Two witness rule using the other 2 bibles on jw.org
So I was thinking, now JW.org uses two other bible translations/versions on their website.
Can we not use the two witness rule regarding certain doctrines. For example John 1:1 this is absolutely amazing to me that they would have two bibles for Jesus being God. But only one bible, their own translation in support of Jesus being a god. In my eyes that's a win for Jesus being God. Score 2 to 1 in favor, and found on their own website.
This could be done with many other verses that Watchtower has changed, just take them to their own website and show 2 bibles that disagree with what JW's believe.
One has to understand what the author had in mind, and the Trinity is a difficult doctrine to deal with. In Isaiah, God says He knows of no other gods besides Him. Yet in the New Testament, Jesus is praying to the Father (1+1=2). And in Genesis 1 and Psalms 110, there seem to be gods (elohim) speaking to each other ("man has become as one of us" and "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool.").
It is a conundrum. So they try to interpret the doctrine so they can translate the scripture. They don't believe Jesus is Jehovah, so they try to make him "a god."
But in the New Testament, Christ is given "all power" and allows himself to be worshiped (Matthew 28:18). In the Old Testament, YAHVH is described as being the "First And The Last." (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), but in the New Testament, it's Jesus who is the "First and the Last" (Rev. 1:8; 16-18; 22:12-13, 20).
In the Old Testament, YHVH comes personally to the earth with fire (Isa. 66:15), but in 2 Thess. 1:7-8, it's Jesus who comes with fire. There are other scriptures referring to both as the Shepherd, King of Kings, Judge of mankind, Savior and Creator. If one didn't know better, they could be taken as a single entity!
So the brass at JWHQ have a big problem and the only way they can fix it is to creatively interpret the scriptures. Jesus tells the criminal on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise." But they can't interpret it that way, so he says, "I'm tellin' you today, you will be with me in Paradise!"
So once they begin fudging one, they have to keep doing it. The result is a translation that's a laughing stock. But other churches do it to a lesser extent; it's just that there's almost zero scholarship when it comes to the JW translations. And it makes it tough trying to discuss religious topics with JWs because some of their translations are so outlandish. But it's tough to bring in the law of witnesses here unless you use other translations as witnesses. Or scholars.
Is that what you mean?