REFUTING A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

> 7And of the angels He says:
> "Whomakes His angels spirits
> And His ministers a flame of fire." ?
> 8But to the Son He says:
> "Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever;

>Concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse referring to Jesus or God Almighty.? The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7 and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9 "therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who is anointed by God and one who worships God.

...and you don't seem to notice that two persons are mentioned by
being referred to as God. Moreover, if you don't believe in the
Trinity (one God yet three Persons) you are a polytheist.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
Psalm 45:6-7.

Also, the the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1 Ch
29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling David,
Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation "Your throne, O
God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your throne" because
there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or Greek documents, thus
it is up to the translators to insert it. Since He 1:8 is quoting
Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered "God is your throne".

First, Psalm 45 was written by King David in his praise of God and the
future reign of the Messiah. This is why the writer of Hebrews quotes
Psalms 45:7 and refers this to both the Father and Son. So you are
wrong.


The Bible scholar B.F.Wescott said that it was scarcely possible that
"Elohim" (God) should be addressed to a human king thus the
translation "God is thy throne" seemed the best one.

Some other Bible translations that use this wording are An American
Translation, Moffatt, and the marginal readings of American Standard
Version, RSV,and NEB.

When using the last translation it becomes clear that Jesus throne and
all his authority is from Almighty God.


Second, obviously you don't know who you are quoting. Wescott and Hort
were both very biased people and non-Christians.

Hort's Twisted Belief
Along with Hort's unregenerated misconceptions of basic Bible
truths, there were his quirkish and sometimes quackish personal
beliefs.
One such example is his hatred for democracy, as he asserts in a
letter to Rev. Westcott dated April 28, 1865:
"...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see
much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its
forms."109
In fact, Hort's hope, during the years of the American Civil War,
was that the South would win. This desire was fostered by the hope
that such a victory would destroyboth countries to eliminate America's
threat to England's domination of the world. His own words betray this
in a letter which he wrote to Rev. John Ellerton in September of 1862:
"I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much
more than for all the niggers in the world! And I contend that the
highest morality requires me to do so. Some thirty years ago Niebuhr
wrote to this effect: 'Whatever people may say to the contrary, the
American empire is standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe
and sooner or later one or the other must perish.' Every year has, I
think, brought fresh proof of the entire truth of these words.
American doctrine (only too well echoed from Europe itself, though
felt to be at variance with the institutions of Europe) destroys the
root of everything vitally precious which man has by painful growth
been learning from the earliest times till now, and tends only to
reduce us to the gorilla state. The American empire seems to me mainly
an embodiment of American doctrine, its leading principle being
lawless force. Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed it
cannot be wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that
the American Union may be shivered to pieces.

"I do not for a moment forget what slavery is, or the frightful
effects which Olmsted has shown it to be producing on white society in
the South; but I hate it much more for its influence on the whites
than on the niggers themselves. The refusal of education to them is
abominable; how far they are capable of being ennobled by it is not
clear. As yet everywhere (not in slavery only) they have surely shown
themselves only as an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no
more, their religion frothy and sensuous, their highest virtues, those
of a good Newfoundland dog."110
Hort also had no respect for prominent Americans, be they
politician or preacher. Concerning President Abraham Lincoln he wrote:
"I cannot see that he has shown any special virtues or statesmanlike
capacities."111 The great preacher D.L. Moody impressed him as
follows:
"Think of my going with Gray yesterday afternoon to hear 'Moody
and Sankey' at the Haymarket. I am very glad to have been, but should
not care to go again. All was much as I expected, except that the
music was inferior, and altogether Sankey did not leave a favourable
impression. Moody had great sincerity, earnestness, and good sense,
with some American humour which he mostly keeps under restraint, but
in matter is quite conventional and commonplace. Much the most
remarkable thing is the congregation or rather audience."112
Hort's distaste for America may not be solely attributed to
patriotism as much as to a tainting of his thinking by a touch of
Communism. These facts are brought out in his continued correspondence
with Rev. John Ellerton, circa 1850:
"I have pretty well made up my mind to devote my three or four
years up here to the study of this subject of Communism."113

"I can only say that it was through the region of pure politics
that I myself approach Communism."114

"To be without responsibility, to be in no degree our 'brother's
keeper,' would be the heaviest curse imaginable."115

"Surely every man is meant to be God's steward of every blessing
and 'talent' (power, wealth, influence, station, birth, etc. etc.)
which He gives him, for the benefit of his neighbours."116

Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with
his good friend, Brooke Foss Westcott, and others in what was called
the 'Ghostly Guild' (more on this later).

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and
I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all
supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe
that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from
hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any
good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a
schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and Bull Club;' our own
temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild.' "117
Then again, it is possible that the learned doctor was influenced
by more than mere philosophy, as we see in his description of a hotel
in the Alps where he often vacationed:
"Pontresina, Hotel Krone; homely, but very clean and
comfortable; ... beer excellent."118
It is not an amazing thing that any one man could hold to so many
unscriptural and ungodly beliefs. It is amazing that such a man could
be exalted by Bible believing preachers and professors to a point of
authority higher than the King James Bible! Dr. Hort was a truly great
Greek scholar, yet a great intellect does not make one an authority
over the Bible when they themselves do not even claim to believe it!
Albert Einstein was a man of great intellect, but he rejected
Scripture, and so where he speaks on the subject of Scripture he is
not to be accepted as authoritative. Possessing a great mind or great
ability does not guarantee being a great spiritual leader. Dr. Hort
was a scholar, but his scholarship alone is no reason to accept his
theories concerning Bible truth.
If fundamental pastors of today enlisted the services of an
evangelist and found that this evangelist had beliefs paralleling
those of Fenton John Anthony Hort, I believe that the pastor would
cancel the meeting. Strangely through, when a pastor discovers such to
be true about Dr. Hort, he excuses him as "a great Greek scholar" and
presents his Authorized Version to him to be maliciously dissected and
then discarded as Dr. Hort sets himself down in the seat of authority
which the Bible once held. Here again I must assert that most often
this is done with childlike faith on the part of the pastor, due to
the education he received while in seminary. The seminary is not
really guilty either, for they have simply and unsuspectingly accepted
the authority of two men raised under the influence of a campaign by
the Jesuits to re-Romanize England. Wilkenson reports that Hort had
been influenced by these Roman Catholic forces: "Dr. Hort tell us that
the writings of Simon had a large share in the movement to discredit
the Textus Receptus class of MSS and Bibles." 119
Problems with Westcott
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's
credentials are evenmore anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that
Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses"
and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by
name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.
Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of
Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never
understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did
- yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are
we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language
on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad
losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects?
If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord
should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he
would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used
them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a
thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis
for myself alone.)" 120
He also said "David" is not a chronological but a spiritual
person. 121
That the first three chapter of Genesis are all allegory has been
believed by liberals and modernists for years. Do today's
fundamentalists realize that those modernists' beliefs were nurtures
in the heart of this Bible critic?
Westcott was also a doubter of the biblical account of miracles:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel
its improbability, and discover somewhat of evidence in the account of
it." 122 If a great fundamental preacher of our day were to make this
statement, he would be called apostate, but what then of Westcott?
Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a
physical coming but a spiritual coming: "As far as I can remember, I
said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little
book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of
Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord's words; and,
as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming'
to us now." 123
Westcott's "Heaven"
Wait! This fundamental doctrine is not the last one to be denied
by Bishop Westcott, for he believed Heaven to be a state and not a
literal place. Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No
doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from
the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity
with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'" 124
"Yet the unseen is the largest part of life. Heaven lies about us
now in infancy alone; and by swift, silent pauses for thought, for
recollection, for aspiration, we cannot only keep fresh the influence
of that diviner atmosphere, but breathe it more habitually." 125

