God is Jesus

by evangelist 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  Evangelist,

  You asked how I know that there have been missing and added parts to the Bible. Well, consider. Until the advent of printing in Europe in the Middle Ages all copies of the Bible were done by hand. ALL of them. This resulted in both intentional and unintentional changes.

  Intentional changes included:
  (i)changes involving spelling and grammar;
  (ii)harmonistic corruptions, for example the different versions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke have been harmonised in some manuscripts;
  (iii)addition of natural complements, for example including the 'scribes' with the 'chief priests' in Matthew 26:3 (by many copyists);
  (iv)clearing up historical and geographical difficulties;
  (v)conflation of readings (when a scribe found the same passage was given differently in two or more manuscripts);
  (vi)alterations made because of doctrinal considerations;
  (vii)addition of miscellaneous details;
  
  Unintentional changes included
  (i)errors arising from faulty eyesight;
  (ii)errors arising from faulty hearing;
  (iii)errors of the mind, which would include those that arose when the scribe forgot exactly what the older copy said between the time he looked at it and his writing it, usually a matter of seconds...but it happens;
  (iv)errors of judgement, when words and notes in the margin of the older copy were incorporated into the text of the new manuscript;

  If you want examples of any of these errors I would recommend another book by Bruce Metzger, namely The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (1964,OUP,pp.186-206) where they are well documented.

  The result of these various changes, both intentional and unintentional, is that of the thousands of copies of the Greek NT no two are identical. Each one is different to a greater or lesser degree. If you cannot accept this then try writing out one of the gospels in its entirety and see if you can do it without error. Most unlikely. This does not mean that the text we have is unreliable. In most instances it is not difficult to establish the original text, as I tried to show in the case of the last chapter of Mark. But to suggest that the text has never been altered shows a complete ignorance of the history of the Bible.

  Earnest
• 

  Will Power

  Ernest, is this your reasons why the NWT adds words to the bible?
• 

  evangelist

  Earnest
  As I speak to the Jehovah witness they try to teach me the same , that Mark 16 doesn`t belong to the bible.

  i see it that this is A chapter that attacks their doctrine about healing , and proof that we can lay hands on the sick and get healed, bccause the JHW doesn`t believe healing is today .
  The next thing is that Mark proves that we somebody believes and get baptized they are saved, and this attacks their doctrine on hard works for earn salvation and give out their new papers.

  Somethiong is wrong here, and it looks like JHW are trying to steal, and take away from the bible.

  peace
• 

  Earnest

  Will Power,

  You asked:

  Ernest, is this your reasons why the NWT adds words to the bible?

  As you supply no substance to your allegation it is a meaningless question. But in the research I have done on textual criticism I have always found that where the text of the NWT differs from that of the AV in substance rather than in translation that the NWT has better textual support.

  If you know of anything to the contrary I would be interested to know the Greek/Hebrew textual support of the example(s) you give. Do please keep in mind we are talking of textual criticism which is objective, not of translation which is subjective.

  Earnest
• 

  plmkrzy

  I am god.

  It's true!

  I really am!

  My dog Alfred worships me and depends on me to provide for him and care for him.

  
  

  Life sucks...get a helmet
• 

  Will Power

  Ern est

  How do you accept the slick words in [brackets] that are inserted for no [other] reason than to [sway] the meaning of the verse with [bias] interpretation?

  How do you accept a passage describing the Lord* Jesus as an angel with a footnote calling this Lord* Jehovah?

  How do you accept the fact that the anonymous writing committee that you will stake your spiritual knowledge [of others] on
  (not your spiritual knowledge/life because you've been taught that you have none of your own)
  have inserted the word Jehovah into the new testament not just where the old testament is quoted, but where ever it suits their doctrines
  and this is a fact, [approx. 217 times where it does not belong] you will not find any [bible] scholars to back you up on this one.

  Did you know that the re-prints of your NWT are on-going so that they can fix all the references [footnotes] that they make of Jesus = Almighty or Jehovah = Jesus, but they are still exist, or appendices citing a known WT condemned spiritist as their scholarly proof for certain disputed texts.

  Did you know that secular history outside of the Watchtower has nothing to do with Satan but are based on well researched facts?
  and that by looking at 2 sides of the coin for yourself instead of just taking someone elses version of both sides you can learn how to be responsible for your own spiritual well being.

