Russell's Arrogant Claim!!!!!

[Krusader]

Charles Taze Russell, the arrogant founder of the Watchtower Society, taught that were you to set aside his books and simply read the Bible alone, after two years the person would go into spiritual darkness. However, given the "new light" that his organization, the Watchtower Society, has had since Russell's death, it appears that Russell himself was in spiritual darkness. See Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, pg. 298.

I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!

Would any witness care to take me up on this?

[barryrob]

Charles Taze Russell, the arrogant founder of the Watchtower Society, taught that were you to set aside his books and simply read the Bible alone, after two years the person would go into spiritual darkness. However, given the "new light" that his organization, the Watchtower Society, has had since Russell's death, it appears that Russell himself was in spiritual darkness. See Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, pg. 298.

I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!

Would any witness care to take me up on this?

I will use the K.J.V. if you like starting here:-

King James Version 1611 Psalm 83:18
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

O.T. Psalm 83:18
(ASV) That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.



(BBE) So that men may see that you only, whose name is Yahweh, are Most High over all the earth.



(Darby) That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth.



(GB) That they may knowe that thou, which art called Iehouah, art alone, euen the most High ouer all the earth.



(HCSB) May they know that You alone--whose name is Yahweh--are the Most High over all the earth.



(HOT) (83:19) וידעו כי־אתה שׁמך יהוה לבדך עליון על־כל־הארץ׃



(KJV) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(KJV+) That men may know3045 that3588 thou,859 whose name8034 alone905 is JEHOVAH,3068 art the most high5945 over5921 all3605 the earth.776



(KJV-1611) That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is IEHOVAH: art the most High ouer all the earth.



(KJVA) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(KJVR) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(WEB) that they may know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth.



(Webster) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(WNT)



(YLT) And they know that Thou--(Thy name is Jehovah--by Thyself,) Art the Most High over all the earth!

or here

O.T. Ex 3:6



(ASV) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.



(BBE) I let myself be seen by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God, the Ruler of all; but they had no knowledge of my name Yahweh.



(Darby) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty *God; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them.



(GB) And I appeared vnto Abraham, to Izhak, and to Iaakob by the Name of Almightie God: but by my Name Iehouah was I not knowen vnto the.



(GW) I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I didn't make myself known to them by my name, the LORD.



(HCSB) I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not make My name Yahweh known to them.



(HOT) וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שׁדי ושׁמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם׃





(JPS) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah I made Me not known to them.



(KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(KJV+) And I appeared7200 unto413 Abraham,85 unto413 Isaac,3327 and unto413 Jacob,3290 by the name of God410 Almighty,7706 but by my name8034 JEHOVAH3068 was I not3808 known3045 to them.



(KJV-1611) And I appeared vnto Abraham, vnto Isaac, and vnto Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty, but by my name IEHOVAH was I not knowen to them.



(KJVA) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(KJVR) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(WEB) and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.



(Webster) And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(YLT) and I appear unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them;

From e-Sword
Barryrob

[Krusader]

I will use the K.J.V. if you like starting here:-

King James Version 1611 Psalm 83:18
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

O.T. Psalm 83:18
(ASV) That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.



(BBE) So that men may see that you only, whose name is Yahweh, are Most High over all the earth.



(Darby) That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth.



(GB) That they may knowe that thou, which art called Iehouah, art alone, euen the most High ouer all the earth.



(HCSB) May they know that You alone--whose name is Yahweh--are the Most High over all the earth.





(HOT)(83:19) וידעו כי־אתה שׁמך יהוה לבדך עליון על־כל־הארץ׃







(KJV) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(KJV+) That men may know3045 that3588 thou,859 whose name8034 alone905 is JEHOVAH,3068 art the most high5945 over5921 all3605 the earth.776



(KJV-1611) That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is IEHOVAH: art the most High ouer all the earth.



(KJVA) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(KJVR) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(WEB) that they may know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth.



(Webster) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.



(WNT)



(YLT) And they know that Thou--(Thy name is Jehovah--by Thyself,) Art the Most High over all the earth!

or here

O.T. Ex 3:6



(ASV) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.



(BBE) I let myself be seen by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God, the Ruler of all; but they had no knowledge of my name Yahweh.



(Darby) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty *God; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them.



(GB) And I appeared vnto Abraham, to Izhak, and to Iaakob by the Name of Almightie God: but by my Name Iehouah was I not knowen vnto the.



(GW) I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I didn't make myself known to them by my name, the LORD.



(HCSB) I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not make My name Yahweh known to them.





