As an agnostic and former Christian my opinion is that the Jehovah Witnesses have come the closest to interpreting the Bible as fairly as possible.

However, I believe they take the Blood transfusion issue too far. They call for avoiding blood, but I believe the oiginal text in question refers to ancient blood rituals, not health issues.

One point of theology that they do have a handle on is the rejection of the Trinity. According to them, Jesus was a separate entity that was second in power and knowledge to God.

If you read the New Testament with an open mind the majority of evidence supports this. The most blatant evidence is that the word Trinity doesnt exist in the Bible, nor does an explanation of the concept. Just mentioning Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in one sentence is not nearly enough proof the original writers believied the doctrine that the modern day church believes.

Another aspect they have right is the understanding of Revelation and the new world order.
Modern day myth centers around a person dying and going straight to heaven to be with God forever.

But if you read the Bible it asserts that everyone dies and lies in 'Sheol', sort of like a suspended animation if you will. Then, on the final day all the dead will be raised and judged at that point.
All the worthy will then be ressurected and given a reborn planet earth to live in paradise. Kind of like the Garden of Eden was supposed to be.

I know most are uncomfortable with the JW's doorstep visits, but the New Testament does encourage believers to share the word. So their motivation is not a devious one. They dont need to be treated poorly, sometimes they are nervous themselves.

My assertion is I claim I worship the Devil. That usually gets rid of them quickly.
;-)

Q: Why in Tony Soprano's neighborhood do they hate Jehovah's witnesses?

A: They hate all witnesses.

I had some people come to my house and ask if we wanted to attend their church on Sunday.

They completely ignored the mezzuzah. I let them down gently (my flamethrower was in the shop ).

This has nothing to do with JW's, just a reply to the doorstep visit stuff.

They may have seen the mezzuzah but not known what it was. Without being insulting, it is my observation that Jehovah's Witnesses tend to go through life with as little exposure to other people's religious traditions as possible. I've known some who were completely ignorant of other Christian denominations, to say nothing of completely different faiths.

They're in the minority, Matthew.
Most Witnesses spend a great deal of time familiarizing themselves with other faiths (there's even a Watchtower-published book on the subject, Mankind's Search For God) if for no other reason than to be able to converse intelligently with adherents at their doors.

Basically, their beliefs require that they call on everybody, regardless of faith, Jews too. The correct response for those not interested, regardless of faith, is 'Sorry, not interested'. A regretful smile would be nice but seems to be optional.

Bob James, I'm sorry, but I really do think you got a twisted view of the Bible from somewhere to come up with those ideas, except the blood transfusion one.

kerriem, I said it *wasn't* JWs. It was people from the neighborhood church trying to increase their membership, not prosletyze.

I know, Scott, but Matthew's reply re: not recognising the mezzuzah was specifically aimed at Witnesses, and that's what I was replying to myself.

Jwb52z, just for the record...the Bible that Witnesses use is the same one everybody else does.
Their own translation, yeah, but one that's been thoroughly certified accurate by numerous outside sources.

Bob James: I know most are uncomfortable with the JW's doorstep visits, but the New Testament does encourage believers to share the word.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but not in the morning when I'm trying to sleep and my hair still looks like an afro! There's a difference between standing on the sidewalk with banners, posters and other material, and ringing my doorbell when I didn't ask for it.

To Jwb52z.
I believe you are referring to the Revelations interpretation and the Trinity. These are beliefs that you can read about in the Jehovah Witness literature.

If you ask your local preacher about when judgement day happens, and where we spend eternity, he should confirm that this is what the book says.

The Trinity assertion is more controversial, sorta like trying to persuade a Roman Catholic that Mary has no special place with God, according to the Gospels. The wealth of evidence makes it clear that Jesus, at least while he was on earth, was not equal to God in terms of knowledge or reverence.

