Have you thought about studing the scriptures instead of wasting your time critizing?? Thats the only thing your able to do..critisize??Do something healthy, if you didnt know, keeping resentment and hatred in your heart can increase your blood pressure levels...stay healthy!!
@Thetruthhurtsmany There is NO resentment or hatred here. I would say I spend much more time studying the scriptures than most JWs, or Mainstream Christians for that matter. My criticism comes from my seeing how JWs twist the scriptures I study, and a desire to see them find the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that the Apostle Paul spoke of. If I hated someone then I would think I would WANT them to continue to believe lies and suffer eternal darkness, rather than LIFE!
So the israelites were puppets because they followed Moises? The disciples of the first century were puppets because they were obeying the decision that a group of apostoles and elders made about circumcision that werent specified in the scriptures??...Acts 15:5-29!!
The truth about that video is that Mantey said the words at the KIT!! About his comment about the KIT and NWT, its pure bias!! As a defensor of the trinity, im not surprised! But as i told you look for what Jason BeDuhn said about KIT and NWT...unless you consider that man as a non JW to be a false profet as well...??!!
Why dont you answer all my questions first??!! Who brain washed you? what rollership are you under??
And ya i talk about Chistmas, and birthdays, in the sense that, you and those called cristians are always criticizing JWS, but they dont tell that there mistakes are atrocious compared with the JWS...The mix whats in the bible with pagan festivities...and the so called "Christian" organizations have a very sad story of blood shedding in there hands, by going to war and blessing guns, etc...
@Thetruthhurtsmany You are giving a typical Watchtower response, like a puppet. You do not answer the question I ask, which is: " Show me where my video is false", instead you throw Watchtower ideoms out that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. Do some research for yourself, and not just repeat Watchtower accusations. You obviously don't care that there is other truth, besides Watchtower "truth".
@jwpublisher1 What bible is considered closest to the oldest greek manuscripts then? What bible do you recommend? I've seen an laughable amount of criticisms against the NWT but never a solution. What bible isn't accompanied by criticism and suspicion?
@TheDirtyBurd I think you would find that The New American Standard Bible has few critisisms, except that the literal interpretation makes it's English a little awkward. As Dr. Spurgeon said: "It is strong in Greek, but weak in English". But it is an excellent Bible for a literal translation of the original scriptures.
Scoler Jason BeDuhn is not a JW or a scoler from Baptist schools, he neutral and pretty reasonable! He even uses the KIV to teach his teology students! And many translations and versions use the same type of translation as NWT, as for using Jehovah's name in new testament or translation of john 1:1!
KIV: the WBTS didn't like about Manteys quote! The references and quotes that WBTS uses don't mean that people that are mentioned agree with JW. But I guess Mantey as a Baptist scoler got angry! Almost all scolders that Criticize the KIV and NWT are Baptist or evangelical scoler, no wonder they have hattred for JWS!
Instead of looking for false or half truths about the JWS, why dont you tell ur evangelical and scholer friends to teach at least a quarter what de JWS teach there people, on how to aply bible pricipals in all ranges in there life? And whay dont u tell ur friends about the the origen of Cristmas, birthdays..on how true christians should not celebrate them, or participate in politics, like u guys do...WHY??? Are u guys afraid of starting to lose clients an lose MONEY!!!??
@Thetruthhurtsmany There are no lies or half truths here brother. And if I am shown that I have said anything false in my videos I will remove them. But in the same token if you don't prove to me what is false or half true in my video I will remove your statement for being false. My video is not about Christmas, or birthdays so I have no idea why you posted that remark here. I also am not doing this for the money, only to save the lives of people being lied to by the Watchtower.
@melanoficus I do not agree with you as regards Jesus suffering the "second death". That is altogether something different and something we would both wish to avoid.
I believe I am on a different time zone than yourself, (probably 5 to 8 hours) so I will give you my views on this tomorrow.
@melanoficus It is all these things but, Jesus is still referred to as the second Adam for a reason. Gods own justice is a balance. An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. That is the ransom
@steveparadise1 Yes, there is good reason why He is called the 2nd Adam—because Adam represents all who die (death came into the world thru Adam), Jesus represents all who shall live thru Him.
Yes, eye for eye etc is a PICTURE of Justice. But think of this, what about 2 eyes for 2 eyes? Six teeth for six teeth? One death for one sin? One Life for many lives? Yes, because He bore the sins of MANY to satisfy Justice—Isaiah 53v.12—NOT because He gave up His body never to have it back again . . .
@melanoficus Adam was a perfect man. If he did not sin he would still be alive today. There is a definite connection in the bible between "sin" and "death" and therefor by extension health. In saying that, I agree with your last statement. Only a perfect man could have remained sinless and thereby fulfill the Law.Only the sacrifice of the sinless Jesus could redeem mankind. Not one of Adams offspring, no matter how good they were, could achieve the redemption of sinful ,imperfect mankind
@steveparadise1 Steve, these are important and critical issues. Yes, the wages of sin is death, and yes if you are subject to death you are at least 'relatively unhealthy'. But the Scriptures also speak of a death beyond the one that happens to the body—the second death—and it is this death in particular that Jesus Christ suffered (Hebrews 2v.9) for all His people—this is a death not so much of mere physical body, but of LIFE PRINCIPLE. But the resurrection ANASTASIS—Jesus rose to life again !
@melanoficus If when Jesus became human he would become lower than angels. Why would the glorified Jesus retain a body that was lower than the angels, while at the same time inheriting a name much greater than theirs?.
@steveparadise1 In the days of His humiliation before His resurrection triumph, He was indeed lower (but NOT inferior, or else how could they worship Him when He came into the world — Hebrews 1v.6?) than the angels. But when He was glorified He did not retain the body sown in weakness but was transformed, gloriously transformed, no longer subject to corruption — Phil. 3v21, Acts 13v.34, Rom. 6v.9 Therefore He is certainly NOT anymore in a body lower than the angels.
@melanoficus The bible in many places refer to Christs sacrifice as a "Ransom". His perfect physical body was the price that had to be paid. If he still possess that body was the price paid?
There is a difference with having a "spirit" (life) and being a "spirit".
Jesus is now, what he was before he came to earth. A spirit being
@steveparadise1 I dont know where you get the idea, "His perfect physical body was the price that had to be paid." from? That is certainly not the emphasis in the Scriptures. In fact I might debate you that He even had a PERFECT PHYSICAL BODY — what is a perfect physical body anyway? Do you mean that He was not subject to germs and thirst, and tiredness? Was it perfectly shaped (physique etc), perfectly healthy? Or was it SINLESS, or rather isnt it that HE was SINLESS, that is the emphasis?
@steveparadise1 RANSOM (ANTILUTRON) is only one aspect of the redemption accomplished by the Lord Jesus. It is also spoken of as ATONEMENT and PROPITIATION — fulfilling all the significance of the Old Testament shadows and types. Isaiah 53 speaks in prophetic detail of what the Lord would accomplish in His death and resurrection — see vs.12. He took the punishment of the sins of His people. There is nothing here about having to give up "a perfect body", it is about becoming the Sin-Bearer.
@melanoficus "Man" in 1 Tim 2:5 is from the Greek ANTHRWPOS which according to Moulton's Lexicon does not necessarily mean "Man". It is a generic term for "individual" or "person" and can refer to a woman or angel.
The use of the word "man" is apt, as it let those 1st century Christian appreciate the one appealing to God on there behalf understands the human nature.
@steveparadise1 Of course the generic Greek word ANTHROPOS is used, PAUL wouldnt have used ANER in this context for obvious reasons. As a Mediator Jesus Christ was fully man AND fully God. But here in 1 Tim. 2 v. 5, Paul is focusing on His perfect manhood, for the reason as you correctly say, to bring out how He can eminently represent His people who are also ANTHROPOS and not angels, as Hebrews 2v14-18 says.
@steveparadise1 But nevertheless you agree with Russell that the ANTHROPOS Jesus is forever dead. JWs teach that man does not have a soul or spirit, then what PART of Jesus was made alive again if He did not rise in bodily form?
@steveparadise1 The words of my Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ are clear: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . But He spake of the temple of His BODY — John 2v.19,21.
Christians dont have to try and evade or re-interpret these words of the Lord. Clearly, taking the overall revelation of the Scriptures He arose with a glorified spiritual body — the body that was sown in weakness, was raised a glorious body (Phil.3v.21 etc) — obviously transformed by His almighty power.
@steveparadise1 If you read the passage following after "Flesh and blood cannot inherit . . ." (1 Cor 15v.50) you should see what Paul means by this — see vs.50 to 53. Man in his present condition cannot enter the kingdom of God, unless he be CHANGED. First a man must be born again (John 3v.3-7), and then he must put on incorruption at the resurrection/rapture, which will happen at the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15v.51-53). Read I Cor. 15v.35-42.
@melanoficus How can Jesus have a body of flesh and blood when at Heb 1: 3 Says "He (Jesus) is the exact representation of Gods very being"?.
Paul speaking of the resurrection to heaven at1 Cor 15:42-50 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body....The 1st man Adam became a living soul, the 2nd Adam (Jesus) became a life giving spirit"
also "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". The context is clear as it is in Peter. Russell is right.
@steveparadise1 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." — Luke 24 v 39
Words could not be clearer.
Verse 37 says, they supposed that they had seen a spirit. JWs say, yes, that is all Jesus was, his body was forever dead.
@steveparadise1 The point is that Jesus rose with an incorruptible body — no longer subject to corruption. And this is the basis of the apostle's words, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body . . ."—Phil.3v.21 This is the way the resurrection of the redeemed works also — 1 Cor.15v.43-44 —sown in dishonour, raised in glory, sown in weakness, raised in power, sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body — there is a natural body and a spiritual body
@tdickensheets. It is true that the NT does not always use the definite article "The" when speaking of the Father, but in John 1:1 he does. Many trinitarian scholars accept the distinction is there for a reason, as can be seen with the amount of translations that do not conform to the errant "Word was God". The NWT was not the first to recognise this. Many accept "The Word was God" is such an emphatic statement you are saying is The Word was "ALL" of God. That does not work for the trinity.
@steveparadise1 I have yet to find a JW that could accurately state what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. Watchtower publications that I have seen, present distorted and caricatured views. I would not assume that you actually understand the Trinity as held by Bible Believers, who derive their understanding not from creeds but from the Bible. From what you have just written it appears that you dont actually know what we believe.
@tdickensheets. JWs have one God. The Father. Jehovah. The same amount as Jesus has . Of The Father at John 17:3 Jesus said " You are the only true God" as it says in all bibles.
At John 1:1. John makes a distinction between God and the Word. The God that the Word was "with" he terms "The God", emphasising that he was speaking of Almighty God. The Word he refers to as "God" without the definite "The", showing that Jesus although being "a powerful one" is not himself "the one true God"
@melanoficus It is plain to see here that Peter is contrasting "in the flesh" with "in the spirit". No need to "force" the text. Just accept the simple truth. JWs do not follow Russell, they follow Jesus. It just so happens Russell is right in this case.
