Answering a Jehovah's Witness

[apostoli]

In at church I was a member (Faith Baptist Church of Canoga Park) in the early 1970s. As a member of the young single adult group. One of the young women knew a neighbor, a married couple who were being instructed by some JWs. Ask me to talk to them. In offering to show them how they could know for sure when they die, that they could go to heaven. It was a no go. So I reasoned with them. If what they understood was true. I would in the end not know anything. But if what I understood was true. They could end up suffering for all eternity.

A little later we had a missionary who specialized in ministering ot JWs. He was invited to that couples home. And was able because, I was told, because of my argument, made them open to hear, and accept Christ.

Those who study with JWs tend to fall in the class of lost and/or lonely, so witnessing to them from any viewpoint is not that hard...though having said that, I commend you for opening a door for those persons...

A typical committed JW response would be to the type of witness you might give is...

1. If the soul is immortal, what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice which is traditionally and scripturally understood as for us to gain immortality?
2. If when we die (first death), we either go to heaven or hell, what is the point of the first and second resurrections?

Like I said, you can disbelieve that literal understanding. I was taught that it was a literal fire. It need not be an oxygen or nuclear to be so.

After telling the parable of the Rich man & Lazarus "[Jesus] said to the disciples: It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe [to him] through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." (Luke 17:1-2). I think it best we be mindful of that when examining the parable. Especially considering Jesus advised '"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Lk 12:1) and remembering the context of why Jesus gave the four parables (Lk 15:1-3). Also consider Luke 8:10 but more particularly consider Mt 13:10-11 "And the disciples came and said to Him:Why do You speak to them in parables? He answered and said to them: Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."

[37818]

A typical committed JW response would be to the type of witness you might give is...

1. If the soul is immortal, what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice which is traditionally and scripturally understood as for us to gain immortality?

I would answer JWs that it is my understanding the Bible does not teach immorality of the soul [Ezekiel 18.4.]

I would also tell them that Jesus' soul died on the stake, before His physical death. [Isaiah 53:10, 12, John 19:28, 30.]
That Jesus death was paid with His blood [I John 2:2], He being forsaken by the Father [Psalm 22:1, 6] even as the wicked will be forsaken for all eternity [Mark 9:48.]. That death is the separation from Life, and God is life. Jesus having acquired immortality and eternal life for the soul of men that believe in Him. As evidenced by His following physical death and bodily resurrection. The redemption being paid with the blood of His soul and body. And by this I know I will see Jehovah's kingdom [John 3:3.] Being born over through faith in Jesus as the Savior [Isaiah 43:10, 11, Acts 4:12, John 1:12, 13, 1 John 5:12, 13. Romans 8:9.] And that this is my understanding.

2. If when we die (first death), we either go to heaven or hell, what is the point of the first and second resurrections?

I would explain that by Jesus' bodily resurrection and bodily ascension makes it possible to be with Him. [1 Timothy 2:5.] Until then everyone who died would go to the nether world [Hades, Sheol]. The point of the resurrection and judgement has to do with the holiness and justice of Jehovah God, so everyone will know what Jehovah has done and know consequences for one's life's choices [Hebrews 9:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11, Romans 14:9-11.]

The question I would ask the JWs is what do they understand is the requirements to see Jehovah's kingdom? [With John 3:3 in mind here.]

. . . telling the parable of the Rich man & Lazarus "[Jesus] said to the disciples: . . . .

As I stated, that the story Jesus told His disciples was no parable. Reasons it was not a paralbe are, first, neither the writer Luke nor Jesus says it was a parable. Second, no parables of Jesus ever use proper names, Lazarus, Abraham and Moses. In addition in the story Abraham tells the rich man that his brothers that they have Moses and the prophets to warn them. A real appeal is made to holy Scripture. [Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalm 86:13.]

What convinces you that story is a parable? What is your evidence?

[apostoli]

What convinces you that story is a parable? What is your evidence?

Luke 15:1-17:1, and the fact that Jesus is said to have never spoken plainly when teaching - he was regularly having to explain his sayings to the disciples. Consider Mt 13:10-15...

One thing that disturbs me about dogmatists appeal to this text in Luke is that they fail to realise that the Rich man and Lazarus are merely props to Jesus main point "If they [the Rich man's father and brothers] do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead".

[37818]

Luke 15:1-17:1, and the fact that Jesus is said to have never spoken plainly when teaching - he was regularly having to explain his sayings to the disciples. Consider Mt 13:10-15...

