The New World Translation: A Trust-worthy "Bible”?
Comments
-
What was the oral tradition for reading out loud the Greek written transliteration (ΙΑΩ) OR equivalent (ΠΙΠΙ) ?
You very well know that the oral tradition was to read the Greek Septuagint aloud in the synagogue. However, the religious leaders including the scribes and pharisees put forth their own traditons ahead of Jehovah's Word. The Relgious leaders seated themselves in the seat of Moses claiming God's Name was too Holy to be uttered or pronounced in public. Just read Matthew Chapter 23 in how Jesus felt about them. Jesus called them hypocrites, blind guides, and serpents, offspring of vipers. Jesus even told them that their traditions void his Father's Word. (Matthew 15:1-9)
Jehovah Witnesses worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3) Jesus Christ even went to the Synagogue to Worship His God and Father JEHOVAH and also particpated in the meeting by reading aloud Isaiah 61:1-2.
He then went to Nazʹa·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written:
“Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” (Luke 4:16-19)
What was their response? With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. (Luke 4:20)
They were intenly fixed on him not because of the prophecy but because he prounced God's Holy and Sacred Name (JEHOVAH) It was aginst the so-called Oral tradition. But there is more..
Notice this footnote on Luke 4:20: and sat down: Jesus thereby signaled that he was about to speak. It was the custom in the synagogue that the one who read before the congregation did not go back to his former seat but sat down to teach where “all in the synagogue” could see him.—Compare study note on Mt 5:1.
After teaching them a few things, how did the synagogue respond? "Now all those hearing these things in the synagogue became filled with anger, and they rose up and rushed him outside the city, and they led him to the brow of the mountain on which their city had been built, in order to throw him down headlong." (Luke 4:28-29)
Another footnote on Luke 4:29: in order to throw him down headlong: According to a Jewish tradition later recorded in the Talmud, a condemned man was sometimes thrown down from a precipice; then he was pelted with stones to ensure that he was dead. Whether the mob here in Nazareth had such a plan in mind or not, they certainly intended to kill Jesus.
-
When Hebrew Scripture words were/are read out loud in synagogues, a-do-NAI אדני (Lord) was/is spoken instead of יהוה
When Greek Scripture words were/are read out loud in synagogues, Κύριος (Lord) was/is spoken instead of Greek equivalent (ΠΙΠΙ) or transliteration (ΙΑΩ):
In view of the fact that Ps. 45[44]:6–7 and Ps. 110[109]:1 both concern the divine throne and (in this early Christian interpretation) the Messiah’s enthronement on it, there is a significant parallel between the way the former text distinguishes ‘God’ (addressed by the psalmist) from ‘God, your God’, and the way the latter (in the opening words not quoted in Heb. 1:13) distinguishes ‘the Lord’ (ὁ κύριος) from ‘my Lord’ (τῷ κυρίῳ μου). Of course, in the Greek version of Ps. 110[109]:1 the first κύριος represents the tetragrammaton, while the second does not. It is probably a mistake to suppose that any New Testament author was unaware of this. Even if they did not read Hebrew (as most did), they are likely to have known tetragrammaton or used a Greek equivalent (ΠΙΠΙ) or a Greek transliteration (ΙΑΩ), as well as those which substituted κύριος for the tetragrammaton. They knew κύριος as the oral Greek substitute which they, like other Jews, always used in reading the text either to themselves (since ancient readers normally pronounced words to themselves) or to others, and which they, like many other Jews, therefore also used when they quoted Scripture in their own writings. But they also knew that κύριος was the oral Greek substitute for the divine name which was written in many manuscripts of the Greek Bible. However, this need not have prevented them from finding significance in the correspondence between ὁ κύριος, representing the tetragrammaton, and τῷ κυρίῳ μου in Psalm 110[109]:1 They could well find very significant the parallel between this text, where ‘the Lord’ enthrones the one David calls ‘my Lord’, and Psalm 45[44]:6–7, where ‘God, your God’ anoints as king the one who sits on the divine throne as ‘God’. What the parallel suggests is that both texts speak rather clearly of the enthronement of Jesus Christ in heaven as his inclusion in the unique divine identity.
Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 183.
Correct vowels with יהוה is awesomely Holy, causes breathtaking pause in me to Holy worship יהוה אלהים God (and difficult for me to verbally say יהוה out loud). Holy pauses to worship יהוה אלהים God would disrupt scripture reading flow and thoughts. Saying a-do-NAI, Κύριος, Lord (or Jehovah or Yahweh) does not cause Holy pause to worship יהוה אלהים God (avoids disruption). FYI: Yahweh is missing the middle accented vowel.
Isaiah scoll in Hebrew does not have chapter nor verse numbering so finding Isaiah 61 requires knowing contextual words.
Pointer is used for reading scroll to avoid damaging letters from human fingerprints and oils.
