You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/No Eddie, We DON'T Get To Correct The Scripture....

Advertisement


Question
I honestly don't know why Eddie decided to bring this back up.  

Truthfully, I've never seen a weaker attempt to justify an attack on the Scriptures, than what I just read in his latest post.

Answer
Eddie, I have read in disbelief, your latest post in which you actually defend the twisting of Matthew 28:19, by your "dear brother Rando".  Its bad enough that you choose to twist my words, and Richard’s words, on a regular occasion.  That is dishonest enough, in and of itself.  But now you are tampering with God’s word.  There are certainly limits as to how far I would go, to appease a friend.  It appears you don’t have those limits, regrettably.

Eddie writes…“As much as I hate to go against what I said, not to entertain anymore proddings from Mr. Holland. I'll make this an exemption for his own enlightenment.”

Actually, you didn’t “enlighten” anybody.  In fact, one can read through your entire post several times, and STILL not know what your position actually is.  Never seen such dancing around.  What we just saw, was someone afraid to say anything that might upset his “pal”, while telling us that maybe the Bible does have some corruption after all.  And then, of course, trying to change the subject to the Trinity…Like we didn’t see that one coming.

Yeah, you really shouldn’t have picked this topic, to go back on your word.  This was the worst post from you yet.

In addressing Eddie’s support for Rando’s Scripture-twisting, I am going to approach this in a different manner, than which I have dealt with you in the past.  I am going to try to appeal to you as a human, and just state the facts of the matter, from your own statements.

Do you realize the danger you are in?  It seems you don’t.  You claim to be a Christian.  You claim to uphold Jehovah’s sovereignty. Do you even KNOW what "Sovereignty" means, Eddie?  It means "Supreme power or authority" .  How are you upholding Jehovah's Sovereignty, when you presume to correct His Word, and support others when they do it, and then tell the board that we have the right to make up our own minds as to the proper rendering of a Scripture?  I believe you just placed that "Sovereignty" on the individual, rather than on Jehovah.

You claim to be a Bible-believer, yet your words betray you. You say you will “tolerate no rivalry against Jehovah”, yet you align yourself with a man who does what Jehovah hates, and corrects Jehovah’s inspired and preserved Word.  You cannot separate God from His Word, Eddie.  You can’t claim loyalty to Him, but sit in silence when His Word is being corrected and changed, and even pretend that the person doing it, has a valid point.  

It appears Eddie’s position on the Scriptures, has done an about-face….All to keep from upsetting Rando.  I’ll tell you one thing…If I had a “friend” who thought he could correct the very words of preserved Scripture, and that “friend” would get upset with me if I told him he was wrong, well, that’s a “friend” I can do without.  In fact, it’s a “friend” that the Scriptures counsel me not to have.

1 Cor. 15:33-  “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”  

The NWT reads….“Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits”

The above, is a verse that JWs are WELL-taught.  But oddly, Eddie seems to not want to obey it.  Rando clearly corrected the Scripture, and there is no debate about that.  Its right there in print.  And Eddie was directly asked for his views TWICE, and he failed to give a direct answer.  He has chosen to have “bad associations”, and the effects are becoming obvious….Just like the Scripture above, told us would happen.  Eddie has been deceived, in direct disobedience with the counsel in the above passage.

And on a side note, Eddie, why did you say this?

“He thinks that because I rejected the questions he sent to me about what my dear brother Rando said of Matthew 28:19, I'm now being accused of "throwing my brother under the bus"

You know Eddie, this is beyond belief.  I have had to point out time and time again, how you get your facts distorted, constantly.  Here is another example.

You did NOT “reject” the questions, Eddie.  Why would you say that?  Granted, you danced around them and did not give a STRAIGHT answer…But you did not send a “rejection”.  You responded to BOTH of them.  The first one posted, and the 2nd one was so short, it did not post.  But you did not “reject” them.

Honestly Man, do you get anything right?

And nobody said you threw Rando under the bus.  I said you were throwing JEHOVAH under the bus.  Surely you are not confusing the two, are you?  But hey, maybe so.  Since it now seems you are more concerned with Rando’s approval, than Jehovah’s.

