T
Are jehovah's witnesses Christians
- Thread starter GlorytoGod
- Start date
..........ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha................
No, that's your made-up definition, a local and recent man-made tradition. The term 'Christian' refers to those who follow Christ as God.
To be accurate, they base their beliefs solely on what they have been taught their own man-made version of the Bible means by their leaders.
Then they have misunderstood the Bible, because the Bible states explicitly that He was before anything was created, in fact everything that is created is created throught him — cf eg. Colossians.
You should inquire what the Bible means from those who understand it, rather than assume you know what it means from those who had an agenda.
They've also misunderstood simply biology. If Jesus is the Son of God, then He inherits the same nature as His Father. God the Father is God, therefore Jesus the Son has that same Divine Nature. Even though the Son is not the Father, they are of the same essence and being. Guaranteed because everything the Father is, the Son is.
Again an erroneous interpretation of the Bible. His life was not transferred from heaven, He joined His own nature to human nature.
Mee:
1: Your version of the Bible is a translation, and a very poor one.
2: Even with a proper translation, it's still a case of 'interpretation', as you insist on interpreting the text for us.
3: As no-one derived the JW interpretation before the JW's, it is evident that the JW interpretation is your own, man-made tradition.
Thomas
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not being hypocritical at all here.
This is a matter of principle. These people think they're special because of the way they interpret the Text, or they're special because of their denomination, creed or the rules they follow. I don't follow their rules. I don't interpret the Text the way they do, so I must not belong to the path, the kingdom to which they belong.
I never judged them according to the rules they followed, the way they interpreted the Text, their creed or denomination. I treated them as individuals on a case-by-case basis. Yet they come to me proclaiming that they know where I should go. They didn't treat me as an individual, they treated me as just another item to be assessed on their checklist of items of how I conform to what they think are the rules of Christianity. To them, I am not a person, but an object coming out of a factory undergoing a quality control process. It's an impersonal assessment.
In saying, "damn them" I am only expressing my response to such behaviour. I never said I had any authority to decide someone else's fate. It is a matter of principle that you never decide someone else's fate. If you do that, you're crossing a line and it's not something I do. It was just a mere "damn them." I'm cursing them (so to speak). I am not wronging these people.
It's not a matter of "this man has wronged me," but it's a matter of "this man thought he could decide my fate." These people set themselves up as stewards of the gospel but they are doing nothing more than trashing it. What greater crime can you commit than misleading people by setting yourself up as a reputable figure, having people follow you and have them believe your rules on who goes where based on what you think is the gospel? They haven't just insulted me, they've insulted my religion, all in the name of preaching about who goes where with regards to my religion. Again, it's not about taking it personally, but recognising that they have committed a crime.
These people want power and influence. That is their crime. They're driven by greed and the lust for power. They don't have respect for the gospel, not what it truly is.
They didn't have to be gate-keeper preachers. They could have chosen another job. Bankers, accountants, scientists, engineers, doctors, surgeons, etc. Out of all the things they could have done, they choose to be the gate-keepers.
M
mee
Guest
interesting that you say that ,
i think you will find that the reason they printed the
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was because it was the aim of them to get back to the pure words of the original inspired God , without any traditions of man to cloud the thought.
and i am glad to say that they have certainly done a good job of doing that.
its good to get back to the original meanings and thoughts of God , it means we are not led along by manmade doctrines.
and i love the fact that, it is online for all to see.New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
M
mee
Guest
very true indeed , thats the way to do it
matthew 28;19-20
M
mee
Guest
getting back to what the bible REALLY teaches is what it is all about.
and no clouding of the bible with manmade doctrines insight
now thats more like it .
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
The individual right to decide what Christianity means is one thing, but what about the collective right to decide the beliefs of the individual? I don't believe that any group of people can decide what is right for the individual, or that any group or individual has any more divine illumination than the rest of us.
Jesus said all that was needed: "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." It's often used on non-Christians to distinguish them from Christians (not always appropriately), but when used inside Christianity, I believe it becomes a lot more meaningful, because inside Christianity there are groups of people who think they have a monopoly on people's souls. That implies enslavement, which leads to a need for liberation. This is where I think the statement makes the most sense.
An individual cannot rely on any church for acceptance from God. No church can decide the fate of the individual. It is between that person and God. Jesus, not the church, holds that person's destiny.
I don't think there's any denomination in the world that isn't man-made. They're all man-made. Jesus' kingdom is otherworldly.
Just a technicality. Isn't Jesus' relationship with God supposed to be one of spiritual parenthood (ie. not biology)?
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
yes and its allowed in my church, I dont expect to agree with everything that is preached at my Church and I dont.
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
just to elaborate I think as we long as we agree on core christian doctrines of christianity, then its ok, I think we can disagree on the details, but not the fundamentals.
M
mee
Guest
so what would you say are the fundamentals?
would it be a sound understanding of the fundamentals of the Scriptures, or on something else
Well logically, the Bible, like any text, is open to interpretation ... so when you say "what the bible REALLY teaches" you mean what your teachers teach you about what the Bible means (as do mine ... as does anyone ... even if the teacher is that person themselves).
There is, nor can there be, a definitive and inarguable 'right' translation of any text in one language into another ... ask anyone who is actually involved in the process of translating ... and this applies especially to texts which 'push the limit' of human wisdom and knowledge.
Translation is not a purely mechanical process — its requires skill and sensitivity, and a deep and profound knowledge of the text in question — it is an art as much as a science.
But in this context, being 'Christian' means interpreting the Bible the way 'Christians' interpret it, the same as being 'Jewish' means interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures the way 'Jews' interpret it.
