acts 4:33, 35, 37; 5:18, 29) They organized the distribution of food to needy ones, and they sent Peter and John to Samaria to follow up on reports of interest there. (Acts 6:1-6; 8:6-8, 14-17) Barnabas took Paul to them to have it confirmed that this former persecutor was now a follower of Jesus. (Acts 9:27; Galatians 1:18, 19) And after Peter had preached to Cornelius and his household, he returned to Jerusalem and explained to the apostles and other Judean brothers how holy spirit had indicated God’s will in this case.—Acts 11:1-18.
Then the governing body came under brutal attack. Peter was imprisoned, and his life was saved only by angelic intervention. (Acts 12:3-11) Now for the first time, someone other than one of the 12 apostles appeared in a prominent position in Jerusalem. When Peter was released from prison, he told a group gathered in the house of the mother of John Mark: “Report these things to James [Jesus’ half brother] and the brothers.”—Acts 12:17.
Previously, after Judas Iscariot, the traitorous apostle, committed suicide, a need was discerned to give “his office of oversight” as an apostle to someone who had been with Jesus during his ministry and who had witnessed his death and resurrection. However, when James, the brother of John, was executed, no one replaced him as one of the 12. (Acts 1:20-26; 12:1, 2) Rather, the next Scriptural reference to the governing body shows that it had been enlarged. When a dispute arose over whether Gentiles who followed Jesus should submit to the Mosaic Law, the matter was submitted for decision to “the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.” (Acts 15:2, 6, 20, 22, 23; 16:4) Why were “older men” now evidently on the governing body? The Bible does not say, but there was an obvious benefit. The death of James and the imprisonment of Peter had shown that the apostles might one day be imprisoned or killed. In such a contingency, the presence of other qualified elders, experienced in governing body procedures, would ensure the orderly continuance of oversight.
When Paul came to Jerusalem about the year 56 C.E., he reported to James and, the Bible says, “all the older men were present.” (Acts 21:18) Why was there no mention of apostles at this meeting? Again, the Bible does not say. But the historian Eusebius later reported that some time before 66 C.E., “the remaining apostles, in constant danger from murderous plots, were driven out of Judea. But to teach their message they travelled into every land in the power of Christ.” (Eusebius, Book III, V, v. 2) True, Eusebius’ words are not part of the inspired record, but they do harmonize with what that record says. For example, by 62 C.E., Peter was in Babylon—far from Jerusalem. (1 Peter 5:13) Still, in 56 C.E., and likely right up until 66 C.E., a governing body was clearly active in Jerusalem.
david
HI CASEY,
on page 12 of this thread, I made some comments on “worshipping” Jesus. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I wrote?david
Hi david,
Do they tell you
What you must believe
What you must do?
What you must teach?Or do you serve the Master on all these things?
Just following the example of the earliest Christians Nick. I know you're anti-organization Nick. But God is organized and his people are too. His people have always been organized. He is a God of order.
You can't expect people to go around, each and every “Christian” believing his own individual beliefs, doing 'his own thing.' That's not very orderly. The earliest Christians had a governing body.Hi david,
We have one Lord do we not?
Are you not free to follow him but you have to obey those men?
I love order david and in the body of Christ Jesus is the head who tells us what to believe and do and preach.Quote SHOULD WE “WORSHIP” JESUS? THE HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS [proskynéo (Greek) and hishtachawah (Hebrew)] THAT ARE OFTEN TRANSLATED “WORSHIP,” HAVE A VARIETY OF MEANINGS.. LET’S LOOK AT THEM.
At HEBREWS 1:6, the angels are instructed to “worship” Jesus, according to the rendering of RS, TEV, KJ, JB, and NAB, and others.
New World Translation (NW) says: “do obeisance to.”
Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says: “let them bow before him.”(No matter what English term is used, the original Greek remains the same and the understanding of what it is that the angels render to Christ must accord with the rest of the Scriptures.)
At MATTHEW 14:33, Jesus’ disciples are said to have “worshiped” him, according to RS, TEV, KJ.
