The Jehovas Witnessess Teachings thread

ISAW

This is not restricted to the following but

My comments on anti Trinitarianism from the last thread which was closed

Alter2Ego wrote: »

ALTER2EGO -to- ISAW:

The slanderous statements you are quoting are too ridiculous to be believed. I will address the three most inflammatory of the lot.

Take your fake slander accusations into a court then and I will expose the truth to you.

Of course it's clear that you downloaded the Julius R. Mantey quotes (and the other derogatory comments) from websites owned by people with an axe to grind against Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#cite_ref-62
Dr. John Weldon and Ankerberg cite several examples wherein they consider the NWT to support theological views overriding appropriate translation. Ankerberg and Weldon cite Dr. Julius R. Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and A Hellenistic Greek Reader, who also criticized the NWT, calling it "a shocking mistranslation.
Dr. Mantey made this comment on videotape.

See the video "Witnesses of Jehovah",
distributed by Impact Resources, P.O. Box 1169, Murrieta, CA, 92564
Of course you may see but you will not believe.

These types of websites come a dime a dozen. The Internet is flooded with Jehovah's Witness haters.

stop changing the issue. the points are
1. did the Watchtower cite Mantey as a translator -they did!
2. did Mantey say the NWT was mistranslated or not - he did!

Having said that, I can say without hesitation that Julius Mantey's statement: "But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done," is blatantly deceptive.

So you admit he eixts and criticised the Watchtower for misquoting him?

I found a total of 26 different Bibles and commentaries that use similar renditions of John 1:1 as the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of these translations existed centuries before Julius Mantey was born! Below are the first 9 of the 26. Keep your eyes on the highlighted dates as well as the highlighted portions of the quotations, which represent the last portion of John 1:1.

Please supply the other sixteen of the 26
as for the first nine

1. John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Johannes Crellius (Polish: Jan Crell, English John Crell) (26 July Hellmitzheim 1590 – Raków 1633) was a Polish and German theologian.

He was an anti Trinitarian!
He was a Racovian socianist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crell
From 1613 he worked at the Racovian Academy at Raków, of which he was the rector from 1616 to 1621.[1] In 1630 he worked with Joachim Stegmann Sr. in the production of a German version of the Racovian New Testament.

do you subscribe to their other beliefs?


The Racovian publications, like the Sozzinis, rejected the pre-existence of Christ and held that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was conceived of the virgin birth as a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racovian_Catechism



[/quote]
Thus the Catholics hold the distinction between Arians, Unitarians, and Socinians to be:
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p185.html
1. Arians hold Christ to be pre-existent as a product of the Father. The Catholics claim that the Arians hold the Holy Spirit as a product of the Son. This is based on no writing of the so-called Arians but a later Athanasian supposition.

2. The Unitarians are held to deny the pre-existence, divine birth and hence the worship of Christ. (We term this view Radical Unitarianism and the Catholics should distinguish this point.)

3. The Socinians are held to deny the pre-existence of Christ but accept his miraculous birth and hence give him worship.

This distinction is fatally flawed as we will examine below.
[/quote]
The people in Europe termed anti-Trinitarians came into schism as an effect of the Reformation and because they held different views. It is thus misleading to refer to these people as Socinians. It is the same effect as referring to the Churches of God in the USA from the mid-1800s as Armstrongites. He was a later leader of one branch. Like Armstrong, we will see that the Socinians themselves altered their views on the nature of God.



Lelius Socinius lived mainly at Zurich but was the mainstay of the party which met at Cracow. He died in 1562 and the anti-Trinitarians suffered disruption from this point. In 1570 the Socinians separated and, influenced by John Sigismund, they established at Racow. In 1579 Faustus came to Poland with his uncle's papers. He found the sect divided and was at first refused admission because he would not submit to a second baptism. His first baptism must therefore have been as an adult. In 1574 the Socinians had issued a Catechism of the Unitarians. The nature and perfections of the Godhead were described but the document was silent on the divine attributes which were regarded as mysterious (by the Catholics). Christ was held to be the promised man and the mediator of creation.


Faustus Socinius united the factions under himself from 1579


so no surprises that a fringe christian who has all sorts of zany ideas abouyt the bible with which you dont agre happens to throw in baseless non trinity translations given one of his zany beliefs is anti trinity?

2. Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

A dutch Protestant fundamentalist anti trinitarian.

funny how you began saying the Bible supported this and early christians all believed it but you rely on fringe translations from Post reformation Protestant fundamentalists 1500 years later.
And on what bibles were they basing their translations?
The very same ones the other 99% of Trinitarians already had in greek and knew what it meant!
In fact rather than your original claim you are supporting the opposite.

Originally you claimed a Roman conspiracy of the fourth century subverted the universal belief at that time with the Trinity.

You didnt show that to be true but you are showing a fringe belief even of Protestants over a thousand years later attempted to subvert the universally accepted trinitarian belief.

ill deal with the other translations later

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78283088&postcount=10

3. Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

4. Belsham N.T. 1809, "the Word was a god"

5. Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"

6. Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

7. Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, "[A]s a god the Command was"

8. Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

9. Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God [i.e. a Divine Being] was the Word"

3. http://www.bible-researcher.com/harwood.html

Edward Harwood, A Liberal Translation of the New Testament; being An Attempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same Freedom, Spirit, and Elegance, With which other English Translations from the Greek Classics have lately been executed: the Design and Scope of each Author being strictly and impartially explored, the True Signification and Force of the Original critically observed, and, as much as possible, transfused into our Language, and the Whole elucidated and explained upon a new and rational Plan: with select Notes, Critical and Explanatory. 2 Vols. London: for T. Becket and Others, 1768.

Harwood’s paraphrase imitates the verbose and ornate style of writing typical of much English prose of the eighteenth century, and has often been cited as an outstanding example of poor taste and inappropriate handling of Scripture. Shortly after its publication James Boswell called it a “ridiculous work.” 1 Others have called it “turgid,” “absurd,” and worse. In a discussion of the qualities of various English versions, Richard C. Trench wrote, “Of Harwood’s Liberal Translation of the New Testament (London, 1768), and the follies of it, not very far from blasphemous, it is unnecessary to give any specimens.” 2 J. Isaacs observes that Harwood’s version is “one of the most discussed and insulted” versions of the eighteenth century. 3 A specimen often quoted is the rendering of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Harwood In order to guard you from mistakes in this important concern I will propose the following as a model for your devotions—O Thou great governour and parent of universal nature—who manifestest thy glory to the blessed inhabitants of heaven—may all thy rational creatures in all the parts of thy boundless dominion be happy in the knowledge of thy existence and providence, and celebrate thy perfections in a manner most worthy thy nature and perfective of their own!

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Harwood ...May the glory of thy moral government be advanced, and the great laws of it be more generally obeyed—May the inhabitants of this world pay as chearful a submission and as constant an obedience to thy will, as the happy spirits do in the regions of immortality—

11 Give us this day our daily bread. As thou hast hitherto most mercifully supplied our wants, deny us not the necessaries and conveniences of life, while thou art pleased to continue us in it—

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Pardon the numerous errours and sins, which we have been guilty of towards thee; as we freely forgive and erase from our hearts the injuries that our fellow creatures have done to us—

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Suffer no temptation to assault us too powerful for the frailty of our natures and the imperfection of our virtue—but in all our trials may thine almighty aid interpose and rescue us from vice and ruin—These requests we address unto thee, for thou art possessed of power which enables thee to succour, and of goodness, which disposes thee to befriend all thy creatures—and these thy glorious perfections will continue immutable, and be the objects of praise and adoration throughout all the ages of eternity! Amen!

Nuff said but the above reference has plehty of other samples of harwood,s "translations"

4. Belsham (26 April 1750 – 1829)
Unitarian Thomas Belsham (The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_history
The vogue of Socinian views, typified by men like Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland and Chillingworth, led to the abortive fourth canon of 1640 against Socinian books. The ordinance of 1648 made denial of the Trinity a capital offence, but it remained a dead letter, Cromwell intervening in the cases of Paul Best (1590–1657) and John Biddle (1616–1662).

In 1652–1654 and 1658–1662 Biddle held a Socinian conventicle in London; in addition to his own writings he reprinted (1651) and translated (1652) the Racovian Catechism, and the Life of Socinus (1653). His disciple Thomas Firmin (1632–1697), mercer and philanthropist, and friend of John Tillotson, adopted the more Sabellian views of Stephen Nye (1648–1719), a clergyman. Firmin promoted a remarkable series of controversial tracts (1690–1699).

In England the Socinian controversy, initiated by Biddle, preceded the Arian controversy initiated by Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712), although John Knowles was an Arian lay preacher at Chester in 1650. Arian or semi-Arian views had much vogue during the 18th century, both in the Church and among dissenters.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Unitarian_and_Arian

There are doctrinal differences so you cant quote a unitarian translator as a reliable source and then elsewhere say he is wrong.