Jwb52z, just for the record...the Bible that Witnesses use is the same one everybody else does. []
Their own translation, yeah, but one that's been thoroughly certified accurate by numerous outside sources. Kerriem

Two points:

1) Jwb did not criticize the JW's translation of the Bible, but rather Bob James' statements of their interpretation of Biblical doctrine. It is possible (though it would mean not knowing Jwb's many other posts) to read Jwb's post to the effect that Bob mis-understood the JW doctrines.

However, those of us who have been reading Jwb's posts for a while suspect that he mans that as compared to his own understanding of the Bible, the statements that Bob made are strange, regardless of how accurately they do or do not reflect JW teachings.

2) I'm not sure of the state of their doctrines and Bible translations today, but 20+ years ago when I knew some JW's (even if only slightly - one worked in the same building, and another was in a couple of the same classes) the question of their "different" translation came up. At that time, they only used two translations.

The AV (King James Version) was used when proselytizing, and their own translation was used among themselves. There were several passages where they had to re-interpret the AV version to make it fit with their doctrine and the text in their other translation. All of my other translations (NIV, NAB, NASB, the Living Bible, etc) handled those passages in accordance to the "common sense" understanding that the JW's tried to explain away.

Again, this was many years ago. I don't know if this dichotomy still exists, and I can't think of any specific examples at the moment. If this thread stays active that long, I'll try in the next two or three days, to find some of those passages, and whether there is still a discrepancy between the JW translation and all of the others.

My favorite unique verse in the JW's New World Translation: "Will tasteless things be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of a marshmallow?" Job 6:6

I'm not familiar enough with the New World Translation to point out anything really significant (as Job 6:6 isn't all that doctrinally controversial).

Although one thing I did notice is the placing of quotation marks in Revelation to the effect that Jesus never refers to himself as Alpha and Omega. Of course, if he did, that could be interpreted as Jesus identifying himself as Jehovah (Isaiah 44:6), and somehow I don't see the Jehovah's Witnesses going for that idea.

Question to everyone: Is it true that the original Greek of the New Testament has no quotation marks? If so, I suppose the modern addition of quotation marks doesn't mean much, as their proper location is sometimes ambiguous. It would be snide of me to call the placement of these marks in the New World Translation "convenient", so I won't say that...um, again...

1) Jwb did not criticize the JW's translation of the Bible, but rather Bob James' statements of their interpretation of Biblical doctrine. It is possible (though it would mean not knowing Jwb's many other posts) to read Jwb's post to the effect that Bob mis-understood the JW doctrines.

However, those of us who have been reading Jwb's posts for a while suspect that he mans that as compared to his own understanding of the Bible, the statements that Bob made are strange, regardless of how accurately they do or do not reflect JW teachings.

Apologies if I misinterpreted.
No, I don't ordinarily post here in PM (and don't plan to past this post) - but as you can likely tell this is a very personal topic for me, hence the rather vehement exception.

2) I'm not sure of the state of their doctrines and Bible translations today, but 20+ years ago when I knew some JW's (even if only slightly - one worked in the same building, and another was in a couple of the same classes) the question of their "different" translation came up. At that time, they only used two translations.

The AV (King James Version) was used when proselytizing, and their own translation was used among themselves.

Ah...not to impugn your memory at all, Tom, but the actual sequence goes more like AV (with Witness-designed concordance) = used prior to the release of the New World Translation in 1961; NWT used more or less exclusively, proselytizing included, after that.
There may have been some overlap between the two extremes, of course, and to this day the Witnesses are more than happy to refer to other translations where it seems appropriate. Most have several in their personal libraries, as a matter of fact.

There were several passages where they had to re-interpret the AV version to make it fit with their doctrine and the text in their other translation.

I know there are some controversial points among scholars. The best answer I'm in a position to give is a quote from a (non-Witness) Israeli Hebrew scholar, Dr. Benjamin Kadar:

I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.

Again, deepest apologies if I've misread anyone's intent. I don't intend to debate doctrinal matters here, for a variety of reasons, but I hope this clears a few basic technical points up.

