As a ex jw I am going back.. the man of lawlessness sits in the house of God making himself as a god. Who truly is the faithful and discreet slave... The apostles asked Jesus if the Pharisees are wrong should we still listen to them? Jesus answered do what they tell you but not with their hypocrisy! It should be to no suprise that Jehovah's organization has been infiltrated by a operation of Satan. Hence why they say 1914 it already happened... Theys say the wheat was already seperate from the weeds.. but I'm hear to tell you brother Jesus is coming to seperate the wheat from the weeds Search " E watchmen" on UA-cam a ex jw elder who will give you more insight on the real apostasy happening in the higher levels of the organization.. and how they are exactly like the Israelites in Jesus days
@@mavrosyvannah people like you don't understand.. the basic bible truth no one has it except for them.. you can't be in a covenant with God if you don't know about his son and who he actually is . If you think he's God your in a religion of Babylon... The Israelites in Jesus day where chosen by God that doesn't mean they weren't being hypocrite... Hence God punished them.. your not in a covenant with God better be in one soon.. the time is running out until Jesus comes back..
@@geraldsutton9981When the apostles of Jesus asked him how they should pray he gave them one clear and concise example. I think you need to read that passage of scripture and ruminate upon it. And then think about it some more. In short, Christians pray to The Father. He is our Father, the Almighty and everlasting God. The ‘name’ of God is not a name in the way we understand the word. The Almighty God of Heaven and Earth transcends all words and names; there are many names for him but in essence, He is our everlasting and eternal Father.
The addition of the word "other" added 4 times in Collossians 1:15-18 NWT was what 'snapped me out' of my childhood JW indoctrination. In the 1984 editiin the word (other) was in brackets signifying it was added but the brackets were removed in the 2013 edition as if the word was originally in the greek.
I get the impression that's how some doctrines become 'inspired scripture' - first they're a footnote, then they're in brackets, then look, they're right there in the text!
G'day Annie, I hope all is well, great comment about Colossians. It really is a diabolical addition to Colossians, but as you know, these Anonymous "Translators" of the NWT have no conscience. Plus not one of these jokers could read a word of Greek or Hebrew. God Bless.
Still mistake to remove the brackets but to be fair the word other can be implied, such as the verse in Luke where Jesus says the tree and all the other trees, where the word other doesn't appear in the text but is implied
@@cygnustsp Please list 5 Greek Scholars who agree with your claim that "OTHER" is implied in Colossians 1. If you cannot provide 5 Greek Scholars who agree with you, then you are simply making this claim without any evidence. Prove your assertion.
@@cygnustsp do you really think that God himself forgot or intended sinful uninspired men to decide that a word should be IMPLIED into his Holy Scripture?? The heart of men surely is decietful and wicked. Who of us should dare QUESTION what God himself was IMPLYING? You make God out to be a fool if you sincerley think that way. God is clear "ALL THINGS" its quite simple to understand and is backed up in other scriptures such as John 1:3.
This is great! I have a coworker who is very serious about his JW faith and we talk bible a lot. I found an inconsistency in their doctrine and what their bible said and it stumped him because he hadn't seen that before. But afterwards he is back to acting like there was never an issue. I just hope he learns to think for himself. The brainwashing is strong.
THIS! This is how you debunk Jehovah’s Witness theology and doctrine, by their own hand! I dont reckon it'll convince any JW that the Trinity is real (I've got notes on that) but regardless this is really well thought out and presented. I dig it!
@godzoo18 well we can go back and forth on the validity and sanity of ANY diety being real, monotheistic or not, until the gradual heat death of the universe itself lol. Point still stands, it's a well researched and presented video and should be made public
Hi Darth! Use the Voice! I mean the new name, Lol! YHVH Yehovah Jehovah God! I accept the new name! Which Church did Jesus give the new name! Revelation 3:11 I am coming quickly. Keep holding fast to what you have, so that no one may take your crown. 12 “‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the churches.’
@@godzoo18 Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), so Jesus is equal in authority with the Father, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. Jesus even told us he was going to RAISE HIS OWN BODY (John 2:19,21). The Holy Spirit also raised Jesus' body (Romans 8:11), and the Father raised Jesus' body (1Cor. 6:14). So, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all do the same act of raising Jesus' body. Consistent with Trinitarian theology, but not JW's defunct theology. And Jesus sits on the same throne (singular) of God in Revelation 22:1. So the Lamb of God has all authority and sits on the throne of God. Why do JWs need to change the scriptures to fit their theology? Can you not address the topic of the video?
They forgot to edit John 20:28-29 if you're looking for a quote from the New World translation that explicitly states that Jesus is God and fine with being called God.
That is an excellent point! Pretty soon I'm planning on making a video proving the Deity of Christ from the New World Translation, even as it's written today. I'll be sure to include that!
Jesus has God(his Father) abiding in him as he told Thomas before, and Thomas recognized it upon the resurrection. And I'm not a JW. It's not an explicit text of deity.
John 14 When Thomas said My Lord and My God! Thomas did say what Jesus had implied. So their hearts would not be troubled. It's because when Thomas said those famous words. Thomas did not speak the Spirit of Truth! The Father had not sent the Helper The Spirit of Truth! Thomas spoke the Spirit of Error! John 16:7 Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. John 15:26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
@@strappedfatman7858 You can’t argue that someone was incapable of speaking the truth before Pentecost. Matthew 16:17 shows it was possible for the Father to reveal truth to the disciples before Pentecost. It is where Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and Jesus specifically tells him he learned that from the Father and thus the Spirt of Truth.
@MultiMobCast Correct! I agree with Peter! Do you see a difference in Christ the Son of the Living God vs. Jesus Christ is God came in the Flesh vs. Jesus Christ came in the flesh. There are two teachings The Spirit of Error and The Spirit of Truth. Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ. The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
What's absolutely hilarious is to hear JWs employ the most bizarre mental gymnastics to justify Watchtower's actions. I had a debate with a JW a few months back where he acknowledged that spiritism is demonism, and that BOTH the Bible and Watchtower itself condemn demonism, but that doesn't make Watchtower's use of a demon-inspired Bible translator (Greber) wrong or hypocritical.
@@theologywithseth The 4/1 1983 Watchtower you cited went on to say, _"The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament."_ So, according to WT, Greber's work was completely unnecessary in the production of the NWT...but they used it anyway. If it was unnecessary, why use it at all? The simple fact is, WT was more than comfortable using Greber's work because it supported WT's theology. It was only AFTER Watchtower got called out did they brush it off as trivial, then distance themselves from Greber. Hypocrites.
im not a Christian but i love this stuff, back in WoW my guild had one member who was a conservative jew and a second who was an southern bapist and both studied their text the Torah and bible and we would stay up late having similar talks about translations and meanings deep into the night going back and forth. This gives the same vibes thank you! So fascinating.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5 Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus. Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Absolutely amazing thank you. Jesus rescued me in Feb 2014 after 40 years as a JW. I have been on several JW/ Christian sites since then. I have only seen your vids in the last couple of days, but I have been able to use these ideas with JWs.
That's amazing to hear! Praise God that He rescued you from the Watchtower and has shown you who Jesus truly is! I'm very glad my videos have been helpful for you and I'll be praying that you'll be able to use them in some spiritually productive conversations with active JW's
It seems you jump from the Firing Pan onto the Fire... Read the Bible and try to reason with the scriptures, or do you need others to explain the scripture to you?
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5 Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus. Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5 Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus. Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5 Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus. Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Pause at 18:31. Concerning the Greek word for "worship". In Matt. 20:20 the KJV of the Bible reads "worship", while other translations use different words/terms. What does this Greek word actually mean? It is true that one should be careful "one-man-translations". Yet I am amazed at some of the MANY correct translational readings I find in one-person translations-- such as: Anderson, Darby, Goodspeed, John MacArthur, Julia Smith, Stern, Williams, Wuest, and Young-- that are MISSED by translations that are said to be made by dozens of "scholars". The NWT DOES correctly translate verses like Matt. 7:7 and 2 Peter 2:4. That really does not speak well for the DOZENS of translations that mess-up when it comes to these two verses. If one does a little research- one will find that the man who made the NWT's Old Testament did NOT know Hebrew whatsoever!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure in my research on Hebrew from a while back "worship" has evolved over time. Today it means nothing like it did in a KJV. Kings used to be called "Your worship" as an example. Sometimes it simply means a bow, sometimes it means bowing down all the way to the ground prostrate. Moses did prostrate before his father-in-law, i.e. worship before his father in law. In 1 Chron 29:20(read the entire chapter) shows the people bowing prostrate(worshiping) God and the king on the seat of YHWH.
I looked at the 2 verses in my Schlachter and Elberfelder, the most accurate German Bibles. Both translate 2. Peter 2:4 well as "Abgrund (abyss)", and the Schlachter explains Matthew 7:7 in the footnote. But this is a minute detail, and I can understand why some would ignore it, although the NWT is more accurate in this verse. But the bad of translating inconsistently and adding words without indicating them in order to fit one's doctrine, in my opinion, outweighs the good of having a slightler better translation for some verses. But I can also understand, why many would translate Tartaros as hell, because it was a place of torment in Greek mythology. But yes, the LSB translates it better as "pit".
exJW here. This is amazing. I remember when I gave public talk in JW congregation about Trinity. Of course I explained John 1:1 with missing Greek "the" before word "God", so it should be "a god". But materials provided by Watchtower didn't menton that other verses in chapter 1 also miss Greek "the" and are translated with capital letter in word "God". Oh my God... I was so stupid. I believed in everything, that Watchtower says...
@@philippah5116 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. this is the greek text according to SBLGNT. Since "θεόν" (God, accusative case) has already been defined (definite, The God) I can see why God was just left as θεὸς in the last clause. by context we already know that "God" (θεὸς), especially because it is at the start of the last clause, is referring to (The) God, not a god.
Here are several questions that Jehovah's Witnesses might find challenging to answer based on the differences in theology and translation as discussed in the video: 1. **John 1:1**: Why does the New World Translation render "the Word was God" as "the Word was a god" when this translation method is not consistently applied to other instances of "God" without the definite article in the New Testament? - **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this with the mainstream scholarly consensus on Greek grammar and the use of the definite article? 2. **John 8:58**: Why does the New World Translation say "I have been" instead of "I am" when Jesus is clearly referencing the divine name used in Exodus 3:14, which is a well-known assertion of divinity? - **Follow-up**: Can they explain why this translation ignores the context and traditional understanding of Jesus’ statement? 3. **Colossians 1:16-17**: Why does the New World Translation add the word "other" to suggest that Jesus did not create himself, when the original Greek text does not include this word? - **Follow-up**: How do they justify this addition without evidence from the original manuscripts? 4. **Philippians 2:9-10**: Why does the New World Translation add "other" in the phrase "the name that is above every other name," which changes the meaning of the text? - **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this with the traditional Christian understanding that Jesus' name is above all names, including Jehovah? 5. **John 4:20 and Matthew 14:33**: Why is the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) translated as "obeisance" in relation to Jesus but "worship" in relation to the Father? - **Follow-up**: Can they explain this inconsistency and how it aligns with their translation principles? 6. **Romans 8:9-10**: Why does the New World Translation add "in union with" when referring to Christ but not when referring to God's Spirit, even though the original Greek uses the same phrase? - **Follow-up**: How do they justify this inconsistency within the same passage? 7. **Isaiah 9:6**: How do they interpret "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" as titles for Jesus, considering their belief that Jesus is not Almighty God? - **Follow-up**: Can they explain how these titles fit within their understanding of Jesus as a created being? 8. **Revelation 1:17-18**: How do they explain Jesus saying "I am the First and the Last," a title that Jehovah uses in Isaiah 44:6, if Jesus is not considered equal to Jehovah? - **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this title with their theology that Jesus is distinct from Jehovah? 9. **Hebrews 1:8**: Why does God refer to the Son as "O God" in this passage, and how do they interpret this in light of their belief that Jesus is not God? - **Follow-up**: Can they provide a consistent explanation that aligns with their translation and theology? 10. **Practical Consistency**: Why does the New World Translation not apply its grammatical rules consistently across all occurrences of the word "God" in the New Testament, especially where the definite article is missing? - **Follow-up**: Can they provide examples where their translation principle is applied uniformly and explain any discrepancies?
Often two persons with the same title is used as proof of a trinity. But it takes 3 persons to make a trinity. And more than one person can have the same title. If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) The Alpha and Omega title only applies to Jehovah but the First and Last title applies to both Jesus and Jehovah for different reasons. Two persons with the same title is far from proving 3 persons in 1 God. At Revelation 1:17 (NW), he states: “I am the First and the Last.” But a check of the context shows this “First and Last” was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When “First and Last” is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set on the meaning. God is immortal and can never die. Jesus died. Jesus can't be Jehovah.