Dead Sea Scrolls includes the Great Isaiah Scroll (does not have Masoretic vowel pointing)
Logos Basic Search for transliteration WITHIN 14 WORDS tetragrammaton in All Resources, included Chapter II: Later Greek Versions:
6. If the student examines these specimens of Aquila’s work and compares them with the Hebrew and lxx., the greater literalness of the later version and several of its most striking peculiarities will at once be apparent. He will notice especially the following. (1) There are frequent instances of an absolutely literal rendering of the original, e.g. 1 Kings 20:10 ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου = אֲשֶׁר בְּרַגְלָי (lxx. τοῖς πεζοῖς μου); 12 θέτε· καὶ ἔθηκαν = שִׂימוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ (lxx. οἰκοδομήσατε χάρακα, καὶ ἔθεντο χάρακα); 2 Kings 23:21 τῷ λέγειν = לֵאמֹר (lxx. λέγων); 24 ἃ ὡράθησαν = אֲשֶׁר נִרְאוּ (lxx. τὰ γεγονότα). (2) Under certain circumstances σύν is employed to represent the Hebrew אֵת, when it is the sign of the accusative; e.g. 1 Kings 20:12 σὺν τὸ ῥῆμα = אֶת־הַדָּבָר, 13 σὺν πάντα τὸν ὄχλον = אֶת־כָּל־הֶהָמוֹן, 2 Kings 23:21 σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (where the dat. is governed by the preceding verb), 24 σὺν τοὺς μάγους κτλ. (3) The same Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek, e.g. καὶ καίγε = וְגַם occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings 23:15, 19, 24); and in Ps. 91:9, 11 κατεργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές twice represents פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן. (4) The transliterations adhere with greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the lxx.; thus פֶּסַח becomes φέσα יֹאֹשִׁיָּהוּ Ἰωσιαού, חִלְקִיָּהוּ Ἑλκιαού. (5) The Tetragrammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type (, not יהוה); cf. Orig. in Ps. 2, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων Ἐβραίοις χαρακτῆρσιν κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, Ἐβραικοῖς δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχαιοτάτοις—where the ‘most exact copies’ are doubtless those of Aquila’s version, for there is no reason to suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated to write ο κ̅ς̅ or κ̅ε̅ for יהוה. (6) That the crudities of Aquila’s style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary is clear from his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew more closely than the colloquialisms of the lxx. The following are specimens; 1 Kings 20:10 lxx. ἐκποιήσει, Aq. ἐξαρκέσει; lxx. ἀλώπεξις, Aq. λιχάσιν; 12 lxx. σκηναῖς, Aq. συσκιασμοῖς; 2 Kings 23:21 lxx. διαθήκης, Aq. συνθήκης; 24 lxx. θεραφείν, Aq. μορφώματα; lxx. εἴδωλα, Aq. καθάρματα; Ps. 90:8 lxx. ἀνταπόδοσιν, Aq. ἀπότισιν; ib. 10 lxx. προσελεύσεται, Aq. μεταχθήσεται; lxx. μάστιξ, Aq. ἁφή; 91:5 lxx. ποιήματι, Aq. κατέργῳ.
From the fragments which survive in the margins of hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological meaning of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach. 11 “non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est),” and by way of example he cites the rendering of Deut. 7:13, where Aquila substituted χεῦμα, ὀπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα for σῖτον, οἶνον, ἔλαιον in order to reflect more exactly the Hebrew דָּגָן, תִּירשׁ, יִצְהָר—as though, adds Jerome humorously, we were to use in Latin fusio, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly, Aquila represented עִצֵּם by ὀστεοῦν, and הִשְׂכִּיל by ἐπιστημονίζειν or ἐπιστημονοῦν, and even coined the impossible form ἁφημένος to correspond with נָגוּעַ. (2) An attempt is made to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation; thus ה local becomes the enclitic δε (e.g. νότονδε = הַנֶּגְבָּה, Gen. 12:9, Κυρήνηνδε = קִירָה, 2 Kings 16:9); and similarly prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from Greek usage (e.g. εἰς ἀπὸ μακρόθεν = לְמֵרָחוֹק,) 2 Kings 19:25). (3) Other devices are adopted for the purpose of bringing the version into close conformity with the original; a word of complex meaning or form is represented by two Greek words (e.g. עֲזָאזֵל is converted into τράγος ἀπολυόμενος and צִלְצַל into σκιὰ σκιά; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for אֵלוֹן (Deut. 11:30) Aquila gives αὐλών, and for תְּרָפִים (1 Sam. 15:23) θεραπεία.
Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquila’s method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the lxx.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the traditional exegesis. The version of Aquila emanated from a famous school of Jewish teachers; it was issued with the full approval of the Synagogue, and its affectation of preserving at all costs the idiom of the original recommended it to orthodox Jews whose loyalty to their faith was stronger than their sense of the niceties of the Greek tongue. For ourselves the work of Aquila possesses a value which arises from another consideration. His “high standard of exactitude and rigid consistency give his translation, with all its imperfections, unique worth for the critic.” Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of this monument of the text and methods of interpretation approved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age.
Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 38–42.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
Jewish scholars translated Hebrew יהוה into Greek Septuagint primarily as κύριος (Lord) a couple centuries before Jesus walked on earth, which established "Lord"/"LORD" precedent for subsequent translations.
Did they do so for some human reasoning? or did YHWH instruct that such be done and His name be changed into a title in translation?
Actually "Lord" is an accurate translation of a-do-NAI אדני that was/is spoken instead of יהוה (Jewish Masoretes obeyed Jewish oral law that disguised יהוה name for use outside the Jewish Temple by writing a-do-NAI (Lord) vowels with יהוה so "Jehovah" came into being ~500 years ago by someone who did not understand the Jewish Masoretic disguising of יהוה). Jewish priests correctly said יהוה inside Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
"Lord" is NOT an accurate translation of יהוה , the word it supposedly translates. The translators "obeyed Jewish oral law" ... man's tradition. This brings to mind a statement Jesus made about such "human traditions" and what was being replaced by such traditions.