Kerriem,

This RM. To help you tell the difference, the opinionated jerk at PM is Blue Berry. (It is a pity he's right, no?)

Kerriem-

Would I be correct if I assumed that your statement that "I don't ordinarily post here in PM (and don't plan to past this post) - but as you can likely tell this is a very personal topic for me, hence the rather vehement exception," means that I now know another JW? I miss some of those discussions I had those many years back.

I looked over my post to be sure that I hadn't said anything to directly offend you, and while there are some things I might have phrased slightly more circumspectly, for the most part I stand by what I said. The only thing I would clarify is the phrase "common Sense" in my statement where I contrasted "common sense" with the JW translation (which you have now reminded me is called the NWT).

I put the phrease in quotes, even in the original post, because without the quotes it would mean "common sense as opposed to non-sense," when I simply meant (with respect to translating a phrase) "literal or nearly literal meaning, or obvious idomatic expression." There are poetic passages, and less obvious idiomatic expressions that do not translate easily into other languages, and putting "common sense" in quotes was a way of aknowleging that this was at least a possibility in explaining the differences.

Peace?

::If you ask your local preacher about when judgement day happens, and where we spend eternity, he should confirm that this is what the book says.:: Rob R

My father is a preacher and we don't believe that Revelation in the Bible is still future prophecy except that the world hasn't ended yet. We don't believe in that whole 2000 year thing or that God will come back to Earth and set up some kind of theocracy. I don't really want to expolain because I'm not good at it, but I just thought you should know that.

::The wealth of evidence makes it clear that Jesus, at least while he was on earth, was not equal to God in terms of knowledge or reverence.:: Rob R

As you can probably guess, I would not believe evidence that tried to say that.

Interesting turn of phrase there. Instead of saying something like "I believe the evidence does not suport your claim" or "I would have to examine any evidence you used to support your claim, " Jwb says "I would not believe evidence that tried to say that."

It's almost sounds as though he does believe the evidence exists, and if he were to aknowlege it, he might even agree with it, so he has chosen to declare it wrong and disbelieve it sight unseen.

At least you have to give him points for being honest.

Of course, peace, Tom!
Yeah, I'm a Witness and so are most of my family...which I was initially cautious about mentioning because a lot of otherwise very friendly people tend to get sorta weirded out around me when they find out. Hence, as I say, also the defensive air in my posts on the subject...

OK, while I'm on, just for a few more records: I'm not a brainwashed zombie - as I hope my NitCentral posts as a whole prove; we don't celebrate Christmas or Easter, but dearly love to have a good time with family and friends any day of the year...speaking of which, no I don't drink, but that doesn't mean I couldn't if I wanted to [just ask my mom the wine connoisseur ].
And finally, while I'm bound to abide by the Biblical injunction to 'abstain...from blood' [Acts 15: 28,29, NWT], this does not translate to 'total refusal of medical care', absolutely the opposite! Our belief is that God's - Jehovah's - injunction against blood use is based on it being symbolic of the life He gave all creatures and how precious it is. [Ps 36:9])

Anyway, Tom, I completely understood what you were trying to say in your post above (but thanks for the clarifier anyway).
Believe you me, being a Witness for any great length of time involves becoming familiar with a whole lot of technical Bible translation problems!
All I was trying to get across in my reply is that the sincere intent in the NWT is the most accurate translation possible.

Finally...as I say, I don't want to get any deeper into this forum...but my email address is available on both the Kitchen Sink and Non Sci-Fi novels boards if anyone seriously cares to continue the discussion. (Or just call your local Kingdom Hall any morning of the week. Trust me, you'll have somebody at your door in under an hour...)

Kerrie, you're welcome to post here as much as you'd like. Makes no diff to me if you're a Witness or not, as I've known a few that were very friendly. Two were a married couple who are former neighbors of mine. The husband and I got to talking one day (I forget about what) and it eventually became about religion. Stan was very friendly and IIRC rather open and understanding about my views. He never tried getting me into it, which I appreciated.