Other translations say that they “showed him reverence” (NAB), “bowed down before him” (JB), “fell at his feet” (NE), “did obeisance to him” (NW).The Greek word rendered “worship” is proskynéo, which 'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature' says was also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground.” (Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker; second English edition; p. 716)
The Greek word proskynéo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hishtachawah́ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship.For example, this is the term used:
at Matthew 14:33 to express what the disciples did toward Jesus;
at Hebrews 1:6 to indicate what the angels are to do toward Jesus;
at Genesis 22:5 in the Greek Septuagint to describe what Abraham did toward Jehovah;
at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business;
at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan’s action on approaching King David.
at Matthew 18:26 in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king.NOTICE THOSE LAST FEW EXAMPLES AND CONSIDER WHAT THIS MEANS.
Let’s look at one more example. It’s an example of what happens when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning.
MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him. The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him. It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him. They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow proskynéo to be translated as “worship” here.
CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.”
NOW CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
At MATTHEW 4:10 (RS), Jesus said: “You shall worship [from proskynéo] the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”
(At Deuteronomy 6:13, which Jesus is evidently here quoting, appears the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton.) In harmony with that, we must understand that it is proskynéo with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God.OTHER GREEK WORDS associated with worship are drawn from eusebéo, threskeúo, and sébomai. The word eusebéo means “give godly devotion to” or “venerate, revere.” At Acts 17:23 this term is used with reference to the godly devotion or veneration that the men of Athens were giving to an “Unknown God.” From threskeúo comes the noun threskeía, understood to designate a “form of worship,” whether true or false. (Ac 26:5; Col 2:18) The true worship practiced by Christians was marked by genuine concern for the poor and complete separateness from the ungodly world. (Jas 1:26, 27) The word sébomai (Mt 15:9; Mr 7:7; Ac 18:7; 19:27) and the related term sebázomai (Ro 1:25) mean “revere; venerate; worship.” Objects of worship or of devotion are designated by the noun sébasma. (Ac 17:23; 2Th 2:4) Two other terms are from the same verb stem, with the prefix Theoś, God. These are theosebeś, meaning “God-revering” (Joh 9:31), and theosébeia, denoting “reverence of God.” (1Ti 2:10)
THE HEBREW
One of the Hebrew words conveying the idea of worship (`avadh́) basically means “serve.” (Ge 14:4; 15:13; 29:15) Serving or worshiping Jehovah required obedience to all of his commands, doing his will as a person exclusively devoted to him. (Ex 19:5; De 30:15-20; Jos 24:14, 15) Therefore, for an individual to engage in any ritual or act of devotion toward any other gods signified his abandoning true worship.—De 11:13-17; Jg 3:6, 7.Hishtachawah́ means, basically, “bow down.” (Ge 18:2)
Such bowing might be done as an act of respect or deference toward another human, as to a king (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; Ps 45:11),
the high priest (1Sa 2:36),
a prophet (2Ki 2:15),
or other person of authority (Ge 37:9, 10; 42:6; Ru 2:8-10),
to an elder relative (Ge 33:1-6; 48:11, 12; Ex 18:7; 1Ki 2:19),
or even to strangers as an expression of courteous regard (Ge 19:1, 2).
Abraham bowed down to the Canaanite sons of Heth from whom he sought to buy a burial place. (Ge 23:7)
Isaac’s blessing on Jacob called for national groups and Jacob’s own “brothers” to bow down to him. (Ge 27:29; compare 49:8.)
When men started to bow down before David’s son Absalom, he grabbed them and kissed them, evidently to further his political ambitions by making a show of putting himself on a level with them. (2Sa 15:5, 6)
Mordecai refused to prostrate himself before Haman, not because he viewed the practice as wrong in itself, but doubtless because this high Persian official was an accursed Amalekite by descent.—Es 3:1-6.FROM THE ABOVE EXAMPLES IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS HEBREW TERM OF ITSELF DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A RELIGIOUS SENSE OR SIGNIFY WORSHIP.