"We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united
endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly
life."

truthandgrace.com

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

The New World Translation records it this way:

"But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he
says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him."

Thus by using those translations of verse 6, Jesus does not have to be
God. But rather since he is God's
"firstborn" etc, he deserves a greater respect than any of God's other
intelligent beings.


As all Jehovah's Witnesses do, you just assume that the new world
translation is accurate. It is a grossly misleading translation that
no Greek scholar supports or recommends. A friend of mine actually
wrote Julius Mantey who was the foremost Greek scholar of the 20th
century and you can view his hand-written note from 1979 at the link
below.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/Mantey.htm

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

Also, please note this. The name of "Jesus" which was given by angelic
direction, actually means, "Jehovah is Salvation" This name tells us
that Jehovah is the source of Salvation which is carried out through
Jesus.

Thus we see the Father and Son spoken together as our Salvation. Titus
2:11-13,

"11. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all
men.
12. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions,
and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present
age,
13. while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of
our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (NIV)

Obviously you need to go back to high school and take a English class.
God and Savior are both nouns that are descriptive of Jesus Christ.

Granville Sharp's Rule
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1


by James White

This information sheet is divided into two sections. The first is a
brief, basic discussion of what is known as "Granville Sharp's Rule."
This rule is very important in translating and understanding Titus
2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (as well as other passages), and as these
passages bear directly on the discussion of the Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ, we feel Christians should be informed on the subject.
The second section of this paper is a much more in-depth discussion of
the same subject, providing references for those familiar with the
Greek language and the translation of the New Testament.
Section 1
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns,
which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy),
which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the
word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the
second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our
texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus
2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the
word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article.
Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.
This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological
grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical
objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do
so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in
favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence
from the text itself.
In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia"
of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is
reserved for Christ and Him alone.(1) It is immediately followed by
verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem
us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own
possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to
Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no
hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It
might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to
Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to
Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object
to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to
describe His works as the works of God!
The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have
simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have
decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which,
they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such
translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly
commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five
"Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and
3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions
to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and
"Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well
as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on
anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The
construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1,
with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are
transliterated into English:
1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The
only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one
would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ"
at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus
Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow
our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.
Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion
said,
Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let
these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories
about the theology of the writers.
There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate
2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our
great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship,
seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar
finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations
will be destroyed.(3)
Hopefully all involved can echo Dr. Robertson's words. We need not
think that God's Word is our enemy, or that we must twist it around to
suit our needs. God's truth will stand firm, despite all of mankind's
attempts to hide it, or twist it. Christians are looking for that
blessed hope; the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior,
Jesus Christ. In the meantime, let us do good deeds to others, living
in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

> Remember that you are no Greek scholar must less a college
> graduate.

In error. I have a college diploma from an accredited college.


Sorry, colleges confer degrees upon graduates. My degree is from a
California University. High Schools hand out diplomas.

>You might have a high school diploma. So in regards to
> "proskyneo", Christians will use the obvious meaning instead of a
> very secondary meaning that violates context of the Scripture in
> question.
>
>
> For example, when reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co
> 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20),
> the idea is that of religious worship.
>
> But notice the use of it at Re 3:9. The action of those of "the
> synagogue of Satan" who are made to "come and worship" (KJV)
> before the feet of Christians is clearly not the idea of religious
> worship, but the idea of deep respect. That is why that same Bible
> above (NIV) translates Re 3:9 as "and acknowledge" them, not
> 'worship' them.
>
> <snip>
>
> See also Jesus' illustration at Mt 18:26 where the "servant
> therefore
> fell down, and worshipped him". (his human master)
>
> And the pagan astrologers who came to "worship" the "King of the
> Jews". (Mt 2:2)
>
>
> The wise men were ancient astronomers and they obeyed God by
> not going back to king Herod.

Respectfully, Another error. The wise men were astrologers, not
astronomers. The words "wise men" are translated from the Greek word
"magoi", which in English is "Magi". And what were the Magi? From The
Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia-1992 Edition:

"magi

The Magi (singular: Magus) were the priestly hierarchy of ancient
ZOROASTRIANISM. The name was originally that of the tribe to which
they belonged. Like the Brahmans of India, the Magi were keepers of
the cult and of sacrificial power and exercised considerable political
power while Zoroastrianism was the state religion of Persia.

In the Hellenistic world the name magi was applied to Eastern
astrologers and interpreters of dreams, men considered "wise in the
things of God." (Hence the derivation of the word magic.) It is in
this sense that the name came to be applied to the "wise men from the
East" who followed the star to Bethlehem to worship the infant
Jesus,men presenting him with gifts of frankincense, gold, and myrrh
(Matt. 2)."

So it appears these men were astrologers and practicers of magic. What
did God think of such things back then and even today? Deut 18:10-12,

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in
the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens,
engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or
spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is
detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the
LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (NIV)

Throughout the scriptures, God has been opposed to astrology. Notice
what the prophet Isaiah thought about astrologers at Isa 47:13,14,

" 13. "You are wearied with your many counsels;
Let now the astrologers,
Those who prophesy by the stars,
Those who predict by the new moons,
Stand up and save you from what will come upon you.
14. "Behold, they have become like stubble,
Fire burns them;
They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame;
There will be no coal to warm by,
Nor a fire to sit before!"" (NASB)

And Acts 19:19, "A number who had practiced sorcery brought their
scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the
value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand
drachmas." (NIV)

So they were pagan astrologers, a practice condemned by God. The JW's
have it right.