But I assure you, there are no similarities between Jehovah, and Rando.

But seriously….2 glaring errors in one sentence?  This is why YOU should not “paraphrase” anything.  You simply don’t have the comprehension skills to get it right.  We have seen it over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.  Here is yet another example.  In fact, every single time you try and tackle something, we have to spend time straightening out your misunderstandings and bungling of the facts.  Every single time.

But as I said….You have done an about-face on your own position, and I can prove it with your own words.  You posted in October of 2013, the following statements of God’s preservation of the Scriptures, from the following link….

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2013/10/case-close-lie-cross.h

Eddie G- "On the other hand, the written WORD of God, God's Word the Bible is the Truth and will always remain the truth for Jehovah God is the Living God and will preserve it forever.

As Scripture tells us:

“. . .The sayings of Jehovah are pure; They are like silver refined in an earthen furnace , purified seven times. 7 You will guard them, O Jehovah; You will protect each one them from this generation forever.” (Psalm 12:6, 7)

Thus His words will remain untarnished and will be fulfilled and ALL lies will be exposed - including your revered CROSS.”

So, God’s Word will REMAIN UNTARNISHED, and it will be PRESERVED forever, according to you.

But NOW, we read….

Eddie G-  “The TRANSLATION of it however into other languages is suspect as it's prone to mistakes and errors since it's affected by many factors - such as biases/misinterpretations.”

But I thought you said God would “PRESERVE” it forever?  I thought you said it will “REMAIN UNTARNISHED”?  What happened, Eddie?

But unfortunately, you weren’t done….

Eddie G:  “Now, in regards to Matthew 28:19, whether if it was tampered with by Trinitarians, time well tell. But as far as what I've seen and read so far, the evidence is quite convincing, even logical. Of course for me, it will take more than what I've done to conclusively believe that it was tampered with. But as evidence mount, that might as well be the case.”

This is simply astounding!  The very guy who assured us a year ago that God’s Word will “REMAIN UNTARNISHED” , is now the very guy who is telling us that maybe it WAS tampered with after all.  But if God is powerful enough to preserve His Word and keep it untarnished, then how is it that now a bunch of “Trinitarians” are somehow able to overthrow God’s ability to keep it “untarnished”?

Again, there is a future post coming on this, and I will prove from NON-TRINITARIAN web sites, that Matthew 28:19-20 is CORRECTLY translated in our Bible.

To say that this verse can be changed from its rendering in the preserved Scripture, is to deny that God has preserved it at all, after flat out telling everyone that He WOULD do so.

But it gets even worse, if that is possible….

Eddie G-  “But what would this do to the NWT? Would this "tampering" invalidate it, if found true?

The answer is NO! Absolutely NOT! Instead it will make OUR case that much much more stronger, even unassailable! That the Trinity Dogma is NOT in the Bible. That it owes its existence to the Trinitarians who purposefully added it into the Bible.”

Dear readers, I want you to let sink in for a moment, what you just read….Whether he even knows it or not, he just told you that IF the evidence points to the fact that this verse is translated WRONGLY in the NWT, then it makes the case for the NWT and the WT, even stronger!!  So, I guess having a glaring translation error in your Bible, is now a good thing, eh?  How twisted does someone’s thinking have to be, to even type something like that?

But something even MORE interesting.  Eddie just stated that IF Matthew 28:19 is shown to be a “tainted” verse, then that would PROVE the Trinity is not Biblical.  

But THEN, he turns right around in the next paragraph, and contradicts his own statement.  He now changes directions, and tells us that Matthew 28:19, does not even teach the Trinity, anyway.

Eddie G-  “In addition, even in its current state, Matthew 28:19 doesn't support the Trinity teaching. No matter how hard Trinitarians try to make it to conform to their dogma, Matthew 28:19 will not work. The trinity formula is just not there!”

Unbelievable!  A direct contradiction of his previous statement.  He first says that if this verse is found to be altered, then that would show that Trinitarians inserted it to teach the Trinity,  And then he tells us this verse doesn’t teach the Trinity.

