How Jehovah's Witnesses have helped you and your freedoms...

[zyzygy]

I see you using the JW.org web site much more than I see you using the bible.

Too true!

 

[tosca1]

going to call bull**** on the unity nonsense a story is not true because it agrees with itself

and the prophecy bit seems questionable at best

as wella s relying on the charter of its alleged authors

and a story ending doesn't make it true either

nether dose referencing locations and events make claims of the supernatural true

if your god trely existed you should know its mnd i should know its mind everyone should know its mind if your god wants its mind to be known

That's all your opinion, Blarg - out of ignorance of the Scriptures, AND sans logic.
Basically, all you're saying is, "not it isn't true." With nothing to support it.

Can't debate on something like that.

Bye.

 

[tosca1]

The video's first statement is wrong! It states that JW is a fundamentalist that has an uncompromising faith!



How can that be said of JW...........when they give more credibility to man-made encyclopedias than the
God-inspired Bible?

Here are a couple of arguments being made by JW against the concept of the Tri-Une God (which is clearly depicted in the Bible). These questions were asked in the video given by the same author of this thread (in the OP of another thread titled, "If Jesus is God...."


4. Why do many encyclopedias, dictionaries and other sources (including Sir Isaac Newton) agree the Trinity is a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the 4th century by Athanasius?

5. Why do numerous encyclopedias agree that the doctrine of the Trinity was gradual and comparatively late formation; that it has its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; and that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity.


Which is the Truth? Jesus, or the encyclopedias?

To a believer, which has the credibility? Bible (which is supposed to be God-inspired), or encyclopedias (which are man-made).

May I remind JWs that encyclopedias are also being used by some atheists as proof that Jesus of the Bible did not actually exist - but was instead, lifted off (much like what they say about the Trinity), from pagan religions.



If you're going to question the validity or credibility of the Bible - your faith isn't uncompromising.
You're rejecting truths in the Bible based on what numerous encyclopedias say.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well... This is borderline propaganda from a machine who is notorious for propaganda. I think they are simply over estimating their influence.

 

[tosca1]

Is Christianity a democracy? Nope.

The stipulations of God is steadfast - regardless of how many people agree with it, or not.

 

[blarg]

That's all your opinion, Blarg - out of ignorance of the Scriptures, AND sans logic.
Basically, all you're saying is, "not it isn't true." With nothing to support it.

Can't debate on something like that.

Bye.

says some one giving their opinion if you want to site any verses that prme me wrong about prophecies go ahead though

the bible dosent prove the character of its authors or conclusively identify them and the chakter of believers can be diverse with out what they believe being true

you now what would stop me form being able to say its not true if a god actually said the same story to every one

cant debate something like that

 

[blarg]

The video's first statement is wrong! It states that JW is a fundamentalist that has an uncompromising faith!



How can that be said of JW...........when they give more credibility to man-made encyclopedias than the
God-inspired Bible?

Here are a couple of arguments being made by JW against the concept of the Tri-Une God (which is clearly depicted in the Bible). These questions were asked in the video given by the same author of this thread (in the OP of another thread titled, "If Jesus is God...."


4. Why do many encyclopedias, dictionaries and other sources (including Sir Isaac Newton) agree the Trinity is a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the 4th century by Athanasius?

5. Why do numerous encyclopedias agree that the doctrine of the Trinity was gradual and comparatively late formation; that it has its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; and that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity.


Which is the Truth? Jesus, or the encyclopedias?

To a believer, which has the credibility? Bible (which is supposed to be God-inspired), or encyclopedias (which are man-made).

May I remind JWs that encyclopedias are also being used by some atheists as proof that Jesus of the Bible did not actually exist - but was instead, lifted off (much like what they say about the Trinity), from pagan religions.