@@moseslivingstone1258 To debunk the rebuttal presented, we need to carefully analyze the claims made regarding the interpretation of biblical texts and the theological stance of Jehovah's Witnesses. Here’s a breakdown of the key points: ### 1. **Jesus as "God" or "a god" in John 1:1:** - The rebuttal suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a problem with Jesus being called "God" or "a god," referencing the Greek word "Theos" in John 1:1. However, Jehovah's Witnesses traditionally interpret John 1:1 differently than mainstream Christianity. They render it as "the Word was *a* god" instead of "the Word was God." This distinction is critical to their theology, which posits that Jesus is a created being and not equal to Jehovah (the Almighty God). - **Counterargument:** The majority of Greek scholars agree that the correct translation of John 1:1 in the original Greek is "the Word was God," without the indefinite article "a." The use of the word "Theos" without the article does not imply that Jesus is "a god" in a lesser sense, but rather that he shares in the divine nature fully. The Greek grammar and the context of John's Gospel consistently emphasize the deity of Christ, presenting Him as co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. ### 2. **Elohim and Theos:** - The rebuttal claims that the term "Elohim" in Hebrew, which is often translated as "God" or "gods," can be applied to mighty beings, and therefore Jesus being called "Theos" (God) does not mean he is the Almighty God. - **Counterargument:** While "Elohim" can refer to powerful beings (including angels or judges), in the context of biblical theology, when used with singular verbs and adjectives, it exclusively refers to the one true God, Yahweh. The New Testament writers, especially John, make it clear that Jesus is identified as "Theos" in the highest sense, not as one among many gods, but as God in essence. John 1:1, in its full context, affirms the pre-existence, divinity, and creative role of Christ, which is consistent with being fully God, not a lesser god. ### 3. **Almighty God vs. "a god":** - The rebuttal asserts that Jesus is not Almighty God (El Shaddai) but is instead a lesser "god" and points to John 1:18 to emphasize this distinction, where Jesus is described as "the only-begotten god." - **Counterargument:** The phrase "only-begotten god" in John 1:18, depending on the manuscript, can also be rendered "only-begotten Son," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. The term "only-begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) emphasizes Jesus' unique, one-of-a-kind status, not his creation. Furthermore, the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament is not as a lesser deity but as fully divine, participating in the divine identity, deserving of worship (e.g., John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God"). ### 4. **John 1:18 and the Visibility of God:** - The rebuttal cites John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time," to argue that Jesus, who has been seen, cannot be Almighty God. - **Counterargument:** The phrase in John 1:18 indicates that no one has seen the Father directly in His full divine glory. However, Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is the visible expression of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Jesus reveals the Father to humanity. The New Testament presents Jesus as the one through whom God has made Himself known, and seeing Jesus is equated with seeing the Father (John 14:9). ### **Conclusion:** The rebuttal attempts to maintain a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah by interpreting certain texts in a way that diminishes Jesus' divinity. However, a broader analysis of the original Greek, the context of John's writings, and the overall testimony of the New Testament strongly supports the understanding of Jesus as fully divine, sharing in the identity and essence of the one true God, rather than being a lesser god or a created being. The theological interpretation offered by Jehovah's Witnesses does not align with the mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity, where Jesus is affirmed as God the Son, co-equal, and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
@@josephtucker9612 To debunk the argument logically, let's break down the reasoning presented and address each point systematically: ### 1. **Multiple Persons with the Same Title:** - **Argument:** The claim here is that just because two persons share the same title, it does not imply they are the same person or part of a Trinity. The example given is that both Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus are called "king of kings," but this does not make Nebuchadnezzar Jesus Christ. - **Counterargument:** It is indeed true that different individuals can share the same title without being the same person. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest solely on titles but on the nature and actions attributed to those titles. For example, both the Father and Jesus are called "the First and the Last" (Revelation 1:17, Isaiah 44:6), but the context in which this title is applied to Jesus includes divine attributes that are uniquely ascribed to God, such as being the Creator and the eternal one. The title "king of kings" is used differently for Nebuchadnezzar (a temporal earthly king) and Jesus (who is described as the ultimate ruler with eternal dominion). The key distinction is in the nature of what is being claimed about Jesus when these titles are used, which aligns with divine identity. ### 2. **Interpretation of "First and Last":** - **Argument:** The rebuttal argues that "First and Last" when applied to Jesus, refers specifically to His death and resurrection, and therefore, it is limited in scope and different from when the title is applied to Jehovah. - **Counterargument:** The title "First and Last" does carry significant meaning in both cases, but the limitation suggested here is an interpretative choice rather than a necessary conclusion. In Revelation 1:17-18, when Jesus says, "I am the First and the Last," He is not only referring to His role in death and resurrection but asserting His eternal existence and authority over all creation. The title "First and Last" in the context of ancient Near Eastern culture, and specifically within Isaiah 44:6 where Jehovah declares, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god," is a claim to exclusive divinity and sovereignty. By applying this title to Jesus, the New Testament writers are making a profound theological statement about His divine nature, not merely His role in resurrection. ### 3. **Jesus' Death and God's Immortality:** - **Argument:** The claim here is that since God is immortal and cannot die, and Jesus died, therefore Jesus cannot be Jehovah. - **Counterargument:** This point hinges on the understanding of the nature of Jesus within Christian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that Jesus is fully God and fully human. In His human nature, Jesus experienced death, but in His divine nature, He remained immortal and eternal. The incarnation-the belief that God the Son took on human flesh-allows for Jesus to experience death as a man while still retaining His divine nature. The resurrection is then seen as a demonstration of His divine power over death. The argument that Jesus’ death disqualifies Him from being Jehovah assumes a simplistic understanding of divinity, ignoring the complexity of the incarnation. ### 4. **Relevance of Shared Titles to the Trinity:** - **Argument:** The argument implies that sharing a title like "First and Last" or "Alpha and Omega" between Jesus and Jehovah does not prove the Trinity. - **Counterargument:** The doctrine of the Trinity is not proven by titles alone but by the entirety of biblical testimony regarding the nature of God. The sharing of divine titles is significant because it indicates that the same attributes and roles are being applied to both the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit in other contexts). The Trinity is understood as one God in three persons who share the same essence but are distinct in personhood. The use of titles like "First and Last" or "Alpha and Omega" is part of a broader scriptural pattern where Jesus is consistently identified with the divine identity. ### **Conclusion:** The logic used in the rebuttal presents a selective interpretation of biblical texts, failing to consider the broader context and theological implications. While it's true that different individuals can share titles, the titles given to Jesus in the New Testament carry significant theological weight that aligns with the attributes of God. Jesus' death does not disprove His divinity but is understood within the framework of the incarnation, where God the Son took on human nature. Therefore, the argument that Jesus cannot be Jehovah because of His death or shared titles is based on a limited understanding of the complex and nuanced doctrine of the Trinity.
@@MichaelSmith-lm5sl On UA-cam there are 3 parts, each being more than an hour long. They explain all the different problems encountered when the trinity was being analyzed. Search on: "Trinitarianaism is Theological Disneyland, Part 1 Introduction"
Great upload Seth! “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” - Revelation 22:18-19
It is dishonest to use this verse, and claim, as Seth does in the video, that it says you shouldn’t add or take away 'from the Bible'. You are ripping that verse out of its context, and making it say something it is not. The passage clearly only refers to the Book of Revelation.
@@jonspencer9461 But that’s how the Watchtower employed that verse in the article Seth quoted. Clearly he was just using their own logic to demonstrate that they failed to live up to their own standards.
@@jonspencer9461 That is true but it is wise not to change the words of God. Proverbs 30:5,6 Every word of God is tested and refined . He is a shield to those trust and take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words , or He will reprove you and you will be found a liar.
very good job, Seth Johannes Greber was into spiritism when he translated like that, doing so long after he had left the Catholic Faith. demons led him into anti-trinitarian lies.
As an ex-JW of 40+ years whose specialty was the Trinity (which nobody but nobody discusses these days) I have to say this is one of the better done critiques of the NWT. Thank you Seth. By focusing on translation rather than theology, it sidesteps a lot of the baggage and name-calling (heretic, Arianism, etc.) that comes with this discussion. I will take issue with your argumentation around John 1:1. The issue here is not only the definite vs. indefinite article, (which would make your subsequent material more relevant) but also the grammatical placement of the second occurrence of theos (god). The second use of theos and its placement in the sentence makes it an anarthrous (without the definite article) predicate noun. There is a very good explanation of this in the NET Bible online and in print in the full notes edition. Essentially the statement there is that the use of the anarthrous theos in this part of the sentence make its usage qualitative vs. identifying. The 1984 edition of the NWT also does a pretty good job of going through the reasoning on John 1:1, although many would not accept it merely because JW’s were the ones saying it. While I don’t agree with JW’s ultimately, they at least have a defensible position on this verse. Other than that point, your argumentation here is brilliant.
“The congregator sought to find delightful words and to record accurate words of truth.” Ecclesiastes 12:10 “Close friendship with Jehovah belongs to those who fear him, And he makes his covenant known to them.” PSALM 25:14 “Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me. 22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else.” Isaiah 45:21,22 “For that reason my people will know my name; For that reason they will know in that day that I am the One speaking. Look, it is I!” Isaiah 52:6 FULFILLMENT: “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. 26 I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” John 17:6,26 WHO IS LIVING UP TO THIS PATTERN? “In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely.” 1 Peter 2:21 “I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one.” John 5:43 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19 WHO ARE THE ONES BAPTIZED IN THE FATHER’S NAME? “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.” Isaiah 43:10 “At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.” Malachi 3:16 “For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Romans 10:13 “Do not put out the fire of the spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” 2 Peter 1:19-21 “Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’” Acts 15:14-18 “For then I will change the language of the peoples to a pure language, So that all of them may call on the name of Jehovah, To serve him shoulder to shoulder.” Zephaniah 3:9 “And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him.” Malachi 3:17 “At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” Matthew 11:25-27 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.” Jeremiah 31:34 BOTH JEHOVAH AND JESUS ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE CAN COME UP WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THAT’S WHY TO GET IT RIGHT, IT COMES FROM THE SOURCE THAT THEY HAVE APPOINTED: “ “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.” Matthew 24:45-47 “Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of you a wicked heart lacking faith by drawing away from the living God” Hebrews 3:13
@WatchtowerHunter WROTE: "The 1984 edition of the NWT also does a pretty good job of going through the reasoning on John 1:1, although many would not accept it merely because JW’s were the ones saying it. While I don’t agree with JW’s ultimately, they at least have a defensible position on this verse. Other than that point, your argumentation here is brilliant." The important take away here is the identification of the Logos and God; the Logos was God even though there’s recognition of some kind of distinction because the Logos is with God. John’s claim here, right at the start of his gospel, is he wants us to read the rest of the gospel in light of his even more direct, that the Word was God. D.A. Carson had this to say: “A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, has no definite article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do . There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has ben shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the ver, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the Word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense so say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God….. Here then are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity.” The primary thrust of the argument seems like we have a claim that the Word participates in the very identity of God in some sense and of course John will say just a few verses later that this Word is the one who becomes incarnate as Jesus. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him and cried out, “This is one of whom I said, ‘He who comes after mee ranks before me, because he was before me.’” (John 1:14-15) This understanding of John 1:1 where we have this explicit identification that the Logos was God coherent with what we see through the rest of John’s gospel. We can see elsewhere in Jesus’ own teaching, this sense of an awareness of divine identity and authority. We get this the most in Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees, for example in John 8 where we have two different claims here. First, we see the claim that we must believe in him to have our sins forgiven in verse 24, and then later we see Jesus saying he existed before Abraham. Something else to note is that John 1:1 wasn't John just coming up with something clever to describe the Son. It came straight from the Old Testament. GENESIS 15:1-7 1 After these things THE WORD OF THE LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, THE WORD OF THE LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. 7 And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” DEUTERONOMY 34:4-6 4 And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” 5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to THE WORD OF THE LORD, 6 and He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.
