Another bible contradiction about Jesus being king or what???

by Crazyguy 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Crazyguy

  The lies of the Org continue, I was reading Revelation and I came accross Rev 19:6 in their bible and its states "And I heard a loud voice of a great crowd and as a sound of many waters and as a sound of heavy thunders. They said: Praise Jah, you people, because Jehovah our god, the almighty has begun to rule as king." Then my first thought, what does it acctually say in their greek interlinear because at Rev. 1:5 in the bible its says Jesus is Ruler over the Kings of the earth. And I was wondering if this was another contradiction in the bible. Their Interlinear in greek stated at Rev. 19:6 "And I heard as voice of crowd much and as voice of waters many and as voice of thunders strong of ones saying, Hallelujah because reigned Lord the God of us the almighty.

  Well this didnt solve the problem seamed to say about the same thing except the use of the word reigned, and it didnt put anything in to context, so I decided to look at another interlinear as well as some other bibles and what did Strongs interlinear state,,

  And I heard as it were the

  voice of a great multitude, and

  as the voice of many waters,

  and as the voice of mighty

  thunderings, saying, Alleluia:

  for the Lord God omnipotent

  reigneth.

  So then I looked at what several different bibles stated and they all pretty much read this way; Revelation 19:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

  6 Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,

  “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.

  So the borg lies again, this time with their interlinear, making it sound as though Jesus begins to rule in the furture after the bible was written!!!
• 

  sarahsmile

  Oh I see,I think

  I can not get past two points!

  the great crowd voice in heaven. "After this I heard what seemed to be a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven." They said: “Praise Jah!

  "And I heard what sounded like a voice of a great crowd..."

  For not partaking they sure do get around. :-)

  Second,That WT 144,000 are the armies who follow Jesus to battle. No proof but ok.

  " 14 Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen." In Wt land, because they follow Jesus to battle they get to wear crowns and sit to judge. No prove of that one! NONE. LOL.

  20: 4 And I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given authority to judge. 144,000!

  No proof but what the heck it is WT land! Who knows they probably already changed that to the GB!

  Ok one more, that the 144,000 are the bride group. Most churches thinks it is everyone who is part of the family of Christ. Everyone in the church.

  Back to your topic:

  Jesus is King of King who reigns, but he has a King sitting next to him who reigns. There are two that reign but one knows the day or hour and tells the other and war breaks out. My view point.

  Hmm,I just started thinking about the one speaking from the throne.

  Anyhow,I think that scripture is sound. Jesus was given all power and authority and is King of King and he reigns.

  Not too sure I understand your point but someone will. I tried.

  Just noticed!

  Reigned! Well you did find something! Good find! Which interlineral do you have because the one from the sixties reads different than the one from the 70s and 80s.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It's classified in grammar as aorist active indicative (see e.g. scripture4all and blueletterbible online interlinears). NT Greek grammar is not my thing so you'd better check before taking my explanation as word (hopefully somebody better informed can help), but it looks like it should be 'reigned,' which in this Greek tense is an action in the past but God is still continuing to reign. But to just say 'reigned' in English gives the impression that it is something past and complete, like he did reign but he isn't doing so any more. So most Bibles convey the continued state of God reigning by simply using 'reigns' or 'reigneth,' while others try to keep some of the Greek sense by conveying the reigning began at a particular point and is still continuing, i.e. 'has become king' or 'has begun to reign' (see the biblehub site for comparisons).
• 

  Apognophos

  I think there's also a logical flaw in your agument, Crazyguy, which is that the NWT changed "lord" to "Jehovah". Therefore the Society would not have made this change for any reason pertaining to the reign of Jesus which they believe started in 1914.

  Anyway, as AnnOMaly said, the subject of tense is not a simple one. But you should know that the old NWT was obsessed with verb tenses. I would not trust another translation to be more accurate in that respect because the NWT pursued the most accurate rendering possible even when it led to an inelegant translation.
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  I think AnnO has got the correct grammer here without a doubt, but a more correct translation would be " had begun to reign,at sometime prior to this staement". In writing it as just has begun to reign implies that it has only happen at that imediate time, where as the tense indicates a time in the past. It is more simply underastood when the tense is qualified with a date and time but in this case it is not.

