JW refuse to come to Jesus

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well lets see you cite the scriptural reference Miss Jalapeno bad ol putty cat.

According to the following she is right. I haven't tried to count them myself. But one wrong addition is enough and you can find that yourself.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have no biblical justification for their stance on the use of the name “Jehovah.”

Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).[5][6] The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"😉.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

The most obvious proof that Jehovah's Witnesses spell YHWH wrong as "Jehovah" is the fact that the letter "J" doesn't even exist in Hebrew, Greek, Latin. Further, the English language did not have a letter "J" before about 1500 AD. For example, the very first edition of the KJV printed in 1611 AD, contained no "J". Not even one! Instead the letter "I" is used for Jew, Jesus, Joshua, Joanna, John AND the person pronoun "I". Instead these words were written in 1611 AD as, Iew, Iesus, Ioshua, Ioanna, Iohn. In a stunning admission, Jehovah's witnesses tell us that the reason they continue to use "Jehovah" instead of the correct spelling Yahweh, is to be pleasing to man, not God.

One of the first things that JW new converts learn from their cultic Watchtower organization, is the lie that all Bibles are corrupt because they remove the Tetragrammaton from the Old Testament.

What most JW's don't know is that they are the one's who are truly guilty of adding to the word of God because the New World Translation (the JW sectarian paraphrase they call a Bible), actually adds the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament 237 times where it is never found. So the hard cold fact is that the New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.

The Watchtower teaching of a Hebrew original of Matthew that used YHWH, surely trashes the Bible and destroys any confidence in the New Testament. If Jehovah's Witnesses can argue that YHWH was deleted from the Bible, then what else was deleted that we don't know about? Perhaps the word trinity was also used in Matthew 28:18-19, but it too was deleted!

A lost Hebrew Matthew that used YHWH contradicts Jesus Statement that scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and that the word of God is both incorruptible and imperishable. (1 Peter 1:23-25) For JW's to affirm that YHWH was once in the Bible, but deleted, is quite different from alternate readings. This is because there is absolutely no evidence in any Bible manuscript that YHWH was used ANYWHERE in the New Testament, much less Matthew. For YHWH to have been in the original, but 100% removed without any trace, destroys all credibility in the reliability of the entire Bible itself. Of course, Christians know that JW's add YHWH into their NWT strictly for theological reasons, but in doing so, trash the Bible!

The only scholars who JW's can quote as believing in a Hebrew Matthew, are themselves Bible trashers and modernists who entirely deny the inspiration of the Bible. No scholar who views the Bible as the unalterable and inspired word of God will ever believe in a Hebrew Matthew original. So the Watchtower organization is "in bed with" those who try to ultimately destroy anyone's faith in the Bible. But the Watchtower has a long history of doing just this. For example, in the "Should you believe in the Trinity" booklet, JW's reference several "scholars" who come right out and say, "Trinity was a pagan origin doctrine". But what the "door to door class" of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't know, is that all the scholars who say trinity is pagan in that booklet are themselves Bible trashers who reject the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ and the inspiration of the Bible.

So as we will see, the JW charge that the Bibles that Christian commonly use, removes the divine name from the Old Testament is false.

We accept that Hebrew was the language of the Jewish Synagogue in the first century. This fact, however only strengthens the fact that God did not want Christians to continue using YHWH since none of the 27 New Testament books ever used it.

Jehovah's Witnesses would have us believe that YHWH was removed 100% from the New Testament, but never removed once from the Old Testament manuscripts.

The truth is that JW's are guilty of adding the Divine name into the New Testament where it is never found.

The expression, "Jehovah's Witnesses" did not exist prior to it becoming a kind of corporate trademark name of the salesmen of the Watchtower book selling company after 1930 AD. For 2000 years the followers of Christ have called themselves "Christians", never "Yahweh's" or "Jehovah's Witnesses,".

http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to the following she is right. I haven't tried to count them myself. But one wrong addition is enough and you can find that yourself.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have no biblical justification for their stance on the use of the name “Jehovah.”

Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin lett ...[text shortened]... le.ca/jw-YHWH.htm

The instructor

usual piece of nonsense, a single scriptural reference, lets see if you can do it Jonah.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
usual piece of nonsense, a single scriptural reference, lets see if you can do it Jonah.

We thank God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ always when we pray for YOU, since we heard of YOUR faith in connection with Christ Jesus and the love YOU have for all the holy ones because of the hope that is being reserved for YOU in the heavens...

That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking that YOU may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing [him] as YOU go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God, being made powerful with all power to the extent of his glorious might so as to endure fully and be long suffering with joy, thanking the Father who rendered YOU suitable for YOUR participation in the inheritance of the holy ones in the light.

(Colossians 1:3-5, 9-12 NWT)

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/colossians/1/#v-10

In verse 10 above the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses translates the Greek word for "Lord" incorrectly as "Jehovah" and can be seen clearly from the interlinear bible linked below.

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/1-10.htm

Notice that it is the Greek "Kyriou" meaning Lord and the same "Kyriou" as in verse 3 that refers to Jesus Christ. See link below:

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/1-3.htm

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
We thank God the Father of our [b]Lord Jesus Christ always when we pray for YOU, since we heard of YOUR faith in connection with Christ Jesus and the love YOU have for all the holy ones because of the hope that is being reserved for YOU in the heavens...

That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking tha t. See link below:

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/1-3.htm

The instructor[/b]

the reference for translation of colossians and the inclusion of the divine name come from the following,

Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.

Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.

the actual Greek reads, 'tou Kyriou', and is translated in the Vulgate as literally 'walking worthily of God', and seeing that the context makes reference to 'God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ', clearly it is with reference to Jehovah the father and God of Jesus Christ and we have therefore restored the divine name.

in order to walk worthily of Jehovah is therefore an excellent restorative translation

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the reference for translation of colossians and the inclusion of the divine name come from the following,

Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.

Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.

the actual Greek reads, 'tou Kyriou', and is translated in the Vulgate a ...[text shortened]... order to walk worthily of [b]Jehovah is therefore an excellent restorative translation[/b]

The facts of the matter are:

The originals are written in Hebrew and Greek
and have been translated many times over the
many hundreds of years since they first appeared.

My point is that all of those translations more or
less agree with each other, that is until your
translation came along.

The JW New World Translation is very different
to those which went before and I am wondering
about something that was written in the original
text and that is the following,

let no man add to this sacred message if one does
then the Lord will add to him woe and let no man
take away any word from this message if he does
then the Lord will take away from him his place in
the book of life.

That's not exactly a literal translation or quote
but you get my meaning. In short, the JW's
have changed the translations. Adding and
subtracting to suit their own ends.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
The facts of the matter are:

The originals are written in Hebrew and Greek
and have been translated many times over the
many hundreds of years since they first appeared.

My point is that all of those translations more or
less agree with each other, that is until your
translation came along.

The JW New World Translation is very differe ...[text shortened]... , the JW's
have changed the translations. Adding and
subtracting to suit their own ends.

then perhaps instead of plying your opinion as if it had any worth beyond that which you seek to give it and strangely expect others to appropriate to it, why dont you provide some evidence? This is the second time asking, you see, your opinion, without evidence is absolutely meaningless to anyone but you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then perhaps instead of plying your opinion as if it had any worth beyond that which you seek to give it and strangely expect others to appropriate to it, why dont you provide some evidence? This is the second time asking, you see, your opinion, without evidence is absolutely meaningless to anyone but you.

Revelation 22 verses 18 - 19.

I am pretty sure that would refer not only to
the Book of Revelation but to the entire scriptures.

Your New World Translation in my opinion for what it is worth
and you don't think it counts for much, is guilty of corrupting
those scriptures because not only did your organization
translate them incorrectly it also changed them to suit its
own agenda.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the reference for translation of colossians and the inclusion of the divine name come from the following,

Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.

Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.

the actual Greek reads, 'tou Kyriou', and is translated in the Vulgate a order to walk worthily of [b]Jehovah is therefore an excellent restorative translation[/b]

The point is the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write "Kyriou" meaning "Lord" and not "Jehovah" when referring to Jesus Christ in verse 3 and Paul used the same word "Kyriou" meaning "Lord" in verse 10. So there is no reason the second "Kyriou" should not also refer to Jesus Christ, since the the Father is not referred to as "Kyriou" and you think that the Father's name is "Jehovah".

You wanted just one verse of scripture and I showed you one verse of scripture in which the Watchtower added to the inspired word of God by adding "Jehovah" where it was not.

Case closed.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point is the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write "Kyriou" meaning "Lord" and not "Jehovah" when referring to Jesus Christ in verse 3 and Paul used the same word "Kyriou" meaning "Lord" in verse 10. So there is no reason the second "Kyriou" should not also refer to Jesus Christ, since the the Father is not referred to as "Kyriou" and you think that the F f God by adding "Jehovah" where it was not.

Case closed.

The Instructor

do you have the original manuscripts? no, then as is usual, you are talking pants. You do not know what Paul wrote and ask any Bible scholar worth their salt and they will tell you that the tetragrammaton was removed and the terms Adonai and kyrios substituted.

Here i a question for you Jonah Hinds, of the 237 times that we have restored the divine name to its proper place in the sacred text, how many of those instances are direct quotations from the Hebrew text where the tetragrammaton can be found?

No you have shown nothing of the sort all you have shown is that the term Kyrios which is not even a name is in the Greek text, you have not established that it was there originally, have you.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Revelation 22 verses 18 - 19.

I am pretty sure that would refer not only to
the Book of Revelation but to the entire scriptures.

Your New World Translation in my opinion for what it is worth
and you don't think it counts for much, is guilty of corrupting
those scriptures because not only did your organization
translate them incorrectly it also changed them to suit its
own agenda.

you are correct its meaningless to me, please spare me further indignation by having to read it, unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you have the original manuscripts? no, then as is usual, you are talking pants. You do not know what Paul wrote and ask any Bible scholar worth their salt and they will tell you that the tetragrammaton was removed and the terms Adonai and kyrios substituted.

Here i a question for you Jonah Hinds, of the 237 times that we have restored the divi ...[text shortened]... en a name is in the Greek text, you have not established that it was there originally, have you.

As I said, I showed it to you at your request. If you don't want the truth, then don't ask the Instructor while he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I repeat, case closed.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I said, I showed it to you at your request. If you don't want the truth, then don't ask the Instructor while he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I repeat, case closed.

The Instructor

sorry what evidence do you have that Kyrios was used in the original manuscripts, you have not said?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are correct its meaningless to me, please spare me further indignation by having to read it, unsubstantiated.

The Scriptures are meaningless to you?

So you only take on board JW Scriptures, is that all?

Be a good boy and do what the Watchtower tells you is that it?


Have you no mind of your own to search the other translations
to see where yours go astray?

I am not being personal here, I'm just asking.

I quoted Scripture to you and you dismissed it.

Why?

Is it because it does not tally with your NWT book of inaccuracies?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry what evidence do you have that Kyrios was used in the original manuscripts, you have not said?

I already gave you a link to the Greek-English Interlinear that shows the Greek text of those verses. You have not showed any Interlinear or Greek text of those verses that show differently. The ball is in your court now.

Here it is again:

http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-10.htm

Just click on interlinear or Greek to see different versions.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I already gave you a link to the Greek-English Interlinear that shows the Greek text of those verses. You have not showed any Interlinear or Greek text of those verses that show differently. The ball is in your court now.

Here it is again:

http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-10.htm

Just click on interlinear or Greek to see different versions.

The Instructor

no i want the original manuscripts, the interlinear is not an original manuscript.