PS: I am not affiliated with JW nor am I tryomg to promote their particular Bible translation!! I am independent of denominational theology dogmas and peer pressure bounds and am interested in Biblical truth rather than man's traditions.
-
Yet you, Wolfgang, clearly reject orthodox understanding of Jesus and have bought in to the JW view. There is not much independent about that.
-
Yet you, Wolfgang, clearly reject orthodox understanding of Jesus
Does "orthodox" = "true"?
and have bought in to the JW view.
How do you know? You are actually quite mistaken, as I do not agree with JW's doctrines about Jesus ...
There is not much independent about that.
Based on what? your false assumptions of what I believe?
-
-
There you go again, using the old at-the-door tactics, detractions by starting this thread: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/998/is-the-lexham-english-bible-a-trustworthy-bible#latest.
Please explain the NWT of the "Bible, which you suppose to know something about, and one of the translators. Stop the detraction and answer the questions in the OP. Who are the translations? What qualify you to cast light on the Lexham Bible? If anything is found, it doesn't minimize the bias and inaccuracies in the NWT. Man-up and address the deficiencies in the NWT.
STOP PLAYING GAMES! CM
-
@BroRando isn't playing games. The JW cult is fear-driven from the Watchtower down.
JW's are brainwashed into not responding when proven wrong. They are taught to ignore what they do not know--which as you have noticed is a LOT. Instead, they attempt to drown those around with relentless splattering of Watchtower propaganda. This method has fooled a lot of people.
JW inability to engage personally isn't about manning up, but fearing down. But keep trying--I know some great people who escaped the evil clutches of JW's. Sadly, others are still bound tightly.
-
-
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error. (1 John 4:6)
So he cured many who were ill with various sicknesses, and he expelled many demons, but he would not let the demons speak, for they knew him to be Christ. (Mark 1:34 NWT)
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error. (1 John 4:6)
Here is the impostor of God's Word. "And he healed many ⌊who were sick⌋ with various diseases and expelled many demons. And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him." (Mark 1:34 LEB)
Notice that Mark 1:34 in the LEB removed "to be Christ" from scripture. Who would want CHRIST removed from scripture? https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-34.htm
-
The New World Translation. explains Genesis 1:1 in detail.
Misconception: Genesis 1:1 indicates that God is a Trinity because the Hebrew word for “God” used in this verse is plural.
Fact: The title “God” translates the Hebrew word ’Elo·himʹ, which is plural, to denote majesty or excellence, not a number of people. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the plural ’Elo·himʹ as used at Genesis 1:1 “always takes a singular verb, indicating that, like the royal we, the plural of excellence, not number, is meant.”—Second Edition, Volume 6, page 272.
-
@BroRando November 15 Notice that Mark 1:34 in the LEB removed "to be Christ" from scripture. Who would want CHRIST removed from scripture? https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-34.htm
Koine Greek language does not have parenthesis characters. Biblehub shows parenthesis around two Greek words in Mark 1:34 to indicate a textual variant that does not appear in many Greek manuscripts.
Logos Bible Search for (<Lemma = lbs/el/Χριστός> OR Christ) WITHIN {Milestone <mk1.34>} in All Bibles in my Logos library finds four Bibles. Westcott & Hort (WH) Greek New Testament published in 1881 has brackets (also not part of Koine Greek language) around two Greek words to show textual variant addition in Mark 1:34 => καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις, καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλεν, καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτὸν [Χριστὸν εἶναι].
Logos Bible software has a Concordance tool, which can be used to count lemma's (original language dictionary form of words) in a passage. In WH, lemma Χριστός for Christ appears 7 times in the Gospel of Mark without brackets and once in Mark 1:34 with brackets. By way of comparison, lemma Ἰησοῦς for Jesus appears 81 times in the Gospel of Mark. Primary audience for the Gospel of Mark is gentile converts to believing Jesus is יהוה Lord. From original cultural perspective, the word Christ, Messiah, has significance for Jews, who look forward to King Messiah ruling righteously over all the earth (has not yet happened).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 5 Jewish scholars translated Hebrew יהוה into Greek Septuagint primarily as κύριος (Lord) a couple centuries before Jesus walked on earth, which established "Lord"/"LORD" precedent for subsequent translations.
@Wolfgang November 6 Did they do so for some human reasoning? or did YHWH instruct that such be done and His name be changed into a title in translation?
Humanly not know the reasoning. Isaiah 6:1-8 has a-do-NAI אדני (Lord) for יהוה Yahweh of hosts! (along with plural pronoun for אלהים God).
"Who shall go for us ?" is in Isaiah 6:1-8 LEB => In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the אדני Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple. Seraphs were standing above him. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And the one called to the other and said, “Holy, holy, holy is יהוה Yahweh of hosts! The whole earth is full of his glory.” And the pivots of the thresholds shook from the sound of those who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said, “Woe to me! For I am destroyed! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I am living among a people of unclean lips, for my eyes have seen the king, יהוה Yahweh of hosts!” Then one of the seraphs flew to me, and in his hand was a hot coal he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth, and he said, “Look! This has touched your lips and has removed your guilt, and your sin is annulled.” Then I heard the voice of the אדני Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” And I said, “I am here! Send me!”
Logos Bible Search for <Root = lbs/he/אָדוֹן> WITHIN 1 WORD <Root = lbs/he/יהוה> in the Lexham Hebrew Bible finds 320 verses.