“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS”—Paul, 1 Tim. 2 v. 5.
“He ever liveth to make intercession for them”—Hebrews 7 v. 25.
By your own admission (that you believe Russell and the Watchtower organization to be correct on this matter), and in the light of the above Scriptures, your mediator (and the JW’s) is DEAD, FOREVER DEAD. You have no Mediator for that Day. Who would dare to approach the Judgement throne with no Mediator . . . !! ?
“it was necessary, not only that the man Christ Jesus should die, but just as necessary that the MAN CHRIST JESUS SHOULD NEVER LIVE AGAIN, SHOULD REMAIN DEAD . . . THE MAN JESUS IS DEAD, FOREVER DEAD”— Charles Taze Russell.
Actually there is no definite article — THE — in the Greek text. And yes, of course FLESH and SPIRIT are contrasts. JWs are forcing the text to say what it just does not say. NO use denying it, you have read into that passage something which just is not there. That is typical of those who twist the Scriptures to their own perdition.
@steveparadise1 You need to demonstrate that your forced interpretation is the ONLY valid way of interpreting the passage — which you cannot do. I can show you that your forced interpretation contradicts the rest of the Scriptures, and therefore cannot be correct.
@jwpublisher1 JWs long before the NWT was published exposed many false teachings using the available translations. Trinity, hellfire,immortal soul, all are easy enough to disprove without the NWT. You would expect a bible translation by JWs to come under fire as its accuracy promotes the truth more clearly about Jehovah and Jesus. Nevertheless, it has it admirers among non JW scholars. Particularly by those with no axe to grind. I have many different bibles but do favour the NWT. Brilliant work
@jwpublisher1 Either you haven't spoken to many JWs or you are to busy looking for the negative you are missing the message. "There is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we might get saved" Acts 4:12. Do you honestly think JWs would miss such an important bible teaching? Seriously! Whether you are one of the 144,000 or those "who pass through the great tribulation" you must accept this truth and tell others about it.
@melanoicus: Jws follow Johns example. Rev 1:9 "speaking about God and bearing witness about Jesus". As followers of Jesus JWs speak and witness about his Father, as he did. JWs are constantly telling others about salvation thru Christ.
JWs also believe Peter when he said that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the spirit" .Then he went on to say "and in this STATE (spirit) he preached to spirits.."
Twice John calls Jesus "a faithful Witness". TO WHOM?
@steveparadise1 "JWs are constantly telling others about salvation thru Christ." This is a new one for me. I have NEVER EVER had a JW tell me that I can find salvation (meaning eternal life) through Jesus Christ. I have been told that only the 144,000 have been redeemed by the shed blood of Jesus, and that is why only they can partake of the memorial wine and bread at the annual Memorial Service at the Kingdom Hall.
@steveparadise1 Christians — i.e. those purchased by the blood of Christ — believe Peter exactly as Peter said it, i.e. we dont force Peter to say Jesus rose AS A SPIRIT, but allow Peter to say what He actually said, i.e. Jesus was made alive IN THE SPIRIT.
Furthermore we interpret the meaning of the apostle Peter's words in the wider context of the whole Scripture, including our Lord's own testimony as to the nature of His rising form the dead — read our Lord's words in John 2 vs 18-22 !
@steveparadise1 Yes, but as I said in my post, JWs bear false witness about Jesus. The apostles declared HE had risen from the dead., but JWs follow Russell who taught that the man Jesus was forever dead, therefore His body could never come back to life. What sort of resurrection is this? Furthermore JWs by their teaching imply that our Lord 'tricked' the apostles by materializing various bodies out of fresh air, to convince them that He had risen, when in fact He was only a spirit.
@melanoicus In the book of Ezekial says, concerning the last days (our days) : "The nations will have to know that I am Jehovah" If you, and others, want to hide that great name you are acting inopposition to Jehovah wishes and of His Sons. Jehovah's Witnesses promote Gods name world wide and that of his Son Jesus. The NWT aids in this great work. Who is almighty God going to be pleased with ? Those who advertise His name or those who want to hide it
@steveparadise1 JWs bear false witness to Jesus, just read the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek. The apostles were witnesses that Jesus had risen from the dead, not as some phantasmagoric spirit creature as taught by the WT organization, but risen indeed, in the same body but now glorified. WT basically denies that Jesus rose. Russell taught that the man Jesus is dead and shall never live again. Thru the book of Acts, the apostles main mission was to bear witness that He was risen
@melanoficus 1 John 4:14,15 says "In addition,we ourselves have beheld, and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as savior of the world. Whoever makes confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with him"
It creates a problem with your thinking when your Confessing that Jesus is God. It distorts your thinking and sets you against the truth, in that Jesus is "the Son of God" not "God the Son"
@melanoficus That seems to be the problem with morst bibles. They obscure the identity of Jesus and try hard to obliterate Gods name from scripture. We are fortunate to have the NWT that assigns to both Jehovah and Jesus their rightful place as Almighty God and His firstborn Son
@steveparadise1 No its the other way around. Jehovah Witnesses actually bear false witness about Jehovah, about Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Gospel, the Resurrection, the Return etc, all aided and abetted by their inaccurate version called the NWT.
The apostles were Jesus Christ's Witnesses not Jehovah Witnesses. Just read the book of Acts in Greek, in any available ancient manuscript that we have copies of.
@steveparadise1 What you are really saying here is that you are fortunate to finally have a "Bible" that was "translated" by Jehovah's Witnesses FOR Jehovah's Witnesses that agrees with the official beliefs of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The ONLY such "translation" in the world that agrees with ALL of the Watchtower's beliefs, by the way.
@jwpublisher1 PROSKYNEO ( proskuneo) actually occurs 60 times in the Wescott and Hort Interlinear from which the NWT is based on. PROSKYNEO, basically means "to bow down". Depending on who you are directing PROSKYNEO to ,or who is being discussed, depends on how you translate the word. If you do not believe Jesus to be God then you would not use "worship". When referring to Jehovah (Father) then it would be" worship". It is a TRANSLATION. Accurate, unbiased and honest.
@steveparadise1 OK, so my math was a little off. But I see you admit that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society "translates" depending on what they believe. How can you even for a second say that it is a translation that is unbiased, when in the previous sentence you say that the translation depends on what you believe? I can see that there is no point in discussing this further with you when you can't even see that "translating" depending on your beliefs is totally biased!
@steveparadise1 Very FEW people outside of the Watchtower organization consider the NWT a 'good' translation. Here is an example of its bias:
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" Rom 9 vs 33. Why does the NWT replace HIM with IT in this verse? Do they not stumble at who Jesus Christ is? They reject the Deity of Jesus just as did the Sanhedrin which wanted to kill Him.
@steveparadise1 Why did the original edition of the NWT use 'worship' with reference to Jesus in Hebrew 1v 7, but later on changed it to 'obeisance'? Dont they know that in Revelation for example, chapter 4 and 5 Jesus Christ, as the risen Lamb receives praise and honour thatis indistinguisable from that rendered unto the Father? Why are they so keen to rob Jesus Christ of the honour due unto Him? They do not honour the Son therefore they do not honour the Father that sent Him— John 5 vs. 23
JWPublisher1, thanks for the vid, its good to document the duplicity of these suposed servants of Jehovah, that do not shrink from misquoting in order to mislead. They do not seem to take seriously the commandment — Thou shalt not bear false witness . . .
Thanks, keep up the good work. BTW, where did you get the vid clip of Dr Mantey from? I would be intereste dto see the complete vid if its available
@melanoficus I got it from a film that is on youtube in 7 parts. "Jehovah's Witnesses-Watchtower Society Exposed " It's a little dated but still very informative.
@jwpublisher1 Thanks for that info, I will try to look it up, I appreciate any help in shining the light of God's Word upon their errors. May the Lord richly bless your witness for Him.
JWs do not deny the deity of Jesus. His divinity is well established in scripture. They do however, not accept that he is Almighty God. This would not only be an insult to God, but also insults His Son who made it clear he was "the Son of God" and never at anytime regarded himself as God or equal to his Farther.
According to W.E, Vines expository of NT words: PROSKYNEO can be trans. to make obeisance, to reverence or worship. The NWT is not unique in not translating PROSKYNEO as worship
@steveparadise1 The word PROSKUNEO occurs 55 times in the original Greek used in the Watchtower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation. Of those 55 times in the NWT it is translated as WORSHIP 37 times, 2 of those times is when it refers to Satan, and once when it refers to demons. EACH and EVERY time when the Greek word PROSKUNEO refers to JESUS, 15 times to be correct, it translates PROSKUNEO as OBEISANCE. There is NO way you can say that this is an accurate, unbiased translation.
JWs believe and understand the New Covenant more than most. By not reading false doctrine into scripture they accept Gods truth as it is meant to be understood.
Heb 8:14,15 says "How much more will the blood of the Christ who offered himself without blemish. So that is why he (Jesus) is a mediator of a New Covenant"
"Mediator" between who? Jer.31:31 says that Jehovah (The Father) will conclude the New Covenant of which Jesus is the "mediator" between God and Christians.
I see now your objection to the rightful use of Jehovah in the NT. It distinguishes the "only true God " from His Son. It distinguishes the great savior, Jehovah from his "chief agent" of salvation, Jesus. Paul at Rom 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32 as was Peter in Acts 2:21 "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved".
The problem is we do not have the original NT writings or an early copy. By reading how Jehovah views his name He would be pleased by the NWT honest and faithful stance
@steveparadise1 The New Testament establishes a New Covenant. Jesus explained this in his talk at the last supper. "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood..."NWT The entire Old Testament scriptures points to this over and over. Jesus is the Savior in the New Covenant. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to believe in this New Covenant however, because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They also deny him worship, and changed the original Greek scriptures from worship to obeisance.
@steveparadise1 "By reading how Jehovah views his name He would be pleased by the NWT honest and faithful stance." I will never agree that changing Jehovah's word as he has preseved it for us is "honest" and "faithful".
@steveparadise1 You missed the point Steve, not a SINGLE ancient Greek manuscript of the NEW Testament contains YHWH (Jehovah) — every single one contain KURIOS or THEOS. So despite the elaborate argumentation used to try to justify their INSERTING Jehovah into the NT in place of KURIOS, their reasoning is full of logical non-sequiturs and loopholes, and unconvincing, and the people who put out this NWT are guilty of tampering with God's holy word so as to obscure the identity of Jesus Christ.
What we both know of God. Would you say that it would be more "dangerous" to use Gods name in the NT or to remove this "great" name from His word altogether as some translations have done?
What could be considered by God as the greatest transgression, extolling His name or hiding it entirely?