THE DEITY OF CHRIST AS PROPERLY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE: “For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend-of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground- 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11 JESUS IS THE “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD” JOHN 3:16 WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? JESUS WAS THE ONLY ONE DIRECTLY CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD THEREFORE HE: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” Colossians 1:15 ALL CREATURES ARE CREATED AS THUS JESUS EXPLAINS HIS POSITION: “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God” Revelation 3:14 METAPHORICALLY A PARALLEL IS SHOWN TO US AS EVE WAS CREATED FROM ADAM’S RIB LIKEWISE, PROVERBS 8:22-36 SHOWS HOW THE ONE SENT TO EARTH TO BECOME JESUS WAS CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD WITH COLOSSIANS 1:16 BRINGING IT ALL TO LIGHT: “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.” WHY THE USE OF EVE METAPHORICALLY? IN COMPARISON CONTRAST, WE ARE TOLD: “…Adam named his wife Eve, because she was to become the mother of everyone living.” Genesis 3:20 THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF WHO THE CREATOR JEHOVAH GOD IS AND WHO JESUS IS STANDS OUT AS IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THESE WORDS TELL US: “This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ” John 17:3 JOHN GIVES US THE BEST RECOGNITION BY TELLING US ONE OF THE MANY TITLES OF JESUS’ OFFICE WHEN CALLING HIM “THE WORD” SO THE QUESTION HERE BECOMES, WHERE DO WE FIRST SEE “THE WORD” EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF THAT OFFICE? THE FIRST CLEAR EVIDENCE IS SEEN WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO ABRAHAM: “Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mamʹre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day 2 He looked up and saw three men standing some distance from him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and he bowed down to the ground. 3 Then he said: “Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. 16 When the men got up to leave and looked down toward Sodʹom, Abraham was walking with them to escort them.17 Jehovah said: “Am I keeping hidden from Abraham what I am going to do?”Genesis 18:1,2,3,16,17 NOTICE THIS: “The two angels arrived at Sodʹom by evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodʹom. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth” Genesis 91:1 ALL THE WHILE ABRAHAM WAS ENTERTAINING ANGELS OF WHICH ONE OF THEM SPOKE AS IF HE WAS GOD (Hebrews 13:2) NO WONDER JESUS TOLD THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES THAT BEFORE ABRAHAM - I AM HOWEVER, THE OUTSTANDING THING TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT ONE OF THE ANGELS WAS SPEAKING AS IF HE WERE GOD, AND THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD “Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father.” John 6:46 THE OBVIOUS HISTORY OF "THE WORD” IN ACTION IS HERE WHERE “THE WORD” (Jn 1:1) SPOKE WITH MOSES ON JEHOVAH GOD’S behalf: “Then Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush. As he kept looking, he saw that the thornbush was on fire, and yet the thornbush was not consumed.” Exodus 3:2 THE WORD god IS A TITLE THAT IS EVEN BESTOWED UPON THE DEVIL: “in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving” 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4 JESUS IS IN NO WAY LESS THEN THE ANGLE THAT USE TO BE HIS lil’ BROTHER WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL: “He makes his angels spirits, His ministers a consuming fire” PSALM 104:4; “For our God is a consuming fire” HEBREW 12:29 TAKEN THE FACT THAT UPON JESUS RETURN TO HEAVEN HE HAS THIS TO TELL US: “‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.” Revelation 3:12 YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE A GOD TO BE A HIGH PRIEST FOR AND STILL YET BE AN EQUAL PART OF THAT SAME GOD AT THE SAME TIME (HEBREWS 3:1) ALL OF THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT JESUS IS THE ANGEL THAT SPOKE ON GOD’S BEHALF THE BIBLE REVEALS THAT ALL OF THE ANGELS ARE SONS OF GOD: “the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose” Genesis 6:2; “And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6; “When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” Job 38:7 THE FACT THAT ANGELS ARE ALSO REFERRED TO AS “MORNING STARS” SEALS THE DEAL AS JESUS IS NOT ONLY TOLD TO BE THE SON OF GOD BUT IN JESUS OWN WORDS HE SAYS: “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star.’” Revelation 22:16 OBVIOUSLY THERE IS ONLY: “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:6 THEREFORE BECAUSE HE IS THE CREATOR HE DOES NOT HAVE AN EQUAL HOWEVER HIS CREATION DOES HAVE EQUALS MAKING THE ANGELS A PART OF A UNIVERSAL FAMILY OF BROTHERS: “For this reason I bend my knees to the Father, 15 to whom every family in heaven and on earth owes its name.” Ephesians 3:14,15 MOREOVER, IT IS BECAUSE JESUS IS THE VERY FIRST SON OF GOD THAT ALLOWS HIM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE BROTHERS: “For it was fitting that the one (JEHOVAH) for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons (JESUS AND HIS BROTHERS) to glory, should make (JESUS) the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both the one (JEHOVAH) who is sanctifying and those (JESUS AND HIS BROTHERS) who are being sanctified all stem from one (JEHOVAH), and for this reason (JESUS) he is not ashamed to call them brothers,” HEBREWS 2:10,11 JESUS SAID OF THOSE GOING TO BE WITH HIM IN HEAVEN: "In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection" Luke 20:36 SINCE JESUS SAID OF THOSE GOING TO HEAVEN WILL BE LIKE THE ANGELS AND PAUL EXPLAINED THAT: “because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8:29 THUS GIVING HIM THE TITLE OF “THE WORD OF GOD” ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE JOHN 1:1 SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAY WHERE I HAVE ADDED PARENTHESIS: “In the beginning (OF BOTH THE SPIRITUAL CREATION AND THE CREATION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” AS JOHN 5:19 STATES: “Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner” (MEANING THAT HE IS NOT THE CREATOR) THE DEVIL INVENTED THE TRINITY TO TRY AND MAKE JESUS LOOK JUST AS BAD AS HIM BEFORE GOD AS HERE WE ARE SHOWN ABOUT SATAN: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens. Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne, And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting, In the remotest parts of the north. 14 I will go up above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself resemble the Most High.’” ISAIAH 14:13,14 AS A CONSUMING FIRE BOTH SATAN AND JESUS ARE IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD HOWEVER WHEN IT COMES TO JESUS WE SEE THIS BIG DIFFERENCE: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human” PHILIPPIANS 2:6,7 ALL OF THIS DOESN’T END GOOD FOR THOSE ALLOWING SATAN TO TWIST WHO THEY RENDER GODLY DEVOTION TO: “But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8
@@virgiliogarrett4463 I won't even go through your twisted renderings of scripture. I'll show you that Jesus said He is the Lord God Almighty. ISAIAH 44:6 Thus says YHWH, the King and Redeemer of Israel, YHWH of Hosts: “I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST, and there is no God but Me. REVELATION 1:7-18 7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail[b] on account of him. Even so. Amen. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” 9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” 12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. The Son of Man is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the who is coming soon with the clouds, the one who is and who was and who is to come, the one who died and is now alive forevermore, the Lord God Almighty; Christ Jesus. God the Father is not coming with the clouds, is not the one who is who was and who is to come, nor was He ever dead and then alive forevermore. _______________________ YHWH is spirit, invisible, cannot be seen, has not been seen, has shown any form, dwells in unapproachable light and anyone who would see Him would die. In GENESIS 18, YHWH and two other men visited Abraham and His wife Sarah. They spent time with them, ate a meal they prepared, washed their feet in water Abraham brought them, talked about what YHWH was going to do to Sodom and Gomorrah, and then He went on His way. The two men were angels and were sent on their way to Sodom to make preparations to destroy it. How did YHWH appear as a man to Abraham and Sarah?
Grading the New World Translation (NWT) involves evaluating several aspects such as translation accuracy, consistency, theological bias, and readability. Here’s a detailed evaluation based on these criteria: ### 1. **Translation Accuracy: C-** - **Pros**: The NWT strives to be a direct translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Some passages are translated accurately and offer clarity. - **Cons**: Many scholars criticize the NWT for altering passages to fit the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notable examples include the addition of words like “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 and the rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god," which are not supported by the original languages. ### 2. **Consistency: D** - **Pros**: The NWT aims to maintain consistency in translating terms, particularly those central to Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines. - **Cons**: There are significant inconsistencies, especially with the translation of the Greek word "proskuneo" (worship) and the rendering of terms related to the nature of Christ. In Romans 8:9-10, the phrase "in union with" is added inconsistently. ### 3. **Theological Bias: F** - **Pros**: The translation reflects the specific theological perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, making it consistent with their beliefs. - **Cons**: The NWT is heavily criticized for allowing theological biases to influence translation choices, resulting in a version that supports their unique doctrines rather than adhering strictly to the source texts. This bias is evident in passages like John 8:58 and Philippians 2:9-10. ### 4. **Readability: B** - **Pros**: The NWT is generally readable and uses contemporary language, making it accessible to modern readers. It includes clear footnotes and cross-references that help with study. - **Cons**: Some renderings can be awkward or unusual, reflecting the influence of doctrinal adjustments rather than natural English usage. ### Overall Grade: D+ - **Summary**: While the New World Translation has strengths in readability and some aspects of direct translation from original texts, its significant theological bias and inconsistencies hinder its acceptance as a reliable translation among broader Christian and scholarly communities. The adjustments made to align with Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines often lead to departures from the original language intent, resulting in criticism from biblical scholars.
Here are additional examples of passages from the New World Translation (NWT) that have been criticized for their differences from other mainstream Bible translations, along with a summary of the issues they present: 1. **Hebrews 1:8**: - **NWT**: "But about the Son he says: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'" - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'" - **Problem**: The NWT renders "God is your throne" rather than "Your throne, O God," which changes the meaning of the verse and avoids directly calling the Son (Jesus) "God." 2. **John 14:14**: - **NWT**: "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." - **Problem**: The omission of "me" in the NWT changes the implication of praying directly to Jesus, which aligns with the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that prayers should be directed to Jehovah, not Jesus. 3. **Colossians 2:9**: - **NWT**: "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." - **Problem**: The phrase "divine quality" in the NWT softens the statement that the fullness of deity (God's nature) dwells in Jesus, which aligns with their view of Jesus as a created being rather than fully God. 4. **Acts 20:28**: - **NWT**: "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." - **Problem**: The NWT adds "Son" to the verse, which shifts the focus from God purchasing the church with "his own blood" to "the blood of his own Son," aligning with their distinction between God and Jesus. 5. **Titus 2:13**: - **NWT**: "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ." - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." - **Problem**: The NWT separates "the great God" and "our Savior, Jesus Christ," while other translations often combine them to refer to Jesus as "our great God and Savior," thus reinforcing the deity of Christ. 6. **Philippians 2:6**: - **NWT**: "who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." - **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." - **Problem**: The NWT's rendering implies that Jesus did not aspire to be equal to God, rather than the more common interpretation that Jesus, already equal with God, did not cling to His divine status.
To be fair, Acts 20:28 could be translated this way. The German Elberfelder translates it as "by the blood of his own [Son]", correctly putting "Son" in brackets. In the footnote, it says that you could also translate it the classic way as "by his own blood." That doesn't get rid of the clearer verses, which prove, that Jesus is God, though. Also, and I just noticed this: There is a textual variant. The Textus Receptus and Majority Text say "his own blood", the Nestle-Aland can be translated both ways.
@19:03 -- I tried to, as the speaker suggested, "look up 'prosekunysan' in any Greek dictionary", and I was unable to find it either in the Aland-Metzger Greek New Testament's dictionary or in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, So I went to Google Translate, and it came up "they prostrated themselves" -- which would seem to fit both "they worshipped and "they did obeisance".
That's because you're not looking up the lexical form, ie, the form of the word used in the lexicon/dictionary. The lexical form of προσεκύνησαν is προσκύνεω (proskuneō). Hope this helps.
Just a follow-up. Not everyone has access to scholarly lexicons, so I thought I would post this for you. According to BDAG (considered the best Greek-English Lexicon): Proskuneō was “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy.) to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully…. This reverence or worship is paid (A) to human beings, but by this act they are to be recognized as belonging to a superhuman realm…. (B) to transcendent beings…. (α) of deity in monotheistic cult…. (β) of image worship in polytheistic cult…. (γ) the devil and Satanic beings…. (δ) angels…. (ε) The risen Lord is especially the object of worship: Mt 28:9, 17; Lk 24:52.”[1] Therefore, "obeisance" can be a proper translation of proskuneō when the object is a human, the (A) category. However, when an entity is receiving proskuneō as a transcendent being (God, gods, angels, demons-the (B) category), then the proper translation is “worship.” The NWT abides by this for α (Mat 4:10), β (Acts 7:43), γ (Mat 4:9), δ (Rev 22:8), but not for ε. They incorrectly translate proskuneō as "obeisance" when the object is Jesus. Hope this helps. [1] Walter A. Bauer, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,_ 4th ed. (Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 2021), s.v. Προσκύνω.
I am amazed. I always thought JHWs were a type of Christian. But if they don’t believe Jesus is part of the indivisible holy trinity then they can’t be.
You're right on the money! I actually made a video discussing some other differences between JW's and Christianity in general and I'll link it below if you're interested! ua-cam.com/video/RnIjzXIbmOw/v-deo.html
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5 Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus. Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27 AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Great video. Thanks for pointing out these translational issues with the NWT for everyone to see. I'm guessing they don't have these Greek-English translations verified by scholars outside the organisation and it's done in-house. It reminds me of the perfect archer parable. The archer shoots the arrow into a tree and then draws the target around the arrow. Bingo. Perfect every time.
Somewhere in the dusty decades of my memory, I remember something about the JW congregation requiring an approved book list. You can't be reading what they don't approve of, and certainly can't bring it into the congregation. Not sure if they practice this anymore.
Hey, ZT, perhaps I can respond to your question. If you're interacting with JWs then stay away from John 1:1. They go into autopilot mode just at the mention of the verse and begin to parrot what they've been told. They haven't a sweet clue what they're talking about but they will regurgitate what they've been told. If you have questions about the verse, I can walk you through the Greek or point you to some resources. As for John 2:19, the issue is going to come up is their non-Biblical view of death. They believe, like the Sadducees, that a person ceases to exist at death. Jesus (speaking of His body) says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (ESV). How can Jesus raise Himself from the dead if He ceased to exist after death? Jesus is emphatic, “I will raise it up.” How can that be true if He ceased to exist? They can say, ‘The Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal 1:1) or the Holy Spirit raised Jesus (Rom 8:11)’ and I would agree with them, but Jesus says that He was also involved in raising Himself from the dead. Just like in Creation and Redemption, all three members of the Godhead are credited with raising Jesus physically from the dead… but how could that be if Jesus didn’t exist after He died? A common JW objection is to say that Jesus was talking about the church which is his body… but that isn’t in the context of John 2:19-22. Was the church destroyed by the Jews and raised three days later by Jesus? No, his physical body was. John makes this clear in v. 22. A question you can ask regarding this question is: "Did the Jews destroy Jesus' body by crucifying him or did they destroy the church?" IF they play silly and say, "The church," you can ask them which Christians were killed by the Jews and raised by Jesus three days later? They won't be able to give an answer. IF they say, "Jesus' body," then ask them who Jesus claimed would raise it up? If you have other questions or want to explore this further, let me know.
Thank you very much. Not sure what you mean by "historic christianity". The disciples didn't worship Jesus as God. The blind beggar also said "I am" - exactly the same greek. With your reasoning, anyone that says "I am" is God.
That, they do. Jehovah's Witnesses can be very difficult to reason with, which is why we also need to pray for them in addition to doing our homework. We need the Holy Spirit to help them to see the truth!
@faithfulcarpetcleaning Hi there! Just wanted to let you know, I've created a video about this! I'll link it below if you're still interested ua-cam.com/video/07I6v_w7rNU/v-deo.html
@jackpetersen7231 I disagree. The video maker clearly has not done his research, or he has but has been highly selective(and hence has been misleading on purpose) and does not know or studied the original Greek. His video contains many errors and misrepresentations.
@jackpetersen7231 What did you not understand from my comment? Let's take the video's section on John 8.58. He clearly thinks that translating the Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί, there, which is in the present tense, should not be translated by an English perfect. He is wrong.
I found some more verses the other day that contradict the JW Isaiah 41:4, 44:6 and 48:12 says I Am the first and the last (referring to God) In Revelation 1:17-18, and 2:8 both say along the lines of I Am the first and the last, He who was dead but am now alive So if, Jesus is not God then He cannot claim that He is first and last. If God is not Jesus, then He cannot claim that He died. I've been researching the JW and how they believe since I had one call me 2 months ago and I talked with them for a few weeks before they hung up on me and never called me back.
Jesus is first and last a perfect life for a perfect life. Jesus was the first to conquer death! 1 Corinthians 15:So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one. John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.
Unfortunately, the leaders have misrepresented their authority on Bible transition since the inception of the NWT. A Newspaper article (New York Times 08/03/1950) quoted Knorr as stating their translators were humble men, who wish to remain anonymous, and they come from multinational backgrounds. What he failed to mention were these “translators” were members of the Board, none of which had any background in Hebrew or Greek, with the lead translator, Frederick Franz, having a background in Greek & “some” knowledge of Hebrew. Furthermore, even their Greek Interlinear have been tainted over the years especially w/ the advent of the digital copy. If I didn’t consult different Interlinears along w/ Strong’s Concordance, I would’ve been totally oblivious. Their Interlinear still debunks many passages, but it’s still been corrupted to render certain words to match the NWT. Also, the JW RBi8 NWT, while a biased translation, at least had references, footnotes, brackets to denote if there were other renderings of words, if words were inserted by them, etc. The 2013 version has removed all of that, so it makes it appear that it’s a word for word translation. Hell, the 1984 NWT would be considered an Apostate Bible. When I was an Elder, I was chairman of their midweek Christian Life & Ministry meeting. A brother who was inactive for a while, wanted to get back active. After some time, the body of elders felt he was qualified to handle assignments during the midweek. He gives the Bible reading for the week & uses the 1984 NWT. The murmurings & mumblings from within the audience. I complemented him on his reading & jokingly said that Bible reading gave us nostalgia to lighten the mood & spare him embarrassment. One brother approached him after the meeting & said u need to keep up w/ Jehovah’s Chariot my brother, we now use the Silver Sword of God (The nickname for the 2013 & current version). So indeed, the NWT is a theological biased bible. It renders many passages correctly, but there’s very specific passages that conflict with their doctrine that they’ve either altered, or flat out removed. They will use any biased confirmation to agree w them no matter the scholarly reputation or background of the source, either (see Johannes Greber as an authority to keep John 1:1 as quoted).
@ Since my comment was erased, I’m pretty sure u don’t want to bring up the Sahidic Coptic as ur reference point. lol. I don’t think that’s a rabbit hole u’re prepared to go down, but John 1:1 in Sahidic Coptic text not only contradicts the way the NWT translates John 1:1, but now there’s a ton of ?’s u’re not prepared to answer.
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 SAHIDIC COPTIC text says A god in John 1:1. Strong's defines Theos as God or A god. So A god is a correct and valid translation. You just reject it as you don't like it
Thank you very much! U helped me alot with these informations! 💪🏻I'm doing a bible course and I apreciate my teacher, but I have a lot of things, I don't agree with them! Thank you!
Seth, have you considered making a video on the problem of Canon for JWs? A de joure argument is that JWs have no logical reason to assume there is a NT canon, let alone which books are part of that canon because they have cut themselves off from the Christian community by claiming that it was totally corrupt in the second century. If the Christian community was totally corrupt, then: - Why do they accept their conclusion that God had provided them with a NT canon? - Why do they accept list of books the Christian community accepted? - How do they know they didn't leave out some or added some that shouldn't be there? They claim the Christian community deliberately corrupted the NT books by removing the divine name, so what reason do they have to believe they didn't add things to the books or remove other things? They can't claim to know what the Scriptures say because they don't know what the original authors wrote, let alone what books should be considered scripture. These are two different issues: Textual criticism and Canon. However, they are related. It doesn't matter what model of Canon one uses, it is problematic for JWs.
I hadn't planned on it, but that's a great idea! I will certainly consider it. I hadn't really thought about that issue before, but it's a valid question. Why trust what the early Church taught about the canon if they reject virtually everything else they taught? Food for thought indeed. Thanks for the recommendation!
@@theologywithseth It doesn't matter what definition of Canon you employ-Fixed Canon (c. 4-5th century), Functional Canon (c. 2nd century), or Ontological Canon (1st century)-because the Christian community (the Church) play a role in all of them. Even if you define Canon by ontology (a God-inspired book was Canon the moment it was complete), the Church still played a role in receiving it and recognizing it as canonical. If the Church was totally corrupt, then how do they know that God didn't inspire a number of books that the Church didn't recognize as Canon because of their corruption? There may be missing books out there. Or, how do they know the Church didn't pronounce something canonical that wasn't inspired by God? For instance, Luther didn't think the Book of James was canonical. JWs must employ both the functional and fixed view of Canon-both of which are from the Church's perspective-to hold the 27 books of the NT, all the while claiming "the Christian congregation became thoroughly corrupted" (Watchtower, Feb 2024). The JW position is problematic for anyone who takes a moment to study the history of the Canon.
THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU AS THERE IS NO WAY FOR ALMIGHTY GOD TO HAVE BROTHERS BUT HIS SON CAN AND DOES HAVE BROTHERS AS THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES WILL EXPLAINS: “He said to him: “What is written in the Law? How do you read?” Luke 10:26 “Jesus said to them: “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection.” Luke 20:34-36 “But our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body by his great power that enables him to subject all things to himself.” Philippians 3:20,21 “because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8:29
@@XiomaraReyes1 There's never a place in the entirety of the Bible that the word/term "God" refers to all three. There's no justification to force-fit "this person is called God" into that "one God" concept beyond your own belief. Moses is called a god to Pharoah, angels are called gods, the dang religious leaders are called gods per Jesus' refutation of their accusation quoting the Psalm. None of this makes them part of a Trinity, or a binity, or a quatinity(made up word?). It is purely man-made contradictions, redefinitions of words and then eventually when you realize it you just call it a "Mystery" and let your mind forget. I'm asking you not to forget. 1) Jesus has a God over him(Rev 3:12 as one of many examples) 2) Jesus is not that God 3) Jesus is thus another God/god No matter what you do, you must deal with the words without equivocating and trying to redefine "God" to now mean nature--which the only thing that follows is #3 then.
I’ve yet to see someone discuss the Interlinear. I know from when they revised the NWT the leaders talked about the difference between transliteration and translation, which they used to excuse biases, albeit they didn’t use the word ‘bias’. Instead they explained they were able to *interpret* the original *intended* message of Bible writers. It’s how they decided the name ‘Jehovah’ could be justifiably added to greek scriptures. In other words, the average Jehovah’s Witness will not find it problematic to translate the Bible in this way seeing the earliest members still found this ‘truth’ without the NWT (that’s a whole nother can of worms tho) Anyway -
I have tried to broach the topic of Johannes Greber who also wrote a book called ‘Communication with the Spirit World of God’ with Jehovah’s Witnesses, showing the similarity between his New Testament and the NWT, but they immediately clam up when you mention his having been a spiritualist. How can we approach this topic? Any ideas?
@@purplejay8115 ....and that is how other translators and commentators have said the underlying Greek does or at least can mean. Let me know if you wish me to show you.
@@purplejay8115 Bibehub is fine but has limitations. Better by far is to go to a good theological library. Or, do what I've done, get yourself a library. And, if one can, learn Greek. Still, the fact is it is not black and white as you might have been led to believe.
Very fair treatment, lovingly presented. How 'odd' that they translated things correctly in their interlinear, yet not in the printed NWT - I wonder how their study leaders explain away the discrepancy? Or maybe they think the average Witness won't look at the (Watchtower's own) interlinear.....
My guess is, they'd probably try to argue that the interlinear is the literal word-for-word, but then the NWT is the true "meaning" behind the words or something to that effect. Regardless, I think most fair-minded people can see the obvious disconnect between the two. Thanks for watching!
@@peterwilding1203 There are no "discrepancies" between the Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the NWT. But there are plenty in this video. But those who are unfamiliar with the GNT and like their ears to be 'tickled' will gulp down what they hear. Wiser to heed the counsel of Proverbs 14.15 and 18.17.
👆 This response shows you how they get away with it. The members are in complete denial and are programmed to believe they have "the truth" despite the discrepancies. And also, they don't research their own teachings, they just take the governing bodies (leaders)word for it whom they believe are incapable of lying to them
👆 This response shows how they get away with it. The members are in complete denial and can't accept the fact that maybe they don't actually have the truth as they've been told their entire lives
@@jemz4555 Your response to my response show that like the video maker you too do not know Greek. Take John 8.58 for an example(see at 13m 25s in the video). The video maker asserts that ἐγὼ εἰμί there, 'I am" should only be translated " I am". But has he not heard of the durative present in Greek. No, it is obvious he has not. Does he not know that at times the Greek present should be translated by the English perfect? Has he not understood that before ἐγὼ εἰμί there is an adverbial expression of time, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι? And this means that ἐγὼ εἰμί should be translated "I have been" and to do with the length of Jesus' existence? That is what is the basic meaning of εἰμί, 'to be in existence'. The video maker ignores this and ignores those translations(so decieves those who do not do their own research)who try to bring this out in their translations, such as those by Edgar J Goodspeed in An American Translation and The NT in the Langauge of the People by Charles B Williams. More recently is The Source New Testament (TSNT) by Greek scholar, Dr. Ann Nyland. "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born". It does appear to me then you have been duped by this video.
Seth, I have spent hours comparing the NWT and The King James Version with pencil in hand correcting the changes that were made by them to enforce their doctrine. Also Raymond Franz disclosed the names of the original translators and only his uncle Fred Franz knew any Hebrew, and he was self taught.
You're spot on! I believe he only had about 2 years of Greek study and was only self-taught in Hebrew. Not exactly a solid scholarly base to make a Bible translation from if you ask me. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@theologywithseth Given the almost endless list of changes made to their doctrines/ stated positions , the false world end predictions( for all of which zero accountabilty exists?), the obscured leadership and clear lack of financial transparency, is there no point in spending some time on this whole mishmash as a separate topic?
You're correct! Actually none of the translators had any sufficient credentials behind them. It was a team of a half dozen men or so, and they only had about 2 years of biblical language study between them- Hardly a good foundation to undertake a translation like this
Thank you! And to answer your question, *yes* , the Watchtower has added the word "Jehovah" into the New Testament over 200 times, even though that name isn't found in any of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. That's another big example of a deliberate mistranslation based on theological grounds that I didn't even touch on. God bless you!
The NWT has not only added the divine name in the NT but also to several times in the OT to places where the tetragrammaton isn't found in Hebrew mss. Two significant places are Psalm 16:2 and 35:23. In Psalm 16:2, David says that Jehovah is his Adon (Heb for Lord; I said Adon rather than Adonay because the vowel pointing was not added till the 5th c AD). Then in Psalm 110, David says, "Jehovah said to my Adon, 'Sit at my right hand.'" Who is David's Adon? Jehovah. Yet, Jehovah is speaking to David's Adon (who is Jehovah). Two persons who are identified as Jehovah. Starting to see where I'm going with this? And if we were to read this passage the way Jesus did, we would see the Holy Spirit in this verse too (Mat 22:43). Here in Psalm 110 we have the Spirit supplying David with the theodramatic conversation[1] between Jehovah and David's Adon-who is Jehovah. That's the trinity. But, since Christians can make these connections the JW leadership has obscured this by inserting the divine name into Psalm 16:2 rather than correctly translating Adon as "Lord." As for Psalm 35:23, the same words are used by Thomas in John 20:28 (but in reverse order). David calls Jehovah, "My God and my Lord," and Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God." In Greek, they are both in the nominative for the vocative (which will not mean much to someone who doesn't know Greek, but is significant). Again, the connection between the two is obvious, so JW leadership inserted the divine name into Psalm 35:23 to obscure the connection. The same theological trickery can be seen in the NT. Hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE: You said: Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context. Key Biblical Criteria: 1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament): • Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws? • How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)? 2. Worship of God and Jesus: • Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)? 3. Focus on the Kingdom of God: • Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament? 4. Ministry and Evangelism: • Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles? 5. Moral and Ethical Standards: • Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct? Religions and Denominations that Stand Out: 1. Jehovah’s Witnesses: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings. • Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom. • Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings. • Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide. • Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this. 2. Seventh-day Adventists: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice. • Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus. • Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. • Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry. • Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible. 3. Roman Catholic Church: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles. • Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith. • Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church. • Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor. • Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles. Conclusion: If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
In your screen shot of " About The NWT " the Watchtower reference Revelation 22:19 and use the word " Tree's of life" ......is that word used in any manuscript?
Yes. I assume from your question that you read the KJV, am I correct? The KJV is based primarily on the Textus Receptus (TR), specifically the 3rd edition (Stephanus' 1550 ed.). The TR was put together by Erasmus. He didn't have a full copy of Revelation so he back-translated portions of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate. He did a really good job, but one of his mistakes is found in this verse. The older Greek manuscripts have "tree" instead of "book." The NET Bible has a good note on this verse. The KJV is a great translation, but it isn't perfect. JWs like to criticize the KJV but are not honest in their critique. On the one hand, they will criticize the KJV for being based on later mss but, on the other hand, they will appeal to it when it suits them (e.g., their omission of "me" in John 14:14). If you read the KJV, don't let this shake you. Keep reading it, but just be aware of its faults. Read other versions along with your KJV, like the NET Bible, ESV, NIV, etc.