Correct vowels with יהוה is awesomely Holy, causes breathtaking pause in me to Holy worship יהוה אלהים God (and difficult for me to verbally say יהוה out loud). Holy pauses to worship יהוה אלהים God would disrupt scripture reading flow and thoughts. Saying a-do-NAI, Κύριος, Lord (or Jehovah or Yahweh) does not cause Holy pause to worship יהוה אלהים God (avoids disruption). FYI: Yahweh is missing the middle accented vowel.
@BroRando November 15 Fact: The title “God” translates the Hebrew word ’Elo·himʹ, which is plural, to denote majesty or excellence, not a number of people.
If "Fact" was consistently true, then Hebrew Bible would not have any plural pronouns and verbs inspired by Holy God to describe Holy God: e.g. "Who shall go for us ?" in Isaiah 6:8
Genesis 1:26 LEB => And אלהים God (plural) said, “Let us (plural) make (plural) humankind in our (plural) image and according to our (plural) likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves upon the earth.”
Genesis 3:22 LEB => And יהוה Yahweh אלהים God (plural) said, “Look — the man has become as one of us (plural), to know good and evil. What if he stretches out his hand and takes also from the tree of life and eats, and lives forever?”
Genesis 11:5-7 LEB => Then יהוה Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower that humankind was building. And יהוה Yahweh said, “Behold, they are one people with one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. So now nothing that they intend to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us (plural) go (plural) down (plural) and confuse (plural) their (plural) language there, so that they will not understand each other’s language.” So יהוה Yahweh scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth, and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, for there יהוה Yahweh confused the language of the whole earth, and there יהוה Yahweh scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד (Unpointed Hebrew Masoretic Text for Deuteronomy 6:4)
“Hear (שמע sh'MA), Israel (ישראל yis-ra-AYL), Yahweh (יהוה a-do-NAI) our God (אלהינו e-lo-HAY-nu), Yahweh (יהוה a-do-NAI) is unique (אחד e-KHAD).
The Israel Bible has a-do-NAI אדני (Lord) for יהוה Yahweh substitution.
(אלהינו e-lo-HAY-nu) is plural אלהים e-lo-HEEM with pronoun suffix 1st Person plural, could be translated: We or Our
Hear Israel, Yahweh We God Yahweh unique
Internet search for: Messianic Jews Lord God found:
Jews for Jesus has an issue publication => A Look at the Trinity from a Messianic Jewish Perspective that includes a quote:
"Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."
from Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. Searching my Logos library for "three names" found a resource from 13th Century Spain:
The Oneness of God was a vital issue. The traditional Jewish declaration of God’s unity is the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel! YHVH, our God, YHVH is one.” Christian interpreters adduced the threefold mention of God in the verse as proof of the Trinity, and as early as the twelfth century, Jewish commentators countered this interpretation. The Zohar (2:43b) has this to say:
The unification [recited] every day is the unification of the verse in the Bible: “Hear O Israel! YHVH, our God, YHVH is one.” They are all one; therefore He is called One.
But there are three names! How are they one? Even though we say “One,” how are they one?
Through the vision of the Holy Spirit it is known. In the vision of the eye that is closed these three are revealed as one.… “YHVH, our God, YHVH” are one. Three colors, and they are one.
The passage is cryptic. Closing the eye and rotating the eyeball is described elsewhere in the Zohar as a technique for attaining a vision of the colors of the sefirot. In the Shema, “YHVH, our God, YHVH” designates the middle triad of sefirot, which linked together, demonstrates the unity of God.
In another passage (Zohar 3:162a), two rabbis on a mystical journey to the Garden of Eden hear a voice saying: “They are two; one is joined to them, and they are three. When they become three, they are one.” The rabbis are confounded, but the guardian of the Garden explains the meaning: “These are the two names in the Shema: ‘YHVH, YHVH.’ ‘Our God’ joins them.… When they join together, they are one in one union.”
Daniel Chanan Matt, “Introduction,” in Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Daniel Chanan Matt, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983), 21–22.
Thankful for Jewish Zohar "three names" are One insight about Deuteronomy 6:4 that is consistent with Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB => “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ (plural 1st person pronoun could be translated We => יהוה Yahweh We Righteousness)
יהוה Father & יהוה Son (Jesus, יהוה Salvation) & Breath The Holy = אלהים God = One plural unified God = commUnity of God's Love ❤️
Jews for Jesus issue publication => A Look at the Trinity from a Messianic Jewish Perspective includes Queen Victoria "We are not amused"
Keep Smiling 😊
-
This a continuation from: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/20326/#Comment_20326
Take a step back for a moment look at this verse (COLOSSIANS 1:14-23), in its context:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,
16 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.
17 Also he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,
18 and he is the head' of the body."
When the above passage has each "other" deleted and the simple truth of the Bible allowed to be revealed untampered by any organization, it then becomes very evident that Jesus Christ was not a created being!
Proverbs 8:23 24. This passage in the New World Translation Bible has translated:
NWT: "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite, I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth."
This passage is used to prove that Christ was created or produced by the Father. There are two fallacies with this:
1. Wisdom as a personification and not to Christ.
- The heading at the top of the page for Proverbs 8 in the New World Bible says precisely that:
- Wisdom Personified, a master worker PROVERBS 7: 25-8: 36.
- Throughout the chapter are the following verses.
2. Jehovah produced or possessed wisdom?
- The word which the New World Bible has translated produced comes from the Hebrew word "Qana".
- This word is translated in the KJV and NIV as "possessed" and is the better translation that God always possessed wisdom.
- Otherwise, there would have had to be a time when He was without it! Some commentators see a parallel between wisdom and Christ that both were always with God.