Eddie, that’s one of the reasons I said you should’ve left this one alone.  You refused to give a direct answer before, as I knew you would. Okay, it was over with, as far as you were concerned.  You showed your loyalty to Rando, and your disloyalty to God.  But then, you made the mistake of bringing it back up, in your usual clueless manner, completely not even grasping the issue.  And look how much worse you made it.

But a question….If Matthew 28:19 doesn’t support the Trinity, then WHY feel the need to change, alter, or re-word it to begin with?  Why does Rando feel so threatened by it, to come on here and tell us that it SHOULD read something else, than what it reads in every Bible under the sun?  If it doesn’t support the Trinity, that is…..

But let's just lay all the cards on the table here....There is ONE reason, and ONE reason ONLY, that Rando doesn't like this verse...Because Rando HATES the Trinity, and Rando believes the current wording, even in his own NWT, is CONSISTENT with Trinitarian belief.

You notice he isn't attacking "Jesus wept" ....Its just odd that Rando can claim there is NO Scripture showing 3-in-1, yet when he finds one, that spirit inside of him wants to tell us it needs to be changed, because its "tampered with".  Convenient....Change all the Scriptures you don't like, and then tell us there is no Scriptural support for a doctrine.   Well I guess not...after you twist all of the Scriptures that teach it.

Now, I will say that this verse does not CONCLUSIVELY, as a stand-alone verse, prove the Trinity.   In other words, we need (and have) the whole of the Scripture’s teachings to provide a good foundation for our teaching, and would not base it on merely this one verse.  However, this verse certainly IS consistent with the Trinity, and the language certainly IS Trinitarian.  And Rando knows it, and I think you do, too.  That was the reason it came under attack from that Bible-twister in the first place.  

Eddie, you have dug quite a hole in this response of yours. Actually, more than a hole....Basically, you have dug the Grand Canyon.  You just shouldn’t have gone there.

But he’s still not done….

Eddie G-  “So whether it should be corrected or not it's up to the Bible Committee to make the decision (as they have the resources to make the determination - in my opinion).”

This is one of the most astoundingly absurd statements I have ever read in any post, and it clearly shows the level of control over Eddie’s thinking, that he has allowed to happen.  To make a statement like this, is incredible to me.

Folks, I wouldn’t have believed it, if I hadn’t seen it myself.  This guy just told us that it is “UP TO THE BIBLE COMMITTEE”, to decide if God’s Word needs to be CORRECTED.  Read it…That is exactly what he said.

Uh, just WHO on this “Committee”, has been given the authority to correct Scripture?  Who on earth, for that matter, has been given that authority?  And what "resources" would give this "Committee" the authority to correct the Scripture?  We can now put God’s Words before a “Committee”, to decide if it needs to be “corrected”????  This sounds exactly like what the "Jesus Seminar" did several years back, where a group of men sat around with different color marbles, casting their "vote" as to whether Jesus made certain statements that are attributed to Him in Scripture.  Basically, if they voted "yes", then Jesus said it.  If they voted "no", then He didn't.

Blasphemy!

But let’s talk about this “Committee”, for a moment.  The fact is, Eddie doesn’t even know the names of the people on this “Committee”.  He couldn’t name them if he had to.  Don’t believe it?  Ask him.  Write him, and ask him who they are.  He doesn’t know.

Yet, he is willing to place his eternal life into their hands, and if they decide (possibly by a narrow margin vote) that God needs “correcting”, then Eddie will go right along with the correction.

Man, we’ve come a long way from his telling us a year ago, that God will PRESERVE His Word, and keep it “UNTARNISHED”.  

I think I’ll just stick to the preserved Word of God that has stood the test of time, if that’s okay, Eddie.  I hold the Bible in much higher regard than you do, it appears.  You people always want to change the subject back to the name “Jehovah”, which NOBODY here “hates”, or has argued against.  It’s a diversion.  This topic is about the correct rendering of Matthew 28:19.  

And you just told us, that a “Committee” of people whom you don’t even know, are to be trusted to decide if Jesus got it wrong, or not.  Or at the very least, if God managed to “preserve” His Word, in accordance with His promise to do so.  How does THAT honor the name "Jehovah"?  It doesn't....Its the biggest insult you could give Him.