And you forgot that the Apostle Paul was murdering Christians before
his conversion when he discovered who Jesus Christ was on the road to
Damascus. Likewise this ancient astronomers obeyed God and did not go
back to king Herod. Since they obeyed God then they were Godly at
least from their visitation of Jesus Christ. But since they were
looking for the new King then they were searching for God before their
departure. Jehovah's Witnesses never seem to be able to look at verses
and understand the context or the themes that are being presented.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days ofHerod the
king, behold, wise men from the East came toJerusalem, 2saying, “Where
is He who has been born King of theJews? For we have seen His star in
the East and have come toworship Him.”
3When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and allJerusalem
with him. 4And when he had gathered all the chiefpriests and scribes
of the people together, he inquired of themwhere the Christ was to be
born.
5So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it iswritten by
the prophet:
6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’” ◙
7Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men,determined from
them what time the star appeared. 8And he sentthem to Bethlehem and
said, “Go and search carefully for theyoung Child, and when you have
found Him, bring back word tome, that I may come and worship Him
also.”
9When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the starwhich
they had seen in the East went before them, till it came andstood over
where the young Child was. 10When they saw the star,they rejoiced with
exceedingly great joy. 11And when they hadcome into the house, they
saw the young Child with Mary Hismother, and fell down and worshiped
Him. And when they hadopened their treasures, they presented gifts to
Him: gold,frankincense, and myrrh.
12Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should notreturn to
Herod, they departed for their own country another way.
13Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lordappeared to
Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the youngChild and His mother,
flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bringyou word; for Herod will
seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother bynight and
departed for Egypt, 15and was there until the death ofHerod, that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lordthrough the prophet,
saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” ◙
16Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wisemen, was
exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death allthe male
children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts,from two years
old and under, according to the time which he haddetermined from the
wise men.
Matthew 2:1-16

>Whoops, a little thought will always
> destroy babylon watchtowers bogus explanations.

More opinions that millions disagree with.

Yes, cult members are spiritually sleep walking handing out cartoon
magazines every Saturday morning when no one is on the streets.

>
>
> Thus the Greek word proskyneo can show the use of deep respect,
> and is not limited to religious worship.
>
> That is why some other Bibles translate a different word there in
> that verse at He 1:6. For example, even though Catholics believe in
> the Trinity, their New Jerusalem Bible translates that verse this
> way:
>
> "Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let
> all the angels of God pay him homage."
>
> The Bible in Living English says:
>
> "again bring in the firstborn into the world of men he says "and let
> all God's angels do him reverence".

>
> The New World Translation records it this way:
>
> "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he
> says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him."
>
>

> Interestedly, Jehovah's Witnesses never show Jesus Christ homage,
> reverence, or due obeisance to Him.

You are so wrong here. You need to go to the JW website and get it
from the horses mouth, instead of thos biased anti-JW sites. Then you
don't have to rely upon prejudicial content. You can see for yourself
that JW's show Jesus the greatest reverence, as God commands us.

Your put-downs of Jesus Christ is clearly shown by your posts as you
have been brainwashed by the wickedness of babylon watchtower. You
give Jesus Christ no glory and accordingly will be destroyed and never
receive grace.

You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand,beware lest you
also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error
of the wicked; 18but grow in the grace andknowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:17-18

>
>
> Thus by using those translations of verse 6, Jesus does not have to
> be God. But rather since he is God's
> "firstborn" etc, he deserves a greater respect than any of God's
> other intelligent beings.
>

> Also, Again, since Jesus was the "firstborn", he was created. Col
> 1:15,
>
> "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
> creation."
> (NASB)
>
>
> Of course you are brainwashed by ignoring the context of
> Colossians. Firstborn means preeminence and you should never
> ever stop short of the punchline.

I am going by the context, and it is talking about THINGS CREATED.

You keep ignoring Colossians 1:18 that ends the what is called a
paragraph and is the punchline to the context.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16For by Him all things were created that are in heavenand that are on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones ordominions or
principalities or powers. All things were createdthrough Him and for
Him. 17And He is before all things, and inHim all things consist.
18And He is the head of the body, thechurch, who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead, that in allthings He may have the
preeminence.
Colossians 1:15-18.

Of course you have forgotten or been brainwashed into thinking that
someone else than God is the creator of the universe. But babylon
watchtower has convinced its cult followers that Jesus Christ is a
false god.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word
was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3Allthings were made
through Him, and without Him nothing wasmade that was made.
John 1:1-3

> And He is the head of the body, thechurch, who is the beginning,
> the firstborn from the
> dead, that in allthings He may have the preeminence.
> Colossians 1:18
>
> Thus Jesus was a created being, but God always existed. (see Ps
> 90:2) So Jesus cannot be God.
>
> Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
> Hebrews 13:8
>
> You seem to forget that God never changes as one of His
> attributes.

Again, it doesn't say that Jesus ALWAYS LIVED in the past like God.

...and Jesus Christ has never changed from non-existence to
existence.

>
>
> The apostle Paul wrote He 1:6. Did Paul think Jesus was God, thus
> equal to God? Even after Jesus was in Heaven and exalted to a
> "superior" position, and deserves the 'bent knees' of angels and
> humans, Jesus is still inferior to God. The same writer of He 1:6
> wrote at 1 Co 11:3,
>
> "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ,
> and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
> (NIV)
>
> God has no "head" over him. Thus Jesus cannot be God, since
> Jesus has a "head" over him; God.
>
> And again recall that Jesus never said to worship himself, but to
> worship ONLY God. (Mt 4:10)
>
>
> Now for a little lesson on what involves worship which Jehovah's
> Witnesses don't have a clue about. Since you don't have a
> testimony about Jesus Christ then you are not worshipping God
> and don't have a clue about Bible prophecy.

Your opinion is noted; that millions disagree with.

Yes there are approximately 6 million babylon watchtower cult members.

>
> Then he said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are calledto the
> marriage supper of
> the Lamb!'" And he said to me, "Theseare the true sayings of God."
> 10And I fell at his feet
> to worshiphim. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that ! I
> am yourfellow servant,
> and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!
> For the testimony of
> Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
> Revelation 19:9-10

I am surprised you used that verse, it brings out my point quite well.
That angel DID NOT say to worship Jesus, which he should have if Jesus
was God, rather he said to "Worship God!"

Jehovah Witnesses can never understand context. The apostle John bowed
down to worship the angel and the angel so not to worship him but to
worship God. Interestedly, Jesus Christ never rebuked Thomas for his
worship Him. But jehovah witnesses can never see this connection. So
keep reading your cartoon magazines since that is where your mind is.

truthandgrace.com

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org





>
> truthandgrace.com
>

[curtjester1]

On Jun 5, 8:33 pm, AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM <mormoni...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > 7And of the angels He says:
> > "Whomakes His angels spirits
> > And His ministers a flame of fire." ?
> > 8But to the Son He says:
> > "Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever;
> >Concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse referring to Jesus or God Almighty.?  The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7 and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9 "therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who is anointed by God and one who worships God.
>

No, it is not, as it is a quote translation from Psalms 45 where David
is equal to the Jesus position. So it's in reference to David, or in
reference to Jesus as the context says for one, and how it is
accurately translated by the NWT for two.