It's worth repeating, Colossians 1:16 tells of the Pre-existence of Christ. Other passages are:
- John 1:1, 2, 14, -- As the Son of God, He existed with the Father from eternity.
- John 1:3 -- The active agent in creation.
- John 17:5 -- While on earth, Jesus acknowledged His pre-existence.
Oh, say, can you see the truth of the matter? CM
- The heading at the top of the page for Proverbs 8 in the New World Bible says precisely that:
-
@C Mc As the Son of God, He existed with the Father from eternity.
No. Rather the Son was begotten by the Father of eternity. "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth." (John 1:14)
Like Beginning is a feminine noun that points to the Word being brought forth as with labor pains, so is the Deity of Christ that John 1:14 speaks of... But trinitarians often reject the Deity of Christ because Christ was brought forth and begotten. Something that is begotten is brought into existence.
Strong's Concordance
theotés: deity
Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: theotés
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Definition: deity
Usage: deity, Godhead.
-
@C Mc As the Son of God, He existed with the Father from eternity.
an example of someone who apparently has "more than human understanding" or else is deceived to claim as fact what God has not revealed and what contradicts what God has revealed about the Son of God
-
The LEB translators removed begotten from scripture. WHY the Deception? They inserted one and only to claim Jesus is the only son of God. But if Jesus is pre-eminient which means ahead of the rest, there must be other sons of God? Since God created Jesus, then Jesus is God's only begotten Son... but not the only son.
Genesis 6:2
the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose.
Job 1:6
Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.
Job 2:1
Afterward the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them to take his station before Jehovah.
Genesis 6:4
The Nephʹi·lim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame. (Some dicussions were that these might ones were also referred to as mighty gods.)
Job 38:7
When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
Revelation 22:16
“‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star.’”
-
The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures containing the 27 books of the New Testament first appeared in 1950.
Concerning the translators of this Bible, Crisis of Conscience p. 50 says:
"The New World Translation bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the 'New World Translation Committee.' Other members of that Committee were , however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt a translation of this kind. He studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew."
The master Greek text chosen was that of Westcott and Hort. Who were these men?
- Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham
- In 1851 Westcott was ordained an Anglican "priest"
- Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) at Dublin.
- In 1856, Hort was ordained an Anglican "priest"
Their careers were spent mostly in academic positions rather than pastorates. As early as 1853 they began work on their Greek text of the New Testament: this project was to occupy most of their remaining lives. Conservative Protestants have described these men as both 'unbelievers' and "heretics."
- They did not believe in Bible infallibility
- New Testament miracles
- Creation
- Literal devil
- Heaven
- Second Coming
- Christ's substitutionary death, or
- Inviting people to receive Christ as Savior
WoW! WoW! WoW! WoW! WoW!
Some of the things that they believed in were:
- Mary worship
- Purgatory
- Prayers for the dead
- Sacrament devotion
- Communism
- Contacting demons
- Deciding between variant readings based on their "inner consciousness."
They based their texts mainly on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts of the notorious fourth century when Constantine had corrupted and changed copies of the Bible made to suit the apostasies who were entering the Christian church at that time.
Westcott and Hort rejected the Received Text based on 95% of the manuscripts in favor of the 5%, such as the Vaticanus, which leaves out words and whole clauses at least 1491 times, and the Sinaiticus manuscript was worse. Both manuscripts contained the Apocrypha, which supports prayers for the dead. See threads in CD on this topic.
When one looks at Westcott and Hort's beliefs, views on Scripture, and revision of Greek Texts, one wonders what the New World Bible Translation Committee was thinking to base the movement's Bible upon? I would share in another post for your consideration. @BroRando, could it be what I found is why you refused my repeated requests for information on the NWT Translators? CM
- Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham
-
Cross posted here https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/989/can-the-trinity-be-trusted-as-a-biblical-teaching#latest
A Catholic monk (probably) invented the word "Jehovah." That word is NOT God's name, yet you base an entire cult on it. "Jehovah" does not exist in any original language text. The word is an invented English rendering of one of God's names as given in the Bible.
Christ is not removed from any known Bible. Scholars with accountability have attempted to render the best possible translations into English and no one is removing Christ. The NWT is a cult translation by anonymous "scholars."
"Jehovah" is a Catholic monk added word inserted into NWT Bibles 7000 times to replace God's true name as written in Hebrew.
Here is a book that might help you or anyone else needing to escape the bondage of the watchtower and its Popes.
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Bondage-watchtower-X-Witness-Perspective/dp/1470152975
**Bonus: Here is how JW's teach their victims to think when they can't answer.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/respond-to-accusations/
-
I know you have been taught to believe if you are attacked or doors slammed in your face, it's a sign you are a good "witness." Others may see this as "sick" and "abnormal." As you would have it, but you arrogantly refused to answer questions or is grossly incapable of doing so. . I would ask which, but the outcome would be the same. It's a sad position to be in for a spiritual adult. You can't respond because you are not allowed to think and reason for yourself and refute what's no longer makes self from the plain Word of God. Too many in the Watchtower Ministry are no better than the upright two-legged human parrots. My heart goes out to you and others. As for many like you, a day of deliverance will come very soon. I know it's not fair for you to defend a broken institution with a defective Bible and doctrines that are unattainable (e.g., return of Christ in the past, only 144,000 will be saved, worship a created being, deny the divinity of Christ, etc.).