No thanks!  I believe I’ll just stick with the Word of God, and you can have your “Committee”.  

You’re on very dangerous ground, Eddie.  You need to wake up.  This is serious, Man.

See, you want to turn every conversation into one about the Trinity, which we have already proven, you do not understand in the least.  Or, you want to turn it into a topic about Jehovah’s name, which NOBODY has a problem with.  But it isn’t.  Its about how Matthew 28:19 should be rendered…..

The  KJB (King James Bible) renders Matthew 28:19, as follows:

Matthew 28:19-  “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”


The NWT (New World Translation of the JW religion) renders it as follows:

Matthew 28:19-  “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit”


And the RSV (Rando’s Silly Version) renders it as follows:

Matthew 28:19-  “"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in my name”

Did anybody just catch that?  I wonder if EDDIE even caught it??  Rando is correcting his OWN NWT, here.  Notice HIS quote, and the rendering from the NWT, are identical, word-for-word, UNTIL the very last part.  So, Eddie's notion that Rando is correcting only the KJB, just fell flat with a resounding "thud".  Its obvious just by reading Rando's quote, and the NWT rendering, which one he changed....HIS OWN NWT!!!!!!!

Let's see you excuse THAT one, Eddie....

Now, what is interesting, is that Eddie tries to claim that Rando is merely arguing against the KING JAMES BIBLE, and since they don’t believe it is the work of the Holy Spirit, then Rando isn’t arguing against the Holy Spirit’s preservation of Scripture at all.  

Right after Rando just corrected the NWT, no less.  

What utter hogwash, that lame excuse truly is!  Did Eddie just not realize that his OWN NWT, renders it almost IDENTICALLY to the King James Bible?  So, Rando cannot argue against the KJB rendering on this verse, without ALSO arguing against the NWT rendering, which was put out by “the Slave” itself.  

So, you have a real sticky situation here….You have 2 guys who CLAIM to be loyal to the “Slave”, actually arguing AGAINST its rendering in their own “bible” translation.

Like I said….Eddie threw Jehovah under the bus, by siding with Rando’s tampering with the Scriptures.  And he can whine all day about me “twisting” his words, but I have twisted nothing.  These are the facts as they exist.  Rando corrected the Scripture, and in the process, corrected the JW version of the Bible.  And Eddie was asked to comment about his own loyalty, and we just saw it….He claims Rando may just have a valid point about even the NWT being wrong, after already telling us that Jehovah would preserve His Word and keep it “untarnished”.

No wonder Eddie didn’t want to answer this!  You know, Eddie, if you are not willing to stand for truth and the final authority of God’s Word, then you have no business being here answering questions, and slandering other people, and accusing THEM of not believing the Bible.  We have just seen you admit that you believe the Bible’s renderings, are subject to a “Committee” at the WT Headquarters, which “Committee” I might add, has NOT chosen to change anything about this verse, and is in direct disagreement with your friend Rando.

So yes, your claim that you “will tolerate no rivalry against Jehovah”, has just been shown to be bogus.  You do tolerate it.  In fact, you go right along with it.  It just depends on who is doing it, right?  If we stand on the Word of God even where it disagrees with your Organization, then WE are said to be attacking Jehovah. If your own buddy decides that Jehovah was wrong, and the Holy Spirit has failed to correctly preserve Scripture, you cower in the corner and say, in effect, “Maybe he has a point”

If I were that spineless, I would be ashamed for my name to be in this forum another day.  Because you obviously cannot answer the tough questions, and deal with the tough issues.  You let personal feelings get in the way.  What, did Rando pull you out of a lake or a burning house, or something?  What happened that makes you more afraid of offending him, than correcting the Bible?

But Rando’s initial post on this matter, was rather odd, in the first place.  I mean, he had just been lying to the board, claiming that I had made some absurd statement about the Holy Spirit lying for 1500 years.  And then, he basically says the Holy Spirit has been lying about Matthew 28:19.  This guy is unreal.  

And then, Eddie and Ms. T did their very best to avoid answering this question, by trying to make it my fault that Rando makes a fool of himself almost daily.  Uh, I didn’t correct the Scripture.  And both of these people who CLAIM they are about defending the Bible, both showed extreme cowardice, and also showed that they’re more worried about upsetting a “friend” (who puts them in these predicaments with his ridiculous posts), than about standing for the Scriptures.