> ...and you don't seem to notice that two persons are mentioned by
> being referred to as God. Moreover, if you don't believe in the
> Trinity (one God yet three Persons) you are a polytheist.
>

We don't notice and are not polythesists as respects to the true God.
There are many gods..as I Cor. 8; 4-6 and Jesus is one of those gods..
(see John 10: 30-38), he is not the God, only a Son of God.

> Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
>       A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
> 7      You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
>       Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
>       With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
> Psalm 45:6-7.
>

And the last of this is a quote from Hebrews 1:9. See, Jesus has
fellows or companions!! These are fellow angels which is what the
whole chapter is about, the bettering by his assignement and victory
to be better than his fellow angels, therefore to be in a position to
be acknowledged by his fellow angels as such.

Here are some reference guides to the translation of obeisance vs.
worship to the scripture in question:

Hebrews: Obeisance Vs. Worship

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2008/9/Worship-vs-Obeisance.htm

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.html

CJ

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

> > 7And of the angels He says:
> > "Whomakes His angels spirits
> > And His ministers a flame of fire." ?
> > 8But to the Son He says:
> > "Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever;
>
> >Concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse
> referring to Jesus or God Almighty.? The Apostle Paul here is
> quoting Ps 45:3-7 and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the
> context by verse 9 "therefore God, your God" shows that the
> person in verse 8 is one who is anointed by God and one who
> worships God.
>

> ...and you don't seem to notice that two persons are mentioned by
> being referred to as God. Moreover, if you don't believe in the
> Trinity (one God yet three Persons) you are a polytheist.

Respectfully, incorrect. JW's believe in ONE God. De 6:4,

...but your bogus new world translation has inserted a into John 1:1
that is unsupported by Greek translations. Thus, JWs either believer
in multiple gods or they are forced into saying Jesus Christ is a
false god. But since JWs are essentially uneducated in the English
language, they can't see the error of their believe systems.

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV)

Note: Lord God is YHWH 'ELOHIM at Deuteronomy 6:4. Of course the
singular form of 'elohim is 'elowah but JWs would have a clue about
this fact. Be sure to dress in your suit tomorrow in imitation of the
well dressed Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

YAHWEH 'ELOHIM

(Jehovah God is a Plurality of Persons}

Note: 'Elohim (H430) is the plural form of the Hebrew word 'elowah
(H433) with Strong's Concordance numbers supplied for reference. Over
900 times in 839 Old Testament verses 'elohim is coupled as a
adjective with the corporate name of God YHWH or the Tetragrammaton.
Below is a listing of the verses where YHWH 'elohim exists in the
Hebrew.

Genesis: 2:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22; 3:1, 8, 9, 13, 14,
21, 22, 23; 9:26; 24:3, 7, 12, 27, 42, 48; 27:20; 28:13, 21
Exodus: 3:15, 16, 18; 4:5; 5:1, 3; 6:7; 7:16; 8:10, 26, 27, 28; 9:1,
13, 30; 10:3, 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, 26; 15:26; 16:12; 20:2, 5, 7, 10, 12;
23:19, 25; 29:46; 32:11, 27; 34:23, 24, 26
Leviticus: 4:22; 11:44; 18:2, 4, 30; 19:2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36;
20:7, 24; 23:22, 28, 40, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38, 55; 26:1, 13, 44
Numbers: 10:9,10; 15:41; 22:18; 23:21; 27:16
Deuteronomy: 1:6, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 41; 2:7, 29,
30, 33, 36, 37; 3:3, 18, 20, 21, 22; 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 19, 21,
23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40; 5:2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
24, 25, 27, 32, 33; 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25;
7:1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25; 8:2, 5, 6, 7, 10,
11, 14, 18, 19, 20; 9:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 23; 10:9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22;
11:1, 2, 12, 13, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31; 12:1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
15, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 31; 13:3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18; 14:1, 2,
21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29; 15:4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21;
16:1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22; 17:1, 2, 8,
12, 14, 15, 19; 18:5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 19:1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10,
14; 20:1, 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18; 21:1, 5, 10, 23; 22:5; 23:5, 14, 18,
20, 21, 23; 24:4, 9, 13, 18, 19; 25:15, 16, 19; 26:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19; 27:2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10; 28:1, 2, 8, 9, 13,
15, 45, 47, 52, 53, 58, 62; 29:6, 10, 12, 15, 18, 25, 29; 30:1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 20; 31:3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 26
Joshua: 1:9, 11, 13, 15, 17; 2:11; 3:3, 9; 4:5, 23, 24; 7:13, 19, 20;
8:7, 30; 9:9, 18, 19, 24; 10:19, 40, 42; 13:14, 33; 14:8, 9, 14; 18:3,
6; 22:3, 4, 5, 19, 24, 29, 34; 23:3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16;
24:2, 17, 18, 23, 24
Judges: 2:12; 3:7; 4:6; 5:3, 5; 6:8, 10, 26; 8:34; 11:21, 23, 24; 21:3
Ruth: 2:12
1 Samuel: 2:30; 6:20; 7:8; 10:18; 12:9, 12, 14, 19; 13:13; 14:41;
15:15, 21, 30; 20:12; 23:10, 11; 25:29, 32, 34; 30:6
2 Samuel: 5:10; 7:22, 25; 12:7; 14:11, 17; 18:28; 24:3, 23, 24
1 Kings: 1:17, 30, 36, 48; 2:3; 3:7; 5:3, 4, 5; 8:15, 17, 20, 23, 25,
28, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65; 9:9; 10:9; 11:4, 9, 31; 13:6, 21; 14:7, 13;
15:3, 4, 30; 16:13, 26, 33; 17:1, 12, 14, 20, 21; 18:10, 21, 24, 36,
37, 39; 19:10, 14; 20:28; 22:53
2 Kings: 1:6; 2:14; 5:11; 9:6; 10:31; 14:25; 16:2; 17:7, 9, 14, 16,
19, 39; 18:5, 12, 22; 19:4, 15, 19, 20; 20:5; 21:12, 22; 22:15, 18;
23:21
1 Chronicles: 11:2; 13:2; 15:12, 13, 14; 16:4, 14, 36; 17:16,17,26;
21:17; 22:1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19; 23:25; 24:19; 28:4, 8, 20; 29:1,
10, 16, 18, 20
2 Chronicles: 1:1, 9; 2:4, 12; 6:4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 41, 42;
7:22; 9:8; 11:16; 13:5, 10, 11, 12, 18; 14:2, 4, 7, 11; 15:4, 9, 12,
13; 16:7; 19:4, 7; 20:6, 19, 20; 21:10, 12; 24:18, 24; 26:5, 16, 18;
27:6; 28:5, 6, 9, 10, 25; 29:5, 6, 10; 30:1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 22;
31:6, 20; 32:8, 11, 16, 17; 33:12, 13, 16, 17, 18; 34:8, 23, 26, 33;
35:3; 36:5, 12, 13, 15, 23
Ezra: 1:2, 3; 4:1, 3; 6:21; 7:6, 27, 28; 8:28; 9:5, 8, 15; 10:11
Nehemiah: 1:5; 8:9; 9:3, 4,5 ,7; 10:34
Psalms: 7:1,3; 13:3; 18:28; 20:7; 30:2, 12; 35:24; 38:21; 40:5; 41:13;
59:5; 72:18; 76:11; 80:4, 19; 81:10; 84:8,11; 88:1; 89:8; 90:17;
94:23; 99:5, 8, 9; 100:3; 104:1; 106:47, 48; 109:26, 113:5; 122:9;
123:2; 146:5
Isaiah: 7:11; 17:6; 21:17; 24:15; 25:1; 26:13; 30:18; 36:7; 37:4, 20,
21; 38:5; 41:13; 43:3; 48:17; 49:5; 51:15, 22; 55:5; 60:9
Jeremiah: 2:17, 19; 3:13, 21, 22, 23, 25; 5:14, 19, 24; 7:28; 8:14;
11:3; 13:12, 16; 14:22; 15:16; 16:10; 21:4; 22:9; 23:2, 23; 24:5;
25:15; 26:13, 16; 30:2, 9; 31:1, 6, 18; 32:27, 36; 33:4; 34:2, 13;
35:17; 37:3, 7; 38:17; 40:2; 42:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 20, 21; 43:1, 2;
44:7; 45:2; 50:4, 28; 51:10
Ezekiel: 20:5, 7, 19, 20; 28:26; 34:24, 30; 39:22, 28; 44:2
Daniel: 9:4, 10, 13, 14, 20
Hosea: 1:7; 3:5; 7:10; 12:5, 9; 13:4; 14:1
Joel: 1:14; 2:13, 14, 23, 26, 27; 3:17
Amos: 4:13; 5:14, 15, 16; 6:8, 14; 9:15
Jonah: 1:9; 2:1, 6; 4:6
Micah: 4:5; 5:4; 7:10, 17
Habakkuk: 1:12
Zephaniah: 2:7; 3:17
Haggai: 1:12
Zechariah: 6:15; 9:16; 10:6; 11:4; 13:9; 14:5
Malachi: 2:16