5 Kneeland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Kneeland
Abner Kneeland (April 7, 1774 – August 27, 1844) was an American evangelist and theologian who advocated many views, religious and social, which were considered extremely radical for his day. Due to his very public stance on these issues, Kneeland became the last man jailed in the United States for blasphemy.

The defendant, Abner Kneeland, was a mercurial preacher who had been a Universalist, but had since converted to a form of pantheism. He published letters in which he expounded on his recently adopted pantheist philosophy, denying any God other than Nature as well as the uniquely particular divinity of Jesus Christ.

Reliable? as a source for "a god" in John 1:1?

6. Thompson
In 1985, the Society published a new edition of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. In Appendix 2A they added another "translation" to their list - that of John S. Thompson of Baltimore. This rendition, dated at 1829, is quoted as, "and the Logos was a god."

Who was John Thompson? The American Quarterly Review of September, 1830. Here we read Thompson saying, "I shall rejoice in having been the happy instrument, in the hand of God, of having done fourfold as much for mankind, as all the professed commentators of the last fifteen centuries!" Aside from a lack of humility, it seems Thompson was "moved about by every wind of doctrine" as well, moving from being a Calvinist to an Arminian Methodist preacher, to being a Restorationist, then on to an Arian Restorationist, until finally being a Unitarian Universalist (the same bunch that mistranslate Newcombe above.)Thompson admits to having experiences with - yup, you guessed it - spirit beings who instruct him to "be careful to represent Jesus as only the instrument of God in all he does. Source: Witnesses of Jehovah, Leonard and Marjorie Chretien.

7. Hermann Heinfetter,
author of Rules for Ascertaining the Sense Conveyed in Ancient Greek Manuscripts, Objections to Bishop Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article, and An Enquiry Respecting the Punctuation of Ancient Greek (in A Literal Translation of the Gospel According to St. John on Definite Rules of Translation, and an English Version of the Same, 6th ed. [London: Evan Evans, 1864]).

This is how Heinfetter explains his translation: "Was this used as an Appellation of Almighty God, the Article would certainly have been expressed before it; its omission therefore determines, that it must be used as an Appellation of some other, and this other, I judge from the context to be what I have expressed in the Paraphrase."

One need only glance a few verses later to see that Heinfetter is mistaken that God (when referring to the Almighty) is "certainly" preceded by the article (cf., v. 18). Interestingly, Heinfetter translates this verse: "No one hath perceived truth yet." Needless to say, there is no manuscript evidence for this rendering, nor does Heinfetter remark on it.

With some exceptions, his translation only appears in JW websites or publications (the exceptions being sites that exhaustively list Bible translations). It is notable in the scarcity of its appearance in scholarly citations, even by Unitarian scholars. One reason for this may be the highly idiosyncratic nature of Heinfetter's translation.

Thus, it does not appear that Heinfetter is anything like a recognized scholar in the field of Biblical Languages.

Regardless of Heinfetter's view of John 1:1c, he did not have the benefit of Colwell or Harner's studies, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the proper translation of John 1:1c. His opinion is interesting from an historical perspective, but is of little value in determining the proper translation of John 1:1c, beyond perhaps demonstrating that "a god" is not impossible grammatically.

The source of this is (a JW) Greg Staffords reply to Hommel

http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/GS-RH.Mantey.Stafford.1.htm

do to space ill skip ambrose and move on to
9. Young

Here are Young's comments in full:

"John 1:1 And the Word was God, ] more lit. 'and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such" (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible).

It is doubtful Dr. Young intended his words to support something akin to the NWT rendering, "The Word was a god." Young was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland at a time when some of the more liberal members of that church were questioning the adherence to the Westminster Confession as their defining rule of faith. Young was staunchly in the conservative wing that upheld the Confession. Some, like Fergus Ferguson, were bought under scrutiny by the leaders of the Free Church for (among other things) advocating anti-Trinitarian views. That someone as prominent as Young could remain in the conservative wing of the orthodox Free Church and have advocated Christ as a secondary "god" is unlikely .
c.f., Cameron, ed., The Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology [Intervarsity Press, 1992], and Hamilton, Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy : Seceders and Subscription in Scottish Presbyterianism [Rutherford House, 1990]

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78283352&postcount=12
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78283352&postcount=13

First and most obviously to anyone who has looked at the NWT is the appearance of JEHOVAH in the NT portion over two hundred times where the Greek text has KURIOS (LORD). The second way in which the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of text in which Jesus is called God (Isa 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Acts 20:28), of these, the NWT translates four so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1), and two so that he is "A god" or "god" (John 1:1, 18). The remaining three texts (Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20), are not mistranslated, but are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in a lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT translates texts that call Jesus God in such a way as to keep the text from making that identification!

Genesis 1:2


"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."


The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Exodus 3:14


"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."


The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

Numbers 1:52


"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."


The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

Isaiah 43:10


"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."


The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

Ecclesiastes 12:7


"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns."


The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

Matthew 2:11


"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"


The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

Matthew 5:19


"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."


The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Matthew 25:46


"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off."


The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

Mark 1:4


"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. "


Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

Luke 12:8


"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."


The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

Luke 23:43


'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me."


Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

John 1:1


"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."


The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

John 1:12


"Believe" changed to "exercise faith."


The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

John 6:56


"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."


The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")

John 8:58


"I am" changed to "I have been."


Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

John 14:14


"IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it."

"me" is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus.


John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; "IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; "If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!

John 14:17


"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."


The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

John 17:5


"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."


The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

John 17:21


"Are in me" changed to "are in union with me."


The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

Acts 10:36


"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."


The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

Acts 20:28


They change "God purchased the church with His own blood" to God purchased the church with the blood of His son"


Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood... the blood of Jesus... who is God!

Romans 2:29


"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."


Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

Rom 8:1


"Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW.


The NWT omits key words when to include them may contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Rom 8:1 "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW. This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that the JW's do not believe anyone can claim NOW to be free of condemnation.

Romans 8:23a


"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."


This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

Romans 8:23b


"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom."


This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

Romans 8:28


"All things" changed to "all his works."


The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. This implies that God does not work ALL things together for the good of those that love God, but only those things which he himself does, over which he has control.

Romans 8:29


"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition."


The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.

Romans 9:5


"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever."


The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

Romans 10:13


"Lord" changed to "Jehovah."


This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

Romans 13:1


"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God."


Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.

1 Corinthians 6:19


"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit."


To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.

1 Corinthians 10:4


"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."


The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."

1 Corinthians 12:11


"As he determines" changed to "as it wills."


The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

1 Corinthians 14:14-16


"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."


Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.

The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "SPIRIT" to "[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 "the Father of spirits" (or the spirits) becomes "the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE." In Gal. 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW." Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" (or more literally, not having spirit") is rendered "NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY" (Jude 19).

1 Corinthians 15:2


"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved."


Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.

Galatians 6:18


"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."


Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

Philippians 1:23


"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ."


Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).

In Phil 1:23-24 several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby also the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with added words in brackets so you can see here) "I am under pressure from [THESE] two things; [BUT WHAT] I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, [TO BE SURE], is far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions indicate here clearly change the meaning so as to avoid the test's implication that Paul would be with Christ after death. Some of the additions in brackets in the NWT so clearly change the meaning it is a wonder that more JW's don't question them? In 1Cor 14:12-16 the phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[GIFT OF THE] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word "MY" is also added in brackets before "MIND" twice in verse 15 but not before SPIRIT. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" (or "my spirit" and "my mind" NASB) is changed to "the [GIFT OF THE] spirit" and [MY] mind."

Phil 2:6


"Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself" (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to "although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."


NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.





Col 1:16-20


the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek


Awful embarrassing for Jw's to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw's attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!

The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

Colossians 1:19


"His fullness" changed to "fullness."


The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.

Also notable is Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders "ALL FULLNESS" is ambiguous, whereas "ALL THE FULLNESS" clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).

Col 2:6-12





Again, in Col 2:6-12 "IN HIM" and "IN WHOM" (en auto, en ho) becomes "IN UNION WITH HIM" (v.6) "IN HIM" (V.V. 7,9) "BY MEANS OF HIM" (V. 10) and "BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM" (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes "IN RELATION TO" so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven" (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).

Colossians 2:9


"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."


The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

I Timothy 4:1


"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."


This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".

Titus 2:13


"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."


Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

Hebrews 1:6


"But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' ." (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions,


The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship". This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word "worship" (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word "obeisance" to complete the deception of new converts.

Hebrews 1:8


"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."


The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

Hebrews 9:14


"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."


Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

Hebrews 12:9


"Father of our spirits" changed to "Father of our spiritual life."


Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.

Hebrews 12:23


"The spirits of righteous men" changed to "the spiritual lives of righteous ones."


This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.