And Rando’s reason for tampering with God’s Word?  Well, let’s just hear it from his own mouth.  

He states….“Matthew 28:19 has never set right with me.”

Oh really?  So, now we can just go through the Bible and find Scriptures that “don’t set right” with us, and just change them to make them more appealing?  How nice.  I guess if 2 people who are fornicating and don’t want to get married and honor God, can just decide all those Scriptures on fornication, “don’t set right” with them.  I guess if a thief wants to steal, then he can just decide that the verses about stealing “don’t set right with him”.  If fact, isn’t that what the homosexual movement also does?  Takes all the Scriptures that “don’t set right”, and try to tell us they don’t really mean what they say after all?  All to justify their own lifestyle?

But hey….Maybe that explains all the lying these people do.  All those Scriptures where Jehovah condemns lying, “just don’t set right” with them.  I mean, what does Jehovah know about how “apostates” on Allexperts should be handled?

Congrats, DW/Danny Boy….This is where your notion of placing human logic over the Scriptures, gets you.  You ought to be right proud....

But that brings up a serious question.  If we can tamper with and change verses that “don’t set right” with us, then we need to ask…..

Is the Bible suppose to correct us, or do we correct it?”  

If we correct it, then WE are the final authority.  If it corrects us, then IT is the final authority.  

Regarding whether or not we can correct Matthew 28:19, Eddie makes this amazing statement that defies imagination….

Eddie G-  “Still, you can make the determination on your own, if you choose to, like brother Rando. We have the freedom to do so with the intention of finding out the truth. In fact we're encourage to make the truth OUR OWN!”

There are so many things wrong with this statement, that I could spend a whole other post on this one paragraph.

First, we don't "make the truth our own", by deciding for ourselves what the "truth" is, by tampering with the Bible.  We are supposed to READ the Bible, and get our truth from it....Not twist it, to make our own truth.  "Making the truth your own" , doesn't mean "Make our own truth" .  It means finding out what the truth IS, and patterning our lives after it.

That's like people who say "But it feels so right" .  The question is not "What feels right" , but rather, "What is right to feel?"

Second, we are NOT to “determine on our own”, whether or not a Scripture needs to be altered by US, because it “doesn’t set well” with us.  How absurd!  Eddie needs reminding that there are a few warnings in the Scriptures, about that very thing, and we are WARNED not to tamper with what God has said.  We are to submit ourselves to it….Not tamper with it.

Proverbs 30:5-6-  “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

I think we just saw this verse come to pass in Eddie’s post.

But is Eddie saying here, that we can determine if a passage really means what it says, or if it SHOULD SAY SOMETHING ELSE, “with the intention of finding out the truth” ?  

This is unbelievable!  Might I remind Eddie that we “find out the truth” by READING AND BELIEVING the inspired Scriptures, not deciding on our own if they need changing.  Does a verse become false, if I don’t like it?  And does it become “truth”, if I change it?

Where in the Bible does he get this notion, when everything we read, commands us to BELIEVE God’s Words, and not tamper with them?

Psalm 33:4-  “For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.”
Romans 3:4-  “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;”

But Eddie says we all have the right, in our pursuit of “truth”, to decide if a verse of Scripture, inspired by God and preserved by the Holy Spirit, should say something else.  

Simply amazing.


Now, THIS one has to be addressed….

Eddie G:  “Notice. Here we can see Mr. Holland's apparent confusion as to what brother Rando was saying.

Brother Rando wasn't saying that "the Holy Spirit was lying to us for 1500 years", but that since DH admitted that the "Holy Spirit changed the meaning of "passover" to "EASTER" in the 16th Century", thus he (Mr. Holland) made it appear the H.S. was responsible for INTRODUCING an error into the Bible. Something that is impossible to occur because when God's holy spirit is involved, such as when the Bible was written, then it WAS indeed "without error" infallible!

Thus, brother Rando used Mr. Holland's own words to state the ridiculousness of what he said, that the "Holy Spirit changed the meaning of "passover" to "EASTER" in the 16th Century".