If you're going to question the validity or credibility of the Bible - your faith isn't uncompromising.
You're rejecting truths in the Bible based on what numerous encyclopedias say.

if what you say is the word of jesus is not then theres no conflict between the 2 and you can say the word of jesus is true and that the encyclopedias are true when they say that word as suffered corruption


through it all seems like bull**** because your god wont tell me it is true

 

[Daisy]

if what you say is the word of jesus is not then theres no conflict between the 2 and you can say the word of jesus is true and that the encyclopedias are true when they say that word as suffered corruption


through it all seems like bull**** because your god wont tell me it is true

For once we are in agreement...historical facts recorded merely supports how false doctrine infiltrated pure worship, so that some branches of Christendom remain corrupted to this day...

 

[gfm7175]

I see you using the JW.org web site much more than I see you using the bible.

Again, credit where credit is due... Solid post, which makes a very valid point.

 

[Logicman]

Talking about dense:roll:...it is not the credibility of the Bible I question, never have..

If you respected the Bible you wouldn't be wallowing in the JW's corrupted and revisionist New World Translation. You'd be throwing the NWT into the trash where it belongs.

 

[Daisy]

If you respected the Bible you wouldn't be wallowing in the JW's corrupted and revisionist New World Translation. You'd be throwing the NWT into the trash where it belongs.

Of course religious organizations are going to be biased/prejudice...scholars who seek truth and accuracy, on the other hand...not so much...here are only 3 short ones, there are many more in the link...

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

ROBERT M. MCCOY: "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." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)

EWTN.com - Comments of Scholars on the New World Translation

 

[nota bene]

Here is a contrarian opinion that is a little more up-to-date (2011) than the 2001 EWTN link: Major Problems with the New World Translation

 

[it's just me]

Here is a contrarian opinion that is a little more up-to-date (2011) than the 2001 EWTN link: Major Problems with the New World Translation

Bookmarked.

 

[pinqy]

Of course religious organizations are going to be biased/prejudice...scholars who seek truth and accuracy, on the other hand...not so much...here are only 3 short ones, there are many more in the link...



EWTN.com - Comments of Scholars on the New World Translation

I could only check one of those three personally (borrowed the book from a library):

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)​

The actual title of the book is “The Faiths Men Live By “ And the Page reference was wrong, by no matter. Mr Potter was not a Bible scholar, but a Baptist turned Unitarian minister. He had a degree in theology, but his specialty was comparative religion. That’s what the book was about; a non-critical guide to the major world religions (JWs are in the appendix with other minor religions)

The full quotation is :”Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts both Greek and Hebrew with scholarly ability and acumen"

As for the others...I found some fundamentalist site that was spperently obsessive enough to check dozens of such JW claims: The New World Translation What the Acholars Really Said
While obviously a biased site, they are correct as far as the quotations I could independently verify.

I am betting, though that they do the exact same quotes out of context trick themselves when it comes to Evolution

 

[tosca1]

Of course religious organizations are going to be biased/prejudice...scholars who seek truth and accuracy, on the other hand...not so much...here are only 3 short ones, there are many more in the link...

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

EWTN.com - Comments of Scholars on the New World Translation

....and yet, Mr Houtman has this complaint against JW:

In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation.
The Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT


Clearly, by his own statement - Houtman does not endorse NWT.

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by Elvira View Post
Of course religious organizations are going to be biased/prejudice...scholars who seek truth and accuracy, on the other hand...not so much...here are only 3 short ones, there are many more in the link...

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

By the looks of it....that's also taken out of context:

Professor Houtman's article is not about the NWT, but a recent Dutch translation of the Bible.
His tangential reference to the NWT occurs in a portion of his review in which Houtman expresses his view that while some doctrinal bias may be present in a variety of translations, it is not as great as some might suppose. He writes:

"The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view would affect the translation. When translations are assessed in a professional manner it must be concluded that only in exceptional circumstances can one point to passages in which the doctrinal (or political and social) point of view of the translators can be traced. Even the New World translation of the Jehovah Witnesses can withstand criticism on this point" ("De Kritiek op de Groot Nieuws Bijbel," Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 38, 1984, pp. 279-280).

Click here for a somewhat longer excerpt from Houtman's article in Dutch, followed by a rather literal English translation.

Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias.

He does not claim the NWT is bias-free, as the JW website implies.

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT