Has anyone noticed how JWs and other anti-Trins when writing reviews for Amazon write as if they are trying to debate, rather than critique the book? It's basically a three step process when it comes to their reviews:
1.] This book sucks..and..err.. that's it.
2.] Here's a full article on why JWs are right and you're wrong (no real relevance to the book, interestingly enough)
3.] Read Brian Holt's book (I kid you not, this is at the end of almost every review I have read in the past 30 minutes!)
Let's just take the following example from a review of:
Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey:
[.....]
If you want to see less biased book, get "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
Now let's take the following review from '
Reasoing from the Scriptures with the JWs". Notice how he doesn't review the book per say, but acts more as if he's in a debate itself. Basically he is just pulling a "me too" with numerous bible translations and then proceeds to attack a previous reviewer.:
What school did Rhodes go to?, June 15, 2002
Reviewer: info7943 (see more about me) from USA
I'm not sure what's more disheartening, the pathetic arguments used by "Dr" Rhodes or his fan club writing about how great he is. In fact, one named "Arthur", apparently a Greek student himself, must have attended the same Greek classes Rhodes did because they both apparently know little about Greek. (By the way, Mr. Rhodes and "Arthur", why don't you check out Murray Harris' book "Jesus As God" and brush up a little bit on this subject)
Now let's look at a few of Rhodes arguments. He states that the NWT at Acts 20:28 is against all legitimate translations. I didn't realize the following Bibles were illegitimate. Did JW's translate these too?
Today's English Version
The New Revised Standard Version
The Contemporary English Version
The Emphasized Bible.
I realize our Greek student, Arthur, doesn't like footnotes but for others who appreciate them I present the footnotes to the New American Bible and the New English Bible. All of these are apparently translated by people who know nothing about Greek.
"Dr" Rhodes then states that JW's mistranslate Titus 2:13 to hide the fact that Jesus is God. I didn't realize JW's wrote the following Bibles
The New Testament in Modern English
The King James Version
The American Standard Version
The New English Bible footnote
The New American Bible (and I thought the Catholics believed Jesus was God? I guess a JW must have snuck in the press room and reworded this verse)
Rhodes, being an expert in Hebrew, also informs us that the NWT "deliberately" mistranslated Zechariah 12:10 to hide the fact that Jesus is God. Shame on the NWT! Shame on these other Bibles too..
An American Translation
The Bible in Living English
The Good News Bible
The Revised Standard Version
The New American Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible
And of course, how can we forget John 8:58 where both Rhodes and his biggest fan, Arthur, attack the NWT for it's translation.
Funny, I don't remember them attacking the following Bibles for simialr translations..
The Twentieth Century New Testament
The Living Bible
The New Living Translation
The Simple English Bible
The Good News for the World Bible
The Contemporary English Version
In fact, I wonder if most of these reviewers have every read anything else on this subject that was a little more substantial. It sounds like these persons have read little more than Rhodes, Bowman and Morey. It's no wonder they walk away frustrated when they talk to JW's with these books. They are ill prepared to discuss much of anything.
Of course, Rhodes doesn't really care about preparing anyone to reason with JW's. If he was, he would have really informed his audience about our real arguments and at least let them know about the other translations. But hey, he got them to buy his book and since they want to believe what they already believe, they are more than happy to throw their money at him. I just hope they try to use these arguments on JW's when they come by.
One of the funniest things that happened to me in the ministry was when a Catholic lady attacked the NWT for it's translation of Titus 2:13. She had been reading either Rhodes or Bowman, I can't remember. I asked her what Bible she used (The New American Bible) and when she gave it to me, imagine her surprise when I showed her that her beloved Bible was apparently translated by a JW. Arthur, I hope you don't get caught with your pants down like this woman did. And by the way, the footnote to the NAB states that it can be translated the way Rhodes prefers it. But then again, we both know 'why it's in the footnote.'