Hebrews 12:28


"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom."


An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.

1 Peter 1:11


"Spirit of Christ in them was pointing" changed to "the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ."


Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.

I Peter 3:18-19


"By the Spirit, through whom" changed to "in the spirit. In this [state]."


Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.

1 John 4:1-6


"Spirit" changed to "inspired expression"


Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God" (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that "INSPIRED EXPRESSION" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as "SPIRIT" in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).

The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".

Jude 19


"Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality."


Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 3:14


"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."


The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.



I will now compare  English under the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation
with their NWT english


Colossians 1:16-17
“all (things)”
 
 
“all [other] things”
“Other” added 4 times, though it is not present in the Greek; sometimes quoted without brackets in the publications [e.g. WT, 4/1/93, page 11]. Addition of “other” makes Jesus a thing.  The brackets are not present in the 1950 edition of the NWT.
 
Philippians  2:9
“over every name”

“above every other name” Why this addition of “other”?
For consideration:  what is the name above every name?
 
Romans 8:1 
“nothing really now condemnation to the (ones) in Christ Jesus;”                      
 
“therefore those in Christ Jesus have no condemnation”;
Greek word “now” is omitted, weakening the assurance of present reality.

Hebrews 11:13
“strangers and alien residents
they are  “upon the earth”.
[Context is Hebrew patriarchs]
 
“strangers and temporary residents in the land”.                            
 The WT teaches that Old Testament believers do not go to heaven, but will live on the earth.]

Romans 8:23
 
“awaiting the release by ransom of the body of us”
“waiting for adoption as sons, the release  from our bodies by ransom.”  The WT does not believe in the resurrection of the body.
John 14:14
 
[Jesus speaking] “ask me in
the name of me”
“ask anything in my name.” “me” is left out.  On page 9 of the Foreword in the 1969 edition it says, “Where we have varied from the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.”  [No such footnotes here.  Jehovah’s: Witnesses do not pray to Jesus.]

Corinthians 5:17
 
“if anyone in Christ, new
creation;”        
“if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation;” 
The adding of “union with” occurs very often in NWT: Col. 1:2,28; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor.13:5; Rom. 16:7; etc. In Gal.2:20, Christ “in union with me”.  “Union with” isn’t in the Greek.
 
1 Corinthians 11:23,25
“This of me is the body….
The new covenant is in the
my blood”                              
“this means my body”….
This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood” *

Colossians 1:27-28
“to  whom willed the God to
make known what the riches  f the glory of the mystery  this in the nations which is Christ in YOU ,the hope of the glory;”
To whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret among the nations.  It is Christ in union with YOU, the hope of [his] glory.”
The Greek “musterion” is always translated “Sacred secret” by the WT.  Christians sometimes speak of the Trinity as a “mystery”, hence, conceivably, the WT avoids the word.  See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words:  “In the ordinary sense a ‘mystery’ implies knowledge withheld; its Scriptural significance is truth revealed.”  

Romans 5:18

“all men into condemnation”
“all men into justification of
life.”
“men of all sorts was condemnation…”
“men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life” 

John 8:58
 
“Before Abraham to become
I am.”
“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” The WT’s footnote to John 8:58 gave, consecutively, three different grammatical rules as basis for this “have been” rendering.  In fact, the footnote in the KIT’s 1969 edition says, “properly rendered in the perfect tense”, while the KIT’s 1985 edition says, “properly translated by the perfect indicative”!  And earlier explanations, like “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 edition, have been discarded.  The correct rendering is “I AM”.  Compare Exodus 3:14.
 

Medicine333

Alter-Ego, God is Jesus Christ: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. One body. Take a look at this:



In John 10:30, Jesus said "I and my Father are one’’, i.e. Jesus is one with God.
John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word is who? John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." The Word became flesh, Jesus became a man. Jesus is the Word. John 1:2 states "He was with God in the beginning." Jesus could not have been created if He was with God in the beginning.
Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." God became flesh when Jesus walked the Earth.

In John 8:58, Jesus said to the Pharisees "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" Jesus is making reference to the conversation between God and Moses in Exodus 3:13-14: "Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" These verses exhibit Jesus as God.
The following verses prove Jesus as being the Creator. Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If Jesus is the Creator then how could He be a created being? The following verses state that God made all things through Jesus. Hebrews 1:2 "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Ephesians 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ..." If all things were made through Jesus then how can He be a created being?


You are simply incorrect, Alter-Ego. There are plenty of references to God-the Father and the Son. You can continue to spout your nonsense, with your condescending tone and choice of print colour, but it is fact that Jehovah Witnesses choose to ignore certain parts of the Bible and try to ram their teachings down the throats of Christians who follow the teachings of God correctly.

Medicine333

Just transferred my post over from the 'Question about Christianity' thread.

ISAW

Medicine333 wrote: »

Alter-Ego, God is Jesus Christ: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. One body. Take a look at this:



In John 10:30,
John 1:1
John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his . John 1:2
Timothy 3:16
In John 8:58, Exodus 3:13-14:
Colossians 1:16
John 1:3
Ephesians 3:9
You are simply incorrect, Alter-Ego. There are plenty of references to God-the Father and the Son. You can continue to spout your nonsense, with your condescending tone and choice of print colour, but it is fact that Jehovah Witnesses choose to ignore certain parts of the Bible and try to ram their teachings down the throats of Christians who follow the teachings of God correctly.

Of course one way out of the problem of a Bible saying "the word was god"
or "I am" is to change the Bible to have it saying "I have been" or "the word was A god"

But what gets me is the pastoral thing to their own people. The JWs are told one thing and then that thing is changed. for example occult pyramidology is taken n and dumped. Talking to Spirits are accepted and later dumped and Bible translators when their spirits
talking is made known are dumped. Also Jesus is worshiped as god and then later it is claimed he isn't god and don't worship him. serious doctrinal u turns.

then there is a host of failed and changed prophesies.

Medicine333

ISAW wrote: »

Of course one way out of the problem of a Bible saying "the word was god"
or "I am" is to change the Bible to have it saying "I have been" or "the word was A god"

But what gets me is the pastoral thing to their own people. The JWs are told one thing and then that thing is changed. for example occult pyramidology is taken n and dumped. Talking to Spirits are accepted and later dumped and Bible translators when their spirits
talking is made known are dumped. Also Jesus is worshiped as god and then later it is claimed he isn't god and don't worship him. serious doctrinal u turns.

then there is a host of failed and changed prophesies.

Absolutely, I 100% agree with you. Despite this, they still force their opinions on Christians etc. and act as if we're the ones who are misinterpreting.

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78285939&postcount=1
ALTER2EGO's Questions & Answers Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by dead one View Post
I ain't getting your point-- Are you saying both Christianity and Judaism are true religion... As you said, "Judeo-Christian Bible is the only one that presents proof of Divine authorship by means of almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies"

ALTER2EGO -to- DEAD ONE:
Judaism only accepts the Old Testament, whereas the Judeo-Christian Bible has both the Old Testament and the New Testament. As a reminder, the Jews to this day do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. By rejecting Jesus Christ, they reject salvation, because the Bible makes it clear that without Jesus as mediator, one cannot hope for salvation.

"{5} For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, {6} who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all -- this is what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times."
(1 Timothy 2:5-6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dead one View Post
It might not interest you to know that Islamic karon has corrected Judeo-Christian Bible -- Bible tells Jesus was Prophet of God -- Same is message of Quran...

ALTER2EGO -to- DEAD ONE:
Since the Quran is not inspired of God and actually copied parts of the Hebrew/Old Testament, I can't imagine where you're getting the idea that the Quran corrected the Bible.

There is nothing in the Judeo-Christian Bible that needs correcting. The Bible does not say anything about Jesus being a mere prophet. It clearly describes him as the created son of Jehovah.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15)

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)

The words "firstborn" and "begotten" apply to CREATED BEINGS according to any English dictionary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dead one View Post
In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where jesus himself claimed to be God or asked someone to worship him...
If you interested, neutrally read the below book.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12280074/200-ways-the-Quran-Corrects-the-Bible

The reality is all these folks were prophet of God and they preached oneness of God to their people, monotheism... But people didn't believe in them and associate partners with God... and created new religions..
I agree with you 100%. I'm not a Trinitarian. Just try telling what you're telling me to the Trinitarians on this website and see where it will get you. Nowhere.

ISAW

Medicine333 wrote: »

Absolutely, I 100% agree with you. Despite this, they still force their opinions on Christians etc. and act as if we're the ones who are misinterpreting.

Thank you for your reply. i dont bring my beliefs into a discussion. Please dont refer to "we"
I argue on the basis of something being logically and factually true not just because people believe in it.

It is logical for example to believe that the Jews took up stones to kill Jesus because they believed he had just claimed he was God.
It is logical that "I AM" is taken to refer to God.