(HOT)וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שׁדי ושׁמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם׃









(JPS) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah I made Me not known to them.



(KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(KJV+) And I appeared7200 unto413 Abraham,85 unto413 Isaac,3327 and unto413 Jacob,3290 by the name of God410 Almighty,7706 but by my name8034 JEHOVAH3068 was I not3808 known3045 to them.



(KJV-1611) And I appeared vnto Abraham, vnto Isaac, and vnto Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty, but by my name IEHOVAH was I not knowen to them.



(KJVA) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(KJVR) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(WEB) and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.



(Webster) And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(YLT) and I appear unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them;

From e-Sword
Barryrob




Can't you address the issue here? We are discussing Charles Taze Russell's claim that one would go into spiritual darkness without using Watchtower "helps." Do you agree with Russell's statement?

[barryrob]

Can't you address the issue here? We are discussing Charles Taze Russell's claim that one would go into spiritual darkness without using Watchtower "helps." Do you agree with Russell's statement?

If the Watchtower agrees with the Bible says then this would be true.
Barryrob

[Krusader]

If the Watchtower agrees with the Bible says then this would be true.
Barryrob

Barryrob, Russell's books claimed that the Great Pyramid was the key to end-times prophecy, and he gave several dates for Armageddon - all wrong! Furthermore, he said that the "great crowd class" was a heavenly class, not the earthly class Rutherford later taught. So, would a person go into spiritual darkness by not reading Russell's speculative works?

[barryrob]

Barryrob, Russell's books claimed that the Great Pyramid was the key to end-times prophecy, and he gave several dates for Armageddon - all wrong! Furthermore, he said that the "great crowd class" was a heavenly class, not the earthly class Rutherford later taught. So, would a person go into spiritual darkness by not reading Russell's speculative works?



I thought we where going to stick to the Bible?
Barryrob

[Krusader]

I thought we where going to stick to the Bible?
Barryrob

Barryrob, for the second time, what is the theme of this thread? It is the arrogant claim of Russell regarding spiritual darkness derived from not reading Watchtower commentaries.

I know it's difficult for Jehovah's Witnesses to think consistently and critically, but this is really rediculous.

Again, was Russell correct at the time when he stated that folks would go into spiritual darkness if they just read the Bible apart from his books and publications? Answer please, yes or no.

[barryrob]

Barryrob, for the second time, what is the theme of this thread? It is the arrogant claim of Russell regarding spiritual darkness derived from not reading Watchtower commentaries.

I know it's difficult for Jehovah's Witnesses to think consistently and critically, but this is really rediculous.

Again, was Russell correct at the time when he stated that folks would go into spiritual darkness if they just read the Bible apart from his books and publications? Answer please, yes or no.

This is the point you raised:-

"I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!"

This is the threads theme, is it not.
Barryrob

[Krusader]

This is the point you raised:-

"I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!"

This is the threads theme, is it not.
Barryrob

The "theme" of the thread is found in its title. However, how about it guy - are you willing to put aside your Watchtowers, Awakes, and all those books, and just read the Bible?

[barryrob]

The "theme" of the thread is found in its title. However, how about it guy - are you willing to put aside your Watchtowers, Awakes, and all those books, and just read the Bible?

We can do so if you wish, but I am moving house this month so will not be on line for much longer. So I will do what I can in the time I have left.
Barryrob

[Sparko]

and by "bible" Crusader means a standard translation, not the NWT.

[barryrob]

and by "bible" Crusader means a standard translation, not the NWT.

As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob

[Krusader]

We can do so if you wish, but I am moving house this month so will not be on line for much longer. So I will do what I can in the time I have left.
Barryrob

Barryrob, do you really mean that? Okay, if you do, I would hope that you at least read an acceptable translation of Scripture alongside your NWT. Where there are incompatibilities, use a Strong's Concordance and an acceptable Greek Interlinear to clear up the problems. How long can you go without your Watchtower helps?

[Sparko]

As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob

Wow we finally agree. That is what we have been telling you. The NWT falls flat on it's face. It has no merit.

[barryrob]

Wow we finally agree. That is what we have been telling you. The NWT falls flat on it's face. It has no merit.

We do not totaly agree I have just stated a fact that will apply to any transaltion you use also!

That only one opinion of yours to which others, who are not JWs, will not agree with!

Barryrob

[Krusader]

We do not totaly agree I have just stated a fact that will apply to any transaltion you use also!

That only one opinion of yours to which others, who are not JWs, will not agree with!