Now, let me address Eddie’s “apparent confusion”.  There is just one teeny problem with what he just wrote, when he claims “since DH admitted the Holy Spirit changed the meaning of Passover” , and “brother Rando used Mr. Holland’s own words” .

The problem?….These statements were never made by me.  I never said a word about the Holy Spirit “changing the meaning” of anything.  Ever.  So, Rando could not have been “using my own words“, when I never uttered those ridiculous words.

But the worst part, is that Eddie KNOWS this already.  This is not a mistake, because we have already had this conversation.  Eddie knows that Rando got that statement from an ARTICLE written by another person, an article that I said I didn’t fully agree with, no less, and that he falsely attributed the quote to me.  Eddie also knows that I have never once made this statement.  

Furthermore, Eddie knows that I have openly challenged Rando to show where I made that comment, and that Rando has never once been able to do it.  

Eddie also knows that I take a completely different position, on why “Easter” is the correct translation of “pascha” in Acts 12:4, and it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit changing the meaning of anything.  

So, why is Eddie sticking his neck out like this, for something he KNOWS is a lie?  Simple…The same reason he will side with Rando, even when Rando corrects the Scriptures.  The same reason he will join Rando in spreading lies and falsehood.  

Because he doesn’t have the spine to stand for what he tells everyone he believes, and Eddie actually thinks lying is okay, as long as you’re lying about an “enemy of God”, as he perceives me to be.

But make no mistake…Eddie and I have already had this conversation, and Eddie knows full well that Rando made this statement up, and that it’s a lie.  Yet, he was foolish enough to publicly claim that I had said this, knowing full well I would expose it?

Rando just made you look foolish again, Eddie.  And you went right along with it.  


Eddie G:  “There's NO WAY in the universe that Jehovah's holy spirit will make a mistake”

That is correct.  And there is no way in the universe that He will go through the care to inspire the Scriptures perfect and without error, only to allow them to become tarnished with error, and leave us without the true rendering on something so important as to how we are to be baptized.

I don't think it has occurred to Eddie that, if Rando is correct, then Eddie HIMSELF has not yet had a valid, Scriptural baptism.  It is incredible to me, to think that a loving God would allow us to have a FALSE rendering on the correct manner to baptize, for nearly 2,000 years.  

Yet, that is what Rando's position implies, and Eddie thinks Rando has a valid point, and said he was GLAD that Rando brought this up.  Why would anybody be "GLAD" that someone corrected the Scriptures?

These people reveal more and more their true colors, with every post, it seems.  No wonder the Scriptures warned us about "wolves in sheep's clothing".


Eddie G:  “Unfortunately, even if this is the case, Trinitarians like Mr. Holland will still CONTINUE to attack the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to hide the truth about their beloved KJV. This they will gladly do at the expense of denying even "in the name of Christ"!!!”

Notice how hard Eddie tries to get Rando out of his own hole, and only succeeds in falling into it himself?  

First, this topic wasn’t even an “attack against the NWT” by me in the first place, as Eddie falsely tries to make it appear.  It was a response to Rando’s attack against, not only the KJB, but his own NWT.  

Its funny how Eddie tries to distort who is doing the “attacking” of the NWT, on this topic.  I am not the one who said the NWT rendering was wrong on this particular passage, because as already pointed out, it is basically identical to the KJB rendering of Matthew 28:19.

So, the only “attack” on the NWT, on this topic, was done by Rando. Although there are several problems with the NWT, its  rendering on this verse is in harmony with what WE believe….and in direct contrast with what Rando believes, and what Eddie wants him to think that he also believes.

Nice try, Eddie.

And it’s a weird, twisted sort of logic, that thinks believing the Scriptures exactly as they are written, is “denying Christ”, while calling Jesus a liar in His statement of Matthew 28:19, is somehow honoring to Christ.

Again, your thinking is really messed up, Eddie.  May God help you, and open your eyes, before its too late for you.  You display cultic thinking at its very worst, with statements like what you made in this post.

Do you just not see the obvious contradiction in this statement, either?