And guess what appears at the end of it?:
If you want to know the real arguments against Jesus being God, see the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
What did the bulk of that review consist of? I'm still left with little knowledge of the book. All he's done is cite three or four verses which he *asserts* are argued in a faulty manner in Rhodes book (without any substantial evidence), procedes to pull the old "me too" with other English translations, then outright insults the previous reviewer. How convincing! :) In fact, this reminds me of Heinz's "rebuttal" to Matt Slick's 'I AM' argument, where Heinz cited the '
Cotton Patch Version' amongst his list of supportive translations for "I have been" :o
And they want to call us "frustrated." Absolutely right I'm frustrated! I do not honestly think they actually read what they are reviewing!
Going on...
From the review of ''
The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah's Witness"
[....]
If you want to see the real arguments for Jesus not being God, get the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com. There's no straw men in it like you'll find in Rhode's works. Infact, I'd like to hear what Mr. Rhodes has to say about it as it's the best book I've seen to date against the Trinity.
As well as '
The Forgotten Trinity' by James White:
Same Trinitarian rhetoric as all others, August 28, 2002
Reviewer: Michael (see more about me) from USA
I'd say that I am disappointed in Mr. White's book but I can't because it is everything I assumed it would be: A half-hearted coverage of the material. Mr. White, like Robert Morey's "Trinity: Evidence and Issues", and so many other Trinitarian books by various authors, fails to actually divulge to his readers all of the facts. I am not sure why Trinitarian authors do this but I have my suspicions.
If they truly believe they have the truth, then tell the reader both sides of the argument. For instance, I could say the Devil is a Trinitarian being too, made up of Satan, Peter and Judas. If I said that and then showed you where Jesus called both Judas and Peter "Satan" and "Devil" and then showed you were Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter denied him three times, some might actually fall for it! (see John 6:70; Matt 16:23) Now of course, you laugh at me and say I'm nuts and you'd be right. The reason is because you see from many other scriptures that such is not the case.
The same principle applies with the issue of the Trinity. James White covers scriptures Trinitarians use to defend their stance but, for the most part, brushes off the hundreds of scriptures that show Jesus is not God. He also comes into the discussion already assuming the Trinity is true and then uses the definition of the Trinity, along with Christ's supposed 'dual nature', to refute any verses that may imply Jesus is not equal to God. What's even more amazing is Mr. White expects us to believe that is what the Jews who were listening to Jesus thought too! He's plain out wrong.
When people heard Jesus say, "What I teach is not mine but belongs to Him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality", they did not have the luxury of running to the dictionary and reading the definition of the Trinity. They couldn't argue that Jesus said this from his 'human nature' and that in his 'divine nature' he is still God. No, unlike people who ALREADY believe in the Trinity, when the disciples heard this, it made them think Jesus was not God!
My experience is that most Trinitarians (but not all) don't really want to get into the meat of the scriptures. They don't mind throwing non-Trinitarians scriptures that supposedly say Jesus is God and asking us to explain them; they just don't want to have to explain the HUNDREDS of scriptures that explicitly show Jesus is someone other than God. Well, let me correct myself: The HUNDREDS of scripture that show Jesus is not God to anyone who doesn't already believe in the Trinity and assumes that the 1st century Jews believed it too!
I recommend for those who want to see a more exhaustive work from the scriptures the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" ... This book answers over 50 of the most popular Trinitarian scriptures and then asks Trinitarians to answer nearly 400 scriptures that go against the thought Jesus is God. Doing so without believing in the Trinity is quite impossible.
The Trinity developed because philosophers considered a few scriptures that imply Jesus might be God while ignoring the hundreds that say otherwise. After they developed their illogical doctrine over a period of three centuries, they then told us that this is what everyone else believed 300 years earlier. The Trinity doctrine continues today by the same method.
Notice that a good portion of the above review concerns:
1.] A double-standard- (just go to your local Kingdom Hall, request the booklet "Reasoning from the Scriptures", and see how they argue that Jesus is Michael. :)
2.] The reviewers *personal opinion* concerning Trins
3.] Somebody elses book and how great it is.
4.] Their theory on how the Trinity *really* developed.
Does this get on anyone elses nerves?
>
David Reed:
Answering JWs Verse by Verse:
Reviewer: info7943 (see more about me) from USA
[.....]
If you want to see real arguments for Jesus being God's Son, see the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com.
It's clear that some attempt to at least partially present a view of the book itself, but could they please spare all the extra fluff?