Barryrob

Barryrob, would you consider just reading the New Testament in the word for word translation beneath the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear?

[revjohn316]

"As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob"

Sorry, Barryrob, but the NWT is not a translation...it is the worst hodge-podge of copying from a lexicon that anyone has ever seen!! It makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely no merit in any sense of the word!! And you still have not answered the question, "Will you read from a recognized translation of the Bible and leave your JW "bible" and other writings alone?"

[Sparko]

Welcome to TWEB Revjohn316!

[barryrob]

"As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob"

Sorry, Barryrob, but the NWT is not a translation...it is the worst hodge-podge of copying from a lexicon that anyone has ever seen!! It makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely no merit in any sense of the word!! And you still have not answered the question, "Will you read from a recognized translation of the Bible and leave your JW "bible" and other writings alone?"

Example please?
Barryrob

[barryrob]

Barryrob, would you consider just reading the New Testament in the word for word translation beneath the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear?

I will consider that along with other versions and translation as any translator will have his own bias and ideas including interliners for various reasons.

As I said I only have a short time on hand, so where would you like to start, not to many texts at any one time.
Barryrob

[Meh_Gerbil]

The early works of Russell contradict all sorts of his later claims (and claims by the society) -- I'm talking about his works after he became a Witness.

For instance, in the last quarter of the 1800's the Discrete and Faithful Slave was the society -- then it became Russell himself -- and after Russell died the Discrete and Faithful Slave became the society again.

So not only is the NWT a confused, unsubstantiated pile of nonsense -- so is nearly every doctrine they hold dear.

[Sparko]

Example please?
Barryrob

Sheesh! see the other threads with dozens of examples of NWT screwups and don't derail this thread into the same discussion!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46739

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43653

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20207

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37454

[barryrob]

The early works of Russell contradict all sorts of his later claims (and claims by the society) -- I'm talking about his works after he became a Witness.

For instance, in the last quarter of the 1800's the Discrete and Faithful Slave was the society -- then it became Russell himself -- and after Russell died the Discrete and Faithful Slave became the society again.

So not only is the NWT a confused, unsubstantiated pile of nonsense -- so is nearly every doctrine they hold dear.

It is interesting that you say that about the NWT because as I first started to look at the Bible 30yrs ago it was the JWs that followed what the KJV said about personal conduct, speech, preaching, and not being violent people etc. unlike all the differing church persons I was surrounded by, which covered all the main sects of Christendom! Then I was given a NWT and low and behold the rules of conduct was the same as in the KJV but the Church people did not do as it said. So the conduct of JWs spoke louder than your words as they followed what the Bible say and the Churches did and do not.

At the present I am studying with a man who only uses the NIV and he has come to the conclusion using it that what we teach is true according to his NIV!

Barryrob

[Krusader]

I will consider that along with other versions and translation as any translator will have his own bias and ideas including interliners for various reasons.

As I said I only have a short time on hand, so where would you like to start, not to many texts at any one time.
Barryrob

Well, you can take your Interlinear with you, right? It's just a small book.

Let's start with John.

[barryrob]

Sheesh! see the other threads with dozens of examples of NWT screwups and don't derail this thread into the same discussion!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46739

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43653

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20207

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37454


Your personal exampels not just what someone else says?
Barryrob

[barryrob]

Well, you can take your Interlinear with you, right? It's just a small book.

Let's start with John.

OK

[Krusader]

OK

I'll go home at lunch and get my Interlinear and will shall begin with the Gospel of John, first chapter. First note the Greek construction of John 1:1, and then as you read through the first chapter, notice how the Greek construction is not translated "a god," but God.

[revjohn316]

Crusader is right on target! John 1:1 in the NWT says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god."
That is a totally incorrect "translation" and cannot be supported hermenuetically (the science of Biblical translation.) The JW's put it that way to support their own preconceived notions and you cannot do that! There is not a Greek scholar anywhere in the world that will take the blame for the NWT!! Same for Hebrew scholars of the OT. No one of any standing will claim credit for the NWT!

[revjohn316]

JohnSparks...thank you!

[barryrob]

Crusader is right on target! John 1:1 in the NWT says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god."
That is a totally incorrect "translation" and cannot be supported hermenuetically (the science of Biblical translation.) The JW's put it that way to support their own preconceived notions and you cannot do that! There is not a Greek scholar anywhere in the world that will take the blame for the NWT!! Same for Hebrew scholars of the OT. No one of any standing will claim credit for the NWT!