Then there was the gorgeous, shapely chick, Rachelle, I worked with at Wendy's who was also a Witness. Later, a gorgeous friend of hers started working there. I had such a big crush on Rachelle. She was one of the nicest people I'd ever known. I once told her she was so beautiful that it was very tempting to join her church just to be with her, cuz she wouldn't date outside her religion, but she said that that wasn't a good reason. Darn the luck!

giggle...Thanks, Mark. I appreciate it.

Hey, anytime.

I find JWB's statements very interesting. He claims to believe in the bible, but doesn't believe in the book of Revelations or the many clear texts that make it perfectly clear that Jesus is God's Son and not God.

Rene, the Book of Revelation is not a book of future prophecy. It is a book of things that already happened except for the second coming of Christ. Jesus is the Son of God, but also fully God as part of the Trinity.

Show me one scripture that proves the Trinity. And that you could believe in the Trinity despite how Jesus said he was inferior to his father, that he did all his Father asked of him and that he told Satan he would not put his father to the test? And how could Satan offer him the kingdoms of the Earth? If Jesus were God, he could just take them from him.

And, if God really is a Trinity, why would Jesus call another part of himself "Father"?

Oh yeah, and one more thing : "Rene, the Book of Revelation is not a book of future prophecy. It is a book of things that already happened except for the second coming of Christ"

So, are you saying it predicted something that hasn't happened yet? You might even call it a...[gasp] prophecy? And why don't you believe it's a book of prophecy? So you think Revelations 14:14,16 has happened already? What about Revelations 21:1-4?

And if you don't believe those, then how can you believe any part of the bible?

And one more thing : If God and Jesus are the same person, how could God know the "day and hour" that the end would come, but not Jesus?

That statement alone proves that the Trinity is not bible-based.

And be careful : Any answer you give will just prove that you believe what your religion tells you and not what the bible says.

A brief précis on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, The Son, and The Spirit are separate persons. They have different personalities, the relate to one another in different ways, and to us in still other different ways.

There is only one God, but God is greater than that which can be contained in a single personal being, as we understand personal beings. So in a different sense, the separateness of the Three Persons of the Trinity is almost like an illusion created by our limitations.

Of course, saying that our senses and immaginations are too limited to understand the completeness of the doctrine, is to admit that we can't answer many of an outsiser's objections, and so from that outsider's point of view, it is admitting that it is "an illogical point of view."

If you are just looking to score points on "disproving" the Trinity, Rene. Then declare victory and let the matter drop.


If, however, you truly want to know why otherwise intellegent people choose to believe such an "illogical" theory, then I invite you to ask again on a more appropriate board. Perhaps "Protestant Faith" (with apologies to the Catholics here) or "Christian Faith" (with apologies to the various sects that consider themselves Christian but don't accept the Trinity) Or maybe Mark would be willing to start a Trinity board under "Debate Topics."

No. What I am asking is why a person who claims to believe in the bible would believe the Trinity. They are mutually exclusive.

As for your explanation, all I see is meaningless double talk.

Exactly my point.

As for your explanation, all I see is meaningless double talk.

Watch it, Rene.

And please point out this double talk.

Hannah (CC) --

To Rene, and in fact to anyone who is not willing to thoroughly examine the issue, my post was "meaningless." "Double-talk" may have been a little harsh, but it was not necessarily intended as a direct insult.

Again, unless he, or someone else, seriously wishes to examine what the doctrine says, why those of us who believe in it do, and why we consider it biblical, let's just let him have his "victory," and let the matter drop.

Or maybe Mark would be willing to start a Trinity board under "Debate Topics."
Done. And thanks for the idea, Tom. Please continue any further discussion on The Holy Trinity there. Thank you.