Matthew 13:10, 11,

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Beginning in Luke 16:1, Jesus addresses His disciples, Do you really think this was still in parables to them?

The parallel passage in Mark:

Mark 4:11,

And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: . . .

One thing that disturbs me about dogmatists appeal to this text in Luke is that they fail to realise that the Rich man and Lazarus are merely props to Jesus main point "If they [the Rich man's father and brothers] do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead".

And you are not being dogmatic that it is a parable? And what real passages in the Law of Moses and by what prophets are being referred to here in "parable?" Would you have any references in mind?

As I have cited, Deuteronomy 32:22 and Psalm 86:13. I'll add Proverbs 9:18.

[apostoli]

Consider Mt 13:10-15...

Matthew 13:10, 11,

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

The reason the disciples got to know what Jesus meant in his teaching is that afterward he explained it to them in plainer language, and then according to scripture half the time they didn't understand. In anycase, you should have kept reading as you missed the important bit = Mt 13:13-14 wherein Jesus says "I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled..."

Beginning in Luke 16:1, Jesus addresses His disciples...

I'd take his address to the disciple right back to Luke 15:3 (or even Lk 14:25) as Luke 16:1 has it "He also said to His disciples..." From Luke 15:1-2 we know that Jesus was addressing a crowd made up of pharisees and his disciples (the tax collectors & sinners). Lk 14:25 says "Now great multitudes went with Him" after he had eaten at "the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees" (Lk 14:1). Now it was a Sabbath so we can assume he did not wonder far...

Do you really think this was still in parables to them?

Yep! And the evidence is found in his exposition at Luke 16:9-13.

One thing that disturbs me about dogmatists appeal to this text in Luke is that they fail to realise that the Rich man and Lazarus are merely props to Jesus main point "If they [the Rich man's father and brothers] do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead".

And you are not being dogmatic that it is a parable?

Nope! Imo, the internal evidence in Luke 16 is deafening...

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

I trust we agree that Jesus' focus changes from the disciples to the pharisees from Luke 16:14 as jesus' responds to their interjection (?). Imo, vs15 sets up the theme of the tale of the Rich man and Lazarus "And He [Jesus] said to them [the Pharisees], "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (eg: the depiction of the rich man).

Then Jesus seems to digress saying "The law and the prophets [were] until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it". Notice in the parable we encounter reference to Moses & the prophets. What is the relationship?

In vs17 Jesus tells the Pharisees "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail", then suddenly springs forth with some babble about divorce, saying in vs18 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery". This is Lukes intro to the story of the Rich man & Lazarus. So, in your opinion what is the connection?

And what real passages in the Law of Moses and by what prophets are being referred to here in "parable?" Would you have any references in mind?

As I have cited, Deuteronomy 32:22 and Psalm 86:13. I'll add Proverbs 9:18.

Pick any of the Messinic passages, especially those that are understood to refer to a promised resurrection.

[Phat8594]

The NWT has its defects but so does the KJV and other translations. No English or other language translation can be taken as God's inspired word in total

The difference is that the NWT purposefully distorts scripture to hide the divinity of Jesus, and other things in order to support the watchtower doctrine.

[apostoli]

The difference is that the NWT purposefully distorts scripture to hide the divinity of Jesus, and other things in order to support the watchtower doctrine.

Have you read the NIV? It distorts scripture no end! As with any English translation the NWT has its bias but I can happily use it to expose Jesus' divinity to a JW starting with their rendition of John 1:1c with their rendition of John 12:45; 14:9-11...

I suspect you have never read their version. It isn't that bad, especially when considering the pastorial passages as opposed to the passages catechist dogmatics cling to to secure their weak faith... If you need scripture to tell you explicitly that Jesus is God to believe he is his Father's son and therefore homoousia with his Father then you are demanding a privilege not available to the church of believers that believed in the early decades of Christianity...

Apart from John 1:1c, what other texts do you find obstructive. The insertion of "[other]" in Colossians 1 is logical as both the Father and Son are excluded from those things that were created...so rather than prattle give some realistic examples of the NWT's indisputable failures... (nb: Jn 1:1c can be defended from the Syriac text. Syrian has an indefinite article, whereas Greek doesn't. you should be aware that in both Greek & Syrian John 1:1c is making a qualitative statement rather than an absolute statement. In the original languages, John 1:1c is not saying that the Word was God (ie: the same person with whom he was with) but rather as the NEB renders "what God was the word was" - all major grammarians agree on this point).