Note: Jesus never prayed using the corporate name of God since He
would have been praying in part to Himself. He always prayed to the
"Father."

>
> Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever;

> A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
> 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;

> ThereforeGod, Your God, has anointed You
> Withthe oil of gladness more than Your companions.
> Psalm 45:6-7.
>

> Also, the the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
> foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1
> Ch 29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling
> David, Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation
> "Your throne, O God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your
> throne" because there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or
> Greek documents, thus it is up to the translators to insert it.
> Since
> He 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered
> "God is your throne".
>
> First, Psalm 45 was written by King David in his praise of God and
> the future reign of the Messiah. This is why the writer of Hebrews
> quotes Psalms 45:7 and refers this to both the Father and Son. So
> you are wrong.

Millions disagree with your opinion.

Yes, 6 million JW cult members and muslims disagree with Biblical
facts.

[curtjester1]

On Jun 9, 11:54 am, AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM <mormoni...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > > 7And of the angels He says:
> > > "Whomakes His angels spirits
> > > And His ministers a flame of fire." ?
> > > 8But to the Son He says:
> > > "Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever;
>
> > >Concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse
> > referring to Jesus or God Almighty.? The Apostle Paul here is
> > quoting Ps 45:3-7 and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the
> > context by verse 9 "therefore God, your God" shows that the
> > person in verse 8 is one who is anointed by God and one who
> > worships God.
>
> > ...and you don't seem to notice that two persons are mentioned by
> > being referred to as God. Moreover, if you don't believe in the
> > Trinity (one God yet three Persons) you are a polytheist.
>
> Respectfully, incorrect. JW's believe in ONE God. De 6:4,
>

You didn't even quote my refutaions, and took them out. How come?
Hebrews 1:8 in reference to Psalms refers to David and Jesus. Both
are correctly translated, and not God. You can't mistranslate Heb 1:8
to apply Jesus to God, and not do the same mistranslation to David in
Psalms 45. And Jesus believes in your asserted ONE God as well, as in
your quoted scriptures Jesus is referred to as "your God" meaning his
God...in Hebrews 1.

> ...but your bogus new world translation has inserted a into John 1:1
> that is unsupported by Greek translations. Thus, JWs either believer

It is quite supported, and John 1:1 was only translated by the KJV
under James who wanted to be head of all docrinal squabbles at the
time. The fact that there is a defnite article making it start out as
God, and left the out the article in the end means you have to
translate it from a noun into an adjective. Some translations are
honest enough to do so...and use "divine" or something descriptive.
"a god" is a very correct translation based on usages and honesty. If
you look at other instances in the Greek scriptures you will see they
use the same thing I speak of.

> in multiple gods or they are forced into saying Jesus Christ is a
> false god. But since JWs are essentially uneducated in the English
> language, they can't see the error of their believe systems.
>

We see it properly as Jesus brought it up himself in reference in been
accused of being God in John 10. What did he do? He referenced his
accusers by stating they were "gods" from the definition in Psalms 92,
and then went on to say that, why are you accusing me of that, when
you are essentially "gods" (like I am) with a question mark.

> "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV)
>
> Note: Lord God is YHWH 'ELOHIM at Deuteronomy 6:4. Of course the

Yes he is. and just as Jesus or Jeshua would be translated from
constantants as well.

> singular form of 'elohim is 'elowah but JWs would have a clue about
> this fact. Be sure to dress in your suit tomorrow in imitation of the
> well dressed Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.
>

Really, it's the other way around. We apply the Word correctly and
live just as Jesus lived, and do what he commanded. He commanded not
under his own initiative but what he was taught by his God and Father,
Jehovah. So, we actually do what he said in the 3 chapters on the
Sermon on the Mount, and love our enemies, and we preached the kingdom
as he did Luke 4:43, and we worship the same God he worshiped ...Matt.
4:4-10

> YAHWEH 'ELOHIM
>
> (Jehovah God is a Plurality of Persons}
>
> Note: 'Elohim (H430) is the plural form of the Hebrew word 'elowah
> (H433) with Strong's Concordance numbers supplied for reference. Over
> 900 times in 839 Old Testament verses 'elohim is coupled as a
> adjective with the corporate name of God YHWH or the Tetragrammaton.