As Promised, take note of the men the WT Translators modeled the NWT after that influenced the Watchtower doctrines. Westcott and Hort's beliefs need to be seen for what they are. The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Pay close attention to their views on Scripture, and the Text is highlighted:
1846 Oct. 25th - Westcott:
"Is there not that in the principles of the "Evangelical" school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one." (Life, Vol. I, pp. 44, 45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday - Westcott:
"Do you not understand the meaning of Theological 'Development'? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men's minds grow, grows with them - in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines" (Life, Vol. I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd - Westcott:
"My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany - Westcott:
"After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th - Hort:
"One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol. I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th - Westcott:
"I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol. I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday - Westcott:
"All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a 'heretic,'...I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?" (Life, Vol. I, p.94).
1850 May 12th - Hort:
"You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham's view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions" (Life, Vol. I, p.148).
July 31st - Hort:
"I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services." (Life, Vol. I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th - Hort:
"Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on 'The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.' I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p. 181).
1851 Dec. 29,30th - Hort:
"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones" (Life, Vol. I, p. 211).
1858 Oct. 21st -
Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol. I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol. I, p. 416).
Oct. 15th - Hort:
"I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol. I, p.430)
1864 Sept. 23rd - Hort:
"I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." (Life, Vol. II, p. 30, 31).
1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott:
"I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".
Nov. 17th - Westcott:
"As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol. I. pp. 251, 252).
Oct. 17th - Hort:
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol. II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th - Hort:
"I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles." (Life, Vol. II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."
Are these men anyone should follow, not to say, a whole movement of people?
References:
Hort, A. F., Life and Letters of Fenton J. A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I, II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I, II.
Post edited by C Mc on -
When you answer why your antichiritians translators removed CHRIST from the defective (Mark 1:34 LEB)
And he healed many who were sick with various diseases and expelled many demons. And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
to be Christ
-
@BroRando You seem obsessed, overly agitated. May I suggest you take some time to calm your spirit.
-
You don't read with any seriousness the posts of others before placing your posts. What others say, ask (information/clarification), better communication, or admonish for the enrichment of all, you dismiss it as spiritual rubbish. It appears you are using pet-phrases/questions and hardened positions to smear CD Forums with JWs Doctrines, some may call it heresy or religious propaganda. A great opportunity is lost for others to understand JWs and for you to learn why Christians believe otherwise. Your dismissive behavior of fellow posters' contributions re-enforce stereotypes many hold of you and those in your organization (robotic, lacks original thoughts, mindless, spewing only JWs talking points, fear of disfellowship, forced to suspend with reason and inner consciousness).
I don't know if this is a new tactic or your way of surviving the wave of opened minded-independent thinkers not indoctrinated by JWs Kingdom Hall Instructors. If you are not hardened as you appear to be, send someone a PM (personal message) to get out if you feel trapped. In meantime, I will share more of Westcott and Hort's Chronology of the Revision work on their Greek NT Text.
1853 Jan.-Mar. - Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.
- Apr. 19th - Hort: "He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible." (Life, Vol. I, p. 250).
- June - Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggests to Hort that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive 'New Testament Scheme.' Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a N.T. Grammar and Lexicon. (Life, Vol. I, pp. 240, 241).
- Sept. 29th - Westcott to Hort: "As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable - after Griesbach's manner?...I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the A.V.?), and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin wiil give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles...my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong." (Life, Vol. I, pp. 228, 229).
- Nov. 4th - Hort: "I went down and spent a Sunday with Westcott...We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Gk. Test. and the details thereof. We still do not wish it to be talked about, but are going to work at once, and hope we may perhaps have it out in little more than a year." (Life, Vol. I, p. 264).
Westcott and Hort start work on their Greek text.
- 1856 Feb. ? - Hort ordained "priest" in Church of England.
- Mar. 20th - Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology" (Life, Vol. I, p. 322).
- 1857 Feb. 23rd - Hort to Westcott: "I hope to go on with the New Testament text more unremittingly" (Life, Vol. I, p. 355).
First efforts to secure revision of the Authorised Version by five Church of England clergymen.
1858 Oct. 21st - Hort: "The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it." (Life, Vol.I, p.399).
1860 May 1st - Hort to Lightfoot: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels." (Life, Vol. I, p. 420).
- May 4th - Hort to Lightfoot: "I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do." (Life, Vol.I, p.424).
- May 5th - Westcott to Hort: "at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming." (Life, Vol. I, p. 207).
- May 18th - Hort to Lightfoot: "It sounds an arrogant thing to say, but there are very many cases in which I would not admit the competence of any one to judge a decision of mine on a textual matter, who was only an amateur, and had not some considerable experience in forming a text." (Life, Vol. I, p. 425).
1861 Apr. 12th - Hort to Westcott: "Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." (Life, Vol. I, p. 445).
1862 Apr. 30th, May 1st - Hort: "It seems to be clearly and broadly directed to maintaining that the English clergy are not compelled to maintain the absolute infallibility of the Bible. And, whatever the truth may be, this seems just the liberty required at the present moment, if any living belief is to survive in the land." (Life, Vol. I, p. 454).
1870 Westcott and Hort print tentative edition of their Greek N.T. for private distribution only. (This they later circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of N.T. revisers, of which they were members).
- Feb. 10th - Southern Convocation of Church of England resolve on desirability of revision of A.V. Northern Convocation declines to cooperate.
- May - Committee of 18 elected to produce a Revised Version.
- The 7 members of the N.T. Committee invite 18 others, making 25.
- May 29th - Westcott to Hort: "though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as 'we three' are together it would be wrong not to 'make the best of it' as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin." (Life, Vol. I, p. 390).