Lets not forget that the name Jehovah is incorporated into many NT names none more so than Jesus (Jehovah is salvation)
Consider the 4 occasions the use of the shortened version JAH in Hallelujah. Rev 17
@steveparadise1 I say that when you add words to scripture, you are not translating at all! You are making up your own scripture! The "other" translations you speak of did NOT omit the word "Jehovah", they translated the words from the original Greek scriptures that Jehovah God preserved for us. In this case I say it is much more dangerous to add to the Word of God words that are not present in the original Greek scriptures. You are changing what Holy Spirit directed men to write.
@steveparadise1 Clearly Acts 4:10-12 shows the error of your thinking. Speaking of Jesus Christ it says in verse 12 "there is no salvation in anyone else.For there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." NWT Then in Romans 10:13 the NWT added the word Jehovah "for everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." This clearly is in total conflict with what the NWT says in Acts 10:12. Jesus Christ is the name by which we are saved!
I believe that when Jesus was on earth he revealed Jehovah more to us. All through his ministry he glorified his Father (Jehovah) He sums up his ministry in his prayer to the Father at John 17 by saying just how much he revealed to the disciples about Him and His "name". His role in our salvation is not diminished by saying this. as Jesus said in the garden shortly before his death " not my will but your's" We should follow Jesus example by making Gods name known. John 17:26
@steveparadise1 Yes, but not change the Holy Scriptures to support your point, which is just based upon theory and speculation. Dangerous ground to be treading on! It's fine to have a theory, but to take the step of changing the WORD OF GOD is pure blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
Like yourself I believe God knows how to protect His inspired word.
Never the less that "word" has been tampered with. The best example being 1 John 5:7. Even so, God in His own time exposed this spurious text.
It was believed for many years that the Septuagint removed Gods name and replaced it with LORD. We now know that is not the case with the discovery of earlier copies, dating back to when Jesus was on earth, with Gods name.
God again protecting His word, This might be the case with the NT
Jason Beduhn is very complimentary of the NWT, however, as you point out, he did criticize the use of Jehovah in the NT.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia while calling the NWT "impressive" did not agree with Jehovah in the NT
Same for Dr. Bruce Metzger (formally of the ABS committee) While being impressed by the NWT thought the inclusion of the Divine Name in the NT was not supported.
Surely when Jesus stood in the Synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah he would have read aloud Gods name!
@steveparadise1 I would agree with what you said about Jesus reading aloud God's name, but the Bible says that all scripture is "God breathed". The key to the New Testament is Jesus Christ, and the emphasis shifted from Jehovah God to Jesus Christ as being the key to salvation. So I believe that Holy Spirit directed the writers the New Testament to write the scriptures that we have today. God has protected His word, and would not have let it become tainted.
@steveparadise1 The leading scholar the Jehovah's Witnesses use to defend the NWT is Dr. Jason BeDuhn and his book Truth in Translation. But if one actually reads this book, they will find that Dr. BeDuhn states that there is absolutely NO credible reason for adding the Divine name of Jehovah to the New Testament, and that the JWs are incorrect in doing so. The Jehovah's Witnesses will never point this out, however, when stating Dr. BeDuhn's positive comments relating to the NWT.
@worldhistory2011 Well Dr. Mantey would disagree completely with what you have said. Read his letter to the Watchtower dated July 11, 1974. You can find it by searching Google for "Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower". The Watchtower also disagreed with what you said because they withdrew the mention of Dr. Mantey in the next edition of the KIT. The Watchtower did not consider this NONSENSE. More like a "OOPs, we got caught on this one, and we'd better remove it before we get sued".
@worldhistory2011 I think you have completely missed out on the subject of this video. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in the KIT refers to Dr. Mantey's book agreeing with their rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT, when in fact, Dr. Mantey strongly objects to that statement. The Watchtower is attempting to deceive the readers with this statement. They have made no retraction of this statement in the KIT, they did remove the statement in the later edition because of the threat of lawsuit.
I like what the WTS has to say in the 9/07 KM question box. It sure is funny how they don't want the NWT to be tested, but they offer more WT publications for clarification? They quote Matt 24:45,47 for authority, but they sure can't prove that the "FDS" are apart of the 144,000 from scripture? Why is that?
Google: 'Dr. Julius R. Mantey Q & A. On the NWT and John 1:1. (an excerpt '. There Dr Mantey, involuntarily, 'says': 'The Jehovah's Witnesses quoted what I SAID but that isn't what I meant', put another way 'I meant more than I actually said' or 'I applied it to the predicate even if I did not say so'. Well you should have said so Dr Mantey. They quoted what your wrote. Stop bitching jwpublisher. These are not misquotations. (No disrespect intended to Dr Mantey).
@CAW0007 OK, I did as you said. I read the entire article. I don't see what you see. Not bitching. I did notice Dr. Mantey says they quoted him out of context.
@jwpublisher1 He said he was quoted “only in part”:(1) he used the rule to find the subject “Word” but JWs applied it to the predicate “god” and (2)JWs did not take his bias into account:Jesus and God though distinct are still of the Trinity. Apply these two points into the missing 'definite article' and he translated “deity”, still God, where they translated “a god”, a different being. But since he did not say he was limiting the (stand alone) rule then it cannot be said they misquoted him.
@CAW0007 Well, I still don't agree with your assessment. The Watchtower didn't argue this point either, after Dr. Mantey wrote them a letter telling them that they misquoted him, and they quietly removed the reference to Dr. Mantey's book in the later version of the KIT.
@jwpublisher1 My assessment is on that excerpt. There Dr Mantey does not use the word “misquote” and he does not limit the rule, for he would have said so, hence I said it's “stand alone”. He asked Watchtower to remove reference to him or his book, and from what you say they honored his request. But my original argument was with you. Take a 'leaf out of their book', remove the video for it is misleading to say they INFERRED Dr Mantey agreed with them as I explained in previous comments.
@CAW0007 In Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society dated July 11, 1974 he makes the following two statements: 1. "...you misused and misquoted my "rule"." and 2. "...you have been quoting me out of context". How much more clear could he have made himself? Your circular reasoning just leaves me "scratching my head", and I don't understand it, nor agree with it at all.
@jwpublisher1 I've checked the google page and am surprised to see that in his letter, Dr Mantey does use the language you quote. But I also notice, in the second link, JWs firm & convincing rebuttal of his charge. Their argument is similar to mine (I did not know this before).
Which leaves me with you. But first, where in my comment have I fallen into “circular reasoning”?
@CAW0007 "I've checked the google page and am surprised to see that in his letter, Dr Mantey does use the language you quote" I'm thinking that what you are really saying here is that you are surprised that I tell the truth!
@jwpublisher1 Well, you made me smile. I was referring to Dr Mantey and the previous comment he made in that excerpt I referred to. There he did not use the term “misquoted”. Maybe that excerpt was a later discussion of his and by then he accepted that to use the term “misquoted” was incorrect. But whatever the case, I cannot convince you. It seems there are two views – yours and mine – and these are polarized so to say more would amount to 'point scoring' and I'm not into that.
thanks for the confirmation of the statement by Mr Mantey however the JWs will find a way to get out of this as they always do. Just to add to this for the other quotes, if you read the KJV bible and the NWT there are passages missing Mathew 18:11 will be a good place to start the passage is missing in the NWT.
@trailerfitter2 Its Dr Mantey not Mr Mantey - if you can't get something as basic as the salutation right what chance is there of you getting anything else right?
@trailerfitter2 Good answer. In fact an appealing (attractive) answer.
As for JW's not referring to him as “Dr” I didn't know that. Anyway, perhaps it doesn't matter. “Dr” or “Mr” is still inferring dignity to the person. But I might still formulate an argument against Dr Mantey if I can get more info on what he said the JW's misquoted him on. I suspect he objected to JW's misquoting his “thinking” behind the actual statements in his book. And you can't misquote a person's thinking, can you?
Rolf Furuli: "I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word...the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text."
-Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University
You should also show what other scholars are saying about the NWT otherwise it shows bias!
@vuyou123 Well I think that Mr. Furuli is totally wrong! I can read the NWT next to the Greek text in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation word for word and see hundreds of times that they changed the meaning and words. I am not against showing an opposing point of view, but not when it is completely incorrect.
@jwpublisher1 You can see "hundreds of times that they changed the meaning and words"? Give us just one of those times, your absolute, irrefutable, best attempt, the best example of which, in your opinion, it cannot be argued with. Let's scrutinize it. - oh and another thing, why haven't you taken your video down yet? I've already shown you and your audience that your assertion re their inferring Dr Mantey agreed with them is misleading. Are you as dishonest as you claim them to be?
@CAW0007 It would be impossible for me to give YOU an example that cannot be argued with, because YOU will argue with every point a non-JW will make, even if it is the Truth. I stand behind my video and will not remove it. You even argue with Dr. Mantey when he is there on video telling you what he thinks of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and what they said about his book.
@jwpublisher1 I haven’t yet argued with Dr M. I said Greek rules are not owned by him. I followed the accepted view on inference:- 1. If an author is quoted on Formula or Rules then it CAN'T be inferred he agrees with those who quote him. 2. If an author is quoted on opinion then it CAN be inferred he agrees with those who quote him. JW's quoted Greek rules from Dr M's book and thus were not inferring he agreed with them. My argument is with you, you misunderstand this and mislead your audience
Thomas N. Winter: "The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order."
-Professor of Koine Greek at the University of Nebraska
My example “bizarre”? Please review it: Just because the Third Reich adopted Darwinism to add legitimacy to their killing of Jews we cannot dogmatically assert that they inferred Darwin would agree with it. Likewise by misapplying Einstein's e=mc2 no-one should dogmatically assert that I inferred Einstein would agree with my wrong result. Likewise the JW's applying (or misapplying, whatever) Dr Mantey's book to John 1:1 does not mean they inferred he was agreeing with how they applied it
I didn't notice the title. I stumbled on your video by accident, stayed and was amused to see you doing the very thing you accused JW's of; and it wasn't a technicality, you were wrong in principle: you said in video the JW's were inferring Dr M agreed with them. But now there's another focus, begging the question: did they deliberately misapply the book? The answer hinges on whether the book said that the rule(s) could NOT be applied to John 1:1 Did it? Otherwise its a matter of interpretation
Your point doesn't stand. Compare: the “Encyclopedia of the Third Reich” said ... Darwinism was the “the ideology behind Hitler's policy of genocide”. So was the Third Reich, by adopting Darwinism as their creed of life, inferring that Darwin agreed with their treatment of Jews? No. Likewise the JW's quoting Dr Mantey does not mean they were inferring Dr Mantey agreed with their treatment of Jn 1:1. They were merely quoting grammar rules which were noted in his book and which they referenced.
The Interlinear appendix in your video does not say that Mantey agrees with them on John 1:1 does it?!! It says there that Mantey states that "an anathrous construction points to a quality about someone". So, since John 1:1 uses this construction the Watchtower Publishers felt justified in using the quality of the Word (Jesus) i.e "a god" or you could say 'the word was divine'.
