Jehovah`s Witness/Jehovah's Memory

Advertisement


Question
Ben,

Thanks for the responce to my large post. I know we are dealing with only a few of the questions I posted origionally however that is fine for now as there is a lot of ground to cover just the idea that the NWT is an approved translation let alone moving on to a discussion on Jesus identity. Yet I am good to keep going with it so long as you are.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes and partial thoughts in my last two posts but I get bombarded with thoughts and clarity sometimes gets lost. You will need to forgive me. It is my untrained nature I suppose.



1. NWT. I am waiting for permission from a couple of sources but I do have more info comming on this. In fact as stated it is such a big topic we could and most likely will hash out the details of it until the cows come home. You did provide a list of scholars that you claim verify the NWT and part of my focus as time goes on will be to deal with thier 'non' bias adjendas and even personally contact them myself as I do not trust the WT literature and claims, simply because for each mistake they make they don't own it but avoid it and say 'the light gets brighter'.

That said I  asked you a direct question that you either missed or avoided concerning the NWT so again here it is.

a. If the origionals (greek copied manuscripts) didn't contain the name Jehovah, or YHVH, is it not deceptive to add it in and call it a proper translation? Again in order to translate something from one language to another it must exist in that text and language inorder for us to transfere it to another.

The NWT translates Kurios which in English means Lord and THEOS which means God as Jehovah. However the Tetragrammation is never found in the NT as it is in the OT. It must be assumed. Perhaps you can provide quotes on this from some of your list of Scholars, especially E.C. Colwell if you have it.


You asked;

'So would you expect learned Greek scholar a Church going man who carries a King James version under his arm to be bias ,honest and subjective about a Jehovah's Witness translation.How would a renown GK scholar look going to Church with JW NWT.'

If the NWT is an approved translation what difference would it make? Now if it was socially unacceptable to carry it among those people then no. I am not a KJV only Christian so the assumption is just that, an assumption. I lend more to the NIV then the KJV personally however I find other translations seem to convey ideas stronger in certian areas. I believe that getting a clear vision of the message is the idea when language evolves and changes.

To point the finger of judgment at Christians based on thier 'bias' is ignorant. True human nature is bias. You are arguing with be based on the bias that the WT has got it right and everyone else in Christendom is wrong. If this is not a clear example of the error of human nature I don't know what is.

Since your org demands that you see WT teaching as absolute pure truth you are chained to their bias concerning all teaching beyond them. To me this is a far worse form of spiritual and intellectual ignorance then a bias form of KJV ahereance.

2. Jesus Identity.

You could not find any passage that makes the connection clear by stating it verbatum. Jesus is the Arch Angel Micheal. So you were forced to make one and so you did the best way the WT know how. That much is clear.

To my challenge to find one passage your responce was JW classic. Instead of simply and honestly saying no there is no passage that states it as I would have done. You counter with a slam at the absence of the word 'Trinity' mensioned in scripture. Just to be honest and true with you.

NO THE WORD TRINITY IS NOT MENSIONED ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. If it was I would have it in bold as above. I have nothing to hide on this, nor am I embarrassed of it. It simply does not exist in scripture. What exactly does this prove? That the word does not exist. Yet the word GodHead Does. I also provided many passages that define the nature of Jesus as God, or of the substance of God, in my last Post, you also ignored or skewed over with more passages concerning Micheal. I provided you with passages that say Jesus is God using and beyond just John 1:1. I also included passages that included indications of his divine nature that are much closer comparisions to God then Micheal. These in and of themselfs are sufficent to prove beyond all doubt the Nature of Jesus was the same as that of God the Father.

However to kick a dead hoarse on the matter Hebrews 1:5 makes certain that God NEVER called any of the Angels his son. In fact the NLT translation has this written in plain english for all to see.

More scriptural Evidence;

In many passages of the OT we see over and over again Jehovah making it very clear that he created no other God, or god, or 'a' god. Isaiah 43:10 makes this fact resoundingly clear.