[Phat8594]

When I was talking with this Jehovah's Witness, I noticed that he would look at a book called, "Reasoning From the Scriptures", in order to respond to some of the things that I had to say.

Good job talking to a JW! Unfortunately, many Christians refuse to talk to them or just get into crazy arguments with them, rather than engage them patiently.

I only have a couple tips.

1. Don't let it get into an argument (this reinforces their idea about what Chrisitans are like). Always keep it cordial. You will never argue a JW into the kingdom of heaven.

2. Stay on topic. When pressed, JWs sometimes like to change topics. So deal with one topic at a time.

3. Don't bring up the Trinity right away. JWs have a misunderstanding of what the Trinity is: (they often think of it as modalism, so if they do ask you if you believe in the trinity, say something like "I believe that Jesus is God, but I do not believe that Jesus is the Father.)

4. Engage them by asking questions. Don't try to correct them, but don't let them dodge the question either. JWs will try to appear as if they know (even when they don't), but your goal is to plant a seed. JW's typically don't believe that a Christian can teach them anything. So let the Holy Spirit convict them.

5. And of course..pray for them.




As for topics...I like to start with the divinity of Christ. Notice I did not say the Trinity. Start with that first...they can't accept the trinity until they accept Christ's divinity. Also, they have been trained to hate the idea of the trinity..so any talk of such will only put up fences.

One question might be:

Who do you believe created the universe? (they believe YHWH did, but through Christ)

If they say Jehovah did, then ask them about Colossians 1:

16 For by[f] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

They will probably agree and they might show you Proverbs 8 (wisdom personified) to claim that Jesus was the master craftsman, while Jehovah was more of the designer. (we can deal with this on another day..but do note that Proverbs personifies wisdom as a female).

This is good. So you then can press them and say something like

Q: "So Jehovah is the architect, but Jesus is the one that built it?"

A: "Yes."

Q. "So Jehovah didn't build it by himself?"

A: Yes

Q: "Ok then...so now I am a little confused. So Jehovah didn't create the earth by himself, or with his own hand then..right?....Jesus is the one that built it then...with His hands?"

A: Yes

Q: So then...if Jehovah designed it, and Jesus built it, why would Jehovah say

ISAIAH 44:24

I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

or

IS 48:13

My hand laid the foundation of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I call to them,
they stand forth together.

Note: the NWT is slightly different, but in essence says the same thing. In fact I think (I am basing this on memory) that in the NWT, IS 48 says something like "my own hand"

Anyways...there are a lot of other ways to show the divinity of Christ, but this is just one of them. (:

Good luck, and feel free to message me if you ever need help with JW stuff.

[Phat8594]

Have you read the NIV? It distorts scripture no end! As with any English translation the NWT has its bias but I can happily use it to expose Jesus' divinity to a JW starting with their rendition of John 1:1c with their rendition of John 12:45; 14:9-11...

I suspect you have never read their version. It isn't that bad,

I actually own a copy that I have used when witnessing to some JWs. It is amazing at how far they will go to distort scripture. John 1:1 is just one of many places.

Have you read the NIV? It distorts scripture no end!

What do you see wrong with the NIV? I actually like the NIV, understanding it, like all translations, has shortfalls.

[apostoli]

I actually own a copy [of the NWT] that I have used when witnessing to some JWs. It is amazing at how far they will go to distort scripture. John 1:1 is just one of many places.

What do you see wrong with the NIV? I actually like the NIV, understanding it, like all translations, has shortfalls.

I view the NIV as a sanitised version, which often does not communicate the meaning of the original Greek. I tend to use the NKJV as my main study bible, though I'm not a KJV nut, and am fully aware of both versions defects. I use a range of translations in my studies, but when things become obtuse I run to the original Greek and wade through the lexicons, grammars and commentaries... The NIV in my experience has proved to be an unreliable translation and I rarely if ever appeal to it, but like the NWT I'll use it if that is someone's opinion source...

[Phat8594]

The NIV in my experience has proved to be an unreliable translation and I rarely if ever appeal to it,

Do you mind if I ask where you have run into these problems? I ask out of sincerity, as I used to be a formal equivalent nut, but now have come to understand the importance of functional equivalent as well.

[apostoli]

Do you mind if I ask where you have run into these problems? I ask out of sincerity, as I used to be a formal equivalent nut, but now have come to understand the importance of functional equivalent as well.