Eddie G:  “Obvious answer is, because the NWT - DOESN'T SUPPORT his TRINITY DOCTRINE - plain and simple. And if Matthew 28:19 was somehow corrected to read "in the name of Christ", then the vestiges that purportedly support the Trinitarian doctrine has been fully exposed and removed for good.”

But the NWT reads almost exactly like the KJB, in this passage.  So, if the KJB is tampered with by Trinitarians, and the NWT has the SAME rendering, then you can’t claim that the NWT isn’t supporting the Trinity doctrine in this verse.  If the KJB is, then the NWT also is.  Can’t have it both ways.

But if NEITHER of them are teaching the Trinity in this verse, then what is the point in tampering with the verse to begin with?  Why not just leave it alone, if in fact, it doesn’t teach the Trinity in the first place?

You can’t argue that one is, and the other isn’t, when they both have the same rendering.

See what a tangled web you weave, Eddie?  This is why you don’t make friends with a liar.  You will always end up looking foolish.

In closing, Eddie said something else very revealing.  In fact, it was a completely illogical statement, but does shed some light on his thinking pattern, which honestly defies all logic.

He writes…

Eddie G:  “Frankly speaking, to accuse brother Rando of "attacking the Scripture that was inspired by Jehovah" is beyond me and ridiculous. SO, such accusation is quite laughable. Especially coming from a known critic of Jws.”

Notice his attempt to “poison the well”?  By calling me a “known critic of JWs”, there is an attempt to automatically undermine anything I might say, no matter how true or well-documented it is.  Although I do not view myself as a “Critic of Jehovah’s Witnesses”, what does that matter?  The implication is, that a “Critic of JWs”, cannot point out when a JW is attacking the Scripture.  

Uhm, why can’t a "Critic" point out an attack on the Scripture?  That is obviously what Rando did.  Everybody here knows it, including Eddie.  Why do you think he has tried his best to NOT answer this question directly, about what he believes?  Simple…To say what he knows is the CORRECT answer, would make Rando upset with him, and we can’t have that, can we?  But to say what would make Rando happy, would subject him to a Scriptural pounding.  He knows that, and that is why all the dancing.

So, what is left to do?  Simple….Try and discredit and attack me, by calling me names such as “Critic”, “Opposer”, “Apostate”, etc.  That way, we don’t have to worry about the facts, because we can attack the messenger instead.

That is what he meant by this comment…“SO, such accusation is quite laughable. Especially coming from a known critic of Jws.”

It’s the oldest trick in the book, and the least effective.  I don’t believe anybody with even half a brain, would think that a person being a “Critic”, has anything to do with whether or not Rando is attacking the Scriptures.  Rando attacked Matthew 28:19, regardless of how many “Critics” are here, or if everyone here is a JW.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.

That’s about as brilliant as saying that I can claim Noah’s ark never existed, and if Bill Maher happens to point out what I said from my own words, then my friends could just discard what I said by pointing out that Bill Maher is an atheist, and a vile human being, and a critic of Christianity.  But what would that have to do, with whether I said Noah’s ark never existed?

And by the way, Noah’s ark DID exist.  That was just an analogy, before these clowns try to jump all over it.

It simply illustrates another one of Eddie's infamous logical fallacies, by trying to link 2 separate issues that have nothing to do with each other.


Eddie G:  “Is Mr. Holland really this concerned about "Jehovah's inspired Word"?

You’d better believe it!  Because unlike you, Eddie, I don’t just give lip-service to believing it.  I actually do.  When I hold a Bible in my hand, I believe I am holding the infallible, inerrant Word of the living God.  

Which Bible do you believe is inerrant, Eddie?  Do you even have one?


I am truly sorry to have to address this so straight forward with you.  But you just don’t learn.  You continue to stick your neck out there and support a liar, even when he is blaspheming the very God you claim you will tolerate no rivalry against, and tampering with the very Bible you claim to believe.  

You need to man-up, Eddie.  Its time you finally stood for something worth standing for, instead of Rando’s lies and distortions.

You allowed him to make you look foolish again.  Was it worth it?  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Derrick Holland

Expertise

I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.

Experience

29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

Organizations
I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for certain...in a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

Education/Credentials
High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.