It is logical that god does not act unreasonably

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

Medicine333

ISAW wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. i dont bring my beliefs into a discussion. Please dont refer to "we"
I argue on the basis of something being logically and factually true not just because people believe in it.

It is logical for example to believe that the Jews took up stones to kill Jesus because they believed he had just claimed he was God.
It is logical that "I AM" is taken to refer to God.

It is logical that god does not act unreasonably

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

When I said 'we' I wasn't referring to you:) I know where you stand-I said 'we' meaning 'Catholics,' including me.

ISAW

Before christmas some JWs came to my door and left a magasine about their views on the Trinity. "Should you believe in the Trinity"

Here is what I made of some of it.

Page 4
Ency. Amer. Misquoted.. it continies
",it is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind."

So, although we may not completely comprehend the infinite God with our finite minds, we do need to accept His revelation of His nature to us through the pages of the Bible, that is, by Divine revelation.  There is no confusion. We don't pretend to know the mind of God.but we can believe in God even if we don't understand everything about God..

Misquotes "A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge",
left out the author of the quote, the page number, the date, the publisher, etc. so the quote could not be easily traced.
Source: An obscure, out-of-print publication from 1875
Just prior to this quote, the article said,
"It is certain. however, that from the apostolic times they paid worship to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, addressed to them their prayers, and included them in their doxologies."
The article goes on to say,
"The Bible represents God to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it represents them as equally entitled to our highest reverence, affection, and allegiance."
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Lyman Abbott, p944, (1875)

Here are some more of Abbot's writings:
when I came to study the teachings of Jesus with my fellow students in this Congregational Bible Class, I found that he never mentioned vicarious atonement or the Fall of Adam or the Trinity. ("What Christianity Means to me, A spiritual autobiography by Lyman Abbott, about himself, 1922, p16

Abbott not only says that Trinity is of pagan origin, but also that most of what JW’s believe, including all church organization (e.g Watchtower) baptism, the Lord’s supper and the doctrine of blood atonement is pagan in origin.

Watchtower practice deceptive "selective quoting" by failing to note that Abbott says that early Christians worshipped Jesus (Abbott had to get one thing right!)

Even Abbott admits that Jesus was considered God and worshipped as God by the earliest Christians, even though he likely doesn’t believe it himself.

Original Source:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24601365M/A_dictionary_of_religious_knowledge
New Catholic encyclopedia.

Again, no page number, The article strongly supports the Trinity, giving its history. As regards “confusion” ...It is obvious that a doctrine (or belief) so mysterious requires a Divine revelation." Yes and the article goes to great length to explain how the Bible gradually reveals God's plan.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," = a mystery
The struggle the Catholic Church had with the Trinity was to put the concept of the three Persons in the Godhead into easily-understood language for its students.  Nothing derogatory to the Trinity itself was even hinted at.

The article by Rahner and Vorgrimler states the doctrine of the Trinity, and does not speak of it as error as the Watchtower publication would like to imply.  A good encyclopedia or dictionary should state the facts as they are, and not voice an opinion.

page .5

“trinity” not a word in the Bible – nor is “monotheism”
Nor is “rapture””Bible” “omnipotent” “atheist” or "Theocracy" but they are all accepted concepts.

Matt: 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
2Cor 13: 14
14 The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU.
Ephesians 4
4 One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.
Jude
20 But YOU, beloved ones, by building up yourselves on YOUR most holy faith, and praying with holy spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love, while YOU are waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view.

Page 6 – quote mining

The very liberal and controversial, "Encyclopedia of Religion" in this same article suggested,
"The fatherhood of God should be rethought in light of the critique of feminist theologies."
Feminist? The Watchtower sure won't like that!

How about this ?
"Trinitarian doctrine cannot be christomonistic, excluding persons of other faiths from salvation, nor can it surrender its conviction that God is fully present in Christ."
NCE

"In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor. 13: 13, and l Cor. 12: 4-6.  In the Gospels, evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt. 28, 19.  The article continues, In many places of the OT however expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity"

New Encyclopedia Brittanica
Another period where there is actually a comma in the original. The article here goes on at some length to support the Trinity, and actually concludes with these words:
'Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity"
Short History of Christian Doctrine ( Lohse) continues:
(p.39),
"In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ.  With these affirmations, which for Jewish monotheism were utterly offensive, Christians expressed their faith that it was not merely some heavenly being which encountered them in Jesus Christ, but God himself and that because of this, his coming, especially his cross and resurrection, had meaning for entire world."

E oRE "The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity (Greek words inserted) to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity (more Greek words).  At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly on theological reference."
NCE
"But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma".
Now proceed to the balance of the Watchtower quote which actually ends not with a period but a semi-colon and continue reading.
"among the 2nd- century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead."
No denial of the Trinity here!
Acts 20:28 God purchased the church with His own blood .
John 8:24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am , YOU will die in YOUR sins.

In the New Testament there are exactly four (4) occurrences where theos (God) appears as a singular predicate noun, without the article, before the verb; Luke 20:38; John 1:1& 8:54; Philippians 2:13
Watchtower said that this grammatical structure merited the translation, in John1:1 "a god." Yet, in every instance, the New World Translation has rendered theos as "God," contrary to the committee's rule, except one, John 1:1. In other words, they made a rule then broke it every time, except one occurrence when convenient.
John 8:58 [see KIT for these]


Ed fortman from p.6 ... i have a long separate reply ready

p.27

Newcome's translation p.200 “a god”
http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinim00newc#page/n5/mode/2up

Newcombe was Ussher's Successor as Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland . The Trinity would be something he believed in as a dogma. Consider his predecessors relationship to “Trinity” College – the college of the Holy and undivided Trinity.
Unitarians took Newcombe's unfinished version and had “a committee” alter it. They admit it is not a prefect version p. v

An attempt toward revising our English translation of the Greek Scriptures, and toward illustrating the sense by philological and explanatory notes (1796) (commonly known as Archbishop Newcome's new translation) This is to be distinguished from the revised version of Thomas Belsham published by Unitarians after his death: The New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation (1808), which, among other changes, did not include the Comma Johanneum. Newcome worked at a revision of the whole English bible, of which An Attempt was the New Testament portion. The work was withheld from publication until 1800, after Newcome's death; as the impression was damaged in crossing from Dublin, the number of copies for sale was small. In 1808 Unitarians issued anonymously their Improved Version. The adaptations for a sectarian purpose were mainly the work of Belsham, to whom an indignant reply was addressed (7 August 1809) by Newcome's brother-in-law, Joseph Stock, D.D., bishop of Killala and Achonry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Newcome

In fact the footnote of John 1:1 says that Newcombe had “the word was God” not “the word was a God” what we have here is a version that was originally done by Archbishop Newcome, but was then "corrected" by a group of Unitarians whose scholarly abilities are unknown.

Benjamin Wilson, only reads "a god" in the interlinear portion - Wilson's actual translation reads, "and the Logos was God." One gets the sense that the WTBTS is desperately trying to find some kind of scholarly support when it will go to the hyper-literal interlinear rendering of a rather obscure translator of the past century!

In 1985, the Society published a new edition of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. In Appendix 2A they added another "translation" to their list - that of John S. Thompson of Baltimore. This rendition, dated at 1829, is quoted as, "and the Logos was a god."

Who was John Thompson? The American Quarterly Review of September, 1830. Here we read Thompson saying, "I shall rejoice in having been the happy instrument, in the hand of God, of having done fourfold as much for mankind, as all the professed commentators of the last fifteen centuries!" Aside from a lack of humility, it seems Thompson was "moved about by every wind of doctrine" as well, moving from being a Calvinist to an Arminian Methodist preacher, to being a Restorationist, then on to an Arian Restorationist, until finally being a Unitarian Universalist (the same bunch that mistranslate Newcombe above.)Thompson admits to having experiences with - yup, you guessed it - spirit beings who instruct him to "be careful to represent Jesus as only the instrument of God in all he does. Source: Witnesses of Jehovah, Leonard and Marjorie Chretien.

The Society translates Schulz's version into English thus: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Johannes Schneider. They render , "and godlike sort was the Logos." Finally they cite the translation of Jurgen Becker, which they give as "and a god was the Logos”

Dr. Wiard Popkes of Theologisches Seminar des Bundes Evanglisch-Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland. In 1988 wrote :
"Johannes Schneider was a Baptist, teaching at the University in Berlin. He died around 1970. Siegfried Schulz and Jurgen Becker are both professors of New Testament, now in their later fifties, Schulz at the University of Zurich, Becker at the University of Kiel. Both of them belong to what can be called the main stream of German NT research, and certainly both of them owe much to Rudolf Bultmann. This does not mean, however, that their interpretations of John's prologue simply follow that of Bultmann. Rather, in the years after Bultmann much new research has been devoted to this very passage of Scripture."