::Show me one scripture that proves the Trinity. And that you could believe in the Trinity despite how Jesus said he was inferior to his father, that he did all his Father asked of him and that he told Satan he would not put his father to the test? And how could Satan offer him the kingdoms of the Earth? If Jesus were God, he could just take them from him.:: Rene

Show me where He said he was "inferior." God simply has 3 forms for different things. It's like different aspects of a single person, but God's not a person.

::So, are you saying it predicted something that hasn't happened yet? You might even call it a...[gasp] prophecy? And why don't you believe it's a book of prophecy? So you think Revelations 14:14,16 has happened already? What about Revelations 21:1-4?:: Rene

Most of it is not prophecy that has not happened yet except for the Second Coming. Much of the rest is figurative language that can't be literal.

::And one more thing : If God and Jesus are the same person, how could God know the "day and hour" that the end would come, but not Jesus?

That statement alone proves that the Trinity is not bible-based.:: Rene

No, it doesn't. It just shows your lack of understanding about the Trinity. It would take a better person than I am to explain it to someone like you. I know that for sure.

::And be careful : Any answer you give will just prove that you believe what your religion tells you and not what the bible says.:: Rene

Then why bother asking if you think all that? Just to make me look bad and you look like the genius you appear to want yourself to be?

::No. What I am asking is why a person who claims to believe in the bible would believe the Trinity. They are mutually exclusive.

As for your explanation, all I see is meaningless double talk.:: Rene

Again, I ask you, why bother asking if you are not going to believe any explanation at all unless it meets with some preselected thing in your own mind? It's pointless to do such a thing.

"No, it doesn't. It just shows your lack of understanding about the Trinity. It would take a better person than I am to explain it to someone like you. I know that for sure."

So in other words, you only believe it because someone told you to and not because you understand it or found out about it in the bible?

"Show me where He said he was "inferior." God simply has 3 forms for different things. It's like different aspects of a single person, but God's not a person."

Nice way of avoiding my challenge. Again, show me one scripture.

And as for your challenge, Jesus repeatedly stated he did, not as he willed, but the will of his father.

::So in other words, you only believe it because someone told you to and not because you understand it or found out about it in the bible?:: Rene

No, but with a person like you, I do know that no way I would explain it would work.

::And as for your challenge, Jesus repeatedly stated he did, not as he willed, but the will of his father.:: Rene

That does not mean anything close to inferiority.

Guys, please continue your debate on the Holy Trinity board, ok?

John 14:28

A fat lot of good that will do for those of us who aren't Christian and/or don't know the NT back and forth from memory.

Geez. Is that heard to type www.yahoo.com and type "bible" in the search box :p

""You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

And would it have killed you to do that to begin with?

Geez. Is that heard to type www.yahoo.com and type "bible" in the search box :p

If you're going to provide something that you want people to read, it is generally considered customary to provide them with the means to read it. On paper, this means a bibliographic citation detailed enough that someone else could look up what you referenced. On the Internet, this means linking to what you want people to see if it is available online.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=John+14%3A28&version=NIV

The thing you don't understand about that verse, Rene, is that it means that God lowered himself by becoming fully human and still fully God at the same time in the person of Jesus.

Yup. I knew it. You only believe in the Trinity because you were told to.

Again, you ignore my challenge. Show me, in the bible, where the Trinity is explicitly explained.

Hey! You should be glad I'm going to visit the prime minister because he's greater than I am!

Gasp! That means I'm actually the Prime Minister!

(Not that I actually believe the Canadian Prime Minister is greater than I am.)

---

Quote:

Yup. I knew it. You only believe in the Trinity because you were told to

---

I showed him a bible verse that proves the Trinity wrong. He claims to believe in the bible (though he dimisses parts of it easily)

So his claim to believe the bible is false.