@BasicBiblicalTruth yes to all, I have study the K.jV for many years and yes their are some mistakes, but context corrects the mistakes, I could give many mistakes in modern Bibles with my eye's closed. The Watchtower in every version of their NWT have been removing verses that show the deity of Christ. As you know Jesus declared he was the I am throughout the New Testament. The deity in the Old testament told Moses to tell the Israelites that I am what I am sent you in exodus. The Watchtower said we can't have that because Jesus uses the I am all over the New Testament and we can't remove all of those so let's remove it from Exodus and what did the Watchtower do? Your right they removed the word I am in Exodus.
Yes, I've dealt with the "I Am" issue many times with JWs. Did you know that John 8:58 is the only place in the NT that the NWT translates εγω ειμι as "I was" instead of "I am"? Their explanation has changed over the years, so it's "funny" when I see JWs regurgitate an old rationale from the Governing Body. JWs don't know Biblical Greek (otherwise they wouldn't be JWs), and they usually don't understand the arguments they regurgitate, but they will speak with such confidence. I never appeal to Exo 3:14 for Jesus' "I Am" statements because, even though it is foundational and the Hebrew says "I am," the Greek LXX translated God's words as a participle phrase, ο ων "The one who is." So I appeal to Deu 32:39, Isa 43:10, etc., where God refers to himself as the "I am." Interestingly, Deu 32:39 was a verse Jews appealed to for the belief in the resurrection... and who is the resurrection? Jesus also alluded to Deu 32:39 when he said that no one can pluck anyone out of his hands.
@BasicBiblicalTruth Did you know that the Watchtower uses the verse Isaiah 43:10 to justify the reasoning for using the title Jehovah Witnesses? If you go to this verse in the NWT, they have an asterisk at the end of the verse. They back this statement up with two other verses. The first one is Acts 1:8 they don't tell the reader that this is Jesus talking only the verse, which is so deceitful, like everything they say and do...
That added ‘a’ in John 1:1 possibly saved me. It caused me to re-evaluate why I was beginning to attend the Kingdom Hall and, after prayer, to return to normal life. Your video has helped confirm that decision. As with so many ‘recruits’ to the JWs, I was caught at a low point but low points pass. Genuine evangelical friends, sensible guidance and trust are the answer, not membership of a cult. Thank you for your time and expertise in producing this presentation.
SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT says A god in John 1:1. so you are wrong. GOD uses ECHAD in Deut 6:4 and Ecclesiastes says two are better than ONE - ECHAD. How many is ONE? it is NOT THREE. ONE flesh is also ECHAD for one, as it is FIGURATIVE. So the plain question for you, is if ECHAD for GOD is FIGURATIVE? NOPE. GOD is ONE. GOD IS ONE-ECHAD FATHER, one-ECHAD GOD - Mal 2:10, so you tell if THE FATHER IS COMPOSED of three persons when it called the Father as ONE-ECHAD FATHER. NOPE. Mal 2:10 shows THAT ONE GOD , IS ONE - ECHAD FATHER and NO OTHER persons are part of that ONE GOD
@@Mr.DC3.1914 This is part of the reason for there being such a division between the two principal parts of the total Christian congregation. The part derived from Catholicism believes in the concept of the Trinity. My church uses the New International Version, before that the Authorised Version. My comment was based upon that which I have believed for around three-quarters of a century and shall continue to do so. In no way am I denigrating your right to believe otherwise. As we used to say in Spain, via con Dios.
@@mikepowell2776 which PERSON OF GOD is talking here? If there are TWO more persons of GOD, then for you this person of GOD is lying. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. - ISA 45:5
@@mikepowell2776 If GOD is three persons and all are named JEHOVAH, and if you see them in front of you, count one by one, how MANY JEHOVAH do you see? that is THREE JEHOVAH, and Deut 6:4 says JEHOVAH IS ONE JEHOVAH. and THAT IS NOT THREE JEHOVAH
2 other examples: One would be Hebrews 9:16-17, where they say, it is necessary, that the human covenantor must die, because a covenant is not valid, as long as the human covenantor lives. The word "human" isn't there in the Greek text. Now, it isn't neccessarily wrong, because Jesus, the covenantor (or: the one, who made the testament) did become flesh. But in my opinion, it distracts from the fact, that Hebrews 8:8 says, that Jehovah is the one, who makes the new covenant. If I make a covenant (or testament), I have to die, not someone else. So Jesus has to be Jehovah. Another example is 2. Peter 1:1 and 1:11. The phrases are identical in the Greek, except that one says "God" and the other one says "Lord". But they translate it 2 different ways: "of our God and THE saviour Jesus Christ" - "of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ". They added a "the", so that our God and our saviour could be 2 different individuals, while our Lord and our saviour is one person. But to be fair, the KJV has a similar error.
Excellent presentation. I have to say that when photocopies of Watchtower publications are brought out, a JW will immediately ask "where did you get those?" and the conversation will be diverted.
It's true that some are more guarded than others. But the good news with this content is that you can pull it up on JW.org even using their own JW app! As long as you build some rapport with them and they know you're not out to bash them, I don't think they would object to looking at something on their own app. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@theologywithseth Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816You must be pretty young if you read _The Gospel of Afranius_ in your childhood. It was only published in 1995... Anyone who would believe a work of fiction over the historical accounts given in the Gospels would have to be gullible. OK for a child, maybe, but when you grow up, you should put away childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
@@Berean_with_a_BTh I was born in the early nineties. I don't think you understand, "The Gospel of Afranius" ASSUMES the canonical Gospels, it doesn't contradict them, G-d forbid!
14:15: Point of order. While in the Masoretic text the phrase is symmetric, Eyeh asher eyeh, in the Sepuagint it is not, reading "ego eimi o on", putting 'ego eimi' as (arguably) the subject with the object (ie, the Name) as 'o on', 'the being one', the latter being the name taken to the Israelites. Now 'o on' wouldn't fit gramatically in what Jesus was saying, but still it does differ. The questions are, was he actually speaking Aramaic here, and if he was speaking Greek, would the audience still have understood it as a reference to Exodus? I am inclined to think they would have, but there is more work you have to do to show that definitively. Notably the tense is suddenly different, arresting one's attention, and as he was speaking to other Israelites, there is a high chance he was actually speaking Aramaic, where the distinction wouldn't exist. 21:00: Is this argument true in all the early extant manuscripts or only some? Articles can easily drop in transcription.
Ironically, what JW does with the NWT is exactly what they warn about.. They take away, they add, and then twist what it DOES say. Jesus is God...has no beginning...no ending...and there was nothing created that Jesus did not create.
@@MargaretRobinson-fj2eg False. Changing Scripture carries a heavy penalty. Jesus is God. And Creator. I know this because the Bible tells me so. Satan LOVES to lie..he lied to Adam and Eve.. tempted them to be "gods"... And he is lying to you.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can use any translation available. That is why they knew your teachings right away are falsehoods since the very beginning and in fact hadn’t changed for many many centuries. Trinity, hell and hellfire, immortality of the soul, purgatory, use of graven images, holiday celebrations, etc; where almost each if not all have pagan origin. How can correct that? Whereas Jehovah’s Witnesses can still prove their teachings using whatever translations available. How could you even claim to know God that you do not even know what really is the Kingdom of God? What it will do and bring for this planet and humanity. Sad to sad, you are unaware about this matter and until now is in fact blind to it. You keep saying something about it as if you knew it but failed to put your hope on it as the only viable alternative government from God.
@@rustysm8080There is a difference from being a god and the God. There many lords and many gods….; but there is only one God, the Father. Even Christ himself has a God and Father and even said: “ his Father is also our Father and his God is also our God.” You all forcibly claimed Christ as your God and ignored his very own words about it.
@@Hallel-o-jah JW's can use any translation available??? That's a lie. JWs have to constantly say, "Oh, the Bible doesn't say that or mean that, what it really means is...." JWs are polytheists who have drunk the cool-aid the GB has given them. JWs can't think for themselves but parrot everything the GB tells them.
Respecting the NWT translating as "in union with me" for the Greek ἐν ἐμοὶ, which word-for-word is "in me" and for ἐν αὐτῷ, "in him" with "in union with him" Did you check this in any Greek-English Lexicon? Did you compare with other translations? If you had, you will see that the NWT has good grounds for dolng how they did and is supported by some other translations. One such is that by the American scholars Edgar J. Goodspeed, which I have before me now. His translation reads at John 15.5, "You must remain united to me, and I will remain united to you." The whole passage here in the NWT 2013 reads: "5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in union with me and I in union with him, this one bears much fruit; for apart from me you can do nothing at all. 6 If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up. And men gather those branches and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in union with me and my sayings remain in you, ask whatever you wish and it will take place for you." Please note, all of the occurences of ἐν ἐμοὶ and of ἐν αὐτῷ are in fact translated the same way. However, the last occurence in v.7 is not ἐν αὐτῷ " in him" with the pronoun being singular but ἐν ὑμῖν, "in you" and where the pronoun is plural not singular and is preceded by ῥήματά μου, word-for-word "sayings of-me" and not by forms of μείνητε, an inflected form of a word which basically means "remain". This alters how it should be translated in this place. In v.7 it is not a union of persons, and hence can not, should not, and has not, been translated as 'in union' as regards Jesus' "sayings". Hence, you have not looked at the Greek as carefully as you ought to have done. In fact, you obviously have no knowledge of the Greek at all.... *you have no idea what you are talking about* ! To the reader: The video maker should not be taken seriously.
You are correct. There is no issue with the NWT's translation of John 15:4-5. Unfounded criticism drives me crazy because it causes JWs to stop listening to legitimate criticism of the NWT. For instance, look at John 14:14 of your Kingdom Interlinaer and tell me what word the NWT left out.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 The Greek text of Westcott and Hort reads at John 14.14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ *με* ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω.- bold is mine. It is με, "me" that the NWT in it's translation left out. The NWT 2013 gives its reasons. Have you read those reasons?
Yes, I have. The oldest and best Greek manuscripts have "me" but that conflicts with JW teaching so they don't care what the manuscrip evidence says, they removed it. In the NT, Christians normally prayed to the Father, but, on occasion, prayed to Jesus (individually: Acts 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 2Cor 12:8. Collectively: Acts 1:24; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; Rev 22:20.) Jesus words in John 14:14 are consistent with Christians praying to him in the rest of the NT.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 You failed to answer the question I put to you. Look again what that question was, and try to respond to it. Also, another question for you. If as you claim the NWT ommitted to translate με here in John 14.14 because of their theology, why have some scholars and translators, who do not share the same theology with the JW's, also omit to translate it, or reject it as being in the original Greek penned by John? Please answer.
@@edwardbarnard5830 you asked if I read the reasons the nwt lists for excluding "me." I answered, "Yes, I did." So don't falsely accuse me of ot answering. Second, why do JWs immediately respond like children, "But, MOM! Other kids do it too." Does that make it right? JWs are hypocrites. In one breath they will say that their translation is based on better manuscripts and condemn the KJV for 1John 5:7-8 because it isn't found in the oldest and best manuscripts, then will speak out of the other side of their mouth and say, "We don't have me in John 14:14, but neither does the KJV." Either your Bible is based on the best manuscripts or it simply picks what it wants to support your theology. The Bible should inform your theology not the other way around.
I missed the Old Testament and in particular Jeremiah 29:10, where "for Babylon" is modified into "in Babylon" to support the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC instead of 587 BC.
Our calendar is set to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD. It is not set at Jesus' birth. Why did the Jews think Jesus was about 50 years old. Jesus shows up at 12 years old and 30 years old. There is about a difference of 20 years.
One point of note is that the Watchtower quote at 3:33 perfectly illustrates how’s the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately or ignorantly use the Bible out of context and fail to demonstrate proper context to their readers. Revelation 22:19 is not merely a quote from “one Bible book”(awkward phrasing, and unnecessarily so). We KNOW who wrote that; it was the apostle John. Also, while I would argue that what the verse is saying is true of the Bible as well, John is writing it specifically about Revelation. The Bible is not one “scroll of prophecy,” but Revelation is. This is a nuance in biblical exegesis, that you can make truthful statements but if you support them with passages of Scripture that didn’t intend that meaning, you are using the Bible out of context. Proper Bible study is not based on what I feel the passage is saying to me, but instead what the author intended when writing the passage. To be fair, this isn’t only a problem with leadership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Mormons also have a systemic issue with eisegesis(inserting meaning into a passage rather than bringing out the intended meaning), and while I wouldn’t say most Christian leaders have a systemic issue with it, every denomination does have ways in which is strictly interprets particular passages in ways far different than others. Additionally, there are plenty of pastors who don’t know how to properly exegete the Bible and so will quote it as Watchtower did here. However, that is far from every pastor and is often out of ignorance rather than malice.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE: You said: Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context. Key Biblical Criteria: 1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament): • Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws? • How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)? 2. Worship of God and Jesus: • Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)? 3. Focus on the Kingdom of God: • Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament? 4. Ministry and Evangelism: • Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles? 5. Moral and Ethical Standards: • Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct? Religions and Denominations that Stand Out: 1. Jehovah’s Witnesses: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings. • Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom. • Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings. • Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide. • Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this. 2. Seventh-day Adventists: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice. • Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus. • Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. • Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry. • Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible. 3. Roman Catholic Church: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles. • Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith. • Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church. • Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor. • Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles. Conclusion: If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
Yes, but I'm sooo thankful that they did that. It's "their" interlinear, so Christians can use it to point to verses like John 14:14 and say, "Hey! Why did the NWT deliberately leave out a word from this verse?" Or when they make nonsense claims about John 1:1, claiming that "God" with the article is the true God while God without the article is just "a god", I can take them to John 1 and point out vv. 6, 12, 13, 18, etc. and ask, "So, should these verses all be translated as 'a god'?"