As I said, I rarely use the NIV because in the past I've found it unreliable, so nothing comes immediately to mind. The KJV only types present a range of objections on the internet, some of which I might agree with and others I think are just niave or plain ignorant.

Imo, there are a lot of texts that do need revising into modern English eg: where the traditional rendering has "see" but the Greek has the connotation of "perceive". English, Latin etc most often just don't have the word equivalents for a lot of Greek words, so I consider translations based on the traditional "word equivalence" (closest approximation) are adequate for general reading but lead to distorted viewpoints. So, I am an advocate of phrase equivalence eg: the NEB's rendition of Jn 1:1c = "what God was, the Word was". Though having said that, the translator/s would need to be careful not to end up paraphrasing unnecessarily a defect I appraise in several versions (eg: The Good News Bible).

A bench mark of mine is whether a rendering is a translation or an interpretation. Consider 1 Sam 25:22,34; 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kings 9:2 which in the KJV refer to those that "pisseth against the wall". Most modern renditions (including the NKJV) render "men/males" which isn't a translation but an interpretation. The NWT in this case gives a literal word for word translation comparable to the KJV. Rendering things too literally is both a strength and a weakness of the NWT in many scholars opinion.

___________________

ps: I just checked the Septuagint interlinear for 1 Sam 25:22, it renders as per the KJV & NWT.

[Phat8594]

Apart from John 1:1c, what other texts do you find obstructive. The insertion of "[other]" in Colossians 1 is logical as both the Father and Son are excluded from those things that were created...so rather than prattle give some realistic examples of the NWT's indisputable failures... (nb: Jn 1:1c can be defended from the Syriac text.

Sorry, I didn't even see this the first time around. Well, I don't have my NWT with me at the moment, so I'd have to check, but off the top of my head you can look at John 8:58. That's a biggie.

Furthermore, the NWT inserts the word Jehovah into the NT (whenever God the Father is referenced to), when it never appeared in the Greek. Although I can understand inserting it into referenced OT passages, there is no basis to put it in anywhere else in the NT. It further obscures Christ's divinity. Clearly this was done on purpose to hide the fact that both the Father and Christ are referenced as Theos by NT writers.

[Phat8594]

A bench mark of mine is whether a rendering is a translation or an interpretation.

I don't know quite what you would be referring to in the NIV. But I do agree with you that I would tend towards Bible translations that are geared more at the translation than interpretation. That's why I stay away from the message...which really is more of an interpretation than a translation.

The NIV strives to translate on a functional equivalent level, so one must always keep that in mind. And in fact, if you have ever translated a language, chances are you used functional as opposed to formal.

Just think of:

Como te llamas?

Formal: How are you called?

Functional: What is your name?



But in any case, any time you translate the Bible, there will always be some sort of interpretation involved, since the goal is to communicate the same words / ideas into the receptor language that has different words with different connotations (not to mention different idioms, etc) than the original language. That's just one reason I like using multiple translations.

[apostoli]

I don't know quite what you would be referring to in the NIV. But I do agree with you that I would tend towards Bible translations that are geared more at the translation than interpretation. That's why I stay away from the message...which really is more of an interpretation than a translation.

The NIV strives to translate on a functional equivalent level, so one must always keep that in mind. And in fact, if you have ever translated a language, chances are you used functional as opposed to formal.

Just think of:

Como te llamas?

Formal: How are you called?

Functional: What is your name?



But in any case, any time you translate the Bible, there will always be some sort of interpretation involved, since the goal is to communicate the same words / ideas into the receptor language that has different words with different connotations (not to mention different idioms, etc) than the original language. That's just one reason I like using multiple translations.

I have some experience in translation/remediation, having produced a modern text based on the ASV to avoid copyright breaches, so that a parallel English text to Russian and Latvian could be produced and published on paper...the task seemed trivial at first, but turned out to be enormous...and to be truthful I was not entirely happy with my end result (though months of 24*7 work went bye), but as the publisher said, if they allowed me the time for perfection the publication would never happen...It is the catch 22 of translations/remediations...
___________________

I understand your example of functional equivalence, especially in Spanish. But from personal experience, when I said to some wards in Spain that in Australia we have "no caballero only hombre", I was refering to homosexuals versus heterosexuals in the context of their idea of men. Idiom must also take into account slang and other colloquial axioms...especially in the context of what is being said, in reply to what has been said...