1. Joined
    03 Sep '13
    Moves
    18093
    02 Mar '14 20:411 edit
    In another Thread 158192 Galvaston75 quoted the scriptures as follows;

    Matthew 4:10
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    10 Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.


    A lot of debate over the last few months has been with regards the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, the godhead, etc, basically who is Jesus? I don't know a lot about the Jehovah Witness but have wondered a thing or two about what they believe. I see a lot of times that the JW tend to deflect, ignore or otherwise pretend that certain questions directed towards them (the faith) and the watchtower organization don't matter; perhaps wished the questions were never asked. The way I look at it, we of any faith should be able to talk about what we believe, if something is lacking maybe be can learn a thing or two by what others have to offer.

    The reason I brought up this post of Galvaston75 is not about the content but is with regards to the chosen text used to try and make some point. Why do the JW utilize other biblical versions over there own, I see more often than not.

    When a JW use other versions of the bible, do they accept the whole text or is it pick and choose at will to make their point. The verses listed below are taken from different bible versions used (by the JW) to make a point with regards to Jesus, godhead, etc.

    My question is for the JW. What of the verses below, how do they fit in with your belief system? They are from bible versions you use to quote other scriptures, do these scriptures below have merit, how do they fit in?


    John

    John 1:1
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

    John 1:1
    King James Version (KJV)

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


    Revelation

    Revelation 1:8
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord God, He Who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty (the Ruler of all).


    Revelation 1:8
    King James Version (KJV)

    I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
  2. Joined
    26 Feb '09
    Moves
    1637
    02 Mar '14 20:59
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    In another Thread 158192 Galvaston75 quoted the scriptures as follows;

    Matthew 4:10
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    10 Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.


    A lot of debate over the last few months has been with regards the divinity o ...[text shortened]... I don't have a theological degree, but I think these scriptures clearly illustrate who Jesus is.
    It isn't other bibles that they use, it is the edited version of the protestant bible.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    02 Mar '14 21:13
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    In another Thread 158192 Galvaston75 quoted the scriptures as follows;

    Matthew 4:10
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    10 Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.


    A lot of debate over the last few months has been with regards the divinity o ...[text shortened]... and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.[/i]
    This has been discussed ad nausem, unless you can understand the base text upon which the translation is based you have NO way of knowing if what you are reading is accurate. It was previously explained that other translations may be used primarily because they may bring out or highlight a particular aspect or salient point. The New world translation itself is a very conservative translation and aligns itself so closely with the Greek text that associate professor Jason BeDhun who independently compared nine of the most common English translation stated that it was the most accurate in that it more closely portrayed the original Greek. The price for this accuracy is sometimes unusual rendering which other more loose translations avoid but sacrifice accuracy in the process.

    as for the texts that you cite they have been only recently discussed and not a single person provided a valid reason why the anarthrous (indefinite) predicate noun in John 1:1 should be rendered they way it appears in most English translations and the texts concerning the alpha and the omega in the King James version are clearly spurious and are not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts and are ignored by most modern translations.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    02 Mar '14 21:255 edits
    Originally posted by Pudgenik
    It isn't other bibles that they use, it is the edited version of the protestant bible.
    it is the edited version of the protestant bible????

    The New world translation is based upon generally two base texts, The Greek text is based upon The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort and the Hebrew portion upon the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S.