Nevertheless, in a large number of cases it is used in connection with worship, either of the true God (Ex 24:1; Ps 95:6; Isa 27:13; 66:23) or of false gods. (De 4:19; 8:19; 11:16)
Bowing down to humans as an act of respect was admissible, but bowing to anyone other than Jehovah as a deity was prohibited by God. (Ex 23:24; 34:14) Similarly, the worshipful bowing down to religious images or to any created thing was positively condemned. (Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; De 4:15-19; Isa 2:8, 9, 20, 21) Thus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, when certain of Jehovah’s servants prostrated themselves before angels, they only did so to show they recognized that these were God’s representatives, not to render obeisance to them as deities.—Jos 5:13-15; Ge 18:1-3.
The Greek proskynéo corresponds closely to the Hebrew hishtachawah́ as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity. The manner of expressing the obeisance is perhaps not so prominent in proskynéo as in hishtachawah́, where the Hebrew term graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down. Scholars derive the Greek term from the verb kynéo, “kiss.” The usage of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures (as also in the
Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) shows that persons to whose actions the term is applied prostrated themselves or bowed down.—Mt 2:11; 18:26; 28:9.As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether proskynéo refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship.
Where reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship. So, too, where the object of the obeisance is left unstated, its being directed to God is understood. (Joh 12:20; Ac 8:27; 24:11; Heb 11:21; Re 11:1)
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ACTION OF THOSE OF “THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN” WHO ARE MADE TO “COME AND DO OBEISANCE” BEFORE THE FEET OF CHRISTIANS IS CLEARLY NOT WORSHIP. (Re 3:9.) Yet, some Bible’s translate it as “worship.” Indiscriminately translating these words as “worship” is wrong.HERE IS THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION, THE POINT OF THIS POST:
While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where proskynéo describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as “God’s Son,” the foretold “Son of man,” the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.—Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38.While earlier prophets and also angels had accepted obeisance, Peter stopped Cornelius from rendering such to him, and the angel or angels of John’s vision twice stopped John from doing so, referring to himself as “a fellow slave” and concluding with the exhortation to “worship God [toi Theoí proskýneson].” (Ac 10:25, 26; Re 19:10; 22:8, 9) Evidently Christ’s coming had brought in new relationships affecting standards of conduct toward others of God’s servants. He taught his disciples that “one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers . . . your Leader is one, the Christ” (Mt 23:8-12), for it was in him that the prophetic figures and types found their fulfillment, even as the angel told John that “the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying.” (Re 19:10) Jesus was David’s Lord, the greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Lu 20:41-43; Mt 12:42; Ac 3:19-24) The obeisance rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Peter therefore rightly refused to let Cornelius make too much of him.
On the other hand, Christ Jesus has been exalted by his Father to a position second only to God.
PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11
“. . . so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Compare Da 7:13, 14, 27.)Jesus himself emphatically stated to Satan that “it is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of proskynéo], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Mt 4:8-10; Lu 4:7, 8) Similarly, the angel(s) told John to “worship God” (Re 19:10; 22:9), and this injunction came after Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, showing that matters had not changed in this regard. True, Psalm 97, which the apostle evidently quotes at Hebrews 1:6, refers to Jehovah God as the object of the ‘bowing down,’ and still this text was applied to Christ Jesus. (Ps 97:1, 7) However, the apostle previously had shown that the resurrected Christ is “the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Heb 1:1-3) Hence, if what we understand as “worship” is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to Jehovah God, the Sovereign Ruler, “the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.” (Re 14:7; 4:10, 11; 7:11, 12; 11:16, 17; compare 1Ch 29:20; Re 5:13, 14; 21:22.) On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship”) are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both hishtachawah́ and proskynéo.
So you can't really say Jesus is to be worshipped. You CAN say that your trinitarian biased Bible says that he is worshipped. But, you should consider the Bible as a whole and understand what those words mean before attempting to make such a claim.
david
Well David, there is a lot there to disect and comment on. I am under time restraints but will do what I can considering you didn't flippantly enter the above information sir. Thank You.