Bultmann emphasized the need to "de-mythologize" the Bible; that is, take out all that supernatural silliness and you might have a chance to get back to the real historical Jesus. The German schools are still stuck in the rut of naturalistic biblical criticism, and two of the translations the Witnesses cite come straight from that perspective. These men are differ-entiating between the Father and the Son in John 1.1, as well they should. But the average Witness would not be aware of this, for they have been given false information as to just what the doctrine of the Trinity is. They feel that the Trinity presents the Father and Son as being one person. This is not Trinitarianism, but rather modalism, an ancient heresy that was sometimes called Sabellianism. These German scholars are trying to emphasize the separate existence of the Logos as a personal entity.

gimmebroadband

According to the teaching of CC, the Church of Christ of the Latter-Day Saints is not a Christian Religion.

For baptism to be valid one must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity - they don't believe in the Triune God.

From Fr. Zsblog.

Mormons are not Christians. Mormon baptism is not a valid, Christian baptism.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-are-mormons-christians/

JimiTime

gimmebroadband wrote: »

According to the teaching of CC, the Church of Christ of the Latter-Day Saints is not a Christian Religion.

For baptism to be valid one must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity - they don't believe in the Triune God.

From Fr. Zsblog.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-are-mormons-christians/

Mormons have nothing to do with JW's though, or am I missing something?

Benny_Cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

According to the teaching of CC, the Church of Christ of the Latter-Day Saints is not a Christian Religion.

For baptism to be valid one must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity - they don't believe in the Triune God.

From Fr. Zsblog.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-are-mormons-christians/

Getting completely off the track here, but while Mormon baptisms aren't accepted by most Christian churches for that reason, does that make them un-Christian in itself? The Salvation Army and Quakers don't have any water baptism at all and most would consider them to be Christian (although a minority of Quakers wouldn't identify themselves as such).

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

Mormons have nothing to do with JW's though, or am I missing something?

They are were both formed in America in the 19th century and hold to very unorthodox versions of Christianity, but aside from that they couldn't be more different.

gimmebroadband

Benny_Cake wrote: »

They are were both formed in America in the 19th century and hold to very unorthodox versions of Christianity, but aside from that they couldn't be more different.

I'm always open for correction, thought they were the same religion. :cool:

However, I did a search and neither have valid baptism, so are not classed as a Christian Denomination!

Benny_Cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm always open for correction, thought they were the same religion. :cool:

However, I did a seach and neither have valid baptism, so are not classed as a Christian Denomination!

In the case of the JW's, baptism is in the name of Jehovah, so that's not recognised as valid. In the case of the LDS, baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so it's a little more complicated - most denominations ended up deciding that although the formula was correct, the understanding of the Trinity is different, and so Mormon baptism is also unrecognised. As I was saying though, there are churches and groups which would be considered Christian and which don't practice baptism at all - the Salvation Army and Quakers both participate in Churches Together for example, so simply having a different formula of baptism doesn't make them un-Christian in itself.

gimmebroadband

Granted, many non-Christians are more Christian in nature than many of those who have been baptised Christian. At the end of the day, we will be judged on how much we have loved!

On a side-note, I love listening to the wonderful singing of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, very few choirs compare to them. Also like listening to the Vienna Boys Choir!

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Granted, many non-Christians are more Christian in nature than many of those who have been baptised Christian. At the end of the day, we will be judged on how much we have loved!

Following this logic to the end forces us to put under the microscope, the worst scoring person in heaven and the best scoring person in hell.

These two individual would be separated in how much they loved - i.e. a gnat's whisker. Yet the one enjoys eternal bliss and the other eternal torment.

Bummer for the one who loses out. If only he had given a single beggar more, one measly heartfelt fiver .. he'd be in clover.

Regens Kuechl

Benny_Cake wrote: »

They are were both formed in America in the 19th century and hold to very unorthodox versions of Christianity, but aside from that they couldn't be more different.

Some things in common do spring to mind.

1) The JW have their own special selfmade translation of the bible especially made to suit the dogmas of their sect (like for example house to house prosetilizing).
The mormons have their own selfmade sacred sequel to the bible : book mormon.
So one can say they both made themselves a special holy book no other sect has.

2)They both are known to seggregate themselves a lot from normal people.

3)They both take on a rather neutral stand in the old earth - young earth debate so that they can lure followers of both sides into their sects.

4)They both do not believe in a literal hell.

ISAW

Regens Kuechl wrote: »

Some things in common do spring to mind.

1) The JW have their own special selfmade translation of the bible especially made to suit the dogmas of their sect (like for example house to house prosetilizing).

I would argue JWs don't take their beliefs from the Bible but from the Watchtower. When the Watchtower changes their central tenets e.g. changing from worshiping Jesus to not doing so they change the Biblical backup for their position.

similarly they take their door to door ideas from JW publications.
There is another reason for this.
The New York operation is funded by the huge number of publications the JW sell to their own members.
And i mean in the internet friendly world they publish the largest number of magazines in the world. what they could give to their own members for free they sell at huge markups.

You can however like those of scientology find their printed materials on the net.

user098

Are all Irish JW's members of a cult ? I find that hard to believe.
I've come accross a few JW's at work, they seem decent enough, and happy.

dvae

ISAW wrote: »

The New York operation is funded by the huge number of publications the JW sell to their own members.

what they could give to their own members for free they sell at huge markups.

my wife is a Jehovah witness, and i myself have studied and attended a
few of there meetings from time to time.
a common misconception is that the magazines they promote at the door are either for sale,
or are bought and paid for by the individual jw at your doorstep.
all the literature that the jw society provide is free. this includes the watchtower and awake
magazine, the bible, and any other piece of literature the society print.
like most other churches they do have have a donation box, usually placed at the back of there
kingdom halls.
however all donations are completely anonymous, and no one is expected
to donate unless they feel they are financially able.
all money raised goes to wards the printing of literature, the building and upkeep of new
kingdom halls and so forth.

ISAW

dvae wrote: »

my wife is a Jehovah witness, and i myself have studied and attended a
few of there meetings from time to time.
a common misconception is that the magazines they promote at the door are either for sale,
or are bought and paid for by the individual jw at your doorstep.
all the literature that the jw society provide is free. this includes the watchtower and awake
magazine, the bible, and any other piece of literature the society print.
like most other churches they do have have a donation box, usually placed at the back of there
kingdom halls.
however all donations are completely anonymous, and no one is expected
to donate unless they feel they are financially able.
all money raised goes to wards the printing of literature, the building and upkeep of new
kingdom halls and so forth.

Can you provide account numbers of "donations" versus the printing and distribution costs?
I suggest there are large profits.
why dont the JWs for example provide informatiàon and ask people to see their web site ans save the printing of huge numbers of wasteful paper?

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Granted, many non-Christians are more Christian in nature than many of those who have been baptised Christian. At the end of the day, we will be judged on how much we have loved!

Following this logic to the end forces us to put under the microscope, the worst scoring person in heaven and the best scoring person in hell.

These two individual would be separated in how much they loved - i.e. a gnat's whisker. Yet the one enjoys eternal bliss and the other eternal torment.

Bummer for the one who loses out. If only he had given a single beggar more, one measly heartfelt fiver .. he'd be in clover.

That doesn't seem any stranger than most religious beliefs taken to their logical conclusion though, is it?

JimiTime

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That doesn't seem any stranger than most religious beliefs taken to their logical conclusion though, is it?

No it doesn't, but this being the Christian forum, the context is not 'most religious beliefs' but uniquely Christianity. Salvation not coming through ourselves and the things we do, but rather through Jesus Christ.

So you are right, the concept mentioned is no stranger than most religious beliefs, but The good news of the kingdom brought by Christ stands alone, and that is the standard we look to.

Monty Burnz

JimiTime wrote: »

No it doesn't, but this being the Christian forum, the context is not 'most religious beliefs' but uniquely Christianity. Salvation not coming through ourselves and the things we do, but rather through Jesus Christ.

So you are right, the concept mentioned is no stranger than most religious beliefs, but The good news of the kingdom brought by Christ stands alone, and that is the standard we look to.

Depending on which faction of Christianity you belong to of course.

Benny_Cake

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Depending on which faction of Christianity you belong to of course.

While their may be some differences of emphasis and interpretation, the belief in salvation through God's grace in the person of Jesus Christ is pretty much the core of the faith regardless of which denominations or strain of Christianity you are in.

Monty Burnz

Benny_Cake wrote: »

While their may be some differences of emphasis and interpretation, the belief in salvation through God's grace in the person of Jesus Christ is pretty much the core of the faith regardless of which denominations or strain of Christianity you are in.

So it doesn't really matter whether you are a good person? Man, I've totally got the wrong end of the stick so.

JimiTime

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So it doesn't really matter whether you are a good person? Man, I've totally got the wrong end of the stick so.