@RandallChase1 you'll find that JWs like Jahtruthdefender is great at making ad hominem fallacies but cannot deal with arguments that are presented, as evidence by his post.
@RandallChase1 Jah, you're actually going to deal with the text?! Great! So answer my question, look at John 14:14 in your Kingdom Interlinaer and tell me what word your NWT left out.
Jah, the Greek text of NA28, UBS5, Tyndale House NT, and even the Kingdom Interlinear is ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω (If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it). While it is absent in some manuscripts (A, D, L, Ψ, et al), it is supported by the oldest and best manuscripts: P66, P75, א, Β, W, Δ, Θ, et al. UBS5 rates the inclusion με (me) as {B}, ie. the text is almost certainly authentic, which is why it is included in all critical Greek texts. As for scholarly support, Murray Harris says, “Requests addressed to either the Father (v. 13) or the Son (v. 14) will be answered provided they are offered in the Son’s name (vv. 13-14). In the early church, prayers of thanksgiving or petition were normally directed to God the Father…but on occasion an individual believer (Acts 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 2 Cor 12:8) or a group of believers (Acts 1:24; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; Rev 22:20) apparently invoked the Lord Jesus directly.”[1] So, according to textual criticism, "me" should be there. According to scholarly consensus, "me" should be there. JW's claim it shouldn't be there... because it conflicts with their theology. [1] Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015), ePub, 14:14.
I'm only a first year linguistics student, but as far as I know no language has a "perfect indefinitive" because although indefinite is a mood and perfect is a more arbitary term, perfect generally refers to the best of my knowledge the european tense form where a have-verb and past participle are used to form a definitive tense which has some level of past assosiated with it but this can be altered by aditionally conjugating the have-verb.
Ps 133:1 (KJV 1611) _A Song of degrees of David:_ Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. Joh 15:7 (KJV): If ye abide (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me), and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. *_(Herein -- what? Again, what direct object to the preposition [IN] is missing?)_* Ps 133:1 (Emphasized Bible 1897): Lo! how good and how delightful For brethren to dwell together even as one. 2 Like the precious oil upon the head descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron,--which descended unto the opening of his robe: 3 Like the dew of Hermon which descended upon the mountains of Zion,-For there did Yahweh command the blessing, Life unto times age-abiding. Joh 15:7 (EMP): If ye abide (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me) and my sayings in you abide whatsoever ye may be desiring ask! And it shall be brought to pass for you. *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of oneness with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 Herein was my Father glorified, that much fruit ye should bear and become my disciples. *_(Herein -- what? Again, what direct object to the preposition [IN] is missing?)_* Ps 133:1 (Amplified Bible, Classic Edition 1954) _A Song of [Ascents. Of David]:_ Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment poured on the head, that ran down on the beard, even the beard of Aaron [the first high priest], that came down upon the collar and skirts of his garments [consecrating the whole body]. 3 It is like the dew of [lofty] Mount Hermon and the dew that comes on the hills of Zion; for there the LORD has commanded the blessing, even life forevermore [upon the high and the lowly]. Joh 15:7 (ABCE): If you live in Me [abide vitally united to Me] and My words remain in you and continue to live in your hearts, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 When you bear (produce) much fruit, My Father is honored and glorified, and you show and prove yourselves to be true followers of Mine. (Because this translation clarified vs. 7 with *_united_* as its direct object and *_TO me_* as its prepositional phrase, both of these statements from Christ's mouth are grammatically correct and in unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.) Ps 133:1 (Stern's Complete Jewish Bible 1998) _A song of ascents by David:_ Oh, how good, how pleasant it is for brothers to live together in harmony. 2 It is like fragrant oil on the head that runs down over the beard, over the beard of Aharon, and flows down on the collar of his robes. 3 It is like the dew of Hermon that settles on the mountains of Tziyon. For it was there that Adonai ordained the blessing of everlasting life. Joh 15:7 (CJB): “If you remain united with me, and my words with you, then ask whatever you want, and it will happen for you. 8 This is how my Father is glorified - in your bearing much fruit; this is how you will prove to be my talmidim (followers)." (Because Stern clarified vs. 7 with *_united_* as its direct object and *_WITH me_* as its prepositional phrase, both of these statements from Christ's mouth are grammatically correct and in harmony with David at Ps 133:1-3.) Ps 133:1 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures--With References, 1984, large edition): _A Song of the Ascents of David:_ Look! How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity! {f. Ge 13:8; 45:24; Joh 13:35; 17:21; Col 3:14; Heb 13:1} 2 It is like the good oil upon the head {g. Ex 29:7; 30:25; Le 21:10; Ps 141:5; Pr 27:9}, that is running down [or, “descending,” as in vs 3] upon the beard, Aaron’s beard {h. Ex 30:30}, that is running down to the collar [or, “opening,” lit., “mouth”] of his garments {i. Le 8:12}. 3 It is like the dew {j. De 32:2; Pr 19:12} of Herʹmon {k. De 3:9; 4:48; 1Ch 5:23} that is descending upon the mountains of Zion {l. Ps 125:2}. For there Jehovah commanded the blessing [to be] {m. Le 25:21; De 28:8}, [Even] life to time indefinite {n. Ps 21:4}. Joh 15:7 (Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures; English rendering): If ever YOU should remain (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me) and the sayings of me in YOU it should remain, which if ever YOU may be willing ask, YOU and it will come to be to YOU . . . . *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 In this (thing) was glorified the Father of me -- or -- In this (thing) with me, my Father was glorified, in order that . . . YOU may be bearing much fruit and should become my disciples. *_(Again, what is this (thing), the direct object to the preposition [IN] missing here that the ABCE and CJB have included to make both of these statements out of Christ's mouth grammatically correct and understood?)_* Joh 15:5 (NWT 1984): “I am the vine, YOU are the branches. He that remains (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]), and I (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH him]), this one bears much fruit {l: Pr 11:30; Ho 14:8; Joh 15:16; Ga 5:22}; because apart from me YOU can do [or, “produce”] nothing at all. 6 If anyone does not remain (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]), he is cast out as a (dead) branch and is dried up; and men gather those branches up and pitch them into the fire and they are burned {m: Eze 15:4; Mt 3:10; Ro 11:20; Heb 6:4, 8; 1Jo 2:19}. *_7 If YOU remain (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]) and my sayings remain in YOU, ask whatever YOU wish and it will take place for YOU {n: Mt 7:7; Joh _**_16:23_**_}. 8 My Father is glorified in this, that YOU keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples" {o: Mt _**_5:16_**_; Joh _**_13:35_**_; Php _**_1:11_**_}._*
You showed a very good passage from Revelations that most people miss, when translating or understanding the bible. I'm 59 now, and have been studying theology as well as sociology and psychology since about 5th, 6th grade. The passage reads "God will take his portion away from the trees of life". Why is this important in understanding the bible? Because of the way the society back in those days talked and conveyed information. Writing or telling a story was an art. They used metaphors based on old sayings to tell a story. "...from the trees of life." What are the trees of life? At one time, it was said that knowledge or learning something nourished the mind and soul the way the fruit of the tree nourished the body. Where does fruit grow? On trees. So, things that were written down or conveyed were said to be trees. The tree of life is literally translated as the book of life. So, in Genesis it's said that eve was tempted by the serpent to "eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge". So, we now know the fruit of the tree means learning, either by reading or being told. The religion that predates Judaism and where it came from, has the God El, who is said to either have a serpents head or a head full of serpents. Judaism took place of this old religion because people started to think, is God made us, we must be in his image, therefore he can't be part snake. So, what does this passage actually say? Eve was tempted to learn the old religion of the God El, (that religion has the exact same stories as the old testament, and the Hebrew God's name was Elohim. Notice the first part of the name, El.) and she in turn tried to teach this to Adam. Now, they had knowledge of more of the outside world, which can spread like a disease. Who kicked them out of Eden? Probably the Elders of their tribe as it was a punishment for going against their orders not to entertain the thought of the old religion. Now you can see how things get misinterpreted when you don't understand the old was societies used to talk. BTW, because of all my research, I'm not the least bit religious. I'm ok with people believing in something, it's just not for me, and my life is no better or worse for it as compared to believers and none.
"I'm not the least bit religious", we can clearly see that. You've baked up a mishmash with an interpretative filler......that I'm sure only you are sitting down to eat. I'm..... ahhh.. ...not hungry all of a sudden.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus good. I'm only here to inform, not to change your belief. I'm all for people believing in whatever sooths them. Btw, it's not mishmash. It's one topic. The use of wording from a long ago society. You will never fully understand the bible until you know how they talked, and what they meant. Just like it's happened in my lifetime, words take on different meanings. If someone from a different society read an article from the 30's that said "this is the bee's knee's", the reader would actually envision someone pointing at a bee's knee's. In Islam, they say a Martyr will receive 70 something virgins. The thing is, when this was first written, the word actually meant "Luscious grapes", which were highly prized in the desert areas. It was much later, the word was used as a slang to mean virgin, because virgins were as luscious as grapes. So, no days Muslims think they will get 76 virgins if they die for the cause. You've got to know the past in order to read the past.
Has the translation you mainly use the name Jehowah in it? Most translations don't have it, new versions of translations have taken it away, like the Spanish Versión Valera's evangelical version, even stating that the name is "irrelevant".
I’m not a jw, but you may find their note from their research guide interesting for the scripture you talked about in Colossians: all other things: A literal rendering of the Greek text would be “all things.” (Compare Kingdom Interlinear.) However, such a rendering could give the impression that Jesus was not created but was the Creator himself. And that idea would not agree with the rest of the Bible, including the preceding verse, which calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15; compare Re 3:14, where Jesus is called “the beginning of the creation by God.”) Also, the Greek word for “all” can in some contexts have the meaning “all other,” as for example at Lu 13:2 (“all other”); Lu 21:29 (“all the other”); Php 2:21 (“all the others”). This agrees with Paul’s inspired teaching found at 1Co 15:27: “God ‘subjected all things under his [Christ’s] feet.’ But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.” So both the Bible’s teachings as a whole and the probable meaning of the Greek word used here support the rendering “all other things.”-Compare study note on Php 2:9 So, seems to confirm your suspicions, doesn’t it? Lol
Yes, you’re definitely a JW explaining it like that Other or all other in Luke does not change the meaning but unfortunately for you at Colossians 115 to 18 it obviously made Jesus look like he was created, which he isn’t but nice try nobody will believe you Oh, and the footnote is really important if you add all other, does it change the meaning?
@@danpetrari2329 I didn't explain it any way, I copied and pasted it from their research bible in case he wasn't aware there were notes. I just thought it was funny that they basically admit to doing what he's saying they're doing. Take it easy, sheesh.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE: You said: Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context. Key Biblical Criteria: 1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament): • Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws? • How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)? 2. Worship of God and Jesus: • Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)? 3. Focus on the Kingdom of God: • Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament? 4. Ministry and Evangelism: • Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles? 5. Moral and Ethical Standards: • Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct? Religions and Denominations that Stand Out: 1. Jehovah’s Witnesses: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings. • Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom. • Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings. • Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide. • Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this. 2. Seventh-day Adventists: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice. • Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus. • Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. • Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry. • Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible. 3. Roman Catholic Church: • Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles. • Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith. • Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church. • Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor. • Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles. Conclusion: If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
I'm an ex-Jehovah witness. And this makes so much sense and connects many of the missing puzzle pieces. beautifully well collaborated and being non-biased, all most like investigative journalists.
The reason the Watchtower went from the KJV bible was to remove the deity of Christ period. No other reason, because they are Arian in belief. They believe that Jesus was a created being and not a divine person. Dont let them tell you any different like the language in the KJV is hard to understand or the language needs to be updated to modern wording. That's all BS. If you look at all the NWT versions, you will see that the verses that refer to Christ deity have been changed. Not only their bible but hymns they sang have removed Jesus deity. The Watchtower teaching is of Satan. What better way for Satan to place doubt of who Jesus is is by changing the words in the bible.... check out john 1:1 in their bible then go to their inner greek translation and see if they changed the deity of Christ.
@@RG-qn2qm Yes, I was a JW my entire life up until I woke up a couple years ago and through my research, I've concluded that the Watchtower organization is literally an antichrist cult...they do everything they can to take away any divinity/power from Jesus
@edwardbarnard5830 you must be a special kinda stupid person. John 1:1 in the Greek manuscripts is exactly the same as the KJV. "a god" is the evil Watchtower translation. You really don't understand Greek do you? Take to long to explain to a special kinda person like you. I suggest you Utube Sam Shamounian and look for a video about John 1:1 to learn some Greek grammar.
@edwardbarnard5830 so let's go with your theory. So the Word is a god right? John 1:14 says this Word became flesh, so know you now have a godman that dwelled among men. Plus you now, have two God's.
Seth, you've shared some fascinating theology once again! And the ideas on how to share and communicate with our JW friends is so appreciated. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:19
I have heard that Watchtower has been sued for copyright misuse after they changed the NWT to their new "Silver Sword". Is it true that Watchtower bought copyrights from another bible company, and printed their bible from their translation? I do not think Watchtower translated nor wrote their own bible.
Very interesting. Thank You. JWs also believe that when a person dies, they are truly dead with no consciousness. They are, at a latter time, raised up & judged. (Seventh Day Adventists also believe this) In the KJV, Luke 23:43 reads - And Jesus said onto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The NWT reads - And Jesus said onto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Do you see how the comma was conveniently moved over to fit their doctrine? Thank You again
It was a JW that showed me that. "It's a matter of where you place the comma" he said. I latter asked a family member who had studied Ancient Greek, if it was even possible to interpret that verse more than one way. He said that the verse could only be interpreted one way. The KJV got it right. Thank you for your channel. I will start watching.