This means that we as humans create Gods, deify Angels as lesser Gods, but God does not. He created no angel to be his son, nor did he create any lesser Gods. We are called the sons of God by adoption through Jesus Christ Gods 'only begotten' son. There is the Class of God or the divine, Class of Angelic beings, such as Micheal, Satan, Gabriel, and others. Then there is us of Flesh and Blood.

a. Daniel 10:13. Mensiones 4 Chief Princes. The language of the passage lets the reader know that Micheal is one of 4 like him the Prince of Persia is most likely Angelic as this prince is at war with Micheal and the Messenger to Daniel.

b. Jude 1:9 Does mension Micheal by his title in using a definite article, 'The Arch Angel'. My understanding of the Definite article is to identify who that person is. What purpose would there be in stating Micheal in an indefinite way concerning the fact that more Arch Angels exist? When we refer to a General in the army it is 'The General Swartzcoff' or other that is mensioned. We are not reminded that Other generals in the army exist since it has no relavance to the matter at hand. Therefore this passage does not logically discount the fact that there are 3 other Arch Angels or Chief Princes besides Micheal.  

Also you will notice in the verse that Micheal rebukes Satan in the name of the Lord. This is a reference to Jesus. If you compare the language with that of Ephesians 4:1-5, the person of the Lord is that of Jesus Christ, the person of the the Father is that of Theos or God. Its one of those trinitarian proofs like Matthew 28:18-20 among the ones already mensioned.

c. Jesus connection to Angels,

Matt 25
Math 13
2Thess 1:7

These are your reference or 'proof texts'. I think I have provided sufficent proof that this is simply illogical and scripturally inaccurate.

The fact that Jesus has contol of the Armies of God is no secrect. Nor does it prove in anyway that he his Micheal. It perhaps Proves that Micheal will be there. It does not say in anyway that he is Christ or that he will ressurect the dead. What you have established clearly here Ben is simply that Jesus will come back as Jesus Christ. His return will be hailed by a shout, with the voice of the Arch Angel.

What is not said? What Arch Angel's voice is heard.
That Jesus has the power to lead his father army of Angels.


Jesus is King of Kings. A King has generals in his army that fight on his behalf. Concerning the Battle though it was Jesus who went to the Cross and won the battle there before the battle in heaven. Micheal would not have had the power to defeat Satan if Jesus had not gone to the Cross.

You see he is our accuser and goes to God for this very reason. When Christ died on the Cross for us this power was lost. He paid the penalty for our sins and won our freedom. This is how and When Jesus defeated Satan. How do you think Micheal had the power to defeat Satan.

Still no proof from scripture only WT conjecture.

3. Prophecies from scripture concerning WT. You didn't read my post accurately. I know how slippery you people are concerning accepting blame. You make perdictions, certain perdictions, based on inerrant biblical calculations. When the certianly do not come to pass WT will make and excuse such as you did in your responce and blame everyone else. I have literature on this to come as well.

You deny prophetic outterance from the WT. Which is odd in that you call yourself a Prophet which is discouraged and never done by JWs. I realize you will have a handy spin on it as you all do but none the less like your ORG it is misleading and deceptive unless you are proclaiming yourself as one with divine inspiration. It reminds me of the kid that wears death metal shirts taties, and leather studded jackets then offended when someone labels him a 'punk'. If they were not looking for a responce in that regard they would not dress that way. You call yourself a prophet to draw in negative comments inorder to play the victim, and pass judment upon the assailent condemning them of unlearned ignorance concerning the scriptures. Correct me if I am wrong here Ben, it seems obvious what your game is here however. If I am wrong then tell me of your spiritual gift and how that plays out conerning the WT? Only other conclusion is that you concider yourself apart of the 144000 or the John Class who are unctioned but the Holy Spirit to know. Yet do they have the gift of prophecy?

You explain it to me.

As for the End of the World dates you lose, since it is WT that made them. As said they also made out of the same lump of clay the doctrine that Jesus returned in his 'invisible presence'. None of the Scriptures in Acts nor in the OT you provided proves that it was invisible. In fact the Hebrews would not know where they were Going if God was not leading them by a Pillar of Fire by day and a Cloud by night. No one has ever seen God, the person of him no. Yet they have seen him in his wonders and that is all the Cloud and the Pillar of fire were. They were Gods wonders showing them that the living God was Among them in a powerfull way. Or was parting the read sea also metaphorical? They didn't see God in all his Glory only a Pillar of Fire and a Cloud.