That is not totaly correct:-

The Book 'Truth in Translation' by J. D. BeDuhn, Accuracy and Bais in English Translations on the New Testament gives an exultant coverage of John 1:1 (along with other verses) in which he says:-

On John 1:1- p.124:-
"Surprisingly, only one, the NW*, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god."


p.125:-
"I may very well be that NW* translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."


p.133:-
"All we can ask is the a translation be accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW* achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.. The other translations** cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."
*N.W.T.
**KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, AB, TEV, LB.


Barryrob

[Krusader]

That is not totaly correct:-

The Book 'Truth in Translation' by J. D. BeDuhn, Accuracy and Bais in English Translations on the New Testament gives an exultant coverage of John 1:1 (along with other verses) in which he says:-

On John 1:1- p.124:-
"Surprisingly, only one, the NW*, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god."


p.125:-
"I may very well be that NW* translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."


p.133:-
"All we can ask is the a translation be accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW* achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.. The other translations** cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."
*N.W.T.
**KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, AB, TEV, LB.


Barryrob

You are using other books beside the Interlinear. Not what we agreed!

[Sparko]

That is not totaly correct:-

The Book 'Truth in Translation' by J. D. BeDuhn, Accuracy and Bais in English Translations on the New Testament gives an exultant coverage of John 1:1 (along with other verses) in which he says:-

On John 1:1- p.124:-
"Surprisingly, only one, the NW*, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god."


p.125:-
"I may very well be that NW* translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."


p.133:-
"All we can ask is the a translation be accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW* achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.. The other translations** cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."
*N.W.T.
**KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, AB, TEV, LB.


Barryrob

Actually there was a whole thread on BeDuhn and John 1:1 here on TWEB a couple of years ago http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6406

Jaltus pretty much destroyed this view of BeDuhn, in this post:





http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133805&postcount=5
It is very clear that all he is saying is: I am right, you are wrong, so nyah. He gives no argumentation other than straight assertion. He never once shows any of those cultural norms he talks about nor dfoes he give a single example. He assumes he is right and never makes a case for it. In other words, he has no argument, only supposition.

and refutes him in this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134689&postcount=18

(too long to quote here)

But it basically boils down to BeDuhn being entirely subjective, or maybe even dishonest.

CARM has this to say:

http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)

A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

This same Word was with God.

"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)

This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm#1) But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

[Krusader]

Actually there was a whole thread on BeDuhn and John 1:1 here on TWEB a couple of years ago http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6406

Jaltus pretty much destroyed this view of BeDuhn, in this post:







and refutes him in this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134689&postcount=18

(too long to quote here)

But it basically boils down to BeDuhn being entirely subjective, or maybe even dishonest.

CARM has this to say:

http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)

A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

"and the word was with the God..."

(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

This same Word was with God.

"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."

(kai theos en ho logos)

This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm#1) But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.

Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?




I printed an interesting link on the Interlinear thread regarding all the scholars used to support the NWT.

[revjohn316]

At the present I am studying with a man who only uses the NIV and he has come to the conclusion using it that what we teach is true according to his NIV!

Barryrob
Then the poor man simply has no idea how to study the Bible!! And the NIV is not a translation but a "dynamic equivalent."

[Krusader]

At the present I am studying with a man who only uses the NIV and he has come to the conclusion using it that what we teach is true according to his NIV!

Barryrob
Then the poor man simply has no idea how to study the Bible!! And the NIV is not a translation but a "dynamic equivalent."


This speaks volulmes about the King James only controversy!

[barryrob]

This speaks volulmes about the King James only controversy!

I used the KJV during my study and came to the same conclusion, JWs are right.
Barryrob

[Krusader]

I used the KJV during my study and came to the same conclusion, JWs are right.
Barryrob

Which proves the words of Scripture: Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual!

[revjohn316]

Originally posted by barryrob][/i] I used the KJV during my study and came to the same conclusion, JWs are right.
Barryrob
"Which proves the words of Scripture: Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual! "

But, Crusader, barryrob says he used the KJV and arrived at the conclusion that the JW's are "right". That is impossible! If he studied only the KJV, without using outside JW references, he could not come to such a conclusion. So, once again he is being dishonest with us. Which is nothing new and is the reason I will not be posting on this thread again. Honest debate is great, dishonesty (in anything) is something I cannot put up with!!