Indeed you do. God is good, that is all. Your concept, or the worlds concept in general of good, would still fall short and inherit the wages of sin. If following the rules or the law, and adhering to some subjective form of goodness was all that was required, then there would have never been a need for Jesus' coming.

PDN

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So it doesn't really matter whether you are a good person? Man, I've totally got the wrong end of the stick so.

And you will continue to have the wrong end of the stick if, instead of listening to what people are actually saying, you choose to misrepresent them.

Monty Burnz

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed you do. God is good, that is all. Your concept, or the worlds concept in general of good, would still fall short and inherit the wages of sin. If following the rules or the law, and adhering to some subjective form of goodness was all that was required, then there would have never been a need for Jesus' coming.

But what you describe as a 'subjective' form of good was the 'good' outlined in the Bible, which is the word of God - so how is that 'subjective'? Why didn't god provide objective instructions instead of these 'subjective' ones?

kjw47

Regens Kuechl wrote: »

Some things in common do spring to mind.

1) The JW have their own special selfmade translation of the bible especially made to suit the dogmas of their sect (like for example house to house prosetilizing).
The mormons have their own selfmade sacred sequel to the bible : book mormon.
So one can say they both made themselves a special holy book no other sect has.

2)They both are known to seggregate themselves a lot from normal people.

3)They both take on a rather neutral stand in the old earth - young earth debate so that they can lure followers of both sides into their sects.

4)They both do not believe in a literal hell.

You may think the nwt is self made translation but this is reality---- catholocism held councils headed by a false god worshipping king--thus Jesus would not be apart of it--- They made up many false teachings at those councils, and for at least 1000 years after that they would not let people read Gods word for themselves--finally after burning humans alive for trying to translate Gods word into the language of the day--the clergy allowed it to be translated under the guise of heresy--thus all the false teachings taught as truth for those 1000 years caused many alterations in their translations to try and fit in council teachings. which carried over into every trinity based translation ever translated. The nwt is Gods word corrected.

JimiTime

kjw47 wrote: »

The nwt is Gods word corrected.

Not only is that so, so wrong, but its also not an original thought. You are merely regurgitating a JW mantra. You actually have no idea about what you are talking about, but are saying it based on faith in the organisation being right. The thought process is usually if you can't answer the question, the answer is available from a book (Such as one of the 'Insight' books) or a more informed JW. The reality, is that when you pass on doctrine like the above, you actually do not know if its really true or not, but such is your trust in the organisation to be the givers of 'the truth', that you do not even need to think about such a thing.

All i can say is, I really hope you question these things someday without the fear that its Satan trying to influence you. The JW's are a very slick machine when it comes programming its adherents. "Don't listen to any former members, they are apostates', 'If you find yourself doubting the organisation, its Satan getting in' etc etc. They really try cover the bases.

kjw47

JimiTime wrote: »

Not only is that so, so wrong, but its also not an original thought. You are merely regurgitating a JW mantra. You actually have no idea about what you are talking about, but are saying it based on faith in the organisation being right. The thought process is usually if you can't answer the question, the answer is available from a book (Such as one of the 'Insight' books) or a more informed JW. The reality, is that when you pass on doctrine like the above, you actually do not know if its really true or not, but such is your trust in the organisation to be the givers of 'the truth', that you do not even need to think about such a thing.

All i can say is, I really hope you question these things someday without the fear that its Satan trying to influence you. The JW's are a very slick machine when it comes programming its adherents. "Don't listen to any former members, they are apostates', 'If you find yourself doubting the organisation, its Satan getting in' etc etc. They really try cover the bases.

I checked things out-- its fact that catholocism made up the trinity god at those councils-- its fact the nwt translators are the only ones who ever had enough love and respect for Jehovah that they were the only ones to put his personal name back into the nearly 7000 places wicked men removed it. its fact that the JW,s are the only religion who actually listen to Jesus and apply his words. Here is a prime example of proof--- Jesus said--- Happy are the meek for they will inherit the earth--False religion teaches heaven or hell as an end--they throw away this truth given by Jesus--The JW,s teach it because its truth.

JimiTime

kjw47 wrote: »

I checked things out

Really? Did this checking out involve anything outside of a watchtower or Insight book etc? Or being led by an elder or bible study conductor? Be honest. Or would such checking out be discouraged by the organisation? After all, if its not of the organisation, how can it be trusted right?

-- its fact that catholocism made up the trinity god at those councils

Its a fact that the theology of the Trinity was indeed hammered out in the early church. However, this JW idea that it just rose out of a desire for paganism is quite misplaced. If you disagree with the theology, at least base it on the correct information.

-- its fact the nwt translators are the only ones who ever had enough love and respect for Jehovah that they were the only ones to put his personal name back into the nearly 7000 places wicked men removed it.

That is not a fact, its a statement of trust. You'll need to provide evidence that the NWT is more accurate than more traditional translations.

its fact that the JW,s are the only religion who actually listen to Jesus and apply his words.

Again, thats quite the presumption. Its far from fact.

Here is a prime example of proof--- Jesus said--- Happy are the meek for they will inherit the earth--False religion teaches heaven or hell as an end--they throw away this truth given by Jesus--The JW,s teach it because its truth.

Many Christians here, including myself, believe in a New Heaven AND a New Earth as described by the scriptures. You seem to presume that the JW's are the only ones that talk about a New Earth?


In my experience, no phrase describes the JW's better than the following:
"The best place to hide a lie is between two truths!"

I think I said it to you before, but you are like a mirror image of me arguing the JW's case from about 12 years ago. The resemblance is uncanny. Meeting real Christians (Not the Caricature ones that the JW's paint) showed me in my youthful arrogance that something was a miss with what we were being told. It took a long time, but the house of cards finally fell. All I can say is, don't presume you know Christianity, just because you know a few dodgy Roman Catholic doctrines and know a few professing Christians who are hypocritical cultural sorts. There are a tremendous number of dedicated people of God moving throughout the world spreading the Good News of the Kingdom.

kjw47

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? Did this checking out involve anything outside of a watchtower or Insight book etc? Or being led by an elder or bible study conductor? Be honest. Or would such checking out be discouraged by the organisation? After all, if its not of the organisation, how can it be trusted right?



Its a fact that the theology of the Trinity was indeed hammered out in the early church. However, this JW idea that it just rose out of a desire for paganism is quite misplaced. If you disagree with the theology, at least base it on the correct information.



That is not a fact, its a statement of trust. You'll need to provide evidence that the NWT is more accurate than more traditional translations.



Again, thats quite the presumption. Its far from fact.



Many Christians here, including myself, believe in a New Heaven AND a New Earth as described by the scriptures. You seem to presume that the JW's are the only ones that talk about a New Earth?


In my experience, no phrase describes the JW's better than the following:
"The best place to hide a lie is between two truths!"

I think I said it to you before, but you are like a mirror image of me arguing the JW's case from about 12 years ago. The resemblance is uncanny. Meeting real Christians (Not the Caricature ones that the JW's paint) showed me in my youthful arrogance that something was a miss with what we were being told. It took a long time, but the house of cards finally fell. All I can say is, don't presume you know Christianity, just because you know a few dodgy Roman Catholic doctrines and know a few professing Christians who are hypocritical cultural sorts. There are a tremendous number of dedicated people of God moving throughout the world spreading the Good News of the Kingdom.

I appreciate your actually putting some time into your findings, but again i tell you the JW,s are the only ones listening to Jesus and applying--more proof---- Jesus said the one who sent him is the ONLY TRUE GOD= John 17:1-6-John 5:30) Paul taught the same-1 cor 8:6) Jesus stressed 4 times in 1 paragraph to the world ( while sitting at Gods right hand) that he has a God-rev 3:12) also we find at 1 cor 15:24-28--Jesus must become a subject to his God and Father after he hands back the kingdom( kingship) after his appointed 1000 year reign as king. Only a creation is subject to God. One fact for sure is that God does not have a God.
Another undisputable fact of history of the israelites down to the modern day Jewish religion-- Moses,David,Daniel,Abraham,Job,Noah,Lot,Isaiah, etc all served the true God--They all served YHWH(Jehovah) a single being God. Which means when Jesus attended the synagogues his first 30 years, he was taught a single being God named YHWH( Jehovah) he never disputed that fact. None of these things are truths just because the watchtower says they are--they are all fact.