If you're going to misquote at least be smart and hide the thing you are misquoting from or you'll be found out!!
@CAW0007 The Interlinear states that Dr. Mantey's book can be used to prove their point, thereby insinuating that Dr. Mantey agrees with their rendering of John 1:1. What the Interlinear actually quotes from Mantey is this: "...in a copulative sentence SOMETIMES the article makes the subject distinct from the predicate." But in Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower is says: "There is no statement in our grammer that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation of John 1:1
@CAW0007 So what exactly did I misquote, and what exactly have you found out, except that the Watchtower loves to lead their readers to believe things that are not true?
@jwpublisher1 ” You said “they mention...Mantey as agreeing with their translation” that's the misquote. They actually quoted the greek 'rules' from Mantey's book. Example, if I write in my book Einstein's e=mc2 then use it and miscalculate the result would I be insinuating that Einstein agreed with my miscalculation? No. In the same way the JW's did not misquote Mantey. Did they get John 1:1 wrong? That's another subject. Is Mantey right in what he said in video? That's another subject.
@CAW0007 Also, in my written description of this video which appears above I state that the KIT lists Dr. Mantey's BOOK (Not Dr. Mantey) as supporting their rendering of John 1:1. It should be obvious to ALL that I did not intend to misquote or mislead my audience. Can you say that about the Watchtower?
@CAW0007 I can see your point that my wording is technically not correct. But my point still stands that the New World Translation committee clearly intended for this reference to Dr. Mantey's book to infer that Dr. Mantey agreed with their rendering of John 1:1. I will redo this video soon to change that satement. I now wonder how you feel about the Watchtower's "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth" where it states as a fact: "...the Bible says that Jesus returned to earth in 1914".
@jwpublisher1 I didn't notice the title. I stumbled on your video and was amused to see you doing the very thing you accused JW's of; and it wasn't a technicality, you were wrong in principle: you said in video the JW's were inferring Dr M agreed with them. But now there's another focus, begging the question: did they deliberately misapply the book? The answer hinges on whether the book said that the rule(s) could NOT be applied to John 1:1 Did it? Otherwise its a matter of interpretation
@jwpublisher1 Your point doesn't stand. Compare: the “Encyclopedia of the Third Reich” said ... Darwinism was “the ideology behind Hitler's policy of genocide”. So was the Third Reich, by adopting Darwinism as their creed of life, inferring that Darwin agreed with their treatment of Jews? No. Likewise the JW's quoting Dr M does not mean they were inferring Dr M agreed with their treatment of Jn 1:1. They were merely quoting grammar rules which were noted in his book and which they referenced
@jwpublisher1 Furthermore these grammar rules do not belong to Dr Mantey; they develped at the time koine Greek developed some 2300 years ago and were used by dozens of translators in a similar way to how JW's translate John 1:1 (enter: simplebibletruths/70 into Google) e.g B.Wilson's interlinear in 1864 “and a god was the word”. Goodspeed in 1935 “the Word was divine”. Koine Greek rules are not the exclusive domain of Dr Mantey and neither the JW's nor anyone else need his approval
@jwpublisher1 My example “bizarre”? Please review it: Just because the Third Reich adopted Darwinism to add legitimacy to their killing Jews we cannot dogmatically assert that they inferred Darwin agreed with it. Likewise by misapplying Einstein's e=mc2 no-one should dogmatically assert that I inferred Einstein would agree with my wrong result. Likewise the JW's applying (or misapplying, whatever) Dr Mantey's book to John 1:1 does not mean they inferred he was agreeing with how they applied it
They keep separate from the ungodly world as did Noah and many other prophets in the bible. READ John 17:14. Jehovah's Witnesses follow EXACTLY THE BIBLE. They do serve Christ our Lord. Matthew 4:17 is when Jesus started preaching. He taught his disciples to preach in Matthew chapter 10. Matthew 10:14 tells them to go house to house. Matthew 24:14 says this good news of the kingdom will be preached..."
Jesus told his disciples to make disciples at Matt: 28:19,20,"... make disciples..."
i feel this is inaccurate you are talking about the new world translation but yet you reference the interlinear bible which is older. how can you give an opinion on one book by commenting on another. you said you in a previous comment that you wanted proof and formal documentation you have you opinion and the opinion of one man. i think it's you who needs to do more research before putting your opinions out there. you give no true evidence only opinions and here say. please do more research.
@bellasml If you are a Jehovah's Witness, then you really should do some research regarding Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publications. For your information the New World Translation was first published in 1961, then in 1969 they published the Kingdom Interlinear Translation which contains the Greek Scriptures with the literal english translation, and beside it the New World Translation. The KIT mention's Dr. Mantey's agreement with the New World Translation, which Dr. Mantey denies.
I appreciate your videos and the research that you've done to prove your points. It is truly so sad that this religion has done so much to stray away from the real truth. So glad I am freeing myself!
First of all it's not any translation and it's an offence if somebody claims it is any kind of translation or interpretation and there are many reasons for that: Firstly the group of people who lied they had translated NWT from original languages were a bunch of losers and liers who were not even worth of licking shoes of the real translators -they just took the Bible and change it in a way which matches thier sick teology of the False Prohets so please do not call it Translation or a Bible
Many JW's hide in the dark of not wanting to know the true history of the organization. This is an intellectual dishonesty. Do you know about Charles Taze Russell's " bible in stone" the Great Pyramid of GAZA? Or the 1928 return of the prophets and the house the JW's built for them?
The NWT is biased, right? And other translations are not? Pull the other...
I have a Greek friend, yes GREEK. He laughs and says that even Greeks today know how to translate John 1:1 correctly. The missing definite article is very clear. The word after it become a quality. Like you don't like somebody and call out "You Dog" - same as "You are a Dog."
It is just anti-JW bias. The fact that Mr Mantey doesn't like his name to be associated with JWs, hey, he is not the only one.
@customanalogue Well if the NWT isn't blatantly biased, then why did they change the Greek text from that in the original Greek Scriptures when they wrote the Greek translation of the NWT? You tube won't let me put the url for the video, so do a youtube search for: Jw's have some explaining to do. Watch this video and tell me I am just anti-JW bias. They are scoundrels!
@jwpublisher1 -. Acts 12:21,22 "Herod... and the people shouted, saying 'the voice of a god and not of a man'... immediately an angel of the Lord smote him.. and he gave up the ghost."
This AV, not NWT.
Note "a man" and also "a god".
Not sure if you get it, but the Greek rule (there is no "a") is the same here as John 1:1 and every translation follows the same rule. I have no problem with that.
John 8:58 the context was the Jews querying Jesus age. So he stated he had a pre-human existence.
@customanalogue Well if the NWT isn't blatantly biased, then why did they change the Greek text from that in the original Greek Scriptures when they wrote the Greek translation of the NWT? You tube won't let me put the url for the video on this post, so do a youtube search for: "Jw's have some explaining to do". Watch this video and tell me I am just anti-JW bias. That's what's new!
@jwpublisher1 - As for JWs having something to hide. All you have to do is wait till they turn up at your door and you can ask ANY questions. Funny way to hide.
Also this divide and conquor stuff, it is so churlish. "You are misled by the Watchtower Society" kind of stuff.
We ARE the Watchtower Society. So there are no "they" - they are US !
Look all this stuff is just semantics. Let's discuss things that are really important like a world that is disintegrating around us, like THAT election.
@customanalogue Well now I am confused. I thought the Governing Body of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn set the policy, gave strict guidelines as to what is to be done and not be done in the Kingdom Halls, changed definitions of "This Generation",wrote and changed questions to be asked prior to baptism, and oversee ALL material that is published for JWs. I didn't realize that it was members like you who did these things.
It may surprise you that I don't think that way, and yes you ARE confused..
Ask ME, don't presume what I think and whose slave I am. Indeed if the Government Body came out with a policy I know is unscriptural I would/could NOT believe it. Huh?
I don't think every day about the GB (seems to me you do a lot more than I do), but I do think about my relationship with God a LOT. When late in the evening and my thoughts come to me, what do you think I think about? Never about a GB.
@customanalogue Well from what I understand, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is Jehovah God's Spirit Directed Organization. So if Jehovah God's Spirit is directing the Governing Body, then how could they come out with a policy that is unscriptural? Now I'm really confused.
@customanalogue ok i;ll ask you.NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures 1960,John 8:58 "I have been" and in the footnote it says that the Greek was "properly rendered in the perfect indefinte tense" but there is no such tense in the Greek. They lied then they lie now.
jwpublisher1, I don't know why I said that, I may have been responding to another video and accidently put it here...sorry!
52flipflop 1 month ago
Have you thought about studing the scriptures instead of wasting your time critizing?? Thats the only thing your able to do..critisize??Do something healthy, if you didnt know, keeping resentment and hatred in your heart can increase your blood pressure levels...stay healthy!!
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
@Thetruthhurtsmany There is NO resentment or hatred here. I would say I spend much more time studying the scriptures than most JWs, or Mainstream Christians for that matter. My criticism comes from my seeing how JWs twist the scriptures I study, and a desire to see them find the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that the Apostle Paul spoke of. If I hated someone then I would think I would WANT them to continue to believe lies and suffer eternal darkness, rather than LIFE!
jwpublisher1 2 months ago
So the israelites were puppets because they followed Moises? The disciples of the first century were puppets because they were obeying the decision that a group of apostoles and elders made about circumcision that werent specified in the scriptures??...Acts 15:5-29!!
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
The truth about that video is that Mantey said the words at the KIT!! About his comment about the KIT and NWT, its pure bias!! As a defensor of the trinity, im not surprised! But as i told you look for what Jason BeDuhn said about KIT and NWT...unless you consider that man as a non JW to be a false profet as well...??!!
Why dont you answer all my questions first??!! Who brain washed you? what rollership are you under??
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
And ya i talk about Chistmas, and birthdays, in the sense that, you and those called cristians are always criticizing JWS, but they dont tell that there mistakes are atrocious compared with the JWS...The mix whats in the bible with pagan festivities...and the so called "Christian" organizations have a very sad story of blood shedding in there hands, by going to war and blessing guns, etc...
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
@Thetruthhurtsmany You are giving a typical Watchtower response, like a puppet. You do not answer the question I ask, which is: " Show me where my video is false", instead you throw Watchtower ideoms out that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. Do some research for yourself, and not just repeat Watchtower accusations. You obviously don't care that there is other truth, besides Watchtower "truth".
jwpublisher1 4 months ago
@jwpublisher1 What bible is considered closest to the oldest greek manuscripts then? What bible do you recommend? I've seen an laughable amount of criticisms against the NWT but never a solution. What bible isn't accompanied by criticism and suspicion?