[Krusader]

Quote: Originally posted by barryrob - I used the KJV during my study and came to the same conclusion, JWs are right.
Barryrob


QUOTE = Crusader "Which proves the words of Scripture: Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual! "

But, Crusader, barryrob says he used the KJV and arrived at the conclusion that the JW's are "right". That is impossible! If he studied only the KJV, without using outside JW references, he could not come to such a conclusion. So, once again he is being dishonest with us. Which is nothing new and is the reason I will not be posting on this thread again. Honest debate is great, dishonesty (in anything) is something I cannot put up with!!

Actually, Rev, when the Watchtower started out, they used the KJV. What you fail to see is the fact that they use the Bible along with Watchtower "helps" (publications). For instance, even though John 1:1 clearly identifies Christ as God,Himself, if you are studying with a Witness, they will pull out their literature which (to the unlettered, unschooled, etc.) they will use to prove that John 1:1 doesn't mean what it clearly states. I'm sure that this is what happened in Barryrob's case. No person using the KJV alone would come to the conclusion that John 1:1 states that Jesus is a secondary, created god.

The Watchtower and other Arian groups must twist the Scriptures to fit their doctrinal stance. Unless you have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to discern spiritual issues, you can easily be misled.

[revjohn316]

Crusader: What you say is exactly what I said...he obviously is using other "sources" to keep on track w/JW teaching. Which is what he has agreed not to do...therefore I stick with my assesment that he is dishonest. I did not fail to see anything.

[Krusader]

Crusader: What you say is exactly what I said...he obviously is using other "sources" to keep on track w/JW teaching. Which is what he has agreed not to do...therefore I stick with my assesment that he is dishonest. I did not fail to see anything.

I think Barryrob said that he "used the KJV during my studies." He didn't say that he used the KJV alone, apart from any collateral reading. If he had used the KJV alone, he never would have been duped into the Society.

[revjohn316]

I think Barryrob said that he "used the KJV during my studies." He didn't say that he used the KJV alone, apart from any collateral reading. If he had used the KJV alone, he never would have been duped into the Society.

Are you not reading my entire post, or are you just looking for an arguement. I said exactly the same thing in my post. Obviously he is using JW "helps." You cannot conclued that they are "right" unless you use their sources. Good Lord, man, learn to read with comprehension!!!

[David Ragland]

This is the point you raised:-

"I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!"

This is the threads theme, is it not.
Barryrob

Actually you just cherrypicked the man's closing statement. The issue, clear for any honest person to see, regards Russell's arrogant promulgations being erroneous. You are being deliberately obtuse and you know it. :lol: Stop messing around and answer the issue, please.

Laterness . . .
david the servant

[ihveit]

Charles Taze Russell, the arrogant founder of the Watchtower Society, taught that were you to set aside his books and simply read the Bible alone, after two years the person would go into spiritual darkness. However, given the "new light" that his organization, the Watchtower Society, has had since Russell's death, it appears that Russell himself was in spiritual darkness. See Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, pg. 298.

I contend, that if a Jehovah's Witness will put aside the Watchtower publications for two years, and read the Bible alone (preferably a recognized translation such as the NIV, KJV, NASV, etc.), the veil will be lifted from his eyes and he will have spiritual understanding!

Would any witness care to take me up on this?

ihv>>>.the wt admits it wont take 2 years......in fact they admit that if one reads only the bible for 6 months either alone or in small groups they revert right back to doctrines christianity has been teaching over 100 years ago
will

[Shazard]

As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob

When C.T.Russel was writing his claim he was referencing I guess to King James version.
And BTW we can honestly compare translation cometee competence of different translation and let's choose one where most recognized scholars appear. Can you proove that translatiors of NWT were qualified enough to do the job. Coz why should I trust trnslation where the translator competence is hidden? If we don't have inspiration here (and you claimed that and we agree) then we have to rely on competence and education of translation team. Can you provide evidence of competence and education of NWT translation team? Who translated, their names, grades, finished schools of lingquistic and whatever it is needed to do translation actual!
While you can't it is reasonable to believe that NWT is just reference book from WT itself. It is not to be taken seriously, so we are left with plenty of other translations we can use. As we all are God's people we can trust that God's Spirit has guided people and provided Americans (and not only) with more or less usefull translation where we can check out trnslation teams competence.

[revjohn316]

As ALL Bible versions/translations today, including the NWT, are in themselves not inspired, but are copies or renderings of the inspired originals at very best that have come down to us through time, so ALL stand on their own merits.
Barryrob

The NWT is NOT a copy of the manuscripts handed down. It is a horrible mish-mash of nonesense easily picked apart by any first year Hebrew/Greek student. It has no merit whatsoever, so it does not stand.