"The corporate name of God"??? Where did you conjure up that one?! Do
you also have the corporate name of Jesus from the constanants from
Yeshua?

It was THE name of God...Psalms 83:18 and used, until Israel became so
diluted in worship that they formed an idea that the name was so
sacred that one shouldn't use it a few centuries before Jesus came to
the earth.

That's why it should be respected!, and honored, and cherished, and
spoken, and prayed to!

> Note: Jesus never prayed using the corporate name of God since He
> would have been praying in part to Himself. He always prayed to the
> "Father."
>
>

But I showed you he did use it and even stated to his apostles in
prayer they overheard, that he made the name of God known to them in
John 17:6 and 26. Why on earth would he give us a Lord's Prayer and
say to "hallow his name" if it weren't actually the name of God? You
should be looking at it the other way around since people didn't pray
to Jesus, but only to God. And would this name continue on? Yes, by
the history of Christianity it was held onto by worshipers and for our
day we can be positive that it's good to use by people that would have
this certain name on their foreheads. Rev. 14:1 and well Rev. 15: 3,4
speaks for all in itself.

CJ

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

> Of course the new world translation is not based on any Greek
> manuscript evidence

Here is both the Hebrew and Greek references the NWT considered in its
translation:

"Sources for the Text of the New World Translation-Hebrew Scriptures

Original Hebrew Writings and Early Copies

Aramaic Targums
Dead Sea Scrolls
Samaritan Pentateuch
Greek Septuagint
Old Latin
Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian
Hebrew Consonantal Text
Latin Vulgate
Greek Versions-Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus
Syriac Peshitta
Masoretic Text
Cairo Codex
Petersburg Codex of the Prophets
Aleppo Codex
Ginsburg's Hebrew Text
Codex Leningrad B 19A
Biblia Hebraica (BHK), Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS)

Sources for the Text of the New World Translation-Christian Greek
Scriptures

Original Greek Writings and Early Copies

Armenian Version
Coptic Versions
Syriac Versions-Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
23 Hebrew Versions (14th-20th centuries), translated either from the
Greek or from the Latin Vulgate, using Tetragrammaton for divine name"

(From "All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial", 1963, 1990,
pp. 308,309.)

You should find several references to those you mention above.


Of course you will believe anything that comes from a New York
Corporation or babylon watchtower. Fred Franz did not know Greek but
was the chief translator for the bogus nwt. The nwt inserted the name
Jehovah 237 into the New Testament where there is no support.
Interestedly, the nwt does not have the name Jehovah in Philippians, 1
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Even from the
standpoint of the nwt, one must say that in writing these letters the
apostles Paul and John clearly did not conform to the norm of babylon
watchtower. Or in simple language for you, babylon watchtower does not
conform to the first century apostolic viewpoint. Sorry your listing
of references does not support the nwt of babylon watchtower.

truthandgrace.com

[curtjester1]

On Jun 13, 7:23 pm, AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM <mormoni...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > Of course the new world translation is not based on any Greek
> > manuscript evidence
>

Why is AGAINST not responding to my answers to him?

> Here is both the Hebrew and Greek references the NWT considered in its
> translation:
>

And what manuscripts are deemed by you to be the correct ones?

Were the apostles Greek scholars?

Why does the KJV and I'm sure other Bibles use Hallelujah or alleluah
in Rev. 19:6 as it applies to the Lord God? This using the name
Jehovah. And why do they use Lord God there and not use LORD like
they would do in the Hebrew Scriptures? Why do you not know or answer
to the earlier form of the Greek Septuagint using Jehovah in a non-NT
setting?

> Jehovah 237 into the New Testament where there is no support.
> Interestedly, the nwt does not have the name Jehovah in Philippians, 1
> Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Even from the
> standpoint of the nwt, one must say that in writing these letters the
> apostles Paul and John clearly did not conform to the norm of babylon
> watchtower. Or in simple language for you, babylon watchtower does not
> conform to the first century apostolic viewpoint. Sorry your listing
> of references does not support the nwt of babylon watchtower.
>

My listing of what? I used my own version of my mind to answer you
and you didn't respond.

I gave you a site that is a non-Watchtower site so you wouldn't be so
prejudiced.---examining the trinity (which has a lot of other topics)

Here is the same site defending the NWT.

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/

CJ


> truthandgrace.com

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

That sounds biased to me. 'Yes, it is a good translation. What,
Jehovah's Witnesses produced it? No, it is a bad translation.'

If you want to use such type ones as a source, that is up to you. You
are getting your ears tickled.

Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern
Arizona University, who compared eight major Bible translations,
including the NWT. He said it was:

"remarkably good" and "better by far" and "consistently better".

He also said, "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal,
conservative translation of the original expressions of the New
Testament writers."

And he concluded that the NWT (NT):

"is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament
currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations
compared". (Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament)

[info taken from the Watchtower magazine, 12/1/04, P. 30.]

"Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar
comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: “This
work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the
text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in
the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the
text that it does not contain.”" (from wol.jw.org)


"Millions of readers have done just that and have discovered the New
World Translation to be not only readable but scrupulously accurate.
Its translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
languages, using the best texts available....The Andover Newton
Quarterly of January 1963 said: “The translation of the New Testament
is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to
deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical
translation.”" (W99,1015,p.29)

“The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose
membership has never been revealed—a committee that possessed an
unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September
1966. (g87,3/22, p.14)

“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American
Translation." (g87.3/22, p.14)

"New World Translation Impresses a Scholar

ACCORDING to classical Greek scholar Dr. Rijkel ten Kate, Dutch Bible
translations fail to render certain words accurately. For example, in
Luke chapter 2, we find three different Greek words (bre´phos, pai·di
´on, and pais) employed to describe the successive stages of Jesus’
growth. Each of these words has a different shade of meaning. However,
in many Bibles, two or all three of these words are vaguely rendered
“child.” What is the correct translation?

Dr. ten Kate explains that in verse 12 the Greek word bre´phos means
“a newborn, or baby.” Pai·di´on, used in verse 27, means “little boy
or child,” and pais, found in verse 43, should be rendered “boy.” “As
far as I know,” wrote Dr. ten Kate in the March 1993 issue of Bijbel
en Wetenschap (Bible and Science), “not one Dutch translation has
rendered this adequately, that is to say, completely in harmony with
the original text.”