@s.unosson Yes, and that is a doctrinal issue. Jesus used many metaphors. "I am the vine; you are the branches. whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst". etc. I am referring to the accurate translation of an ancient text. There was a lawsuit in the 1950s where the Jehovahs Witnesses sued a Methodist minister for slander. The minister claimed that there was not one Greek or Hebrew scholar on the "Translation Committee". The JWs could not produce even one, and therefore lost their case. (most couldn't even repeat the Greek alphabet while on the witness stand)
Genuine question, doesn’t the King James also take away from the Bible, as both Catholic and Orthodox Christian bibles have more in their canon and predate Protestant Christianity?
This is a question of canonicity, "Is the Apocrypha part of the canon?" Roman Catholics and Orthodox say, "Yes." Other Christians say, "No." One of the reasons that Protestants say, "No," is because the Apocrapha was not accepted as scripture by the Jews from whom Christians received the OT canon. It was recommended reading, but not considered scripture. When Christianity lost touch with its roots, some of the early church fathers, like Augustine, argued that the Aprocrapha should be part of the canon. Other church Fathers, like Jerome, who were more aquanted with the roots of Christianity, said it not scripture but is only instructive reading for outside the church. Augustine's view won the day for over 1000 years. When Christians sought to get back to foundational things, the qustion of canon was raised again, and the Church was divided over the issue. So, you will find KJV's that have the Aprocrapha and other KJV's that do not have it.
What original biblical sources did the JW use to create a new translation...( oldest existing texts, since there are no original text in existence) one complete text is held at the Vatican..did the Vatican give JW access to its text?
For the New Testament they used the Westcott and Greek text and consulted others. There are other modern critical Greek texts, one I have is that produced by the United Bible Societies(UBS). I think mine is the 4th edition. All Bibles are based on a text produced by textual critics( Texutal Critcism is a science).
Ex-JW here: Another interesting thing is that until 2013, a lot of the additions in the NWT were highlighted with brackets. For example, it used to be "by means of him all [other] things were created" to indicate that they acknowledged that they were adding words "for context". But with the new revision of the NWT released in 2013, they removed the brackets, which is even one step further into trying to cover up the fact that they are changing the bible to fit their doctrines.
@@InvestigadorTJ I no longer believe in the existence of any god character, trinity or otherwise, so I don't particularly care about a trinitarian response or interpretation of that verse. I see your point of course, (Because I used to make the exact same argument about this exact same verse.) and you may be correct about the text itself in this example. But that doesn't matter to my point. My point was that the JWs used to use the brackets to acknowledge their edits, and now they've not only made more edits in the 2013 revision of their bible, they've made more egregious edits, and on top of that, they've removed the only acknowledgement of their edits. They can no longer claim that they are aiming for as literal a translation as possible, when in reality they are just making their own doctrine-based changes and not even using brackets to call those out. Like I said, I was you 12 years ago. I knew the scriptures to use and all the JW responses and rebuttals to all the apostate "lies". But when I opened my mind to actual evidence and logic, I was able to see the actual truth; that JWs are just another protestant offshoot religion with their own agenda, and that they are 100% led by men and not any god. The obvious doctrine-based edits to their bible are just one tiny corner of the evidence against them.
John 10:32-35 Matthew 24:45-47 The Governing Body is not the Antichrist. They are not a friend of the World! Revelation 17:17. The Great Apostasy is a term that appears in the Bible in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, where the Apostle Paul warns Christians that a great apostasy will happen before Christ's return. The scripture is interpreted differently by different churches, but some key points include: The term The term "Great Apostasy" comes from the Greek word apostasia, which can also be translated as "falling away", "betrayal", or "rebellion". The time The Great Apostasy is thought to happen during the Antichrist's reign at the end of time. The events The Great Apostasy will include a worldwide rejection of God's revelation, many people turning away from the faith, and the rise of many false prophets.
OK I am not a JW but I have a KJV, Modern Language, New World, Catholic Bible ( which is different) some weird Bible from a Pentecostal Church and guess what other than the Catholic they are the same.
The thing I don’t understand is how they can trust their book when I have a older one around the 1960-1970’s or so (have look again) , and it’s not the same as the one that is out now, while the KJV is still the same and it’s over 200 years old
Let's be fair. The KJV has gone through many revisions over the years. The KJV you have is not the same as the ones printed in 1611. The difference is that the KJV's updates were almost entirely based on language changes (like English spelling) and typographical errors. The NWT's revisions are theologically motivated to reflect their changing theology. For instance, at one time, JWs said it was appropriate to worship Jesus. That has changed, so they have changed "worship" to "obeisance."
Excellent breakdown showing inconsistencies in the NW translation, which are likely intentional changes. I think you reach a little far in stating what the "actual" and "historical" accurate meanings are, considering how little of the original writings have ever been shown or preserved and how diverse the writers were by intentions and audiences.
The Bible says that the word of God should not be changed: Warnings against adding or taking away The Bible includes several passages that warn against changing the words of God, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19. God's message is unchanging The Bible says that God's message has not changed since the beginning of time. God's word is eternal The Bible includes passages that say that God's word is eternal, such as Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, and Matthew 24:35. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)
Notice their version is called 'The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures'? Its because it really can't be considered the Bible because they've changed it so much. Thanks Seth ❤✝️
Whatever changes of their translations, nobody can deny that the scriptures rule and commandments were intended for physical Israelites, and the Spiritual Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem of God, the Jw's org,@ Deut, 4:1-2/ they teaches parallel to the apostles following Jesus instructions, "Go and make disciples in all earth, and teach them to do the same what I teach you," you are not part of this world,@Mat,28:19-20, and the Jw's, got these exactly,
Your examination of NWT should ring alarm bells for sincere students of scripture. The cognitive dissonance of the average JW means they refuse to acknowledge anomalies within their Watchtower Bible.
Here in Germany they used to use the "Elberfelder bible" which is on of the most literal translations to the original texts, really makes me think if in the past they had "more pure" goals as an Religion or organization
As a ex JW I think you've got all these points spot on. Thank you brother
Thank you for your support! Glad to hear you have escaped the Watchtower. I appreciate your comment!
As a ex jw I am going back.. the man of lawlessness sits in the house of God making himself as a god. Who truly is the faithful and discreet slave... The apostles asked Jesus if the Pharisees are wrong should we still listen to them? Jesus answered do what they tell you but not with their hypocrisy! It should be to no suprise that Jehovah's organization has been infiltrated by a operation of Satan. Hence why they say 1914 it already happened... Theys say the wheat was already seperate from the weeds.. but I'm hear to tell you brother Jesus is coming to seperate the wheat from the weeds
Search " E watchmen" on UA-cam a ex jw elder who will give you more insight on the real apostasy happening in the higher levels of the organization.. and how they are exactly like the Israelites in Jesus days
You're not "ex" until you're out of the cult and its language. See you again years later, if you care to survive free of the lie.
@@mavrosyvannah people like you don't understand.. the basic bible truth no one has it except for them.. you can't be in a covenant with God if you don't know about his son and who he actually is . If you think he's God your in a religion of Babylon... The Israelites in Jesus day where chosen by God that doesn't mean they weren't being hypocrite... Hence God punished them.. your not in a covenant with God better be in one soon.. the time is running out until Jesus comes back..
As an ex JW you are an immoral liar, cheater, and betrayer, and your opinion holds no water.
My heart hurts for those trapped by JW theology. They get blinded to truth so young.
That, they do, sadly. It's just another reason why they need our prayers! Thank you for watching
@@theologywithseth Your prayers to Satan will do NOTHING, try praying to JEHOVAH....you'll get better results.
@@geraldsutton9981When the apostles of Jesus asked him how they should pray he gave them one clear and concise example. I think you need to read that passage of scripture and ruminate upon it. And then think about it some more. In short, Christians pray to The Father. He is our Father, the Almighty and everlasting God. The ‘name’ of God is not a name in the way we understand the word. The Almighty God of Heaven and Earth transcends all words and names; there are many names for him but in essence, He is our everlasting and eternal Father.
They try to worship the God that Jesus worshiped when he walked. The earth ov the church’s teach constine pagan religions beliefs
The addition of the word "other" added 4 times in Collossians 1:15-18 NWT was what 'snapped me out' of my childhood JW indoctrination. In the 1984 editiin the word (other) was in brackets signifying it was added but the brackets were removed in the 2013 edition as if the word was originally in the greek.
I get the impression that's how some doctrines become 'inspired scripture' - first they're a footnote, then they're in brackets, then look, they're right there in the text!
G'day Annie, I hope all is well, great comment about Colossians. It really is a diabolical addition to Colossians, but as you know, these Anonymous "Translators" of the NWT have no conscience. Plus not one of these jokers could read a word of Greek or Hebrew.
God Bless.
Still mistake to remove the brackets but to be fair the word other can be implied, such as the verse in Luke where Jesus says the tree and all the other trees, where the word other doesn't appear in the text but is implied
@@cygnustsp Please list 5 Greek Scholars who agree with your claim that "OTHER" is implied in Colossians 1.
If you cannot provide 5 Greek Scholars who agree with you, then you are simply making this claim without any evidence.
Prove your assertion.
@@cygnustsp do you really think that God himself forgot or intended sinful uninspired men to decide that a word should be IMPLIED into his Holy Scripture?? The heart of men surely is decietful and wicked. Who of us should dare QUESTION what God himself was IMPLYING? You make God out to be a fool if you sincerley think that way.
God is clear "ALL THINGS" its quite simple to understand and is backed up in other scriptures such as John 1:3.
This is great! I have a coworker who is very serious about his JW faith and we talk bible a lot. I found an inconsistency in their doctrine and what their bible said and it stumped him because he hadn't seen that before. But afterwards he is back to acting like there was never an issue. I just hope he learns to think for himself. The brainwashing is strong.
Agreed! I'll be praying for your JW coworker. Thank you for watching and commenting!
I am a ex jw and I love Jesus Christ so very much
🙏 most of us are now atheist
@@daviddaniel2198I’m an ex JW and a Christian and I’m so happy I do not judge others now (at least I try not to). 🙏
@@Dottiesmith1958 christian bots are all over the internet judging people and forcing them to believe jesus is god. We need more people like you
@@shadowking773❤
High 5
THIS! This is how you debunk Jehovah’s Witness theology and doctrine, by their own hand! I dont reckon it'll convince any JW that the Trinity is real (I've got notes on that) but regardless this is really well thought out and presented. I dig it!
@godzoo18 well we can go back and forth on the validity and sanity of ANY diety being real, monotheistic or not, until the gradual heat death of the universe itself lol. Point still stands, it's a well researched and presented video and should be made public
Hi Darth! Use the Voice!
I mean the new name, Lol!
YHVH Yehovah Jehovah God!
I accept the new name!
Which Church did Jesus give the new name! Revelation 3:11 I am coming quickly. Keep holding fast to what you have, so that no one may take your crown. 12 “‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the churches.’
@DarthMagog Thank you! I really appreciate the support
@@godzoo18 Why is it foolish to prove stuff? Would you accept similar claims from worshippers of Vishnu or Shinto without evidence?
@@godzoo18 Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), so Jesus is equal in authority with the Father, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology.
Jesus even told us he was going to RAISE HIS OWN BODY (John 2:19,21). The Holy Spirit also raised Jesus' body (Romans 8:11), and the Father raised Jesus' body (1Cor. 6:14).
So, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all do the same act of raising Jesus' body. Consistent with Trinitarian theology, but not JW's defunct theology.
And Jesus sits on the same throne (singular) of God in Revelation 22:1. So the Lamb of God has all authority and sits on the throne of God.
Why do JWs need to change the scriptures to fit their theology? Can you not address the topic of the video?
THIS IS SO GOOD! I’m saving this to come back to it ❤
I'm so glad it was helpful! Thank you for checking it out
They forgot to edit John 20:28-29 if you're looking for a quote from the New World translation that explicitly states that Jesus is God and fine with being called God.
That is an excellent point! Pretty soon I'm planning on making a video proving the Deity of Christ from the New World Translation, even as it's written today. I'll be sure to include that!
Jesus has God(his Father) abiding in him as he told Thomas before, and Thomas recognized it upon the resurrection. And I'm not a JW. It's not an explicit text of deity.
John 14 When Thomas said My Lord and My God! Thomas did say what Jesus had implied. So their hearts would not be troubled. It's because when Thomas said those famous words. Thomas did not speak the Spirit of Truth! The Father had not sent the Helper The Spirit of Truth!
Thomas spoke the Spirit of Error!
John 16:7 Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you.
John 15:26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
@@strappedfatman7858 You can’t argue that someone was incapable of speaking the truth before Pentecost. Matthew 16:17 shows it was possible for the Father to reveal truth to the disciples before Pentecost. It is where Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and Jesus specifically tells him he learned that from the Father and thus the Spirt of Truth.
@MultiMobCast Correct!
I agree with Peter!
Do you see a difference in Christ the Son of the Living God vs. Jesus Christ is God came in the Flesh vs. Jesus Christ came in the flesh. There are two teachings The Spirit of Error and The Spirit of Truth. Matthew 16:20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
The Spirit of Error teaches Jesus is God who came in the flesh.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The Spirit of Truth teaches Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” 20 Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.
25:38 So they state the translations were rendered with the aid of demons but they didn’t change the NWT back to the proper wording?
In a nutshell, yes. If that isn't a glimpse into the type of spirit behind the New World Translation, I don't know what is!