Oh dear, you like "Walk to Remember". Teenagers. [rolls eyes]

Rene,

For disbelieving in the trinity of Gamera, Godzilla, and the holy Mechagozilla you shall spend eternity in the Fondue pots of Doom. Doom. DOOM. MwuhuHAHAHA!

(As all true believers know, Godzilla is Gamera made flesh, but is not Gamera.)

Oh, sorry anyone interested in Jehova's Witnesses this is a little off topic. It does kinda fit in with many posts above.

Rene, I never watched it.

I'd rather chew rocks than watch that type of movie. I just like Cranky, and read that review; I thought it was d*mned funny.

Hanna,

Page not found.

::I showed him a bible verse that proves the Trinity wrong. He claims to believe in the bible (though he dimisses parts of it easily)

So his claim to believe the bible is false. :: Rene

No, your understanding of it is wrong. It's not dismissal, it is correct. That's all I have to say.

You dismiss most of Revelation. You dismiss Psalms. You dimissed the verse in John I showed up.

Yup...I call that dimissal.

And again, show me in the bible where the Trinity is explained.

Lack of axplanation would not mean it is false.

Show me one place where it is even mentioned.

Very well, John 1:1-2 (NAB) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

A few Verses latter

"And the Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us , and we saw his glory, the glory of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth."

That's assuming Matthew 28:19 isn't good enough, John, the greatest theologian of the Gospel writters, Writes that Jesus is the Word, and that Jesus was with God in the Beginning, and that he is God. He is also the Son of the Father. While I would say the Trinity isn't as spelled out as well as, justification through faith alone, but it is very much implied, and the doctrine is scripturally based.

Thank you Matt, it would have gone nowhere if I had tried to explain it because Rene seems to have a thing with trying to prove me wrong specifically just because I'm not some scientific thinker or some such thing.

Matthew 28:19? So I guess the scripture that mentions the 12 apostles together means they are one person as well.

John 1:1? Nice try. You're quoting a badly translated and misleading rendering of that verse. Some bible translations render it "the word was divine", "the word was a god".

John 1:1? Nice try. You're quoting a badly translated and misleading rendering of that verse. Some bible translations render it "the word was divine", "the word was a god".

Which translations? "Some translations" could mean anything from "four hundred scholars worked on it for twenty years" to "I wrote it down on the back of a french fry box last Tuesday."

New American Standard Bible:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

American Standard
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Basic English Bible
From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God. This Word was from the first in relation with God

Darby Version
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. *He* was in the beginning with God

Douay-Riems
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Authorized Version (King James Version)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Webster's Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God

World Englis Bible

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God

Young's Literal
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God


I know of only one translation that uses the phrase "a god" (and wouldn't that violate the second Commandment?), and I was respectful to those who use that translation. I did not call it "badly translated and misleading, despite the fact that not one other commonly accepted "major" translation agrees.

Kerrie,

Now I know why you wanted to avoid any discussion on this board. I suspect that all this nonsense is even more upsetting to you than it is to me. As long as it was just Rene and Jwb, I was hoping they'd run out of steam. But they seem determined to "up the ante" until others have no choice but to get involved.

If and when they do get tired, if anyone wants to have a serious discussion, I'll be watching the Trinity board for your post.

TomM, if I wanted to "up the ante" why do you think I DIDN'T answer Rene after a certain point? I said myself that it wouldn't go anywhere if I did. I find your estimation of the situation insulting.

Nice shooting, Red Five.

I assume those are the same "major" translations who remove God's name from their "translation" and replace it with Lord.

And really, how much sense does it make to be with someone and be that person at the same time.

And Jwb, please don't twist the facts. You stopped because you were losing. You can't defend what you state and so you quit. It's that simple.

As for "a god", the original text makes it clear. A definite article appears before the first instance of "god" in that verse, indicating a person and the second instance has no article infront of it, indicating a quality. John's point was that Jesus had a pre-human existence.

Anyway, you're going to have to do much better than that to convince me that the bible teaches the Trinity.

