WJ, history shows that when it comes to serving God the majority have regularly been wrong. The majority died in the flood of Noah’s day. The majority were wrong in their united efforts to build the tower of Babel. The same was true when destruction came on Sodom and Jerusalem, on the latter city both in the seventh century B.C.E. and again in t…[Read more]

Quote Ok the NWT stands alone with all the other non credible translations!Wow. So as I said or asked before:Quote WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS.THANKYOU. You seem to have down which are the “credible” translations. I was wondering if you have a list. Or is your sole basis for…[Read more]

wIKIPedia says under “John 1:1″”The most common rendering in English is: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not unversal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and…[Read more]

Yes Tim, those are accurate statements of my beliefs and of the beliefs of JW's.

Quote How can someone who isn't God be like God? As much of your Christology as you can would be greatly appreciated.–Page 13, Tim2How can someone who isn't God be like God? 1. Humans aren't “God Almighy.”2. God Almighty is divine.3. Certain humans will be given “divine nature.”Hence, someone who isn't God can still be like God and even have…[Read more]

“To enforce the decisions (about the trinity) of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded, with the death penalty for disobedience…….”– A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997, Kenneth Scott Latourette”The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, decreed…[Read more]

Quote I am saying that “NONE” of the credible translations translate John 1:1 differently.WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS.THANKYOU.

CB, on your next post, you quote something that begins like this:Quote This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the…[Read more]

Quote The sad fact is that the New World Translation is a Jehovah's Witnesses translation, because without it they cannot support their wierd doctrines.Cult Buster. You simply often or at the most, rarely, have any clue or idea of what you speak.WHY IS THAT?Doesn't it annoy you, and those around you?Ever hear of the King James Version? I know…[Read more]

Is 1:18:Question:Is John 1:1 going to be your next debate post?If so, I'll have to do some actual research.david.

“We are told that those who become heirs of the kingdom would be partakers in “divine nature.”I believe the angels have divine nature, as do Christ and of course, Jehovah.They are all spirit creatures. We obviously aren't. They are alike in that sense. And, interestingly the angels, Jesus and of course Jehovah all have “God” applied to them.2…[Read more]

Quote Hi David,QuoteDoes having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity?No. The word looks like theias. I don't know if it's ever applied to Jesus. tim, So you believe Jesus is “God” but not “divine”? Is this what you're stating?Quote How is it that he was in the beginning? Basically I just want to know what it means…[Read more]

Quote Does it matter what Is 1:18 says about John 1:1.You dont believe over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars that have translated John 1:1 exactly the same.WJ, Is 1:18 quotes those scholars you speak of, and he believes what they believe. I agree with you. It doesn't matter what he says. The scholars he quotes are human and mostly,…[Read more]

i FOUND this comment most precise:This fallacy is all too common from critics of the NWT/KIT.”Argument By Selective Observation:also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorablecircumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it,counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a stateboasts of the Presidents it has…[Read more]

I have never gone into any indepth study of this particular scripture. Thank you for bringing it up.A note on the website Adam quoted. It says:This corruption seriously threatens orthodox doctrine on the person of Christ, and gives a great boost to the Jehovah's Witnesses and others who hold to the Arian heresy. In conjunction with the loss of 1…[Read more]

Quote So Christ should either be refered to as “the only begotten Son” or “God the One and Only” in this verse. Which is it, and why the huge difference?The difference is in the manuscripts: P75אc; P66א*BC* “only-begotten god”ACcItVgSyc,h “the only-begotten Son.”

Wikipedia:”The New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose,…[Read more]

Quote How can someone who isn't God be like God? We are told that those who become heirs of the kingdom would be partakers in “divine nature.” I believe the angels have divine nature, as do Christ and of course, Jehovah.They are all spirit creatures. We obviously aren't. They are alike in that sense. And, interestingly the angels, Jesus and of…[Read more]

Quote Was he created?The Bible says he's the “firstborn of creation.” You can take that to mean the “prime one in creation” or the “best” or whatever, but that's not what it means. I don't want to discuss this here. There are pages and pages and pages of it in the trinity thread and the other 17 trinity threads. This thread is about the NWT…[Read more]

I guess this may as well be included here, since it's about colwell's book.Again, it is Colwell's rule that is what is primarily used by scholars to argue against the NWT.So watch this:What is the Best New Testament: Colwell's ApparatusColwell's apparatus was taken from his book, “What Is The Best New Testament” University of Chicage Press,…[Read more]