ISAW

kjw47 wrote: »

I appreciate your actually putting some time into your findings, but again i tell you the JW,s are the only ones listening to Jesus and applying--more proof---- Jesus said the one who sent him is the ONLY TRUE GOD= John 17:1-6-John 5:30) Paul taught the same-1 cor 8:6) Jesus stressed 4 times in 1 paragraph to the world ( while sitting at Gods right hand) that he has a God-rev 3:12) also we find at 1 cor 15:24-28--Jesus must become a subject to his God and Father after he hands back the kingdom( kingship) after his appointed 1000 year reign as king. Only a creation is subject to God. One fact for sure is that God does not have a God.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78285588&postcount=3

First and most obviously to anyone who has looked at the NWT is the appearance of JEHOVAH in the NT portion over two hundred times where the Greek text has KURIOS (LORD). The second way in which the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of text in which Jesus is called God (Isa 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Acts 20:28), of these, the NWT translates four so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1), and two so that he is "A god" or "god" (John 1:1, 18). The remaining three texts (Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20), are not mistranslated, but are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in a lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT translates texts that call Jesus God in such a way as to keep the text from making that identification!

Col 1:16-20


the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek


Awful embarrassing for Jw's to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw's attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!

The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

I Timothy 4:1

"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."

This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".


Titus 2:13
"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Hebrews 1:8
"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."
The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

1 John 4:1-6
"Spirit" changed to "inspired expression"
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God" (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that "INSPIRED EXPRESSION" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as "SPIRIT" in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).

The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".

Jude 19
"Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality."
Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 3:14
"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."
The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

compare English under the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation
with their NWT english


Colossians 1:16-17
“all (things)”


“all [other] things”
“Other” added 4 times, though it is not present in the Greek; sometimes quoted without brackets in the publications [e.g. WT, 4/1/93, page 11]. Addition of “other” makes Jesus a thing. The brackets are not present in the 1950 edition of the NWT.

Philippians 2:9
“over every name”

“above every other name” Why this addition of “other”?
For consideration: what is the name above every name?

Romans 8:1
“nothing really now condemnation to the (ones) in Christ Jesus;”

“therefore those in Christ Jesus have no condemnation”;
Greek word “now” is omitted, weakening the assurance of present reality.

Hebrews 11:13
“strangers and alien residents
they are “upon the earth”.
[Context is Hebrew patriarchs]

“strangers and temporary residents in the land”.
The WT teaches that Old Testament believers do not go to heaven, but will live on the earth.]

Romans 8:23

“awaiting the release by ransom of the body of us”
“waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.” The WT does not believe in the resurrection of the body.
John 14:14

[Jesus speaking] “ask me in
the name of me”
“ask anything in my name.” “me” is left out. On page 9 of the Foreword in the 1969 edition it says, “Where we have varied from the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.” [No such footnotes here. Jehovah’s: Witnesses do not pray to Jesus.]

Corinthians 5:17

“if anyone in Christ, new
creation;”
“if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation;”
The adding of “union with” occurs very often in NWT: Col. 1:2,28; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor.13:5; Rom. 16:7; etc. In Gal.2:20, Christ “in union with me”. “Union with” isn’t in the Greek.

1 Corinthians 11:23,25
“This of me is the body….
The new covenant is in the
my blood”
“this means my body”….
This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood” *

Colossians 1:27-28
“to whom willed the God to
make known what the riches f the glory of the mystery this in the nations which is Christ in YOU ,the hope of the glory;”
To whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret among the nations. It is Christ in union with YOU, the hope of [his] glory.”
The Greek “musterion” is always translated “Sacred secret” by the WT. Christians sometimes speak of the Trinity as a “mystery”, hence, conceivably, the WT avoids the word. See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words: “In the ordinary sense a ‘mystery’ implies knowledge withheld; its Scriptural significance is truth revealed.”

Romans 5:18

“all men into condemnation”
“all men into justification of
life.”
“men of all sorts was condemnation…”
“men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life”

John 8:58

“Before Abraham to become
I am.”
“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” The WT’s footnote to John 8:58 gave, consecutively, three different grammatical rules as basis for this “have been” rendering. In fact, the footnote in the KIT’s 1969 edition says, “properly rendered in the perfect tense”, while the KIT’s 1985 edition says, “properly translated by the perfect indicative”! And earlier explanations, like “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 edition, have been discarded. The correct rendering is “I AM”. Compare Exodus 3:14.

Another undisputable fact of history of the israelites down to the modern day Jewish religion-- Moses,David,Daniel,Abraham,Job,Noah,Lot,Isaiah, etc all served the true God--They all served YHWH(Jehovah) a single being God. Which means when Jesus attended the synagogues his first 30 years, he was taught a single being God named YHWH( Jehovah) he never disputed that fact. None of these things are truths just because the watchtower says they are--they are all fact.

Christians believe in one God. they don't dispute it. Catholics Protestants Orthodox all believe in one God.

homer911

user098 wrote: »

Are all Irish JW's members of a cult ? I find that hard to believe.
I've come accross a few JW's at work, they seem decent enough, and happy.

To answer that question you would need to understand what a cult is -there is no clear definition of a cult, but there are a number of recognisable signs of a cult - control of its members in one or more forms would be one of the signs of a cult. When you consider the information control that the watchtower exercises (publications, heavily edited bible), the emotional and physical control over family and friends (shunning), the control over finances (tithing), then I think it would be fair to say that the JWs are a cult

kjw47

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78285588&postcount=3

First and most obviously to anyone who has looked at the NWT is the appearance of JEHOVAH in the NT portion over two hundred times where the Greek text has KURIOS (LORD). The second way in which the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of text in which Jesus is called God (Isa 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Acts 20:28), of these, the NWT translates four so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1), and two so that he is "A god" or "god" (John 1:1, 18). The remaining three texts (Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20), are not mistranslated, but are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in a lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT translates texts that call Jesus God in such a way as to keep the text from making that identification!

Col 1:16-20


the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek


Awful embarrassing for Jw's to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw's attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!

The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

I Timothy 4:1

"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."

This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".


Titus 2:13
"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Hebrews 1:8
"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."
The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

1 John 4:1-6
"Spirit" changed to "inspired expression"
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God" (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that "INSPIRED EXPRESSION" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as "SPIRIT" in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).

The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".

Jude 19
"Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality."
Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 3:14
"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."
The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

compare English under the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation
with their NWT english


Colossians 1:16-17
“all (things)”


“all [other] things”
“Other” added 4 times, though it is not present in the Greek; sometimes quoted without brackets in the publications [e.g. WT, 4/1/93, page 11]. Addition of “other” makes Jesus a thing. The brackets are not present in the 1950 edition of the NWT.

Philippians 2:9
“over every name”

“above every other name” Why this addition of “other”?
For consideration: what is the name above every name?

Romans 8:1
“nothing really now condemnation to the (ones) in Christ Jesus;”

“therefore those in Christ Jesus have no condemnation”;
Greek word “now” is omitted, weakening the assurance of present reality.

Hebrews 11:13
“strangers and alien residents
they are “upon the earth”.
[Context is Hebrew patriarchs]

“strangers and temporary residents in the land”.
The WT teaches that Old Testament believers do not go to heaven, but will live on the earth.]

Romans 8:23

“awaiting the release by ransom of the body of us”
“waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.” The WT does not believe in the resurrection of the body.
John 14:14

[Jesus speaking] “ask me in
the name of me”
“ask anything in my name.” “me” is left out. On page 9 of the Foreword in the 1969 edition it says, “Where we have varied from the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading.” [No such footnotes here. Jehovah’s: Witnesses do not pray to Jesus.]

Corinthians 5:17

“if anyone in Christ, new
creation;”
“if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation;”
The adding of “union with” occurs very often in NWT: Col. 1:2,28; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor.13:5; Rom. 16:7; etc. In Gal.2:20, Christ “in union with me”. “Union with” isn’t in the Greek.

1 Corinthians 11:23,25
“This of me is the body….
The new covenant is in the
my blood”
“this means my body”….
This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood” *

Colossians 1:27-28
“to whom willed the God to
make known what the riches f the glory of the mystery this in the nations which is Christ in YOU ,the hope of the glory;”
To whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret among the nations. It is Christ in union with YOU, the hope of [his] glory.”
The Greek “musterion” is always translated “Sacred secret” by the WT. Christians sometimes speak of the Trinity as a “mystery”, hence, conceivably, the WT avoids the word. See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words: “In the ordinary sense a ‘mystery’ implies knowledge withheld; its Scriptural significance is truth revealed.”

Romans 5:18

“all men into condemnation”
“all men into justification of
life.”
“men of all sorts was condemnation…”
“men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life”

John 8:58

“Before Abraham to become
I am.”
“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” The WT’s footnote to John 8:58 gave, consecutively, three different grammatical rules as basis for this “have been” rendering. In fact, the footnote in the KIT’s 1969 edition says, “properly rendered in the perfect tense”, while the KIT’s 1985 edition says, “properly translated by the perfect indicative”! And earlier explanations, like “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 edition, have been discarded. The correct rendering is “I AM”. Compare Exodus 3:14.



Christians believe in one God. they don't dispute it. Catholics Protestants Orthodox all believe in one God.