You say:
Quote [from proskynéo] The Greek proskynéo corresponds closely to the Hebrew hishtachawah́ as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity.
So how are we to determine considering we do not know the hearts and intentions of men such as God does. However you do say:Quote the context must be considered
Who are we to determine the context? If one is to bow down to Christ and glory be into him as it is stated in Revelation (unto the Lamb), that sounds more like worship then giving respect to a mere earthly king.You say again:
Quote Thus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, when certain of Jehovah’s servants prostrated themselves before angels, they only did so to show they recognized that these were God’s representatives, not to render obeisance to them as deities.—Jos 5:13-15; Ge 18:1-3.
Some of these references were rendered “Jehovah” YHWH. Now if I send a representative for me, the intended receiver should not call my messenger “Casey” because that would be untrue.You say:
Quote they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as “God’s Son,” the foretold “Son of man,”
I am being redundant. See the above comments.You say:
Quote Hence, if what we understand as “worship” is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to Jehovah God
Is that what the verse says? Are we isogeting the text here and making the verse seem to be something it was
not. If Jehovah is to be worshipped then he doesn't need for anyone to go through. Again to be redundant, the seraphim sing Glory unto Him.Quote but bowing to anyone other than Jehovah as a deity was prohibited by God. (Ex 23:24; 34:14) yet
Quote “. . . so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Compare Da 7:13, 14, 27.) I must point out sir, that it says the Name of JESUS, not Jehovah. I think that is a huge problem I have with the Watchtower. Jehovah's Name is used billions of times (to disdain and in vain I must say) in many of their meetings but Jesus is hardly ever mentioned. When it is Jesus in whom our Salvation lies. We are not getting through the Father around the Son, For in John 10 it was the thief and the robber that doesn't go through the gate. To mention Jesus' Name at the end of your prayers is merely lip service. It is not intented to be a verbatim word, but spoken of in JESUS' authority.
PS:
Quote So you can't really say Jesus is to be worshipped. You CAN say that your trinitarian biased Bible says that he is worshipped. But, you should consider the Bible as a whole and understand what those words mean before attempting to make such a claim. That is unfair sir. Why did the JW's need to come out with the NWT if they were merlely going to quote Scriptures form other sources to prove their points. It seems that the JW's pick and choose which verses from which translations fit their view most. I believe Nick said it somewhere that he trusts translations published by scholars and authors. However on the site http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm
Quote So, who really is guilty of being unfairly biased? The NWT or the above critic quoted at the top of this page? When one meets such strong language the reader then ought to exercise extreme caution about any other statements thereafter made by that critic. And do you see the reason why the above critic has accused the NWT Translation Committee of being devoid of “Hebrew and Greek scholars”? Because of it's [supposed] 'biasedness and pervertedness.' This shows that the above critic did not need to know who the translators were or their academic qualifications. He thought as he did, if we are charitable to him, because of the translation itself. We will examine some examples of supposed unwarranted bias and 'perversions' to be found in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. But it should be acknowledged at this point that what information we might be able to glean about those who sat on the NWT Bible Committee is not really the deciding factor in how we can evaluate the New World Translation itself. As the words of one who has academic qualifications in the biblical languages said: “I personally have absolutely no interest in the biographies of translators — that would be pretty boring to me, and completely irrelevant to a judgement of the translations themselves. You can assess everything you need to assess about a Bible translation by just looking at it and comparing it to the original text (in the case of the Bible, the original Hebrew and Greek). You can see how accurate it is, how well or how poorly the translators knew the languages they were working with, how much or how little they were familiar with scholarship on issues of understanding the meaning of the original, etc. You can even identify their biases, and work up a pretty clear picture of their own theological commitments by seeing how they handle certain key biblical passages. The names or educational credentials of the translators are quite beside the point. Of course, you have to have certain knowledge to translate, but that knowledge can be acquired in any number of ways. Having a Ph.D. after your name doesn't give you translation skills; it is some of the work you presumably did in the process of earning that Ph.D. that may give you translation skills. But you can acquire those same skills independently. In fact, one could, working solely with an interlinear New Testament, and analyzing the forms and structures of the original Greek seen there, develop a pretty good understanding of how Koine Greek works. That would take a tremendous amount of dedication, patience, and analytical acumen. But it could be done. It is, after all, through such study of Greek literature that we have developed the very knowledge of Greek that we impart in academic study of the language.” There are some foolish comments made their:
Quote Having a Ph.D. after your name doesn't give you translation skills; it is some of the work you presumably did in the process of earning that Ph.D. that may give you translation skills. How absurd! If you have a Ph.D. in textual criticism or in Greek, Hebrew, Latin…etc.etc. It most CERTAINLY qualifies one to have translation skills. It seems to me the author of such comments has intentions on trying to defend the NWT Commitee of not having such skills.