Later, Dr. ten Kate was shown the New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures, which is available in 12 languages, including Dutch. His
reaction? “I am very surprised,” he said, “that there is actually one
Dutch Bible in which the different use of the three Greek words bre
´phos, pai·di´on, and pais is rightly taken into account.” Does the
New World Translation translate these verses in harmony with the
original Greek text? “Completely in agreement,” responds Dr. ten
Kate." (W95,4/15, p.32)


“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars,
who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek
text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—Hebrew and
Greek scholar Alexander Thomson, in The Differentiator, April 1952,
pages 52-7." (g87,3/82, p. 14)


“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is
preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic
meaning of the Greek word. . . . After examining a copy, I equipped
several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary
text. . . . The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly
up-to-date and consistently accurate. . . . In sum, when a Witness
comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student
alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”—From a review
of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, by
Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska, appearing in The
Classical Journal, April–May 1974.(g87,3/22, p. 14)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

You were dishonest with your quotation of Jason DeDuhn.

BeDuhn said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New
Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic
principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of
denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the
NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might
have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.[64]
Theologian and televangelist John Ankerberg accused the NWT's
translators of renderings that conform "to their own preconceived and
unbiblical theology."[65] Dr. John Weldon and Ankerberg cite several
examples wherein they consider the NWT to support theological views
overriding appropriate translation. Ankerberg and Weldon cite Dr.
Julius R. Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament and A Hellenistic Greek Reader, who also criticized the NWT,
calling it "a shocking mistranslation."[65][66]
Dr. William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism,
concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is
seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that
a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is
intellectually dishonest."[67]

The New World Translation
New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World Translation of
the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from the Original Language by
the New World Translation Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, 1950.
Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages by the New World
Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D. 1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1961. The Old Testament was
originally published in parts from 1953 to 1960. The whole was revised
for the one-volume edition in 1961, and subsequently revised in 1970
and 1984.
The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the
translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's
Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as
Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz
(Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According
to Raymond V. Franz, the "principal translator of the Society's New
World Translation" was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James
Penton, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the
work of one man, Frederick Franz." (2) Franz afterwards became the
President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible
for the revisions.
The Forward to the first edition of the New Testament (1950) explained
the need for the version, and also indicated the reason for its name:
"It befits the significant time of transition from the old world to
the righteous new world that translations of the Scriptures today
should as far as possible eliminate the misleading influence of
religious traditions which have their roots in paganism." (p.7,
emphasis added.)
The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott & Hort. It is a
fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some
peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the
committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the
Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios
(Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when
it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of
"cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an
idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because
this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version
shows an anti-trinitarian bias in several places.
Examples of Anti-Trinitarian bias:
• Gen. 1:1-2. "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." The ruach
elohim ("Spirit of God") of the Hebrew is interpreted "God's active
force" in order to avoid the Trinitarian understanding of the
"Spirit."
• Zech. 12:10. "...they will look upon the one whom they have
pierced..." Here the Hebrew "look upon me whom they have pierced," in
which God is the speaker, has been altered in order to avoid the
implication that the one who is to be pierced (on the cross) is God.
• John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was a god." Instead of the literal "the Word was
God," we have "a god," which the sect interprets as "an angelic
being."
• Col. 1:15-17. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were
created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the
things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or
governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created
through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by
means of him all [other] things were made to exist." Because the sect
teaches that Christ was a created being rather than eternal God, the
word "other" is inserted several times. The first edition of the
translation did this without brackets.
• Heb. 1:8. "God is your throne forever" (a nonsensical statement) is
put intead of "your throne, O God, is forever," because this statement
refers to Christ.
Because the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that men exercise "free will" in
accepting or rejecting Christ, the version also has such forced
interpretations as:
• Acts 13:48. "When those of the nations heard this, they began to
rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were
rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers." Here "rightly
disposed" (a human inclination) replaces "ordained" (a divine
appointment).
In his book Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz, a former member of the
Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses, describes some interesting
conversations that he had with the principal translator of the
version, who happened to be his uncle. He recounts that between 1965
and 1971, while engaged in preparing a Bible dictionary (published in
1971 under the title Aid to Bible Understanding), he sought guidance
on a number of questions from Frederick Franz, who "was acknowledged
as the organization's principal Bible scholar." We reproduce below
several paragraphs from Crisis of Conscience (pages 21-24) for the
light they shed upon the New World Translation and one of its
translators, and also for the wise observations of the author
concerning the interpretation of the Bible.
The Society's vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the
organization's principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I
went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he
frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, "Why don't you
see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says," or, if the subject
primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, "what the Soncino
commentaries say." Our Bethel Library contained shelf after shelf
after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product
of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much
importance to them, and, along with others in the department, felt
some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a
senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly
expressed it, using these commentaries was "sucking at the t-ts of
Babylon the Great," the empire of false religion according to the
Society's interpretation of the great Harlot of Revelation.
The more I looked up information in these commentaries, however, the
more deeply impressed I was by the firm belief in the divine
inspiration of the Scriptures the vast majority expressed. I was
impressed even more so by the fact that, though some were written as
early as the eighteenth century, the information was generally very
worthwhile and accurate. I could not help but compare this with our
own publications which, often within a few years, became "out of date"
and ceased to be published. It was not that I felt these commentaries
to be without error by any means; but the good certainly seemed to
outweigh the occasional points I felt to be mistaken.
When the subjects of "Older Man [Elder]" and "Overseer" were assigned
to me, research into the Scriptures themselves soon made evident that
the congregational form of supervision employed by us did not conform
to the first-century arrangements. (We had no bodies of elders in our
congregations; one man in each congregation was the sole "overseer.")
Somewhat disturbed, I approached my uncle with the evidence. Again his
response took me by surprise. "Don't try to understand the Scriptures
on the basis of what you see today in the organization," he said, and
added, "Keep the Aid book pure." I had always looked upon the
organization as God's one channel for dispensing truth and so this
counsel sounded unusual to say the least. When I pointed out that the
Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen,
verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with
the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he
said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not
be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped
the added phrase. The first edition had read: "Moreover, they
appointed older men to office for them in the congregation and,
offering prayer with fastings, they committed them to Jehovah in whom
they had become believers."] I walked out of his office wondering if I
had actually heard what I had heard. In future days I was to remind
him of these statements on more than one occasion during Governing
Body sessions.
That conversation strongly affected my approach to Scripture. I deeply
appreciated the integrity toward Scriptural truth his remarks
indicated. I began to appreciate more than ever before how vitally
important context was in discerning the meaning of any part of
Scripture, and that realization seemed to be true of others of the
group who were working regularly on the Aid project. We also came to
realize the need to let the Bible define its own terms rather than
simply taking some previously held view or letting an English
dictionary definition control. We began to make greater use of the
Hebrew and Greek lexicons in the Bethel library, and concordances that
were based on the original language words rather than on English
translations.
It was an education and it was also very humbling, for we came to
appreciate that our understanding of Scripture was far less than we
had thought, that we were not the advanced Bible scholars we thought
we were. I personally had been on such a "treadmill" of activity over
the previous twenty-five years that, although reading through the
Bible several times, I had never been able to do such serious,
detailed research into the Scriptures, in fact never felt great need
to do so since it was assumed that others were doing it for me. The
two courses at Gilead School I had attended were so tightly programmed
that they gave little time for meditation, for unhurried investigation
and analysis.
Now having both time and access to the extra Bible helps, the
lexicons, commentaries, Hebrew and Greek concordances, and so forth,
was an aid. But above all it was seeing the need always to let the
context guide, always to let the Scriptures themselves control, that
made the major difference. There was no overnight change of viewpoint
but, over a period of years, a gradual deepening of appreciation of
the crucial need to let God's Word speak for itself to the fullest
extent possible. I could see why those one-hundred and two-hundred-
year-old commentaries in our Bethel library were comparatively
timeless in their value. The very fact of their verse-by-verse
approach more or less obligated them to stay within the contextual
meaning and thereby considerably restricted them from taking
excursions into sectarian views or interpretive flights of fancy.
Thus the material in the Aid book relating to elders and the
congregational direction in Bible times was very different from the
position then held by Jehovah's Witnesses, where a more or less
"monarchical" arrangement had prevailed. The Scriptural arrangement of
bodies of elders had been summarily ended in 1932 by Judge Rutherford
due to a lack of cooperation on the part of some elders with the
Society's programs and policies. His position as President gave
Rutherford the necesary authority to take such a stand and all
congregations were invited to vote for the disbanding of bodies of
elders and their replacement by a Society-appointed "Service
Director." For the next forty years there were no bodies of elders in
the congregations. That is why the New World Translation of the Bible
published by the Society in the 1950's regularly used the rendering
"older men" rather than "elders," a then officially discredited term.