Matthew 24 makes very clear that his return would be seen as far as the east is from the west. It will be as clear as a bell. The warning is against false teachers that tell people he is here or there. All the earth will know friend that it is the context. Who is teaching false doctrine now????


WW1 was never a JW perdiction, but Armageddon was. What do you think Tase Russel believed of WW1 and what result would be? The end of the World? I mean how bad do you want to get into this? If he was wrong about the world ending in 1914 which he was obviously then it would stand to reason that he was also wrong about his teaching concerning Jesus return aswell. I am no scholar, however I am no idiot either. That is common sense Ben, open your eyes.
 
That is enough for now.

I will comment on the rest in a new post later.

Answer
We have another party that has joined in this debate a Rev. Darryl Murphy the following is an excerpt of his comments,my response will be in public forum:




Questioner: Darryl
Category: Jehovah`s Witness
Private: No
Subject: Jehovahs Memory; Trinity; Jesus as Michael-A few questions
Question: Hello Brother Grunbaum; I have been following the discussion on "Jehovah's Memory" and must say that both present good argument# However, as with many things, when one stands to defense and the other offense, truth rarely presents itself# It becomes a battle of who is right and who is wrong, rather than what is right and what is wrong#

Now I do not wish to enter into this discussion or take part in debate# However I will if allowed, as a reader, make certain statements, clarifications and pose question to both you and the questioner for consideration on this subject matter#

1# New World Translation

It is true that the NWT is ranked among the "best" translations# However, this is due to ease of reading and use of modern language# Most scholars that have reviewed the translation agree that it is accurate in some cases, bias too JW Doctrine and Theology in some cases, and inaccurate in rendering in others#

An example of inacurrate rending:

Gen 3:1 NWT
1Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made# So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said ​YOU​ must not eat from every tree of the garden?”

Attention is drawn to the word "cautious"# The use of this word changes the context of the passage to denote or imply that the serpent was "reserved"#, "timid" "showing great concern"

In the above passage, the word Hebrew word translated in the NWT "cautious" is "aruwm" which means "crafty" 'shrewd" "sly"

So the literal translation would be that the serpent was more crafty, intelligent, sensible and slick than the other creatures, not that he was more reserved, timid or cautious#

The JWS have been charged with being decietful in quoting scholars because they generally only quote the scholars area of agreement with the NWT and never give the complete quotation or opinion of the scholar# In most cases, where the scholar himself is not a JW, the general opinion of the NWT is that it is a theologically biased as any other translation especially concerning the 'deity" or divine nature of christ#

King James Version:

It is also true, that the King James Version ranks low among the translations# This is because of the use of archaic words and its poetic structure# It is difficult for someone without knowledge of Hebrew and Greek to understand the full context of what the scriptures are really stating in this version#

The King James Version, as well as others, also come into critism for retaining the added doxologies to certain passages the do not appear in the original texts# Example of this would be the "Lords Prayer" found at Mattew 6:9-13:

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy na#e#

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

11 Give us this day our daily bread#

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors#

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#

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever# Amen#" Is an addition to the scripture and does not appear in the original text# It is a doxology placed by the translators in praise of God# The NWT as well as other versions such as the ASV exclude the doxologies and state only what is found in the original texts#

So whereas the NWT is easy to read etc#, it is not without flaw and bias#


Identity crisis of concerning Jesus:

No other subject in the history of religion is more controversial than this# It has been a confusion to those who are more prone to follow the theology and doctrine of men rather than what the Bible plainly states#

No matter how it is twisted, explained or formulated, there is no scriptural support for Jesus being God, or for him being Michael the Arch Angel#

The belief that Jesus is Arch Angel Michael, is primarily taught in the JW religion and the Seventh Day Adventist religion from which Russell borrowed or more better adopted such belief and explanation#

The Trinitarian Formula was developed centuries after Christs life here on earth and was primarily an explanation given by Greek Philosophers concerning the nature of God# Tertullian first coined the word Trinity # Trinitas# around 200 A#D in his writings concerning the nature of Christ#