  It is interesting to note that JW.Org changed the meaning of Luke 10:18 " At that he said to them "I began to behold Satan already fallen like lightening from heaven" (old NWT) and " ........I see Satan already fallen......from heaven." (new NWT). Both of these translations are wrong for the same reason and in this case the action of falling from heaven is complete not ongoing . Jesus is saying that at a time in the past which is unspecified he had been present at event when Satan fell from heaven and physically saw it happen. This statement unfortunately places the events of Rev 12:9 prior to this time and does not agree with the 1914 doctrine, neither does he say that he was doing the throwing/hurling, he was only spectating the event.

  BB
• 

  Crazyguy

  My point again is that my research has shown me that Jesus was made king by the bible writers in the first century . Matt 28, Ephesians, and rev 1:5. The jws in their bible and their newest interlinear indicated that Jesus becomes king in a futuristic sence. But when reading rev 19:6 in other interlinears and other bibles they state just that he rules, or reigns, not in the future but now as the writers see it. As you can see they inserted the phrase 'has begun to rule'. Their implying that Jesus was not king when the bible was written and only became king later (1914) .Never mind the fact that in revelations the writer Jesus becomes god and ofcourse the great crowd are in heaven. And as for the society trying to be most accurate with their original NWT I say bull shot because in the Greek at rev.5:10 it states that they will reign as priests on the earth, not over it and the word kings is not used, in fact not one scripture in the Greek NT ever referes to a follower of Jesus as a king. So no they picked and chose what they wanted their bible to say.
• 

  Apognophos

  I was speaking about accuracy in verb tense, nothing else, Crazyguy. That's why I said "in that respect". Though Bart might have a point with Luke 10:18; I haven't looked deeply into that one.

  What I'm not following is your jump from the wording "has begun to rule" to claiming that the NWT is saying that Jesus will begin to rule after the first century.

  I'm also not understanding why you say that the Society's Interlinear is "lying". The Interlinear says "reigned", does it not? That seems even less like it's referring to the writer's future. I think you have to spell it out a little more for us, because I am completely confused.
• 

  Crazyguy

  Ok I'm not good with my grammar, but the jws bible and interlinear implys that Jesus was not king when the bible writers wrote the bible. They say that revelations says this is a future event and insert the phrase " begins to rule" and ignores rev.1:5 altogether. I have discovered the lie and have reported it here. Thebible is really saying he is ruling or reigning, not in the future from when the bible writer's wrote it but now in the time of the bible writers.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  ... the jws bible and interlinear implys that Jesus was not king when the bible writers wrote the bible. They say that revelations says this is a future event and insert the phrase " begins to rule" and ignores rev.1:5 altogether. I have discovered the lie and have reported it here. The bible is really saying he is ruling or reigning, not in the future from when the bible writer's wrote it but now in the time of the bible writers.

  You might also want to explore the 'already but not yet' idea - where the kingdom is and has been since the first century, but is not yet fully consummated. (JWs' version is, of course, that the kingdom was set up in 1914 but still hasn't 'come' in its fullest sense and won't until the Millennium starts.)

  Question: "What is inaugurated eschatology?"

  Answer: Inaugurated eschatology is a certain scheme of eschatology—the study of the latter days or the end times. Inaugurated eschatology basically says that the kingdom of God, as prophesied in Isaiah 35 , began at the first coming of Jesus and is now here, although it will not be fully consummated until His second coming. Inaugurated eschatology is also sometimes referred to as a “partially realized eschatology” and is associated with the “already but not yet” concept.

  Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/inaugurated-eschatology.html#ixzz3Bu5jQcSV
• 

  Apognophos

  So how does "has begun" indicate the future while "reigns" doesn't? Either this a vision of the future or of the present, right? If it's of the present (the time of the writer), then in both cases, the wording indicates that Jesus is already reigning. The same is true if it's a vision of the future (say, our time). Jesus is reigning or has begun reigning at that time, whatever time that may be.

  You wrote that "They say that revelations says this is a future event", but you need to show where in the NWT translation they changed Revelation from a present-day vision to a future vision. The verse you're citing does not demonstrate that. The NWT is not using a future tense like "will begin reigning", nor have they changed another verse (to my knowledge) from saying "this is a vision of now" to "this is a vision of the future".

  In other words, you're reading the NWT through JW glasses and interpreting the verses as being in the future, but the actual text of the NWT does not say that, only the literature that the Society has written about that passage.