Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

by loosie 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • atrapado


    Well the only argument is that we don't have the originals. So even if there is more evidence on one side the other can hang on that straw. However their argument is flaw. They claim that the Septuaginta has Jehovah's name on the OT so since the apostals used the Septuaginta they must have used the name. Which is not necessary the case. They also claim that Jerome claim to seen the original book of Matthew in hebrew and therefore it must had the YHWH. However what they fail to mention is that Jerome didn't use that Matthew for his Vulgate translation and later in his life admits he was mistaken.

    They contradic themselfs. Because they'll say that it was removed like a conspiracy, yet on some WT they'll say that because we have 5000 or so manuscripts of the NT that its the most reliable piece of work. So if it was removed without a trace, how can you trust it. And if God allowed that to happen it must mean is not that important to him.

  • atrapado

    The verse I like is Hebrews 1:6. Only the reference Bible has a note translating Proskuneo as worship. So the father asks the angels to proskuneo the son. That chapter talks about the son and how he is viewed.

    So Proskuneo is used many places for Jesus but the NWT never uses worship when refering to Jesus. You can see their bias towards it because JW's used to worship Jesus but come the 1950s and the NWT and they stopped. Jesus didn't get in his apostals cases when they proskenuo him(Matthew 28:17,Matthew 28:9, John 20:28 ). Even though an angel told John not to do it and Peter told Cornelio not to do it either. Even the devil used the same word when ask Jesus to proskenuo him.

    You can see more details on this link:


  • Wonderment

    Christ Alone said: "Here is a REAL Greek scholar [Dana Mantey] that talks about the New World Translation:"

    This REAL Greek scholar has his own religious agenda to defend...in his case, a Baptist one with their own twisted fundamentalist views. I have seen his writings and WT criticisms, and own his Greek Grammar.

    His Grammar is excellent, but his theological argumentations can easily be proven wrong by even other scholars of Evangelical persuasion. Thus, I can recommend his Grammar without hesitation, but not his anti-cult diatribes.

    I have also seen the other video clip with the scholar and the one questioning him. Again, there are so many points the scholar skips in his argumentation against the NWT. It's what they don't tell you, or don't want you to know.

    A common attack as seen in the video clip against the John 1:1 rendering (a god) is at least partially faulty, because they make assertions that are only valid within the strict Evangelical belief. To prove the NWT wrong at John 1:1, they often claim that the NWT is inconsistent with the way the Committee handles the indefinite article in translation. The problem is that the argument put forward is one the WTS have never claimed. They often quote Robert Countess for support for this NWT error. What they don't tell you is that Countess' argument is flawed. Even Robert Bowman Jr., a known WT critic, admits Countess exposition of the NWT NT is not fully accurate. Another clue of their intentions can be seen when they totally omit the fact that other scholars often side with the NWT renderings. They make it sound like only unlearned lunatics will come up with readings such as those found in the NWT. Not so.

    A case in point, which happens to be discussed in this thread as well: It has to do with the way Bible translators deal with the Greek term proskyneo commonly translated "worship." No one will argue that the Greek word can, and should be translated as "worship." But if anyone claims that translating it as "render obeisance" or "doing "homage" in some contexts is wrong, then, that writer is not being totally honest. At most, you could say that the NWT is biased by choosing to render proskyneo differently when the reference is to Christ. Even so, that statement is subject to question, since someone could argue that Christ himself stated: "the Father is greater than I." Hence, proskyneo rendered to Christ could be understood as some Greek dictionaries define it, similarly as it appears in the NWT.

    Another point missed by NWT critics is that the English word worship had a broader meaning in the days of KJV translators than it does today. Thus, the understanding of worship in the early days of English translations may have been closer to the meaning as defined in biblical reference works, rather than the common limited meaning attributed to the Greek term by mainstream churches.

  • Wonderment

    sd-7 said: "No possible basis in the Greek text can be found for changing the word "And" to the word "Yes". The change clearly reflects their need to give a position to the anointed that doesn't exist at least in the context of these verses.

    I learned that from a website myself, was surprised when I verified it and checked the Greek text. Subtle changes like that really get overlooked, but after seeing that one, I stopped using the New World Translation and realized it just can't be trusted."

    I suggest you look up the Greek word kai in an exhaustive concordance such as NIV, RSV, or NASB and see how these versions render the conjunction kai. You may be surprised how freely the NIV renders kai.

    Yes, The NIV may not render kai as the NWT does at Rev 20:4,5, but you may have to stop using the NIV and a host of other versions if you go by any-one instance of mis-translation. All translations fail the Greek text in one place or another, thus, basing our translation choices by one instance of mis-translation can cost you dearly.

    May I suggest caution when using other websites to determine your final Bible translation decisions?

Share with others