In 325 A#D this matter was debated in depth against the theology of one called Arius who taught that Jesus was the first creation of God# It was at this time that the Trinitarian doctrine was declared the official belief of the "Church" by Emperor Constantine and was made the central part of what is now called the Nicean Creed#

The issue of Trinity or nature of Christ became more unscriptural by the writings of Augustine# What was thought to be a scriptural explaination of the relationship between father and son, is no more than a philosophical non biblically supported theology developed by men who refused to follow the scriptures#

Both Trinity and Archangel arguments present an identity crisis#


A few simple Questions:

1# In what passage or passages of scripture do we find prophecy that the Arch Angel Michael would be transformed into flesh, preach, or proclaim if you prefer, be crucified for all mankind, return to the right hand as the lamb of God?

2# In what passage or passages of scripture do we find prophecy that God Himself would be transformed into flesh, preach, or proclaim if you prefer, be crucified for all mankind, return to the right hand of himself as the lamb of God and seperate divison of himself?

Now as you contemplate or ignore the questions presented, remember, the question was asked what scripture, not theology or doctrine#

Now as the JWS reject a notion of Trinity and also Modalism,in the argument that Jesus is Michael, they fall prey to the very thing they say they dont believe# It can be considered either modalism or a form of Trinity concerning Jesus himself# Example:

Jesus = Son of God in the flesh
Jesus= Michael the Archangel
Jesus= Abaddon

The above are all beliefs of the JWS# So now the question becomes, are these the three modes in which Jesus operates#modalism#, or are these 3 distinct "persons" for lack of better wording, in one Christ#trinity##

So the JWS find themselves tangled in contradiction of belief# For what the reject about one, the accept about the other# Problem is, it is not what the Bible teaches, it is what the theology of others teach#

The Bible plainly states the following:

Jesus = Word of God
Jesus = Wisdom of God
Jeus =  Son of God
Jesus = Lamb of God

There was no mystery when Jesus asked the question to his disciples:

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Notice the answer of Peter and the response of Jesus. All through the New Testament or Greek Scriptures as some would prefer, the identification of the Anointed One#Christ#, is SON OF GOD. Anything other is simply theories of men, not of the scripture. There is no crisis in identifying Jesus in scripture, he is clearly revealed in Old Testamanent or Hebrew Scripture and understanding of his being made even more clear in the New Testament or Greek Scriptures. The failure is that we choose to identify with the explanations of men, not God through scripture.


As for Jehovahs Memory..Yes without a doubt we will remain in Jehovahs memory..the scriptures plainly tell us how this will be.


So all in all, the arguments sound good, have good points, even would make sense to those who choose to apply earthly logic to something that is foolishness to men, but the truth of the matter is, non of the arguments are actually what the Bible says...just what men say.

So going forward, can this be a reasoning of scripture not theology or doctrine? Can we stick to what the Bible really says?


Hope this is not one of those things that gets rejected. Grunbaum as always, I enjoy discussing with you, and to the scholar pretending not to be a scholar, it has been enjoyable seeing your responses as well.

Sincerly


Rev. Darryl Murphy







I will send a revision to your latest thread.










My revision:


"You did provide a list of scholars that you claim verify the NWT and part of my focus as time goes on will be to deal with thier 'non' bias adjendas and even personally contact them myself as I do not trust the WT literature and claims, simply because for each mistake they make they don't own it but avoid it and say 'the light gets brighter'"



My list was not from WT literature,you assumed it was,we do have the same list but it came from here:

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm





. If the origionals (greek copied manuscripts) didn't contain the name Jehovah, or YHVH, is it not deceptive to add it in and call it a proper translation? Again in order to translate something from one language to another it must exist in that text and language inorder for us to transfere it to another.




Again your assumptions are wrong,you have been taught greek manuscripts didn't contain the name of God.The Tetragrammaton appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures ,they didn't have the NT like we do today ,so thats the manuscript and scrolls they had


Jesus taught his followers to pray to God: “Let your name be sanctified ,since he knew who God is he would never say his name was lord.


(John 17:6) . . .“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . .

Was the name he made known as a Jew lord.