We all three share same Scripture, but we all three have different interpretations.
So what you can say is:
1: JWs choose to interpret the Bible according to their own precepts, which are for the most part uniquely their own (There's no mistaking a Jehovah's Witness once they start talking!)
2: These interpretations are mostly without precedent, and certainly are not what Christians preached before them.
Therefore, we must, unless we throw reason and logic out the window, draw the following conclusion:
Jehovahs Witnesses preach their own brand of scriptural interpretation, but it is not 'Christian' in any sense of a continuity of faith, belief, or practice, but rather reflects the ideas and sentiments of your founder Rutherford (who got rid of everyone else); a man-made doctrine which fundamentally differs from what Christians believed and preached and wrote about for over 1500 years.
They claim to have the true translation of the Bible — which is a nonsensical claim and which is patently insupportable as it was proven in court the editorial committee lacked the necessary scholarship to make a translation anyway.
What actually happened is they rewrote the Bible to suit their own doctrinal ideas, altering the text where they could be disputed.
As the tradition of JW translation and exegesis is unique and so has never existed before, it is a man-made tradition that was not received from Jesus, the Apostles, nor the Church ... is not Christian.
Thomas
M
mee
Guest
very true
In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations.
While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6)
Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.
and what a good translation it has been
its good to get back to the pure words of God .bring it on
Check out the facts ... it's all there.interesting that you say that ,
No, I don't think so. I think it was to cloud the word of God with their own traditions.
Well ... yes and no ... they've done a good job of producing a piece of self-confirming work, but there's not one independent scholar of Hebrew or Greek who thinks the NWT is in any way 'good' or 'accurate'.
Thomas
M
mee
Guest
WHICH
Besides the New World Translation, the others were The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.
TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
Many languages have numerous Bible translations.
Some translations use difficult, archaic language.
Others are free, paraphrased translations that aim for easy reading rather than accuracy.
Still others are literal, almost word-for-word translations.
The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee.
This version, in turn, has been the primary text used for translations into about 60 other languages.
Translators for those languages did, however, make extensive comparisons with the original-language text.
The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning.
The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.
Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.
One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States.
In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world."
In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world."
Besides the New World Translation, the others were The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.
His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning.
What is his assessment?
BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators.
However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation."
While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version "emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.
Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation.
In 1989 he said: "This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
Ask yourself: ‘What is my goal in reading the Bible?
Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy? Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
Your objective should determine your choice of translation.
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
M
mee
Guest
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. john 17;3
THAT KNOWLEDGE ITS ALL IN THE BIBLE ,
M
mee
Guest
Exactly, tis another thing I find interesting. Seems a group that has been discriminated against for so long would have a tendency to be a little discriminating as to how they put down others for their varied beliefs.
Hi Mee —
My own Course Director sits on a board overseeing Scripture translation. he is fluent in Ugaritic, hebrew and Greek. Not famous though, nor glorified.
The five known members of the committee were: Nathan H. Knorr, then President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; Frederick W. Franz; Albert D. Schroeder; George Gangas; and Milton Henschel. All five men have been members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body. Of these men, Franz alone is said to have had a University education, and even he dropped out after his second year. None of the members was a qualified Biblical language scholar. Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student.
But we know the text needed explaining then, as is evidence by Scripture itself, recall the meeting of Philip with the Ethiopian:
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
So even Scripture states, quite plainly, that it does not interpret itself.
+++
There is also ample evidence of bias from many other informed scholarly sources indicating a subtle yet definite bias, including inserting words not existing in the original, notably in cases where the text might indicate the divinity of Christ ...
I can cite examples if you like.
Thomas
I'm sorry to say I believe the evidence suggests your committee was hiding its lack of scholarship behind its anonymity. When asked the reason for this in a Scottish courtroom, Frederick Franz, then Vice President of the Jehovah's Witness movement, replied, "Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto." The attorney who asked the question then commented, "Writers of books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?"
My own Course Director sits on a board overseeing Scripture translation. he is fluent in Ugaritic, hebrew and Greek. Not famous though, nor glorified.
The five known members of the committee were: Nathan H. Knorr, then President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; Frederick W. Franz; Albert D. Schroeder; George Gangas; and Milton Henschel. All five men have been members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body. Of these men, Franz alone is said to have had a University education, and even he dropped out after his second year. None of the members was a qualified Biblical language scholar. Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student.
So someone interpreted the text might mean when they translated it, which has been my point all along. Your text is your interpretation of the text, a man-made interpretation, one which is without precedent.
Maybe that's what they thought, but in reality they had no idea who understood what in those days (other than in the tradition come down from those days, which you have denied), and all the evidence of archaeology today tells us that any assumptions they made were most likely wrong.
But we know the text needed explaining then, as is evidence by Scripture itself, recall the meeting of Philip with the Ethiopian:
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
So even Scripture states, quite plainly, that it does not interpret itself.
+++
Yes ... but he disagreed with the use of the term Jehovah, didn't he ...
There is also ample evidence of bias from many other informed scholarly sources indicating a subtle yet definite bias, including inserting words not existing in the original, notably in cases where the text might indicate the divinity of Christ ...
I can cite examples if you like.
Thomas
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
No, because christianity does not teach polytheism, it teaches one God in three persons.
No, because chrisitianity believes Christ is God, not an angel or lesser god, or created being who magically and invisibly appears at the fall of the temple multiplied by some fuzzy math.
No, because christiantity believes the Holy Spirit is God working personally with the individual and the church, not a force field or static electricity.
No, because christianity believes God the Father expresses his love, grace, salvation and judgment thru his Son, and thru his Son one may know the Father, and to be born again is thru the Spirit; not God the Father alone as God.