EVEN IF John 1:1 could be used to prove Jesus is God, how the heck does that translate into a Trinity?

Anyway, there are facts :

1. The bible makes it clear Jesus is inferior to God.

2. It also states Jesus was created.

3. True, Jesus stated that he and God were one, but he also stated his apostles are one. So does that makes his apostles part of a 12-ity :p

4. No where is the Holy Spirit spoken of as a person.

And are these the same major translation that make it seem that Jesus and the dying criminal would be in paradise on that same day even though Jesus would be dead until the third day?

I assume those are the same "major" translations who remove God's name from their "translation" and replace it with Lord.

Based on the Third Commandment (the one forbidding taking the NAME in vain), most devout Jews choose not to speak the NAME at all. Many, our own ScottN included, prefer not to write it out, either, even in translation. Many translations follow the Jewish practice of substituting "Adonai" "Lord" for the NAME. Most of them capitalize it as "LORD" to indicate when it is substituting for the NAME, and leave it uncapitalized (except for the L) to indicate the original word actually was "Lord." This is an attempt to be sensitive to the concerns of a people, and is in no way a mis-translation or deception.

The NWT transliterates the NAME as "Jehovah" rather than substituting "LORD," as do some of the translations I quoted ("Jehovah," or "Yaweh," "IHVH" or whatever). The NWT goes further, however, and substitutes many instances of the word "adonai" or its Greek equivalent "kyrie" as "Jehovah" as well, especially in the New Testament, where the NAME never appears!

As for "a god", the original text makes it clear. A definite article appears before the first instance of "god" in that verse, indicating a person and the second instance has no article infront of it, indicating a quality.

Since neither of us is either a native speaker of first-century Koine Greek, nor a language scholar, I cannot disprove, nor you prove, that statement other than to quote what we've been told by others, but we should note that even the experts we quote can't agree on that point.

Since neither of us is either a native speaker of first-century Koine Greek, nor a language scholar, I cannot disprove, nor you prove, that statement other than to quote what we've been told by others, but we should note that even the experts we quote can't agree on that point.

You could probably check a Greek/English concordance of the New Testament to see what Greek a specific English word is translating. Of course, you'd still need a Greek scholar to tell you exactly what is *meant* by that word, but you'd have the first step, at least...

In general, that is true. But in this specific instance, the point of contention is the prescence or abscence of an article. I do not believe Rene is qualified to expound ex cathedra on the difference in shade of meaning between "a god," "the god" and "god" in a dead language he does not speak. Nor would I expect him to accept my pronouncements for the same reason.

If using God's name in those instances was wrong because of the third commandement, then why was it used in the first place in the original texts?

As for the "agreeing to disagree", I'd quote Principal Skinner and say, "I don't agree to that." but I won't.

Darn it. I looked around here, but there doesn't seem to be a place to discuss the subject of God's name and being replaced.

And for the record, it is a mistranslation as far as I'm concerned. I mean, if the name was included over 6000 times in the Old Testament, obviously it was meant to be there. How'd you feel if history books replaced your name (assuming you were important enough to be mentioned in history books) with a generic "PERSON" label?

As for people's concerns, should we change verses that refer to Jesus being at God's right hand because of left-handed people? ;)

Look again, Rene.

TomM:

In general, that is true. But in this specific instance, the point of contention is the prescence or abscence of an article. I do not believe Rene is qualified to expound ex cathedra on the difference in shade of meaning between "a god," "the god" and "god" in a dead language he does not speak. Nor would I expect him to accept my pronouncements for the same reason.

No, none of us here have the knowledge to settle the issue on our own. However, reference books and experts exist so that we may ask them. If you really want to resolve it, that's how I'd go about doing it.

Rene:

If using God's name in those instances was wrong because of the third commandement, then why was it used in the first place in the original texts?

