Jehovah's Witnesses FAQ's #9: Why do you use Bibles that don't restore God's name?

[chanses2]

Thanks for the insightful tips and telling how it is. One need go to the source to know, because God used the original-languages when inspiring the authors. Any language outside these "complex (in comparison)" languages will lose the depth of what God tells.

Peace

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 surely you understand the difference in a JW doing some personal study and the "independent thinking" that the WT warns against?

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 The problem is, your entire array of objections and questions have been based on a comment I said in passing this video. I still stand by what I said, but would have to spend at least several minutes explaining what I meant so as to clarify. Though i'm fully willing to allow you to question me publicly on this, i'd much rather discuss with you the subject of an actual video or blog that i've made.

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 I think you're confusing independent research with independent thinking. I'm referring to the latter. Obviously, JW's can research something on their own, but only within the boundaries set forth by WT theology. But whether JW's are in a group setting or by one's self, they are not to think independently and question WT teaching. In fact, it is to be accepted even if you think the teaching is incorrect. I would be happy to back all this up with quotations.

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 i'm not saying that one needs to abandon their congregation and "form a group" in that sense. I'm just talking about joining with others in a study group to analyze something, and in this case, the accuracy of the NWT. And whether this is done by yourself or with a group, the WT seems to discourage both. And that's the point of my statement at 2:25, which i've yet to see how its a "complete lie."

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 since you apparently don't want to answer my questions, and instead resort to ad hominem, I resent your initial comment that my statement at 2:25 in the video is a "complete lie." So unless you can back up your accusation, I see no reason to take my video down or correct myself on the point that I made.

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 but to do independent research in examining the accuracy of the NWT, aren't you thinking independently? I just don't see how doing the same thing in a group would be any different.

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 i'm not sure how that answers my questions. So, are you now agreeing with me that the WT does discourage independent Bible research? That seems to be what you're saying, but I don't want to misunderstand you.

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 I'm confused. Why is it not ok to do group Scriptural research but ok to do individual? Also, its a good thing I attended the very meeting where this KM article was openly discussed. But unfortunately, I didn't record it. However, doesn't the WT also specifically warn against "independent thinking?" Wouldn't questioning the accuracy of the NWT fall into the category of independent thinking?

[theapologeticfront]

@worldhistory2011 *** km 9/07 p. 3 Question Box *** See paragraph 1, in particular. The WT clearly discourages independent Bible research and specifically mentions the discouragement of analyzing the accuracy of the NWT.

[PrinceWalter]

"And if they say, `Jehovah lives,' Surely to a falsehood they swear." (Jer 5:2)

There was never a lack of God's Name, in fact, "Their rulers are howling,averring is Jehovah, 'AND CONTINUALLY, THE ENTIRE DAY, MY NAME IS SCORNED AMONG THE NATIONS.'" (Isa 52:5)

But "they have refused to receive instruction", "They have been foolish, For they have not known THE WAY OF Jehovah, THE JUDGMENT of their Elohim." (Jer 5:3-4)

[OurGr8God]

I have heard this argument time & time again. How other Bibles sub... the name YHWH for LORD/Lord or GOD/God and how the NWT has replaced it. And at the same time they ALSO do the very same thing they critize. "READ" 4 example Psa. 102:24-27 where David is speaking to YHWH/God. In the NT this is applied to THE SON in Heb. 1:8,10-12. But because it is now applied to JESUS although this is a reference to an OT passage of YHWH, the word for YHWH/God is now changed to "Lord." It is the same thing.

[thejahoflife]

@OurGr8God I am confused Gr8, are you saying we modify the Psalm or Hebrew 1?

I don't see that we changed anything. It all once again comes down to context. The Trinity is a historically provable fallacy that was the brainchild of Constantine and force fed to Christians under threat of torture and death.

[SonofThunder120]

I, for instance wholly encourage the householder/study to use their own translation during discussion.

There is a big difference between translation & transliteration.

This, method is very much encouraged as it truly is a great way of exposing false doctrine from "their own" Bible so the unintelligent/retarded/obtuse reasoning "you have your own Bible" as used by some is exposed for the prejudice it merits.

But, then Mike, you already know this dont you? lol

[SonofThunder120]

Mike, we are not "discouraged" at all from using other translations, however, as you know already, for a fact God's name, Jehovah, has be curiously removedv from their translations.

Now, when we read God's word, would it not make sense to read it as he revealed it?

Why would he reveal his name 6973 times?

Is the word "LORD" a good substitute?

Be mindful, many accuse the Bible of being changed/doctored, hence it would be prudent to use various translations to rebuff this retarded reasoning.

[earnestlyseeking]

Hey Mike good video. Another pretty good free program is called "the word". They have a web site at w w w dot the word dot gr

It has some features that Esword doesn't have, but since I started using e-sword first and find it easier I usually use it. God bless

[TheMulder1981]

There's nothing wrong with using whichever translation you prefer. The various Bibles cited in the literature is done so MAINLY so that a person who FAVORS a certain translation/translations can see what God's word says according to the transl. they are familiar with, or favor.

Again.....nothing wrong with that.

BTW, I have looked at the original languages, and the NWT is the most accurate bible I've read in my lifetime. It closely follows the original thoughts of the the original writers.

[Bibl3Thumper]

Good point about the WT quoting other bibles! Especially the NCV and the New Jerusalem Version

[TitusChapter1Verse11]

Also, the meaning of the word "Name" signifies so much more than just a label. It signifies authority or power. A common illustration is that the police may say "Open in the NAME of the law". They are not referring to a label, but a far greater mean...the authority of the law. To harp on and require using the man-created pronunciation of the divine name is to go beyond what is written in the scriptures.

[TitusChapter1Verse11]

Also we know that the translation of God's literal name is not known. I have no objection with using the name "Jehovah" but to focus so much on it when even the WT admits that they do not know how it was spelled/pronounced is un called for. Jesus called God His Father. Personally I would feel disrespectful if I called my father by his name. I feel so much more close to him by calling him Dad or Father. We should feel the same with God. He is our Father.

[nibornagrom]

"Yes, there could be, and there are better translations of the Bible than the King James and Douay versions, and that for a number of reasons. "

"One reason why modern translations may be better than such old ones as the King James of 1611 is that the English language itself has changed over the years."

"Though stated almost seventy years ago, its position is affirmed by one of the latest scholarly translations, The Jerusalem Bible."

W1969 June 1.

Doesn't sound like your vid is correct.

[nibornagrom]

2.

I use these aids also.

"They are discouraged from ( delving into comparing translations)."

The whole basis for this reasoning invalid regarding JW's. They would not be citing so many translations. The reason for citing outside material is for in-depth research. I use the KJV out in the door-to-door work because it more readily accepted here in the Bible belt.

You may be thinking of articles that speak of "having to learn" an original language to understand the Bible, which you do not.

[TitusChapter1Verse11]

@nibornagrom But Nibs, when researching Bible translations, should you not put some thought into the translators themselves? None of the translators of the NWT were proficient in either Hebrew nor Greek. In the famous Scottland trial of 1954 when F.W Franz was asked to if he could speak Hebrew, he said "Yes". When asked to read a passage in Hebrew, he said he could not. The fact is that the NWT is full of errors. Nearly ever Biblical scholar agrees that it is full of incorrect translation.

[TitusChapter1Verse11]

@nibornagrom Also, you forget that many current former Jehovah's Witnesses are reading your posts. We both know that we are encouraged only to use the NWT. Have you ever listened to a sunday public talk where the speaker used a different translation during his talk. If he did so, he would be looked down upon. After all if you were to read John 1:1 in any other bible translation, you would have a serious problem...

[LovingScrubbies]

@nibornagrom

Excellent observation. 

Being wrong is what these JW-basher hobbyists do best.

[nibornagrom]

@LovingScrubbies

Respectfully, these folks are not "hobbyists", but are Professional Opposers, as one etymologist said regarding the misuse of the word "cult" among Evangelicals.

Nobody does it better. You're right.

[LovingScrubbies]

@nibornagrom

Well, I have a life so I will not be sitting through all their videos. But I have looked at their channels and they have an interminable stream of anti-JW videos. So you have a good point. I know a lady I worked with and she is a JW. She let me look through her book bag and they have a prayer book or year book that includes all sorts of background about past teachings or expectations JW have changed or modified. Yet these bigots (sorry to seem harsh but thats what they are)

[LovingScrubbies]

@LovingScrubbies ---> are always claiming there is some kind of cover up when the JW books themselves are very honest and open about it.