- June 4th - Westcott to Lightfoot: "Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should agreed. The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at first." (Life, Vol. I, p. 391).
- July 1st - Westcott to Hort: "The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating emendations before our meeting, which may prove valuable." (Life, Vol. I, pp. 392, 393).
- July 7th - Hort: "Dr. Westcott and myself have for above seventeen years been preparing a Greek text of the New Testament. It has been in the press for some years, and we hope to have it out early next year." (Life, Vol. II, p. 137).
- Aug. ? - Hort to Lightfoot: "It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit." (Life, Vol. II, p.140).
- (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).
1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.
- May 12th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).
- May 17th - the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.
- Sept. 4th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).
- Oct. - first of Dean Burgon's three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version appears.
1882 May - Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
1883 Burgon publishes The Revision Revised, including a reply to Ellicott.
1890 May 1st - Westcott consecrated Bishop of Durham.
1892 Nov. 30th - death of Hort.
1901 July 27th - death of Westcott.
1908 -- The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia discusses the Westcott-Hort theory: "Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881."
@BroRando, Do you know the belief of the Unitarian? Can you see their doctrines reflected in the NWT? The committee was not alarmed by the character, the process of Westcott and Hort's life and dealings? What was the NWT translators thinking? I guess because you wouldn't provide any clarification, they were so bent on securing denominational bias that they permitted almost anything or anyone to do the unimaginable.
Would you please check out the Westcott-Hort theory in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia? The JW Bible is saturated with Westcott-Hort theory. The NWT is flawed to its core. Check it out. CM
PS. I know it's a bit lengthy, but a necessary chronology. CM
SOURCE:
- Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
- Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.
- https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
-
There is no such thing as JW doctrine. I gave 247 references that the translation committee used for the Greek Scriptures. I guess it was too deep for you to look at. So why should I listen to you? Someone who supports removing Christ from scripture? Afterall we published the KJV at one time.
After reviewing some trintarian bibles we notice alot of sciptures being changed, altered, and adding trinity dogma like the Johannine Comma. Which is absent from earlier Greek Manuscripts.
WTS Quote "MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translations the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?"
-
@BroRando, I am sorry to say you seem to be reaching for straws. I acknowledged your passage of concern (1 John 5:7, 8) in the forums, see below. Now, take some time to read other posts more comprehensively. Accept Scripture passages that are relevant to the topic that brings understanding. Deal with what is. CM
# 1. ----- I answered you on November 4th to be specific:
https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/20023#Comment_20023
I acknowledged the manuscript evidence of 1 John 5: 7-8 (KJV), is insufficient. To prove the Trinity, no one should use the text above. However, there is plenty of proof for the doctrine of the Trinity elsewhere in the New Testament.
JWs [a modern form of the ancient heresy of Arianism] should consider clear statements on the true deity of Jesus Christ. Unless they changed it recently, The New World Translation (NWT), firstly said so by Thomas. He addressed Jesus Christ after his resurrection with a confession of his deity when he said, "My Master" (NWT footnote gives, "Or, 'Lord") "and God" (John 20: 28).
1. If Jesus were not truly divine as God is divine, Thomas made a mistake.
2. Why does Jesus make no effort to correct him?
3. Jesus accepted the ascription of deity and commended all who share Thomas's faith.
4. See John 20:29 -- "Jesus said to him: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'"
#2. Again, on Oct 11th -- https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/978/an-admission-of-a-trinitarian/p1
Let me make it clear to all:
The New Testament does not have any explicit statement on the Trinity—apart from 1 John 5:7, which has been rejected as a medieval addition to the text—but the Trinitarian evidence is overwhelming.
Furthermore, there are two factors we must all come to grips:
· First, the term, "Trinity" is NOT found in Scripture.
· Second, the Trinity is a hard concept to understand to our modern, analytical, and mathematical minds. How can three equal one or one equal three?
If we are willing to accept the two above points, please, CD Posters/readers and anti-trinitarian, we do find in Scripture many references to three persons in God. For many people, this truth adds to the confusion in people’s minds. Although the Old Testament emphasizes
· The exclusive unity of God (Deut 6:4; 5:7–11).
· Also its alluion to the plurality of God (Gen 1:2, 26; 11:7; 18:1–33; Exod 23:23).
Of all allusions to this plurality of God in the Old Testament, (e.g. Isa 42:1 and 48:16), they come very close to a Trinitarian formulation. Don't you agree with the points stated above?
Now, let's settle down and mine the Scriptures on an important subject and stop acting like screaming cats on a "hot tin roof". End this biblical Guerrilla warfare, while taking sideswipes at one another's name and character. Jesus is clearly described as divine in the gospel of John (John 1:1–3; 20:28). Jesus, himself, proclaims his own divinity (John 8:58).
And lastly........
# 3 April 26th -- https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/917/plain-talk-on-the-trinity
“The Trinity” is not a biblical term. However, “it has been found a convenient designation for the one God self-revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (G. W. Bromiley, “Trinity,” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1112.
Trinity is a hard concept to understand. There are three persons in God. Yet, the Old Testament emphasizes:
- The exclusive unity of God (Deut 6:4; 5:7–11).
- Alludes to the plurality of God (Gen 1:2, 26; 11:7; 18:1–33; Exod 23:23).
- This plurality of God in the OT, Isa 42:1 and 48:16, comes very close to a Trinitarian formulation.
The New Testament does not have any explicit statement on the Trinity—
- 1 John 5:7, is referred to by many but it has been rejected as a medieval addition to the text.