TheDirtyBurd 3 months ago
@TheDirtyBurd I think you would find that The New American Standard Bible has few critisisms, except that the literal interpretation makes it's English a little awkward. As Dr. Spurgeon said: "It is strong in Greek, but weak in English". But it is an excellent Bible for a literal translation of the original scriptures.
jwpublisher1 2 months ago
Scoler Jason BeDuhn is not a JW or a scoler from Baptist schools, he neutral and pretty reasonable! He even uses the KIV to teach his teology students! And many translations and versions use the same type of translation as NWT, as for using Jehovah's name in new testament or translation of john 1:1!
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
KIV: the WBTS didn't like about Manteys quote! The references and quotes that WBTS uses don't mean that people that are mentioned agree with JW. But I guess Mantey as a Baptist scoler got angry! Almost all scolders that Criticize the KIV and NWT are Baptist or evangelical scoler, no wonder they have hattred for JWS!
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
Or one if those men that the bible quotes, Acts 20:29,30...would come from in between us and would talk distortion....???
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
Save people from WBTS?? How do we now ur not one of the modern day corah... Num 16:1-35?
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
Mister of the Video,
Instead of looking for false or half truths about the JWS, why dont you tell ur evangelical and scholer friends to teach at least a quarter what de JWS teach there people, on how to aply bible pricipals in all ranges in there life? And whay dont u tell ur friends about the the origen of Cristmas, birthdays..on how true christians should not celebrate them, or participate in politics, like u guys do...WHY??? Are u guys afraid of starting to lose clients an lose MONEY!!!??
Thetruthhurtsmany 4 months ago
@Thetruthhurtsmany There are no lies or half truths here brother. And if I am shown that I have said anything false in my videos I will remove them. But in the same token if you don't prove to me what is false or half true in my video I will remove your statement for being false. My video is not about Christmas, or birthdays so I have no idea why you posted that remark here. I also am not doing this for the money, only to save the lives of people being lied to by the Watchtower.
jwpublisher1 4 months ago
John 1: 18
21Janette 4 months ago
@melanoficus " Happy and holy is anyone having a part in the first resurrection, over these the "second death" has no authority" Rev20:4
Jesus as "the firstborn of the dead" and "The First fruits of those who have fallen asleep in death" would avoid completely the "second death".
Rev 2:11 "He that conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death"
Those who suffer the "second death" are Hades, the wild beast, the false prophet, Satan and demons etc. Not the company you find Jesus in.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@melanoficus I do not agree with you as regards Jesus suffering the "second death". That is altogether something different and something we would both wish to avoid.
I believe I am on a different time zone than yourself, (probably 5 to 8 hours) so I will give you my views on this tomorrow.
Meantime post your statement on the trinity
steveparadise1 4 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus Heb 2:9 "We behold Jesus, who was has been made a little lower than angels". This was while he was a man
Now as a spirit he is well above them, superior to the angels.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@melanoficus It is all these things but, Jesus is still referred to as the second Adam for a reason. Gods own justice is a balance. An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. That is the ransom
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes, there is good reason why He is called the 2nd Adam—because Adam represents all who die (death came into the world thru Adam), Jesus represents all who shall live thru Him.
Yes, eye for eye etc is a PICTURE of Justice. But think of this, what about 2 eyes for 2 eyes? Six teeth for six teeth? One death for one sin? One Life for many lives? Yes, because He bore the sins of MANY to satisfy Justice—Isaiah 53v.12—NOT because He gave up His body never to have it back again . . .
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus Adam was a perfect man. If he did not sin he would still be alive today. There is a definite connection in the bible between "sin" and "death" and therefor by extension health. In saying that, I agree with your last statement. Only a perfect man could have remained sinless and thereby fulfill the Law.Only the sacrifice of the sinless Jesus could redeem mankind. Not one of Adams offspring, no matter how good they were, could achieve the redemption of sinful ,imperfect mankind
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 Steve, these are important and critical issues. Yes, the wages of sin is death, and yes if you are subject to death you are at least 'relatively unhealthy'. But the Scriptures also speak of a death beyond the one that happens to the body—the second death—and it is this death in particular that Jesus Christ suffered (Hebrews 2v.9) for all His people—this is a death not so much of mere physical body, but of LIFE PRINCIPLE. But the resurrection ANASTASIS—Jesus rose to life again !
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus If when Jesus became human he would become lower than angels. Why would the glorified Jesus retain a body that was lower than the angels, while at the same time inheriting a name much greater than theirs?.
I think we must agree to disagree on this one
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 In the days of His humiliation before His resurrection triumph, He was indeed lower (but NOT inferior, or else how could they worship Him when He came into the world — Hebrews 1v.6?) than the angels. But when He was glorified He did not retain the body sown in weakness but was transformed, gloriously transformed, no longer subject to corruption — Phil. 3v21, Acts 13v.34, Rom. 6v.9 Therefore He is certainly NOT anymore in a body lower than the angels.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus The bible in many places refer to Christs sacrifice as a "Ransom". His perfect physical body was the price that had to be paid. If he still possess that body was the price paid?
There is a difference with having a "spirit" (life) and being a "spirit".
Jesus is now, what he was before he came to earth. A spirit being
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 I dont know where you get the idea, "His perfect physical body was the price that had to be paid." from? That is certainly not the emphasis in the Scriptures. In fact I might debate you that He even had a PERFECT PHYSICAL BODY — what is a perfect physical body anyway? Do you mean that He was not subject to germs and thirst, and tiredness? Was it perfectly shaped (physique etc), perfectly healthy? Or was it SINLESS, or rather isnt it that HE was SINLESS, that is the emphasis?
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 RANSOM (ANTILUTRON) is only one aspect of the redemption accomplished by the Lord Jesus. It is also spoken of as ATONEMENT and PROPITIATION — fulfilling all the significance of the Old Testament shadows and types. Isaiah 53 speaks in prophetic detail of what the Lord would accomplish in His death and resurrection — see vs.12. He took the punishment of the sins of His people. There is nothing here about having to give up "a perfect body", it is about becoming the Sin-Bearer.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus I have yet to meet a trinitarian who can accurately state what the doctrine of the trinity actually is !
What I wrote might not agree with your perception of the trinity but it is what others believe.
You say "WE" like all trinitarians are all singing from the same hymn sheet. They don't
I would suggest I would be more aware of this than you.
Tell me then. What is your version of the trinity?
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@melanoficus "Man" in 1 Tim 2:5 is from the Greek ANTHRWPOS which according to Moulton's Lexicon does not necessarily mean "Man". It is a generic term for "individual" or "person" and can refer to a woman or angel.
The use of the word "man" is apt, as it let those 1st century Christian appreciate the one appealing to God on there behalf understands the human nature.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 Of course the generic Greek word ANTHROPOS is used, PAUL wouldnt have used ANER in this context for obvious reasons. As a Mediator Jesus Christ was fully man AND fully God. But here in 1 Tim. 2 v. 5, Paul is focusing on His perfect manhood, for the reason as you correctly say, to bring out how He can eminently represent His people who are also ANTHROPOS and not angels, as Hebrews 2v14-18 says.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 But nevertheless you agree with Russell that the ANTHROPOS Jesus is forever dead. JWs teach that man does not have a soul or spirit, then what PART of Jesus was made alive again if He did not rise in bodily form?
melanoficus 4 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 The words of my Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ are clear: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . But He spake of the temple of His BODY — John 2v.19,21.
Christians dont have to try and evade or re-interpret these words of the Lord. Clearly, taking the overall revelation of the Scriptures He arose with a glorified spiritual body — the body that was sown in weakness, was raised a glorious body (Phil.3v.21 etc) — obviously transformed by His almighty power.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 If you read the passage following after "Flesh and blood cannot inherit . . ." (1 Cor 15v.50) you should see what Paul means by this — see vs.50 to 53. Man in his present condition cannot enter the kingdom of God, unless he be CHANGED. First a man must be born again (John 3v.3-7), and then he must put on incorruption at the resurrection/rapture, which will happen at the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15v.51-53). Read I Cor. 15v.35-42.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoficus How can Jesus have a body of flesh and blood when at Heb 1: 3 Says "He (Jesus) is the exact representation of Gods very being"?.
Paul speaking of the resurrection to heaven at1 Cor 15:42-50 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body....The 1st man Adam became a living soul, the 2nd Adam (Jesus) became a life giving spirit"
also "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". The context is clear as it is in Peter. Russell is right.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steveparadise1 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." — Luke 24 v 39
Words could not be clearer.
Verse 37 says, they supposed that they had seen a spirit. JWs say, yes, that is all Jesus was, his body was forever dead.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 The point is that Jesus rose with an incorruptible body — no longer subject to corruption. And this is the basis of the apostle's words, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body . . ."—Phil.3v.21 This is the way the resurrection of the redeemed works also — 1 Cor.15v.43-44 —sown in dishonour, raised in glory, sown in weakness, raised in power, sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body — there is a natural body and a spiritual body
melanoficus 4 months ago
@tdickensheets. It is true that the NT does not always use the definite article "The" when speaking of the Father, but in John 1:1 he does. Many trinitarian scholars accept the distinction is there for a reason, as can be seen with the amount of translations that do not conform to the errant "Word was God". The NWT was not the first to recognise this. Many accept "The Word was God" is such an emphatic statement you are saying is The Word was "ALL" of God. That does not work for the trinity.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 I have yet to find a JW that could accurately state what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. Watchtower publications that I have seen, present distorted and caricatured views. I would not assume that you actually understand the Trinity as held by Bible Believers, who derive their understanding not from creeds but from the Bible. From what you have just written it appears that you dont actually know what we believe.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@tdickensheets. JWs have one God. The Father. Jehovah. The same amount as Jesus has . Of The Father at John 17:3 Jesus said " You are the only true God" as it says in all bibles.
At John 1:1. John makes a distinction between God and the Word. The God that the Word was "with" he terms "The God", emphasising that he was speaking of Almighty God. The Word he refers to as "God" without the definite "The", showing that Jesus although being "a powerful one" is not himself "the one true God"
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@melanoficus It is plain to see here that Peter is contrasting "in the flesh" with "in the spirit". No need to "force" the text. Just accept the simple truth. JWs do not follow Russell, they follow Jesus. It just so happens Russell is right in this case.
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1
“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS”—Paul, 1 Tim. 2 v. 5.
“He ever liveth to make intercession for them”—Hebrews 7 v. 25.
By your own admission (that you believe Russell and the Watchtower organization to be correct on this matter), and in the light of the above Scriptures, your mediator (and the JW’s) is DEAD, FOREVER DEAD. You have no Mediator for that Day. Who would dare to approach the Judgement throne with no Mediator . . . !! ?
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1
“it was necessary, not only that the man Christ Jesus should die, but just as necessary that the MAN CHRIST JESUS SHOULD NEVER LIVE AGAIN, SHOULD REMAIN DEAD . . . THE MAN JESUS IS DEAD, FOREVER DEAD”— Charles Taze Russell.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1
Actually there is no definite article — THE — in the Greek text. And yes, of course FLESH and SPIRIT are contrasts. JWs are forcing the text to say what it just does not say. NO use denying it, you have read into that passage something which just is not there. That is typical of those who twist the Scriptures to their own perdition.