So the Septuagint was used by Jesus’ disciples so what you are doing is keeping a blatant lie going.

God’s name Jehovah  YHWH  appeared in the Septuagint,Manuscripts of the book of Revelation have God’s name in its abbreviated form, “Jah,” Hallelujah  and some even removed that for . Alleluia But apart from that, no ancient Greek manuscript have his name.


The manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are not the originals so we have copies of copies and tampering was done.



Its no question to a bible student that the Jew Matthew included God’s name in his Gospel.

We know that Because he wrote it originally in Hebrew,he was a Jew , Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate said:

“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language"


Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God’s name, especially when quoting from parts of the “Old Testament” that contained the name.

Fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus’ day have survived down to our dayand Jehovah appeared in them.

Older Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint often had the letters YHWH or a space within the Greek text, one example being the Dead Sea Scrolls.


What is the point that the name of God is not Jehovah,I dont see your point.His name has not changed from Jehovah to lord just because it was removed by Satan.






"Matthew 24 makes very clear that his return would be seen as far as the east is from the west. It will be as clear as a bell. The warning is against false teachers that tell people he is here or there. All the earth will know friend that it is the context. Who is teaching false doctrine now???"


Why is it he has to return,he was here,this doctrine makes it seem he forgot what he came here in the first place,if it was his purpose to set up his kingdom on earth he didn't need to leave.

In fact they asked this very same question about him staying and not leaving:


(Acts 1:6) . . .When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”




This false teaching he is to return makes no sense,return for what,his kingdom is in heaven he made that clear so your belief he will return will end in disaster.





WW1 was never a JW perdiction, but Armageddon was. What do you think Tase Russel believed of WW1 and what result would be? The end of the World? I mean how bad do you want to get into this? If he was wrong about the world ending in 1914 which he was obviously then it would stand to reason that he was also wrong about his teaching concerning Jesus return aswell. I am no scholar, however I am no idiot either. That is common sense Ben, open your eyes.





No they didn't predict world war I they knew the times ended in 1914 and the war confirmed it which was the sign Jesus gave that his kingdom was established,I have no problem of believing it was the end of this evil system,his kingdom was born in 1914 so why woudn't they believe it.


What got church people like you all twisted up is the sign he gave,you are taught his signs were proof hes coming again when that is not what they were asking him,I just showed you what they believed about his kingdom:

(Acts 1:6) . . .When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”



This time not in 2,000 years from then,there was no need for him to leave and come back,when this was asked he has already been resurrected so he have completed why he came in the first place.


For his followers to ask this question meant they believed he was staying and restoring Isreal.

So why would they ask for a sign in Matt about his return this question is in Acts long after Matt and the signs,Jesus had not died yet when they asked for a sign.

Thats why I said you are all twisted up and confused by teachings of Demons.


Makes no logical sense to believe in Acts he would stay and set up things right then and then earlier ask when was he coming again,they never believed he was leaving in the first place so your belief is just plain stupid when compared to scripture.


As twisted and confused as you are you still dont see my point

If they believed all along even after he died that he was staying and not going anywhere why would they ask him years earlier when was he coming again and ask for signs,church people just dont think,thats your problem you pay another man to think for you.



So he tells you the word they asked is coming :


Matthew 24
King James Version (KJV


Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Why would you have reason to think otherwise that they didn't ask about his coming since it says coming.



This is why most bible believers will be lost because they didn't have enough sense to examine scripture.


If they did they would have descovered the GK was presence

Young's Literal Translation
Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

Other translations agree with our NWT that they coudn't have possibly asked such a dumb question as to when was he coming again.


Since we just read their line of thought about his kingdom they were asking about signs his kingdom was present,he had just told them the place they worshiped would be flattened so they were asking about signs comcerning that.

Young's Literal Translation

And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple,

2 and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.'



So his answers centered around this.I cant help that you cant see things from a spiritual perspective of truth,you sit up in a den of Demons learning falsehoods so when you hear the truth it makes no sense.


1 Timothy 4-
Young's Literal Translation


giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons,



So this is why you are all twisted in your thinking.You lose every topic we discuss and you think you are winning.








Prophet/Prince  Grünbaum  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Benyamin Grünbaum

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.