I can certainly grab some Greek lexicons, some Dictionaries, some parrallel Bible Translations and find comments made by the scholars gone by, but I will indeed have a bias translation. Not biased from a scholarly theological view (I do know some Greek mind you) but from a bias in that, “I think this verse should say this and not this,” which is what the whole NWT is done by.
Jehovah's Witnesses sat down and made critical passages more than bias:
Titus 2:13
1 Peter 1:1
John 1:1
Hebrews 1:8
and others that I cannot think of at the top of my head at this moment.Our Protestant Bibles are done from multiple denominations, some times as much as 50 or more and some evern 100, just to ensure that there is no denominational bias there.
Now I ask you…WHO is being bias here sir?
Quote Are you not free to follow him but you have to obey those men? I am going to ask the same question Nick asked. From what my previous witness friends tell me, if you go against the elders in regard to teaching or getting a blood transfusion, or celbrating holidays…etc,etc, you will be “kicked out” until you “repent”.
How is that following Christ and not following men?
Hi Casey. No one has ever really called me “sir” before. It makes me wonder where you're from, or if you think I'm elderly.
david
Quote I think that is a huge problem I have with the Watchtower. Jehovah's Name is used billions of times (to disdain and in vain I must say) in many of their meetings but Jesus is hardly ever mentioned.
This is just untrue. I would say Jehovah is mentioned just slightly more.Actually, I just checked. In the past 50 years, the word “Jehovah” occured in the “Watchtower” about 146,000 times. “Jesus” appeared 80,000 times.
In the “Awake,” Jehovah 20,000. Jesus 10,000.
In books, Jehovah 26000. Jesus, 17,000.
So, I guess we do find “Jehovah” mentioned more than Jesus, but not at all like you say, of Jesus being mentioned “hardly ever,” and Jehovah “billions.” That's just plain wrong and untrue.Let's check the Bible and see how often it uses those names:
hmmm. It's about an 8:1 ratio of Jehovah:Jesus.So, if we were to judge how often we use God's name in comparison to Jesus with the Bible, we're actually quite low. We're around a 2:1 ratio. The Bible is about 8:1. So….
So,
Quote PS:
Quote
So you can't really say Jesus is to be worshipped. You CAN say that your trinitarian biased Bible says that he is worshipped. But, you should consider the Bible as a whole and understand what those words mean before attempting to make such a claim.That is unfair sir. Why did the JW's need to come out with the NWT if they were merlely going to quote Scriptures form other sources to prove their points.
It's not unfair at all. It's perfectly fair. The word translated “worship” has a variety of meanings. It is the translator that chooses which meaning to translate it as. And guess what? Those translators that translated your Bible? They believe God is a trinity. So, they believe Jesus is God and should be worshipped. So, when they come to that Gk word Proskyneo, they don't hesitate to translate it as such. And sometimes, as I pointed out, it is clearly a mistake, WITHOUT QUESTION. (See Mark 15:19)
On the second statement, are you suggesting we only quote from the NWT Bible? And how would that go? How would that be viewed? We have no problem using whichever Bible you like. I can disprove that Jesus shouldn't be worshipped in the KJV just as well in the NWT.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