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 You need to demonstrate that your forced interpretation is the ONLY valid way of interpreting the passage — which you cannot do. I can show you that your forced interpretation contradicts the rest of the Scriptures, and therefore cannot be correct.
melanoficus 4 months ago
In your NWT Jn 1:1 how many gods you have? The JW's need to answer.
tdickensheets 4 months ago
@jwpublisher1 JWs long before the NWT was published exposed many false teachings using the available translations. Trinity, hellfire,immortal soul, all are easy enough to disprove without the NWT. You would expect a bible translation by JWs to come under fire as its accuracy promotes the truth more clearly about Jehovah and Jesus. Nevertheless, it has it admirers among non JW scholars. Particularly by those with no axe to grind. I have many different bibles but do favour the NWT. Brilliant work
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@jwpublisher1 Either you haven't spoken to many JWs or you are to busy looking for the negative you are missing the message. "There is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we might get saved" Acts 4:12. Do you honestly think JWs would miss such an important bible teaching? Seriously! Whether you are one of the 144,000 or those "who pass through the great tribulation" you must accept this truth and tell others about it.
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@melanoicus: Jws follow Johns example. Rev 1:9 "speaking about God and bearing witness about Jesus". As followers of Jesus JWs speak and witness about his Father, as he did. JWs are constantly telling others about salvation thru Christ.
JWs also believe Peter when he said that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the spirit" .Then he went on to say "and in this STATE (spirit) he preached to spirits.."
Twice John calls Jesus "a faithful Witness". TO WHOM?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 "JWs are constantly telling others about salvation thru Christ." This is a new one for me. I have NEVER EVER had a JW tell me that I can find salvation (meaning eternal life) through Jesus Christ. I have been told that only the 144,000 have been redeemed by the shed blood of Jesus, and that is why only they can partake of the memorial wine and bread at the annual Memorial Service at the Kingdom Hall.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 Christians — i.e. those purchased by the blood of Christ — believe Peter exactly as Peter said it, i.e. we dont force Peter to say Jesus rose AS A SPIRIT, but allow Peter to say what He actually said, i.e. Jesus was made alive IN THE SPIRIT.
Furthermore we interpret the meaning of the apostle Peter's words in the wider context of the whole Scripture, including our Lord's own testimony as to the nature of His rising form the dead — read our Lord's words in John 2 vs 18-22 !
melanoficus 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes, but as I said in my post, JWs bear false witness about Jesus. The apostles declared HE had risen from the dead., but JWs follow Russell who taught that the man Jesus was forever dead, therefore His body could never come back to life. What sort of resurrection is this? Furthermore JWs by their teaching imply that our Lord 'tricked' the apostles by materializing various bodies out of fresh air, to convince them that He had risen, when in fact He was only a spirit.
melanoficus 4 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
@melanoicus In the book of Ezekial says, concerning the last days (our days) : "The nations will have to know that I am Jehovah" If you, and others, want to hide that great name you are acting inopposition to Jehovah wishes and of His Sons. Jehovah's Witnesses promote Gods name world wide and that of his Son Jesus. The NWT aids in this great work. Who is almighty God going to be pleased with ? Those who advertise His name or those who want to hide it
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 JWs bear false witness to Jesus, just read the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek. The apostles were witnesses that Jesus had risen from the dead, not as some phantasmagoric spirit creature as taught by the WT organization, but risen indeed, in the same body but now glorified. WT basically denies that Jesus rose. Russell taught that the man Jesus is dead and shall never live again. Thru the book of Acts, the apostles main mission was to bear witness that He was risen
melanoficus 5 months ago
@melanoficus 1 John 4:14,15 says "In addition,we ourselves have beheld, and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as savior of the world. Whoever makes confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with him"
It creates a problem with your thinking when your Confessing that Jesus is God. It distorts your thinking and sets you against the truth, in that Jesus is "the Son of God" not "God the Son"
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@melanoficus: I do not see what you see in Revelation 4,5. Could you elaborate please?
Hebrews 1:6 is simply a revision of the text due to better understanding. All translations do this it is not unique to the NWT.
What bible do you feel is the most accurate?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@melanoficus That seems to be the problem with morst bibles. They obscure the identity of Jesus and try hard to obliterate Gods name from scripture. We are fortunate to have the NWT that assigns to both Jehovah and Jesus their rightful place as Almighty God and His firstborn Son
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 No Greek manuscript supports the JW's NWT in inserting Jehovah into Acts or any other book of the NT.
melanoficus 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 No its the other way around. Jehovah Witnesses actually bear false witness about Jehovah, about Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Gospel, the Resurrection, the Return etc, all aided and abetted by their inaccurate version called the NWT.
The apostles were Jesus Christ's Witnesses not Jehovah Witnesses. Just read the book of Acts in Greek, in any available ancient manuscript that we have copies of.
melanoficus 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 What you are really saying here is that you are fortunate to finally have a "Bible" that was "translated" by Jehovah's Witnesses FOR Jehovah's Witnesses that agrees with the official beliefs of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The ONLY such "translation" in the world that agrees with ALL of the Watchtower's beliefs, by the way.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
@jwpublisher1 PROSKYNEO ( proskuneo) actually occurs 60 times in the Wescott and Hort Interlinear from which the NWT is based on. PROSKYNEO, basically means "to bow down". Depending on who you are directing PROSKYNEO to ,or who is being discussed, depends on how you translate the word. If you do not believe Jesus to be God then you would not use "worship". When referring to Jehovah (Father) then it would be" worship". It is a TRANSLATION. Accurate, unbiased and honest.
What bible do you use ?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 OK, so my math was a little off. But I see you admit that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society "translates" depending on what they believe. How can you even for a second say that it is a translation that is unbiased, when in the previous sentence you say that the translation depends on what you believe? I can see that there is no point in discussing this further with you when you can't even see that "translating" depending on your beliefs is totally biased!
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steveparadise1 Very FEW people outside of the Watchtower organization consider the NWT a 'good' translation. Here is an example of its bias:
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" Rom 9 vs 33. Why does the NWT replace HIM with IT in this verse? Do they not stumble at who Jesus Christ is? They reject the Deity of Jesus just as did the Sanhedrin which wanted to kill Him.
melanoficus 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Why did the original edition of the NWT use 'worship' with reference to Jesus in Hebrew 1v 7, but later on changed it to 'obeisance'? Dont they know that in Revelation for example, chapter 4 and 5 Jesus Christ, as the risen Lamb receives praise and honour thatis indistinguisable from that rendered unto the Father? Why are they so keen to rob Jesus Christ of the honour due unto Him? They do not honour the Son therefore they do not honour the Father that sent Him— John 5 vs. 23
melanoficus 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 5 months ago
JWPublisher1, thanks for the vid, its good to document the duplicity of these suposed servants of Jehovah, that do not shrink from misquoting in order to mislead. They do not seem to take seriously the commandment — Thou shalt not bear false witness . . .
Thanks, keep up the good work. BTW, where did you get the vid clip of Dr Mantey from? I would be intereste dto see the complete vid if its available
melanoficus 5 months ago
@melanoficus I got it from a film that is on youtube in 7 parts. "Jehovah's Witnesses-Watchtower Society Exposed " It's a little dated but still very informative.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 4 months ago
@jwpublisher1 Thanks for that info, I will try to look it up, I appreciate any help in shining the light of God's Word upon their errors. May the Lord richly bless your witness for Him.
melanoficus 4 months ago
JWs do not deny the deity of Jesus. His divinity is well established in scripture. They do however, not accept that he is Almighty God. This would not only be an insult to God, but also insults His Son who made it clear he was "the Son of God" and never at anytime regarded himself as God or equal to his Farther.
According to W.E, Vines expository of NT words: PROSKYNEO can be trans. to make obeisance, to reverence or worship. The NWT is not unique in not translating PROSKYNEO as worship
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 The word PROSKUNEO occurs 55 times in the original Greek used in the Watchtower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation. Of those 55 times in the NWT it is translated as WORSHIP 37 times, 2 of those times is when it refers to Satan, and once when it refers to demons. EACH and EVERY time when the Greek word PROSKUNEO refers to JESUS, 15 times to be correct, it translates PROSKUNEO as OBEISANCE. There is NO way you can say that this is an accurate, unbiased translation.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
JWs believe and understand the New Covenant more than most. By not reading false doctrine into scripture they accept Gods truth as it is meant to be understood.
Heb 8:14,15 says "How much more will the blood of the Christ who offered himself without blemish. So that is why he (Jesus) is a mediator of a New Covenant"
"Mediator" between who? Jer.31:31 says that Jehovah (The Father) will conclude the New Covenant of which Jesus is the "mediator" between God and Christians.
Paul quotes at Heb 8:8
steveparadise1 5 months ago
Which bible do you prefer and feel is the most faithful?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
Which bible do you prefer and feel is the most faithful?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
I see now your objection to the rightful use of Jehovah in the NT. It distinguishes the "only true God " from His Son. It distinguishes the great savior, Jehovah from his "chief agent" of salvation, Jesus. Paul at Rom 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32 as was Peter in Acts 2:21 "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved".
The problem is we do not have the original NT writings or an early copy. By reading how Jehovah views his name He would be pleased by the NWT honest and faithful stance
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 The New Testament establishes a New Covenant. Jesus explained this in his talk at the last supper. "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood..."NWT The entire Old Testament scriptures points to this over and over. Jesus is the Savior in the New Covenant. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to believe in this New Covenant however, because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They also deny him worship, and changed the original Greek scriptures from worship to obeisance.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 "By reading how Jehovah views his name He would be pleased by the NWT honest and faithful stance." I will never agree that changing Jehovah's word as he has preseved it for us is "honest" and "faithful".
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 You missed the point Steve, not a SINGLE ancient Greek manuscript of the NEW Testament contains YHWH (Jehovah) — every single one contain KURIOS or THEOS. So despite the elaborate argumentation used to try to justify their INSERTING Jehovah into the NT in place of KURIOS, their reasoning is full of logical non-sequiturs and loopholes, and unconvincing, and the people who put out this NWT are guilty of tampering with God's holy word so as to obscure the identity of Jesus Christ.
melanoficus 5 months ago
What we both know of God. Would you say that it would be more "dangerous" to use Gods name in the NT or to remove this "great" name from His word altogether as some translations have done?
What could be considered by God as the greatest transgression, extolling His name or hiding it entirely?