Notwithstanding, Trinitarian evidence is overwhelming.
- Jesus is clearly described as divine in the gospel of John (John 1:1–3; 20:28).
- Jesus, himself, proclaims his own divinity (John 8:58).
- In the NT, we find references to the three persons of the Godhead:
- All three are mentioned at the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:16–17).
- During the Lord’s Supper, Jesus comforts his disciples with the thought that he and the Father would send the Holy Spirit to guide them after his departure (John 14:16–17).
- All three persons are part of the baptismal formula found in Jesus’ great commission to his disciples (Matt 28:19).
- Paul readily refers to all three persons in many of his epistles (Rom 8:9–11; 2 Cor 13:14; 2 Tim 1:3–14; Eph 1:13–14; 3:14–19).
- Peter acknowledges the work of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the salvation of people (1 Pet 1:2).
- John is a witness of the Spirit’s testimony regarding Jesus, the Son of God (1 John 5:5–9).
- The book of Revelation also presents three persons involved in the final events of this world (Rev 1:4–5; 22:16–18).
Read the entire page of each post cited. Thank you! CM
PS. I would encourage you to look up the following text in your NWT. You will see find:
The Trinity in the New Testament: Matt 3:16- 17; John 3:34; 14:16-17; Acts 2:38-39; 5:29-32; 19:5-8; Rom 5:1-5; 8:9-11; 1 Cor 12:3-6; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:13-14; 2:19-22; 3:1-7, 14-19; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; 1 Thess 1:2-5; 5:18-19; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:3-14; Heb 2:3-4; 6:4-6; 9:14; 1 Pet 1:2; 4:14; 1 John 4:2; 4:13-14; 5:5-9; Jude 20-21; Rev 1:4-5; 5:6-7; 14:9-13; 22:16-18.
-
Funny how you agree with The New Testament does not have any explicit statement on the Trinity—
- 1 John 5:7, is referred to by many but it has been rejected as a medieval addition to the text.
But then submit lies that the trinity is explict expained. You're ideas anti-christian, trintarians have always tried to replace the Salvation of Jesus Christ with the demonic dogma of the pagan trinti with No Names.
Notice 1 John 5:7 is very short scritpture, but Cathloic trinitarian translatiors inserted false dogma in the 12 Century. I am using the trintrainian bible webiste (biblehub) to shine the truth in their midst of lies. Notice I use them quite often to show their error. So much they often update their website because of me.
1 John 5:7 ►
Context Crossref Comment Greek
Verse (Click for Chapter)
For there are three that testify:
So we have these three witnesses—
For there are three that testify:
For there are three that testify:
For there are three bearing testimony:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
New King James VersionFor there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
For there are three that testify:
For there are three that testify:
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
For there are three witnesses:
For there are three that testify:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.
In fact, there are three who tell about it.
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
There are three witnesses:
There are three witnesses:
International Standard Version
For there are three witnesses —
because [there] are three who are testifying [[in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one;
For there are three that testify,
For there are three who testify:
For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;
For there are three who testify:
because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
-
The Trinity in the New Testament: Matt 3:16- 17; John 3:34; 14:16-17; Acts 2:38-39; 5:29-32; 19:5-8; Rom 5:1-5; 8:9-11; 1 Cor 12:3-6; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:13-14; 2:19-22; 3:1-7, 14-19; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; 1 Thess 1:2-5; 5:18-19; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:3-14; Heb 2:3-4; 6:4-6; 9:14; 1 Pet 1:2; 4:14; 1 John 4:2; 4:13-14; 5:5-9; Jude 20-21; Rev 1:4-5; 5:6-7; 14:9-13; 22:16-18.
Notiing about three gods, three persons, or three boogey men. trinitaians reject Jesus Christ and they reject his teaching about wprhippin the His God and Father with spirit nad tuth.
Read John Chapter 4 for the truth
John 4:23-24
You worship what you do not know John 4:22
-
@BroRando, I am sorry to say you seem to be reaching for straws.
The Watchtower built of straw does not have enough straws to withstand the hammer of the Word of God.
For there are three that testify,
@BroRando Yes, The Bible is clear that in some sense, distinctions of God apparent enough to have an agreement of testimony. I am not sure what all that means, but the solution is not to reject the Bible, but to accept it. When hearing comes, then faith comes. With faith comes understanding. That is my experience and the testimony of most serious Christians.
Try it, just once. You may have to distance yourself from the straw Watchtower, lest the whole stack fall on you.
Notiing about three gods.
Right. I never met a trinitarian that thought a that. Perhaps the straw Watchtower builds straw enemies to shoot at and you swallowed that bait hook line and sinker? Barf it up. You will feel so much better.
trinitaians reject Jesus Christ and they reject his teaching about wprhippin the His God and Father with spirit nad tuth.
Christians reject false teaching about a Jesus who does not save you and I from their sins;, a Jesus who is a little god along with a big God (polygamy), a false Jesus concocted by the JW Popes who run the straw Watchtower. Yes, that false Jesus, we reject.
A beautiful passage for Christians. Thanks for sharing.
-
Let's be clear you never mentioned you are saved by Jesus Christ. You claimed salvation in God the Son. All the while rejecting Jehovah's Name because you said it propably came from a Catholic monk. I showed you that Christ Name is Jesus which means Jehovah is Salvation but that did not stop you slandering.
Yet, by taking you at your own word, you don't claim Salvation in God the Father or God the Holy Spirit? The other (2) gods of your triniy?? The trinity is polytheism. What happen to your three headed god?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