    It also utilises the following codices, papyri and texts

    Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
    Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
    Aleppo Codex, Heb., c. 930 C.E., Israel, H.S.
    Aquila’s Gr. translation of H.S., second cent. C.E., Cambridge, England.
    Armenian Version, fourth to thirteenth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
    Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.
    A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, second English ed., by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago and London (1979).
    Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, Oxford, 1978 reprint.
    Biblia Hebraica, by Kittel, Kahle, Alt and Eissfeldt, Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, seventh to ninth ed., 1951-55, H.S.
    Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S.
    Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., Paris, H.S., G.S.
    Cairo Codex, Heb., 895 C.E., Cairo, Egypt, H.S.
    Bezae Codices, Gr. and Lat., fifth and sixth cent. C.E., Cambridge, England, G.S.
    Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1926.
    Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1966 reprint.
    The Massorah, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1975 reprint.
    Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Oxford, England (1910).
    The Interlinear Hebrew/English Bible, Vol. I-III, by J. Green, Wilmington, U.S., 1976.
    Old Latin Versions, Itala, second to fourth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
    Matthew, Heb., edited by J. du Tillet, with a Lat. translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.
    Matthew, Heb., incorporated as a separate chapter in ’chan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Mss of 16th and 17th cent., Jewish Theological Seminary, New York.
    Matthew and Hebrews, Heb. and Lat., by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.
    Matthew, Heb., by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.
    Liturgical Gospels, Heb., by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.
    Liturgical Gospels, German, Lat., Gr. and Heb., by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.
    Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.
    Gospels, Heb. and Lat., by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.
    The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew—1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Greenfield, London, 1831.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt and S. Hoga, London, 1838.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.
    Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, Heb., by J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853 and 1858 respectively.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt and J. H. R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.
    John, Heb., by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.
    A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, fourth ed., Edinburgh, 1963.
    The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.
    Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. Bauchet, Rome, 1975.
    A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.
    St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.
    Psalms and Matthew 1:1-3:6, Heb., by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.
    Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, third ed., Vienna and Prague, 1796.
    Journal of Theological Studies, Clarendon, Oxford.
    Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, Netherlands, 1953.
    Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, by W. Baumgartner, third ed., Leiden, Netherlands, 1967 and later ed.
    Leningrad Codex Leningrad B 19A, Heb., 1008 C.E., H.S., Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
    A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott, Oxford, 1968.
    Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935).
    Septuagint (with an English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1851).
    Septuagint (P. de Lagarde, Göttingen, Germany, 1883).
    Septuagint, translated by C. Thomson, Pells ed., London, 1904.
    Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS.
    Papyrus Chester Beatty 1, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
    Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Dublin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A., G.S.
    Papyrus Chester Beatty 3, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
    Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
    Papyrus Bodmer 17, Gr., seventh cent. C.E., Geneva, G.S.
    Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
    The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, Jerusalem, found in 1947 in Qumran Cave No. 1.
    Pentateuch in Samaritan, fourth cent. B.C.E., Israel.
    Hebrew Old Testament, by N. H. Snaith, Israel, 1970.
    Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979.
    Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac, fifth cent. C.E., Gospels, Cambridge, England.
    Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, sixth and seventh cent. C.E.; G.S.
    Jerusalem (Hierosolymitanum) Version, Old Syriac, sixth cent. C.E.; G.S.
    Sinaitic Syriac codex, fourth and fifth cent. C.E., Gospels.
    Greek translation of H.S., by Symmachus, c. 200 C.E.
    Targums, Aram. paraphrases of parts of H.S.
    Jerusalem Targum I (Pseudo-Jonathan) and Jerusalem Targum II (Fragmentary Targum).
    Targum of Onkelos (Babylonian Targum), Pentateuch.
    Palestinian Targum, Vatican City, Rome, Pentateuch.
    Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1974 and later ed.
    Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1964 and later ed.
    Greek translation of H.S., by Theodotion, second cent. C.E.
    Textus Receptus (Received Text) of G.S., by R. Stephanus, 1550.
    Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975).
    Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension (S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1977).
    Latin Vulgate, Sixtine recension, 1590.
    Novum Testamentum Latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi ad Codicum Manuscriptorum Fidem, by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Oxford, 1911.
    Vetus Testamentum, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.
    Freer Gospels, fifth cent. C.E., Washington, D.C.
    The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, 1948 ed. (reprinted in Int).
    ZorellGr Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, third ed., by F. Zorell, Paris, 1961.
    ZorellHeb Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, by F. Zorell, Rome, 1968.

    Now how are we to equate this statement 'it is the edited version of the protestant bible'? Shall we dismiss it as an uninformed and prejudiced assertion without even the slightest semblance of reality?
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    02 Mar '14 21:52
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    In another Thread 158192 Galvaston75 quoted the scriptures as follows;

    Matthew 4:10
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    10 Then Jesus said to him, Be gone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.


    A lot of debate over the last few months has been with regards the divinity o ...[text shortened]... and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.[/i]
    "The reason I brought up this post of Galvaston75 is not about the content but is with regards to the chosen text used to try and make some point. Why do the JW utilize other biblical versions over there own, I see more often than not."