Bibliography
• Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: a
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures (2nd ed. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Pub. Co., 1987).
• Bruce M. Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures." The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-153.
• Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A
Biblical and Theological Appraisal." Theology Today 10 (1953): 65-85.
• Raymond V. Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press,
1983). Contains a number of interesting remarks on the New World
Translation.


1. Raymond V. Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press,
1983), p. 50. The author, Raymond V. Franz, was from 1971 to 1980 a
member of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and a nephew
of vice-president Frederick W. Franz. He wrote Crisis of Conscience
after being expelled from the organization. On page 50 of the book he
adds the following information in a footnote: "Other members of that
Committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas; Fred
Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the
Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied
Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-
taught in Hebrew."
2. M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's
Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), p. 174.


> > http://www.truthandgrace.com/Mantey.htm
> >

[curtjester1]

Can you imagine the first century folks squabbling over what some
'scholar' said? I don't think a great God like Jehovah would depend
on his will or accuracy dependent on such ill-fated hopes.

What one needs to understand, that you can find truth in any Bible,
and usually Witnesses have many translations, and the WTBS has other
Bibles for ordering.

So, I advise to get to know what's in your Bible, and if there is an
issue to look at the possiblities instead of parroting what others
tell you what something says or what to believe. I have tried to get
you to reason and think as your scriptures you decided to use are ones
that people have addressed before:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2008/9/Worship-vs-O...

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.html


If you can't get specific, it's hard to discuss anything.

Have you ever wondered why people are so prejudiced in not using
Jehovah or a Tetragrammaton in the Bible when they would have the same
'problems' of using Yeshua to be translated to Jesus in the Greek?

CJ


On Jun 14, 7:37 pm, AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM <mormoni...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM]

On Jun 15, 4:47 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Can you imagine the first century folks squabbling over what some
> 'scholar' said?  I don't think a great God like Jehovah would depend
> on his will or accuracy dependent on such ill-fated hopes.
>
> What one needs to understand, that you can find truth in any Bible,
> and usually Witnesses have many translations, and the WTBS has other
> Bibles for ordering.
>
> So, I advise to get to know what's in your Bible, and if there is an
> issue to look at the possiblities instead of parroting what others
> tell you what something says or what to believe.  I have tried to get
> you to reason and think as your scriptures you decided to use are ones
> that people have addressed before:
>
> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2008/9/Worship-vs-O...
>
> http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.html
>
> If you can't get specific, it's hard to discuss anything.
>
> Have you ever wondered why people are so prejudiced in not using
> Jehovah or a Tetragrammaton in the Bible when they would have the same
> 'problems' of using Yeshua to be translated to Jesus in the Greek?
>
> CJ
>

Obviously, Jehovah's Witnesses will not inherit eternal life.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples,
which are not written in this book; 31but these are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:26:30 PM UTC-4, AGAINST GODLESS SOCIALISM wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:47 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you imagine the first century folks squabbling over what some
>
> > 'scholar' said?  I don't think a great God like Jehovah would depend
>
> > on his will or accuracy dependent on such ill-fated hopes.
>
> >
>
> > What one needs to understand, that you can find truth in any Bible,
>
> > and usually Witnesses have many translations, and the WTBS has other
>
> > Bibles for ordering.
>
> >
>
> > So, I advise to get to know what's in your Bible, and if there is an
>
> > issue to look at the possiblities instead of parroting what others
>
> > tell you what something says or what to believe.  I have tried to get
>
> > you to reason and think as your scriptures you decided to use are ones
>
> > that people have addressed before:
>
> >
>
> > http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2008/9/Worship-vs-O...
>
> >
>
> > http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.html
>
> >
>
> > If you can't get specific, it's hard to discuss anything.
>
> >
>
> > Have you ever wondered why people are so prejudiced in not using
>
> > Jehovah or a Tetragrammaton in the Bible when they would have the same
>
> > 'problems' of using Yeshua to be translated to Jesus in the Greek?
>
> >
>
> > CJ
>
> >
>
> Obviously, Jehovah's Witnesses will not inherit eternal life.
>
>

Why can't you answer a direct, simple question? Why do you seem to think you can disregard the name of Jehovah because of scritpure 'incapabilities' and yet you can freely use the name of Jesus which is a Hebrew 'interpretatin' of Jeshua via the Hebrew Scriptures? Is it because you want to 'get rid of God' so you can relegate him to a nothing entity, and incorporate an entity you only want (in Jesus)?

>
> And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples,
>
> which are not written in this book; 31but these are written that you
>
> may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
>
> believing you may have life in His name.

Yes, and he went on for 40 days (I think) teaching him about this kingdom. They understood that kingdom to be one on earth. Acts 1: 3,4,5....

How come Christendom doesn't have what the kingdom is, in correct undertanding. (Rev. 21: 1-5)

"Get out of her my people" Rev. 18:4

CJ

John 20:30-31.