The commandment states that you must not use the name of the LORD your God in vain. "In vain" being the key word. The four letter Hebrew name for God is considered to be the most holy thing there is. Writing the name is one thing; whatever it's written on must be treated as a sacred object. To presume to *speak* the name of God... the only person considered righteous enough to do that was the high priest, and even then only when he was inside the Holy of Holies, in the presence of God, on the Day of Atonement. (I think; it's been a while since we did the Torah in class.) Any other usage at any other time by any other person could be considered "in vain." Hence the tradition of using Adonai in place of YHWH. Respect for the power of the word.

As far as being a "mistranslation," I'm not seeing your point. The majority of the time, the Hebrew "Adonai" is used to mean "Lord" to take the place of YHWH. Would you rather that English translations substitute a translation of a word that was not used in the original text?

Again, in general, your suggestion, Matthew, is a good one, and one I strive to follow (Note that I often do include the original Hebrew and or Greek words to emphasize my point.) But in this case, the distinction is too fine to be resolved in this forum by "average" persons such as Rene and me. (Nor did I suggest that we "agree to disagree," Rene. I just pointed out that the issue cannot be resolved here because neither of us is qualified to prove the issue, and even if one of us were, we would not convince the other.)

As for people's concerns, should we change verses that refer to Jesus being at God's right hand because of left-handed people? ;)

Is there a commandment from God that our left hands should not be profaned? A better analogy would be: How would you feel if all the hospitals in your state refused to treat patients who did not believe in blood transfusions?

It is not a whim on the part of those who would like to read the Scriptures in translation, but because of their understanding of those scriptures genuinely believe it to be wrong to cavalierly publish the NAME about. It is a sacred responsibility.

Let's move this discussion to the newly created discussion area for it

Why does the mafia dislike Jehovah’s Witnesses? They don't like any witnesses.

We now return you to a serious discussion about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Is there any emoticon for an eye roll here?

::And Jwb, please don't twist the facts. You stopped because you were losing. You can't defend what you state and so you quit. It's that simple.:: Rene

Nope, Sorry, that's wrong. It just is.

I sometimes wonder what it would be like if a
JW ever knocked on the door of a Mormon or
vice versa.

As far as the Trinity goes,this is an example of
why the Creeds are so important in Christianity.

I sometimes wonder what it would be like if a
JW ever knocked on the door of a Mormon or
vice versa. - Scott McClenny

It'd be like an electron meeting a positron only politer. Seriously, I'd rather not be near either. (What, you did not know that "Seriously often presages another joke?)

Scott, I'm not sure what you meant. What exactly is an example of why the Creeds are so important in Christianity?

As for the Mormons and JWs crossing paths during door knocking, we'd probably offer each other a drink or some cookies or something.

Actually this happened to me. I once encountered two Mormons going door-to-door at homes I had just visited. Boy did they get a chilly reception! Even stranger, when they got up to the point of the street where I was one of them spoke nicely and kindly while the other one ran to the end of the block and refused to come near me! I can only imagine what he thought of me.

See the book
"The Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness" by
Diane Wilson

In 2013 the Watchtower society released a new revised version of
their New World Translation,
easier to read, different look and
feel, anyone see it

You mean that magazine that they accost you at bus stops with and won't go away until you take one. I've been ambushed a few times like that.

Of course, the moment they're out of sight, I look for the nearest trash bin and chuck said magazine in.

I could use it to line my cat's litter box, but I won't insult my cat that way.

Just put NJW on your front door, Tim.

Tim, Not the Awake or
Watchtower publications, but
the 2013 edition of their
New World Translation of the
Holy Bible, some refer to it
as the "Silver Sword" version
because of its appearance

Or when they knock at your door do what SIr Billy Connolly does.

"I am standing here naked with an erection and I'm opening the door in 3.....2.....1....."

LOL!!

In reality, since I live in an apartment, that doesn't happen. There are strict rules in place that forbid JW's from coming in and bothering tenants.

However, my encounters happened while I was waiting for a bus. They love to accost people at bus stops.