Lets not forget that the name Jehovah is incorporated into many NT names none more so than Jesus (Jehovah is salvation)
Consider the 4 occasions the use of the shortened version JAH in Hallelujah. Rev 17
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 I say that when you add words to scripture, you are not translating at all! You are making up your own scripture! The "other" translations you speak of did NOT omit the word "Jehovah", they translated the words from the original Greek scriptures that Jehovah God preserved for us. In this case I say it is much more dangerous to add to the Word of God words that are not present in the original Greek scriptures. You are changing what Holy Spirit directed men to write.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Clearly Acts 4:10-12 shows the error of your thinking. Speaking of Jesus Christ it says in verse 12 "there is no salvation in anyone else.For there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." NWT Then in Romans 10:13 the NWT added the word Jehovah "for everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." This clearly is in total conflict with what the NWT says in Acts 10:12. Jesus Christ is the name by which we are saved!
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
I believe that when Jesus was on earth he revealed Jehovah more to us. All through his ministry he glorified his Father (Jehovah) He sums up his ministry in his prayer to the Father at John 17 by saying just how much he revealed to the disciples about Him and His "name". His role in our salvation is not diminished by saying this. as Jesus said in the garden shortly before his death " not my will but your's" We should follow Jesus example by making Gods name known. John 17:26
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes, but not change the Holy Scriptures to support your point, which is just based upon theory and speculation. Dangerous ground to be treading on! It's fine to have a theory, but to take the step of changing the WORD OF GOD is pure blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
Like yourself I believe God knows how to protect His inspired word.
Never the less that "word" has been tampered with. The best example being 1 John 5:7. Even so, God in His own time exposed this spurious text.
It was believed for many years that the Septuagint removed Gods name and replaced it with LORD. We now know that is not the case with the discovery of earlier copies, dating back to when Jesus was on earth, with Gods name.
God again protecting His word, This might be the case with the NT
steveparadise1 5 months ago
Jason Beduhn is very complimentary of the NWT, however, as you point out, he did criticize the use of Jehovah in the NT.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia while calling the NWT "impressive" did not agree with Jehovah in the NT
Same for Dr. Bruce Metzger (formally of the ABS committee) While being impressed by the NWT thought the inclusion of the Divine Name in the NT was not supported.
Surely when Jesus stood in the Synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah he would have read aloud Gods name!
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 I would agree with what you said about Jesus reading aloud God's name, but the Bible says that all scripture is "God breathed". The key to the New Testament is Jesus Christ, and the emphasis shifted from Jehovah God to Jesus Christ as being the key to salvation. So I believe that Holy Spirit directed the writers the New Testament to write the scriptures that we have today. God has protected His word, and would not have let it become tainted.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
researching some of the quotes by various scholars I was quite surprised to see how may of them made positive comments about about the NWT.
All a matter of opinion then.
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 The leading scholar the Jehovah's Witnesses use to defend the NWT is Dr. Jason BeDuhn and his book Truth in Translation. But if one actually reads this book, they will find that Dr. BeDuhn states that there is absolutely NO credible reason for adding the Divine name of Jehovah to the New Testament, and that the JWs are incorrect in doing so. The Jehovah's Witnesses will never point this out, however, when stating Dr. BeDuhn's positive comments relating to the NWT.
jwpublisher1 5 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Well Dr. Mantey would disagree completely with what you have said. Read his letter to the Watchtower dated July 11, 1974. You can find it by searching Google for "Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower". The Watchtower also disagreed with what you said because they withdrew the mention of Dr. Mantey in the next edition of the KIT. The Watchtower did not consider this NONSENSE. More like a "OOPs, we got caught on this one, and we'd better remove it before we get sued".
jwpublisher1 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 I think you have completely missed out on the subject of this video. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in the KIT refers to Dr. Mantey's book agreeing with their rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT, when in fact, Dr. Mantey strongly objects to that statement. The Watchtower is attempting to deceive the readers with this statement. They have made no retraction of this statement in the KIT, they did remove the statement in the later edition because of the threat of lawsuit.
jwpublisher1 6 months ago
@worldhistory2011 Don't really know what you are talking about here.
jwpublisher1 6 months ago
I like what the WTS has to say in the 9/07 KM question box. It sure is funny how they don't want the NWT to be tested, but they offer more WT publications for clarification? They quote Matt 24:45,47 for authority, but they sure can't prove that the "FDS" are apart of the 144,000 from scripture? Why is that?
1914watcher 7 months ago
@1914watcher Es correcto que Mantey no concuerda con la TNM??
rakton1 6 months ago
Google: 'Dr. Julius R. Mantey Q & A. On the NWT and John 1:1. (an excerpt '. There Dr Mantey, involuntarily, 'says': 'The Jehovah's Witnesses quoted what I SAID but that isn't what I meant', put another way 'I meant more than I actually said' or 'I applied it to the predicate even if I did not say so'. Well you should have said so Dr Mantey. They quoted what your wrote. Stop bitching jwpublisher. These are not misquotations. (No disrespect intended to Dr Mantey).
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 OK, I did as you said. I read the entire article. I don't see what you see. Not bitching. I did notice Dr. Mantey says they quoted him out of context.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 I misquoted Dr Mantey! He said he applied it to the subject NOT the predicate!
CAW0007 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 He said he was quoted “only in part”:(1) he used the rule to find the subject “Word” but JWs applied it to the predicate “god” and (2)JWs did not take his bias into account:Jesus and God though distinct are still of the Trinity. Apply these two points into the missing 'definite article' and he translated “deity”, still God, where they translated “a god”, a different being. But since he did not say he was limiting the (stand alone) rule then it cannot be said they misquoted him.
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 Well, I still don't agree with your assessment. The Watchtower didn't argue this point either, after Dr. Mantey wrote them a letter telling them that they misquoted him, and they quietly removed the reference to Dr. Mantey's book in the later version of the KIT.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 My assessment is on that excerpt. There Dr Mantey does not use the word “misquote” and he does not limit the rule, for he would have said so, hence I said it's “stand alone”. He asked Watchtower to remove reference to him or his book, and from what you say they honored his request. But my original argument was with you. Take a 'leaf out of their book', remove the video for it is misleading to say they INFERRED Dr Mantey agreed with them as I explained in previous comments.
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 In Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society dated July 11, 1974 he makes the following two statements: 1. "...you misused and misquoted my "rule"." and 2. "...you have been quoting me out of context". How much more clear could he have made himself? Your circular reasoning just leaves me "scratching my head", and I don't understand it, nor agree with it at all.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 where can I see that letter?
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 Just Google "Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower", it comes right up.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 I've checked the google page and am surprised to see that in his letter, Dr Mantey does use the language you quote. But I also notice, in the second link, JWs firm & convincing rebuttal of his charge. Their argument is similar to mine (I did not know this before).
Which leaves me with you. But first, where in my comment have I fallen into “circular reasoning”?
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 "I've checked the google page and am surprised to see that in his letter, Dr Mantey does use the language you quote" I'm thinking that what you are really saying here is that you are surprised that I tell the truth!
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 Well, you made me smile. I was referring to Dr Mantey and the previous comment he made in that excerpt I referred to. There he did not use the term “misquoted”. Maybe that excerpt was a later discussion of his and by then he accepted that to use the term “misquoted” was incorrect. But whatever the case, I cannot convince you. It seems there are two views – yours and mine – and these are polarized so to say more would amount to 'point scoring' and I'm not into that.
CAW0007 8 months ago
thanks for the confirmation of the statement by Mr Mantey however the JWs will find a way to get out of this as they always do. Just to add to this for the other quotes, if you read the KJV bible and the NWT there are passages missing Mathew 18:11 will be a good place to start the passage is missing in the NWT.
trailerfitter2 8 months ago
@trailerfitter2 Its Dr Mantey not Mr Mantey - if you can't get something as basic as the salutation right what chance is there of you getting anything else right?
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 I am not trying to get things right,..or making a habit of it either. Wht don't the JWs refer to him as Dr either?
trailerfitter2 8 months ago
@trailerfitter2 Good answer. In fact an appealing (attractive) answer.
As for JW's not referring to him as “Dr” I didn't know that. Anyway, perhaps it doesn't matter. “Dr” or “Mr” is still inferring dignity to the person. But I might still formulate an argument against Dr Mantey if I can get more info on what he said the JW's misquoted him on. I suspect he objected to JW's misquoting his “thinking” behind the actual statements in his book. And you can't misquote a person's thinking, can you?
CAW0007 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CAW0007 I am not trying to get things right,..or making a habit of it either. Why don't the JWs refer to him as Dr either?
trailerfitter2 8 months ago
thanks for the confirmation of the statement by Mr Mantey however the JWs will find a way to get out of this as they always do.
trailerfitter2 8 months ago
Rolf Furuli: "I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word...the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text."
-Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University
You should also show what other scholars are saying about the NWT otherwise it shows bias!
vuyou123 8 months ago
@vuyou123 Well I think that Mr. Furuli is totally wrong! I can read the NWT next to the Greek text in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation word for word and see hundreds of times that they changed the meaning and words. I am not against showing an opposing point of view, but not when it is completely incorrect.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 You can see "hundreds of times that they changed the meaning and words"? Give us just one of those times, your absolute, irrefutable, best attempt, the best example of which, in your opinion, it cannot be argued with. Let's scrutinize it. - oh and another thing, why haven't you taken your video down yet? I've already shown you and your audience that your assertion re their inferring Dr Mantey agreed with them is misleading. Are you as dishonest as you claim them to be?
CAW0007 8 months ago
@CAW0007 It would be impossible for me to give YOU an example that cannot be argued with, because YOU will argue with every point a non-JW will make, even if it is the Truth. I stand behind my video and will not remove it. You even argue with Dr. Mantey when he is there on video telling you what he thinks of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and what they said about his book.
jwpublisher1 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 I haven’t yet argued with Dr M. I said Greek rules are not owned by him. I followed the accepted view on inference:- 1. If an author is quoted on Formula or Rules then it CAN'T be inferred he agrees with those who quote him. 2. If an author is quoted on opinion then it CAN be inferred he agrees with those who quote him. JW's quoted Greek rules from Dr M's book and thus were not inferring he agreed with them. My argument is with you, you misunderstand this and mislead your audience
CAW0007 8 months ago
@jwpublisher1 You should give an example. If only for the sake of your audience. And it may sway me! You may win a convert!
CAW0007 8 months ago
Thomas N. Winter: "The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order."