    Lol. Many here complain if we strickly use the NWT, so to help get the point accross of a subject I try to use other translations to keep the complaining down about the NWT. Now it seems I'm being questioned about using other Bibles....

    Just can't win can we?

    As far as I know I nor Robbie has ever deflected away from any questions. I think it's more most here don't like our answers so it tends to upset a few and it's not the answer they want, or.... it's been answered a hundred times already.
  6. Joined
    03 Sep '13
    Moves
    18093
    02 Mar '14 23:41
    Originally posted by galveston75
    "The reason I...[text shortebed]...mes already.
    Lol. Many here complain if we strickly use the NWT, so to help get the point accross of a subject I try to use other translations to keep the complaining down about the NWT. Now it seems I'm being questioned about using other Bibles....

    Just can't win can we?


    Well my question is not about winning or losing, but an honest one. Can you answer my question from the OP?

    My question is for the JW. What of the verses below, how do they fit in with your belief system? They are from bible versions you use to quote other scriptures, do these scriptures below have merit, how do they fit in?

    I know for instance John 1:1 differs in other bibles from NWT. If you use other bibles to make a point, wouldn't this scripture be equally valid as written? If not why not?
  7. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    03 Mar '14 00:455 edits
    Taken from jw.org
    NWT John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god



    http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

    http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god

    http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-understand.html?m=1

    http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm



    http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Mar '14 01:071 edit
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    Lol. Many here complain if we strickly use the NWT, so to help get the point accross of a subject I try to use other translations to keep the complaining down about the NWT. Now it seems I'm being questioned about using other Bibles....

    Just can't win can we?


    Well my question is not about winning or losing, but an honest one. Can you ...[text shortened]... er bibles to make a point, wouldn't this scripture be equally valid as written? If not why not?
    our belief system is based upon a correct understanding of the original text, not from biased and unsubstantiated renderings of verses and spurious interpolations. If you can explain why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God' and why you are using an interpolation from a corrupted text in the King James version then please do so. No the scriptures or rather the translations that you quoted from do not have merit in regard to these particular verses for the reasons stated above, that is not to say that they are totally corrupt. If there is anything that you still dont understand about that then let it be known.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Mar '14 01:081 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    Taken from jw.org
    NWT John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god



    http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

    http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god

    http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-understand.html?m=1 ...[text shortened]... http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm



    http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm
    Can you tell us why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God?' If you cannot then you really dont know what you are talking about to be perfectly honest, do you.
  10. Joined
    03 Sep '13
    Moves
    18093
    03 Mar '14 01:14
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    our belief system is based upon a correct understanding of the original text, not from biased and unsubstantiated renderings of verses and spurious interpolations. If you can explain why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God' and why you are using an interpolation from a corrupted text in he King James version then please ...[text shortened]... ated above, if there is anything that you still dont understand about that then let it be known.
    If you can explain why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God' and why you are using an interpolation from a corrupted text in he King James version then please do so.


    This is sort of my point, if the text is corrupt why would you choose to use it when making a point; one would think if it is corrupt then it is corrupt, no?
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Mar '14 01:18
    Originally posted by yoctobyte
    If you can explain why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God' and why you are using an interpolation from a corrupted text in he King James version then please do so.


    This is sort of my point, if the text is corrupt why would you choose to use it when making a point; one would think if it is corrupt then it is corrupt, no?
    no religious bias deos not exist in every rendering of a text, in fact its miraculous just how Jesus effects the translation of verses.
  12. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    03 Mar '14 02:01
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Can you tell us why John 1:1 should be rendered from the Greek as 'the Word was God?' If you cannot then you really dont know what you are talking about to be perfectly honest, do you.
    Why is it have to be Greek? Why not what the Romans spoke?
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Mar '14 08:211 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    Why is it have to be Greek? Why not what the Romans spoke?
    ummmm lets see, because the portion that is of interest was written in Greek
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    03 Mar '14 08:29
    Originally posted by galveston75
    ... As far as I know I nor Robbie has ever deflected away from any questions....
    LOL.
  15. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    03 Mar '14 15:58
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ummmm lets see, because the portion that is of interest was written in Greek
    What does that have to do with anything?
Back to Top