Its impossible for your religion to believe in one God, because your teaching from Jesus words at rev 3:12 would have to be this---- God has a God and another God over there--- that is not one God.
The facts of history you refuse to see is that the israelites served a single being God not a trinity god.
Even Jesus speaking here in the ot at Proverbs 8: 22 prove Jesus was a creation. Jesus is Gods master worker.
It was catholocism translators that altered Gods word centuries ago.
Even Jesus denied he wasnt God when he told all who actually listen to him at John 17:1-6 that-- the Father is the only true God--How is that so difficult to understand.
Heres another fact of reality you may have missed

---

Noahs day 99% mislead by satan--israelites fell away constantly--99% mislead by satan--- Jesus,apostles, christians all murdered-- 99% mislead by satan---these last days-- 99% mislead by satan.

Monty Burnz

kjw47 wrote: »

Heres another fact of reality you may have missed

---

Noahs day 99% mislead by satan--israelites fell away constantly--99% mislead by satan--- Jesus,apostles, christians all murdered-- 99% mislead by satan---these last days-- 99% mislead by satan.

How fortunate that then that - against all the odds - you belong not only to the one true faith, but also to the one true version of the one true faith.

What a coincidence.

PDN

kjw47 wrote: »

It was catholocism translators that altered Gods word centuries ago.

Great - you can read Greek? That should make for a good informed discussion on this as it just so happens that I can read Greek too.

The text of the Greek manuscripts are available on line. Please show us where the Greek text says one thing and where modern Bible translations have got it wrong or have changed the meaning to support the Trinity.

If you can read Hebrew then I'm up for the same thing with the Old Testament - but maybe you aren't as proficient in Hebrew as you are in Greek?

Either way, I await your evidence.

kjw47

PDN wrote: »

Great - you can read Greek? That should make for a good informed discussion on this as it just so happens that I can read Greek too.

The text of the Greek manuscripts are available on line. Please show us where the Greek text says one thing and where modern Bible translations have got it wrong or have changed the meaning to support the Trinity.

If you can read Hebrew then I'm up for the same thing with the Old Testament - but maybe you aren't as proficient in Hebrew as you are in Greek?

Either way, I await your evidence.

I cant read greek-- i know a little, but using Gods word as evidence for itself shows certain words were altered to fit council teachings--Like Jesus clearly taught that the Father is the only true God--John 17:1-6--which is proof an a belongs at John 1:1--and that the greek word used for worship( to God) also carries the same meaning of obesiance ( to a King) Jesus is taught as being Gods appointed king for 1000 years. so to Jesus obesiance is the correct meaning, not worship( since Jesus and Paul taught that only the father is God( 1 cor 8:6)
Every other religion on the planet claiming to be christian( trinity) knows catholocism is not of God and many of their teachings are false, but then turn around and refuse to believe they erred in translating. It makes no sense.If Jesus is not with catholocism then certainly satan is. And if one doesnt think satan can have Gods written word messed with--proof is that wicked men influenced by satan had Gods personal name removed and replaced with--GOD-LORD( titles).

Monty Burnz

kjw47 wrote: »

I cant read greek-- i know a little, but using Gods word as evidence for itself shows certain words were altered to fit council teachings

God's word in the original Greek, or in the translation into English by your sect?

kjw47

Monty Burnz wrote: »

God's word in the original Greek, or in the translation into English by your sect?

The trinitarians translations prove them false even with the alterations. Here is an example

---

Jesus taught Happy are the meek for they will inherit the earth--- the psalmist wrote--- The righteous will possess the earth and reside forever upon it..... so if a religion claiming to be christian teach heaven or hell as an end--then they do not teach truth.

PDN

kjw47 wrote: »

I cant read greek-- i know a little, but using Gods word as evidence for itself shows certain words were altered to fit council teachings--Like Jesus clearly taught that the Father is the only true God--John 17:1-6--which is proof an a belongs at John 1:1--and that the greek word used for worship( to God) also carries the same meaning of obesiance ( to a King) Jesus is taught as being Gods appointed king for 1000 years. so to Jesus obesiance is the correct meaning, not worship( since Jesus and Paul taught that only the father is God( 1 cor 8:6)
Every other religion on the planet claiming to be christian( trinity) knows catholocism is not of God and many of their teachings are false, but then turn around and refuse to believe they erred in translating. It makes no sense.If Jesus is not with catholocism then certainly satan is. And if one doesnt think satan can have Gods written word messed with--proof is that wicked men influenced by satan had Gods personal name removed and replaced with--GOD-LORD( titles).

So you're claiming the Greek text was altered - but unfortunately you can't demonstrate this to us because you can't actually read Greek. Hmmm.

OK, maybe your knowledge of Church History is a bit better than your knowledge of Greek? You're claiming that Church Councils altered the Word of God. Can you please tell me of any one Early Church Council that changed any one word of the Bible? We have records of the decisions of Early Church Councils, and these are freely available online, so it shouldn't be too hard pointing out these changes if they actually happened, should it?

PDN

kjw47 wrote: »

Every other religion on the planet claiming to be christian( trinity) knows catholocism is not of God and many of their teachings are false, but then turn around and refuse to believe they erred in translating. It makes no sense.If Jesus is not with catholocism then certainly satan is. And if one doesnt think satan can have Gods written word messed with--proof is that wicked men influenced by satan had Gods personal name removed and replaced with--GOD-LORD( titles).

Your ignorance at this point is really quite stunning. Other Christian churches don't rely on any translations made by Catholicism. Modern Bible translations into English etc are made directly from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

However, the New World Translation has altered the New Testament greatly by adding the word 'Jehovah' 237 times in the New Testament, even though that word does not occur in the Greek.

bonniebede

kjw47 wrote: »

I cant read greek-- i know a little, but using Gods word as evidence for itself shows certain words were altered to fit council teachings--Like Jesus clearly taught that the Father is the only true God--John 17:1-6--which is proof an a belongs at John 1:1--and that the greek word used for worship( to God) also carries the same meaning of obesiance ( to a King) Jesus is taught as being Gods appointed king for 1000 years. so to Jesus obesiance is the correct meaning, not worship( since Jesus and Paul taught that only the father is God( 1 cor 8:6)
Every other religion on the planet claiming to be christian( trinity) knows catholocism is not of God and many of their teachings are false, but then turn around and refuse to believe they erred in translating. It makes no sense.If Jesus is not with catholocism then certainly satan is. And if one doesnt think satan can have Gods written word messed with--proof is that wicked men influenced by satan had Gods personal name removed and replaced with--GOD-LORD( titles).

I speak a little greek, no hebrew sadly, but also a little latin. That helps with some of the councils.

What fascinates me is if John 1 is correctly translated in the NWT, the Jesus is 'a God'. So there is more than one God. how can this be when the bible is clear there is only one god? Do JW's believe there is more than one God?

gawker

I'll jump in on this thread if that's OK. I have been having "bible study" with the JWs for a few months now. I have no interest in joining and they know that (devout atheist here!) but find the whole experience very interesting. They claim to base everything on the Bible yet they misrepresent some parts in their literature. They selectively quote scripture alot and seem repulsed at "Christianity" today. Their constant reference to the cross not being acceptable seems odd and borderline obsessive. Having said that, their teachings on hell would be more in line with what was originally intended in the scriptures from what I can see.

JimiTime

gawker wrote: »

I'll jump in on this thread if that's OK. I have been having "bible study" with the JWs for a few months now. I have no interest in joining and they know that (devout atheist here!) but find the whole experience very interesting. They claim to base everything on the Bible yet they misrepresent some parts in their literature. They selectively quote scripture alot and seem repulsed at "Christianity" today.

nail on the head. Not only do they indulge a lot in selective quoting, but their translation is mistranslated to back up their doctrines.

Their constant reference to the cross not being acceptable seems odd and borderline obsessive.

Amazingly enough, it was something I was the same about when I was inviolved with them. It was only after I had seen them as false prophets etc that I looked back and thought, 'Hang on a minute, what does it actually matter if it was a Crossbeam or a single beam that Jesus went to his death on??'.

Having said that, their teachings on hell would be more in line with what was originally intended in the scriptures from what I can see.

I have to agree. I've still never been convinced of the whole eternal conscious punishment. I mean, I still can't see how you can take Johns plain statement in revelation about the lake of fire. He actually says concisely, 'Which is the second death of which there is no resurrection'. Again though, I don't think you'll find agreement on what hell is amongst Christians. Again though, one must ask how important is it to know the details? I mean, whatever it is, it will be of no consaquence to the saved.

gimmebroadband

Scriptures is filled with descriptions of Hell, and the early Church Fathers were also absolutely firm on the reality of an eternal hell.
The following is an extract from an article on Hell, and the link will bring you to some of the writings of the early Church Fathers on Hell.

The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons—all have rejected or modified the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer a serious threat.

But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is