-Professor of Koine Greek at the University of Nebraska
I bet you take this comment down!
vuyou123 8 months ago
My example “bizarre”? Please review it: Just because the Third Reich adopted Darwinism to add legitimacy to their killing of Jews we cannot dogmatically assert that they inferred Darwin would agree with it. Likewise by misapplying Einstein's e=mc2 no-one should dogmatically assert that I inferred Einstein would agree with my wrong result. Likewise the JW's applying (or misapplying, whatever) Dr Mantey's book to John 1:1 does not mean they inferred he was agreeing with how they applied it
CAW0007 9 months ago
I didn't notice the title. I stumbled on your video by accident, stayed and was amused to see you doing the very thing you accused JW's of; and it wasn't a technicality, you were wrong in principle: you said in video the JW's were inferring Dr M agreed with them. But now there's another focus, begging the question: did they deliberately misapply the book? The answer hinges on whether the book said that the rule(s) could NOT be applied to John 1:1 Did it? Otherwise its a matter of interpretation
CAW0007 9 months ago
Your point doesn't stand. Compare: the “Encyclopedia of the Third Reich” said ... Darwinism was the “the ideology behind Hitler's policy of genocide”. So was the Third Reich, by adopting Darwinism as their creed of life, inferring that Darwin agreed with their treatment of Jews? No. Likewise the JW's quoting Dr Mantey does not mean they were inferring Dr Mantey agreed with their treatment of Jn 1:1. They were merely quoting grammar rules which were noted in his book and which they referenced.
CAW0007 9 months ago
The Interlinear appendix in your video does not say that Mantey agrees with them on John 1:1 does it?!! It says there that Mantey states that "an anathrous construction points to a quality about someone". So, since John 1:1 uses this construction the Watchtower Publishers felt justified in using the quality of the Word (Jesus) i.e "a god" or you could say 'the word was divine'.
If you're going to misquote at least be smart and hide the thing you are misquoting from or you'll be found out!!
CAW0007 9 months ago
@CAW0007 The Interlinear states that Dr. Mantey's book can be used to prove their point, thereby insinuating that Dr. Mantey agrees with their rendering of John 1:1. What the Interlinear actually quotes from Mantey is this: "...in a copulative sentence SOMETIMES the article makes the subject distinct from the predicate." But in Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower is says: "There is no statement in our grammer that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation of John 1:1
jwpublisher1 9 months ago
@CAW0007 So what exactly did I misquote, and what exactly have you found out, except that the Watchtower loves to lead their readers to believe things that are not true?
jwpublisher1 9 months ago
@jwpublisher1 ” You said “they mention...Mantey as agreeing with their translation” that's the misquote. They actually quoted the greek 'rules' from Mantey's book. Example, if I write in my book Einstein's e=mc2 then use it and miscalculate the result would I be insinuating that Einstein agreed with my miscalculation? No. In the same way the JW's did not misquote Mantey. Did they get John 1:1 wrong? That's another subject. Is Mantey right in what he said in video? That's another subject.
CAW0007 9 months ago
@CAW0007 Also, in my written description of this video which appears above I state that the KIT lists Dr. Mantey's BOOK (Not Dr. Mantey) as supporting their rendering of John 1:1. It should be obvious to ALL that I did not intend to misquote or mislead my audience. Can you say that about the Watchtower?
jwpublisher1 9 months ago
@CAW0007 I can see your point that my wording is technically not correct. But my point still stands that the New World Translation committee clearly intended for this reference to Dr. Mantey's book to infer that Dr. Mantey agreed with their rendering of John 1:1. I will redo this video soon to change that satement. I now wonder how you feel about the Watchtower's "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth" where it states as a fact: "...the Bible says that Jesus returned to earth in 1914".
jwpublisher1 9 months ago
@jwpublisher1 I didn't notice the title. I stumbled on your video and was amused to see you doing the very thing you accused JW's of; and it wasn't a technicality, you were wrong in principle: you said in video the JW's were inferring Dr M agreed with them. But now there's another focus, begging the question: did they deliberately misapply the book? The answer hinges on whether the book said that the rule(s) could NOT be applied to John 1:1 Did it? Otherwise its a matter of interpretation
CAW0007 9 months ago
@jwpublisher1 Your point doesn't stand. Compare: the “Encyclopedia of the Third Reich” said ... Darwinism was “the ideology behind Hitler's policy of genocide”. So was the Third Reich, by adopting Darwinism as their creed of life, inferring that Darwin agreed with their treatment of Jews? No. Likewise the JW's quoting Dr M does not mean they were inferring Dr M agreed with their treatment of Jn 1:1. They were merely quoting grammar rules which were noted in his book and which they referenced
CAW0007 9 months ago
@CAW0007 I don't "buy" your argument at all, and I never will. And your example is bizzare, to say the least.
jwpublisher1 9 months ago
@jwpublisher1 Furthermore these grammar rules do not belong to Dr Mantey; they develped at the time koine Greek developed some 2300 years ago and were used by dozens of translators in a similar way to how JW's translate John 1:1 (enter: simplebibletruths/70 into Google) e.g B.Wilson's interlinear in 1864 “and a god was the word”. Goodspeed in 1935 “the Word was divine”. Koine Greek rules are not the exclusive domain of Dr Mantey and neither the JW's nor anyone else need his approval
CAW0007 9 months ago
@jwpublisher1 My example “bizarre”? Please review it: Just because the Third Reich adopted Darwinism to add legitimacy to their killing Jews we cannot dogmatically assert that they inferred Darwin agreed with it. Likewise by misapplying Einstein's e=mc2 no-one should dogmatically assert that I inferred Einstein would agree with my wrong result. Likewise the JW's applying (or misapplying, whatever) Dr Mantey's book to John 1:1 does not mean they inferred he was agreeing with how they applied it
CAW0007 9 months ago
This Mantey guy said SHIT !! He babled on and gave no facts ! Just like YOU !! Lots of hot air and SPIN .......YOU'd make a great politition !
dave22h34 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They keep separate from the ungodly world as did Noah and many other prophets in the bible. READ John 17:14. Jehovah's Witnesses follow EXACTLY THE BIBLE. They do serve Christ our Lord. Matthew 4:17 is when Jesus started preaching. He taught his disciples to preach in Matthew chapter 10. Matthew 10:14 tells them to go house to house. Matthew 24:14 says this good news of the kingdom will be preached..."
Jesus told his disciples to make disciples at Matt: 28:19,20,"... make disciples..."
eternityandforever 10 months ago
i feel this is inaccurate you are talking about the new world translation but yet you reference the interlinear bible which is older. how can you give an opinion on one book by commenting on another. you said you in a previous comment that you wanted proof and formal documentation you have you opinion and the opinion of one man. i think it's you who needs to do more research before putting your opinions out there. you give no true evidence only opinions and here say. please do more research.
bellasml 11 months ago
@bellasml If you are a Jehovah's Witness, then you really should do some research regarding Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publications. For your information the New World Translation was first published in 1961, then in 1969 they published the Kingdom Interlinear Translation which contains the Greek Scriptures with the literal english translation, and beside it the New World Translation. The KIT mention's Dr. Mantey's agreement with the New World Translation, which Dr. Mantey denies.
jwpublisher1 11 months ago
I appreciate your videos and the research that you've done to prove your points. It is truly so sad that this religion has done so much to stray away from the real truth. So glad I am freeing myself!
eve438 11 months ago
@eve438 Thank you for your comment. Feel free to leave me a message on my channel if you have any questions.
jwpublisher1 11 months ago
First of all it's not any translation and it's an offence if somebody claims it is any kind of translation or interpretation and there are many reasons for that: Firstly the group of people who lied they had translated NWT from original languages were a bunch of losers and liers who were not even worth of licking shoes of the real translators -they just took the Bible and change it in a way which matches thier sick teology of the False Prohets so please do not call it Translation or a Bible
lelameolamimamen 1 year ago
Many JW's hide in the dark of not wanting to know the true history of the organization. This is an intellectual dishonesty. Do you know about Charles Taze Russell's " bible in stone" the Great Pyramid of GAZA? Or the 1928 return of the prophets and the house the JW's built for them?
TheJwhistory 1 year ago
The NWT is biased, right? And other translations are not? Pull the other...
I have a Greek friend, yes GREEK. He laughs and says that even Greeks today know how to translate John 1:1 correctly. The missing definite article is very clear. The word after it become a quality. Like you don't like somebody and call out "You Dog" - same as "You are a Dog."
It is just anti-JW bias. The fact that Mr Mantey doesn't like his name to be associated with JWs, hey, he is not the only one.
So what's new?
customanalogue 1 year ago
@customanalogue Well if the NWT isn't blatantly biased, then why did they change the Greek text from that in the original Greek Scriptures when they wrote the Greek translation of the NWT? You tube won't let me put the url for the video, so do a youtube search for: Jw's have some explaining to do. Watch this video and tell me I am just anti-JW bias. They are scoundrels!
jwpublisher1 1 year ago
@jwpublisher1 -. Acts 12:21,22 "Herod... and the people shouted, saying 'the voice of a god and not of a man'... immediately an angel of the Lord smote him.. and he gave up the ghost."
This AV, not NWT.
Note "a man" and also "a god".
Not sure if you get it, but the Greek rule (there is no "a") is the same here as John 1:1 and every translation follows the same rule. I have no problem with that.
John 8:58 the context was the Jews querying Jesus age. So he stated he had a pre-human existence.
customanalogue 1 year ago
@customanalogue Well if the NWT isn't blatantly biased, then why did they change the Greek text from that in the original Greek Scriptures when they wrote the Greek translation of the NWT? You tube won't let me put the url for the video on this post, so do a youtube search for: "Jw's have some explaining to do". Watch this video and tell me I am just anti-JW bias. That's what's new!
jwpublisher1 1 year ago
@jwpublisher1 - As for JWs having something to hide. All you have to do is wait till they turn up at your door and you can ask ANY questions. Funny way to hide.
Also this divide and conquor stuff, it is so churlish. "You are misled by the Watchtower Society" kind of stuff.
We ARE the Watchtower Society. So there are no "they" - they are US !
Look all this stuff is just semantics. Let's discuss things that are really important like a world that is disintegrating around us, like THAT election.
customanalogue 1 year ago
@customanalogue Well now I am confused. I thought the Governing Body of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn set the policy, gave strict guidelines as to what is to be done and not be done in the Kingdom Halls, changed definitions of "This Generation",wrote and changed questions to be asked prior to baptism, and oversee ALL material that is published for JWs. I didn't realize that it was members like you who did these things.
jwpublisher1 1 year ago
@jwpublisher1
It may surprise you that I don't think that way, and yes you ARE confused..
Ask ME, don't presume what I think and whose slave I am. Indeed if the Government Body came out with a policy I know is unscriptural I would/could NOT believe it. Huh?
I don't think every day about the GB (seems to me you do a lot more than I do), but I do think about my relationship with God a LOT. When late in the evening and my thoughts come to me, what do you think I think about? Never about a GB.
customanalogue 1 year ago
@customanalogue Well from what I understand, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is Jehovah God's Spirit Directed Organization. So if Jehovah God's Spirit is directing the Governing Body, then how could they come out with a policy that is unscriptural? Now I'm really confused.
jwpublisher1 1 year ago
@customanalogue ok i;ll ask you.NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures 1960,John 8:58 "I have been" and in the footnote it says that the Greek was "properly rendered in the perfect indefinte tense" but there is no such tense in the Greek. They lied then they lie now.
Gideon6640man 1 year ago