  Not a very good feeling to spend years & years in a publishing business only to find out that it is just a printing company run by men [loose term] not God.

  tip of iceberg.
• 

  sunscapes

  No, God is God, Jesus is Jesus, Good lookin' women are women, and good beer is good beer!
• 

  Earnest

  Will Power,

  You asked:

  How do you accept the slick words in [brackets]?

  If you sincerely want answers to your questions then it would help if you supported your allegations with examples. But in general, brackets would be supplied when the English equivalent does not do justice to the Greek/Hebrew meaning and so the bracketed words are necessary to convey the full sense of the original. However, that is a matter of translation whereas the question I assume you were responding to was a matter of textual criticism, the underlying text on which the translation is based.

  How do you accept a passage describing the Lord* Jesus as an angel with a footnote calling this Lord* Jehovah?

  If you sincerely want answers to your questions then it would help if you supplied the scripture to which you refer.

  How do you accept the fact that the anonymous writing committee have inserted the word Jehovah into the new testament?

  That same writing committee gave their reasons for substituting ‘Lord’ with ‘Jehovah’ in an appendix to the NWT. There they said:
  "To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from available Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures to confirm our rendering."
  As there are at least 22 versions of the NT in Hebrew which are cited for support it is clear that there are other Bible scholars who believe it legitimate in some instances to substitute kyrios with the tetragrammaton in the NT. My own view is that it would have been more accurate to have the rendering ‘Jehovah’ as a footnote rather than in the main body of the text, but I accept it the same way that I accept the AV has substituted ‘Lord’ for ‘Jehovah’ 7000 times in the OT. Neither substitution affects my appreciation of the translation although I think both can be misleading to the casual reader.

  Did you know that the re-prints of your NWT are on-going

  I would expect a translation to be regularly revised as advances are made in textual criticism and linguistics (the study of the original languages).

  Did you know that secular history outside of the Watchtower has nothing to do with Satan but are based on well researched facts? and that by looking at 2 sides of the coin for yourself instead of just taking someone elses version of both sides you can learn how to be responsible for your own spiritual well being.

  Yes.

  Earnest
• 

  Will Power

  Ernest

  I would expect a translation to be regularly revised as advances are made in textual criticism and linguistics (the study of the original languages).

  Maybe, but would you expect unknown and anonymous people to change their own interpretation then reprinting to justify their current way of thinking by adding [other] words that change the meaning not clarify because of the study of languages. textual criticism should be kept to WT rags and kept out of a book that they trick people into thinking it is bible.
  

  always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background.

  this is changing to meet interpretations of the day. shame, shame,

  As there are at least 22 versions of the NT in Hebrew which are cited for support it is clear that there are other ..

  these are 12th century translations! into hebrew from the greek which never contained the tetragrammaton. Why use these when there are much earlier translations to go by. Or why use earlier for some parts and the 12th cent. for others? Check the footnotes any "J" is a much later manuscript.
  There is an excellent research document on the insertion of the word jehovah in key passages that have nothing to do with OT citations. I will get the title. It is titled The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures contains very extensive research, pictures, charts, references, all satan free and you need to read it and decide for yourself.

  If you sincerely want answers to your questions then it would help if you supplied the scripture to which you refer.

  Do you have a CDRom?
  Look up "Michael" - Who is Michael
  1/2 way down while it is making a case for Michael the Archangel being none other than Jesus Christ the verse "For the Lord* Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." 1Thes4:16 This is supposed to convince you that Christ is an angel. Look carefully for the * beside the word Lord*. This is I believe footnote #16. Double click or scroll down to reference to the footnote. You'll find that Jehovah is this Lord who descends with the call of the archangel...
  It is not just a CDRom error because it is in all the printed material even in the 70's where this is compared & used.

  What is your opinion on this? Is this what you call careful consideration of the scriptures?

  There are many other examples, but this is by far my favorite since the first time I innocently asked this question I was met with pure hostility and a question "Are you humble enough to accept the truth?"

  Well, I'll ask you, without any hostility, the same question? "Are you humble enough to accept the truth?"
• 

  Will Power

  ernest, serious question:
  

  There they said:

  could you please tell me who they are and what qualifications would allow for these extremely subtle yet misleading alterations?

  If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. -Catherine Aird-