Interesting cross reference
Hebrew 1 8-12
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne+ forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness
You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you+ with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”+ 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”+
Psalms 102 26-27
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands.+ 26 They will perish, but you will remain;Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. 27 But you are the same, and your years will never end.+
All quotes taken from the NWT
The part I find odd is when you read the rest of the passage and see the cross reference back to psalms , which seems to the father speaking to Jehovah god. If you feel like reading Psalm 102, it is speaking about Jehovah God, LORD, Yaweh , whatever you want to call him.
Now the average JW has a real problem with the father speaking to the son as god speaking to god ( thus the need for the NWT ), yet they never seemed to read the rest of the chapter. Its just funny how the theology is based on isolation and obscuring of single verses.
Not saying I am joe Jesus or pushing any agenda. I am just saying it is funny when a person does a little research on the scriptures , its pretty easy to see the authors intent.
You can't see the forest because of all the trees.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the cattlemen round up the last remaining infirm horses - and in a last ditch attempt to revive them, instead, flog them to death, giving rise to the saying: "It's like flogging a dead horse".
Maybe if someone a few generations back would have read the fucking the bible or understood it, we wouldn't all be hanging out here wondering how to get our families back.
Real class act
Nice catch Steel. One of the things that most made me doubt the divinity of the bible was the fact that it could be interpreted 100 different ways depending on what text/reference one chooses to use.
Whether Jesus is Yahweh or not, or whether the hope is for heaven or earth, or any other critical doctrine, there's just no clarity in the bible. What kind of God would author such a book?
Yes a particularly difficult passage for JWs for a few reasons:
1. Appears to apply scripture about God to Jesus.
2. Uses the word "Lord" in OT quote without translating it Jehovah in NWT.
3. Says that the earth will wear out and perish.
The Bible is like an instrument you can play any tune on .
Thats why their are over 40,000 different Christian sects and JW`s are just another one.
This is highly depressing.
A major part of my awakening process was seeing how the new testament was basically just quoting the old testament and seeing the context of the quotes.
It also exposes how dishonest the nwt is when you see the connections.
The point is Jesus is being quoted as jehovah in the old testament . I wasn't making a sweeping generalization about Christian sects or how anyone can make the bible says anything etc etc.
I always said that the only useful valuable commentary the WT ever produced was the crossreferences in the Bible. And I'll bet they stole most of that from Scofield and Dake.
I apologise for my outpouring above. There is no excuse. This is a doctrinal discussion and I was not forced to read it. I have, however, re-read the OP and the responses - all considered (with the exception of my earlier comment, of course):
Smiddy wrote far more helpfully on this OP that I did - and I wish I had said what he said which I quote in bold:
"The Bible is like an instrument you can play any tune on .
Thats why their are over 40,000 different Christian sects and JW`s are just another one."
The "culprit" - for want of a better word - is the Bible itself: a motley collection of men's ideas, opinions, reflections and musings written down across thousands of years, lacking coherence and clarity - hence giving rise to widely disparate doctrines, predictions and moral codes.
It doesn't let modern-day translators off the hook - they are never blameless. But at the same time, the mess that is the interpretations of Scripture can be laid firmly at the door of humankind who, at one time or another, muscled into the role of speaking for their conception of "God".
Under that sort of background, uniformity of doctrine and belief is a vain impossibility - although many here know from personal experience that men (and a few women) in one religious group or another seek to impose a uniformity of doctrine and belief where none exists - and never has.
If I took my car to the mechanic and he asked him what was wrong and he told me all Fords are crap, it wouldn't really be helping me figure out what was really wrong with my car.
I really don't think atheist /agnostic replies to specific theologic questions is very helpful . I didn't find Smiddy comment that insightful.
Its sad to see ex jws are just as lazy about the bible as when they were in.