What's absolutely hilarious is to hear JWs employ the most bizarre mental gymnastics to justify Watchtower's actions. I had a debate with a JW a few months back where he acknowledged that spiritism is demonism, and that BOTH the Bible and Watchtower itself condemn demonism, but that doesn't make Watchtower's use of a demon-inspired Bible translator (Greber) wrong or hypocritical.
@@theologywithseth
The 4/1 1983 Watchtower you cited went on to say,
_"The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament."_
So, according to WT, Greber's work was completely unnecessary in the production of the NWT...but they used it anyway. If it was unnecessary, why use it at all? The simple fact is, WT was more than comfortable using Greber's work because it supported WT's theology. It was only AFTER Watchtower got called out did they brush it off as trivial, then distance themselves from Greber. Hypocrites.
Ridiculous. I have never heard JW say that, nor would they.
@@s.unosson
What's ridiculous is that you've been shown quotes directly FROM WATCHTOWER LITERATURE, and you still believe that JWs haven't said it.
im not a Christian but i love this stuff, back in WoW my guild had one member who was a conservative jew and a second who was an southern bapist and both studied their text the Torah and bible and we would stay up late having similar talks about translations and meanings deep into the night going back and forth. This gives the same vibes thank you! So fascinating.
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing that with me. I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Feel free to check out my older stuff as well
Wholesome comment
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE
From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5
Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Absolutely amazing thank you. Jesus rescued me in Feb 2014 after 40 years as a JW. I have been on several JW/ Christian sites since then. I have only seen your vids in the last couple of days, but I have been able to use these ideas with JWs.
That's amazing to hear! Praise God that He rescued you from the Watchtower and has shown you who Jesus truly is! I'm very glad my videos have been helpful for you and I'll be praying that you'll be able to use them in some spiritually productive conversations with active JW's
It seems you jump from the Firing Pan onto the Fire... Read the Bible and try to reason with the scriptures, or do you need others to explain the scripture to you?
@@davidvasquezcalero1053 What do you mean . I study the Bible every day.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE
From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5
Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE
From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5
Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
You have done an absolutely AMAZING analysis! Thanks a million, this is very helpful in my weekly interactions with JWs. God bless!
I'm so glad! I'll be praying for some productive conversations
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE
From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5
Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Pause at 18:31. Concerning the Greek word for "worship". In Matt. 20:20 the KJV of the Bible reads "worship", while other translations use different words/terms. What does this Greek word actually mean?
It is true that one should be careful "one-man-translations". Yet I am amazed at some of the MANY correct translational readings I find in one-person translations-- such as: Anderson, Darby, Goodspeed, John MacArthur, Julia Smith, Stern, Williams, Wuest, and Young-- that are MISSED by translations that are said to be made by dozens of "scholars".
The NWT DOES correctly translate verses like Matt. 7:7 and 2 Peter 2:4. That really does not speak well for the DOZENS of translations that mess-up when it comes to these two verses.
If one does a little research- one will find that the man who made the NWT's Old Testament did NOT know Hebrew whatsoever!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure in my research on Hebrew from a while back "worship" has evolved over time. Today it means nothing like it did in a KJV. Kings used to be called "Your worship" as an example. Sometimes it simply means a bow, sometimes it means bowing down all the way to the ground prostrate. Moses did prostrate before his father-in-law, i.e. worship before his father in law. In 1 Chron 29:20(read the entire chapter) shows the people bowing prostrate(worshiping) God and the king on the seat of YHWH.
I looked at the 2 verses in my Schlachter and Elberfelder, the most accurate German Bibles. Both translate 2. Peter 2:4 well as "Abgrund (abyss)", and the Schlachter explains Matthew 7:7 in the footnote. But this is a minute detail, and I can understand why some would ignore it, although the NWT is more accurate in this verse. But the bad of translating inconsistently and adding words without indicating them in order to fit one's doctrine, in my opinion, outweighs the good of having a slightler better translation for some verses.
But I can also understand, why many would translate Tartaros as hell, because it was a place of torment in Greek mythology. But yes, the LSB translates it better as "pit".
Right on time. I really needed this
So glad I could help!
Thank you Seth, very eye-opening indeed!
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it
exJW here. This is amazing. I remember when I gave public talk in JW congregation about Trinity. Of course I explained John 1:1 with missing Greek "the" before word "God", so it should be "a god".
But materials provided by Watchtower didn't menton that other verses in chapter 1 also miss Greek "the" and are translated with capital letter in word "God".
Oh my God... I was so stupid. I believed in everything, that Watchtower says...
I'm glad you made it out! Thank you for watching and commenting
Morden greek translation renders john 1.1 "is a god"
Modern
@@philippah5116 which one?
@@philippah5116 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
this is the greek text according to SBLGNT. Since "θεόν" (God, accusative case) has already been defined (definite, The God) I can see why God was just left as θεὸς in the last clause. by context we already know that "God" (θεὸς), especially because it is at the start of the last clause, is referring to (The) God, not a god.
Here are several questions that Jehovah's Witnesses might find challenging to answer based on the differences in theology and translation as discussed in the video:
1. **John 1:1**: Why does the New World Translation render "the Word was God" as "the Word was a god" when this translation method is not consistently applied to other instances of "God" without the definite article in the New Testament?
- **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this with the mainstream scholarly consensus on Greek grammar and the use of the definite article?
2. **John 8:58**: Why does the New World Translation say "I have been" instead of "I am" when Jesus is clearly referencing the divine name used in Exodus 3:14, which is a well-known assertion of divinity?
- **Follow-up**: Can they explain why this translation ignores the context and traditional understanding of Jesus’ statement?
3. **Colossians 1:16-17**: Why does the New World Translation add the word "other" to suggest that Jesus did not create himself, when the original Greek text does not include this word?
- **Follow-up**: How do they justify this addition without evidence from the original manuscripts?
4. **Philippians 2:9-10**: Why does the New World Translation add "other" in the phrase "the name that is above every other name," which changes the meaning of the text?
- **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this with the traditional Christian understanding that Jesus' name is above all names, including Jehovah?
5. **John 4:20 and Matthew 14:33**: Why is the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) translated as "obeisance" in relation to Jesus but "worship" in relation to the Father?
- **Follow-up**: Can they explain this inconsistency and how it aligns with their translation principles?
6. **Romans 8:9-10**: Why does the New World Translation add "in union with" when referring to Christ but not when referring to God's Spirit, even though the original Greek uses the same phrase?
- **Follow-up**: How do they justify this inconsistency within the same passage?
7. **Isaiah 9:6**: How do they interpret "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" as titles for Jesus, considering their belief that Jesus is not Almighty God?
- **Follow-up**: Can they explain how these titles fit within their understanding of Jesus as a created being?
8. **Revelation 1:17-18**: How do they explain Jesus saying "I am the First and the Last," a title that Jehovah uses in Isaiah 44:6, if Jesus is not considered equal to Jehovah?
- **Follow-up**: How do they reconcile this title with their theology that Jesus is distinct from Jehovah?
9. **Hebrews 1:8**: Why does God refer to the Son as "O God" in this passage, and how do they interpret this in light of their belief that Jesus is not God?
- **Follow-up**: Can they provide a consistent explanation that aligns with their translation and theology?
10. **Practical Consistency**: Why does the New World Translation not apply its grammatical rules consistently across all occurrences of the word "God" in the New Testament, especially where the definite article is missing?
- **Follow-up**: Can they provide examples where their translation principle is applied uniformly and explain any discrepancies?
These are great questions indeed! Thank you for sharing
Often two persons with the same title is used as proof of a trinity. But it takes 3 persons to make a trinity. And more than one person can have the same title. If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12)
The Alpha and Omega title only applies to Jehovah but the First and Last title applies to both Jesus and Jehovah for different reasons. Two persons with the same title is far from proving 3 persons in 1 God.
At Revelation 1:17 (NW), he states: “I am the First and the Last.” But a check of the context shows this “First and Last” was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When “First and Last” is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set on the meaning.
God is immortal and can never die. Jesus died. Jesus can't be Jehovah.
@@moseslivingstone1258 To debunk the rebuttal presented, we need to carefully analyze the claims made regarding the interpretation of biblical texts and the theological stance of Jehovah's Witnesses. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
### 1. **Jesus as "God" or "a god" in John 1:1:**
- The rebuttal suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a problem with Jesus being called "God" or "a god," referencing the Greek word "Theos" in John 1:1. However, Jehovah's Witnesses traditionally interpret John 1:1 differently than mainstream Christianity. They render it as "the Word was *a* god" instead of "the Word was God." This distinction is critical to their theology, which posits that Jesus is a created being and not equal to Jehovah (the Almighty God).
- **Counterargument:** The majority of Greek scholars agree that the correct translation of John 1:1 in the original Greek is "the Word was God," without the indefinite article "a." The use of the word "Theos" without the article does not imply that Jesus is "a god" in a lesser sense, but rather that he shares in the divine nature fully. The Greek grammar and the context of John's Gospel consistently emphasize the deity of Christ, presenting Him as co-eternal and co-equal with the Father.
### 2. **Elohim and Theos:**
- The rebuttal claims that the term "Elohim" in Hebrew, which is often translated as "God" or "gods," can be applied to mighty beings, and therefore Jesus being called "Theos" (God) does not mean he is the Almighty God.
- **Counterargument:** While "Elohim" can refer to powerful beings (including angels or judges), in the context of biblical theology, when used with singular verbs and adjectives, it exclusively refers to the one true God, Yahweh. The New Testament writers, especially John, make it clear that Jesus is identified as "Theos" in the highest sense, not as one among many gods, but as God in essence. John 1:1, in its full context, affirms the pre-existence, divinity, and creative role of Christ, which is consistent with being fully God, not a lesser god.
### 3. **Almighty God vs. "a god":**
- The rebuttal asserts that Jesus is not Almighty God (El Shaddai) but is instead a lesser "god" and points to John 1:18 to emphasize this distinction, where Jesus is described as "the only-begotten god."
- **Counterargument:** The phrase "only-begotten god" in John 1:18, depending on the manuscript, can also be rendered "only-begotten Son," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. The term "only-begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) emphasizes Jesus' unique, one-of-a-kind status, not his creation. Furthermore, the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament is not as a lesser deity but as fully divine, participating in the divine identity, deserving of worship (e.g., John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God").
### 4. **John 1:18 and the Visibility of God:**
- The rebuttal cites John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time," to argue that Jesus, who has been seen, cannot be Almighty God.
- **Counterargument:** The phrase in John 1:18 indicates that no one has seen the Father directly in His full divine glory. However, Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is the visible expression of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Jesus reveals the Father to humanity. The New Testament presents Jesus as the one through whom God has made Himself known, and seeing Jesus is equated with seeing the Father (John 14:9).
### **Conclusion:**
The rebuttal attempts to maintain a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah by interpreting certain texts in a way that diminishes Jesus' divinity. However, a broader analysis of the original Greek, the context of John's writings, and the overall testimony of the New Testament strongly supports the understanding of Jesus as fully divine, sharing in the identity and essence of the one true God, rather than being a lesser god or a created being. The theological interpretation offered by Jehovah's Witnesses does not align with the mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity, where Jesus is affirmed as God the Son, co-equal, and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
@@josephtucker9612 To debunk the argument logically, let's break down the reasoning presented and address each point systematically:
### 1. **Multiple Persons with the Same Title:**
- **Argument:** The claim here is that just because two persons share the same title, it does not imply they are the same person or part of a Trinity. The example given is that both Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus are called "king of kings," but this does not make Nebuchadnezzar Jesus Christ.
- **Counterargument:** It is indeed true that different individuals can share the same title without being the same person. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest solely on titles but on the nature and actions attributed to those titles. For example, both the Father and Jesus are called "the First and the Last" (Revelation 1:17, Isaiah 44:6), but the context in which this title is applied to Jesus includes divine attributes that are uniquely ascribed to God, such as being the Creator and the eternal one. The title "king of kings" is used differently for Nebuchadnezzar (a temporal earthly king) and Jesus (who is described as the ultimate ruler with eternal dominion). The key distinction is in the nature of what is being claimed about Jesus when these titles are used, which aligns with divine identity.
### 2. **Interpretation of "First and Last":**
- **Argument:** The rebuttal argues that "First and Last" when applied to Jesus, refers specifically to His death and resurrection, and therefore, it is limited in scope and different from when the title is applied to Jehovah.
- **Counterargument:** The title "First and Last" does carry significant meaning in both cases, but the limitation suggested here is an interpretative choice rather than a necessary conclusion. In Revelation 1:17-18, when Jesus says, "I am the First and the Last," He is not only referring to His role in death and resurrection but asserting His eternal existence and authority over all creation. The title "First and Last" in the context of ancient Near Eastern culture, and specifically within Isaiah 44:6 where Jehovah declares, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god," is a claim to exclusive divinity and sovereignty. By applying this title to Jesus, the New Testament writers are making a profound theological statement about His divine nature, not merely His role in resurrection.
### 3. **Jesus' Death and God's Immortality:**
- **Argument:** The claim here is that since God is immortal and cannot die, and Jesus died, therefore Jesus cannot be Jehovah.
- **Counterargument:** This point hinges on the understanding of the nature of Jesus within Christian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that Jesus is fully God and fully human. In His human nature, Jesus experienced death, but in His divine nature, He remained immortal and eternal. The incarnation-the belief that God the Son took on human flesh-allows for Jesus to experience death as a man while still retaining His divine nature. The resurrection is then seen as a demonstration of His divine power over death. The argument that Jesus’ death disqualifies Him from being Jehovah assumes a simplistic understanding of divinity, ignoring the complexity of the incarnation.
### 4. **Relevance of Shared Titles to the Trinity:**
- **Argument:** The argument implies that sharing a title like "First and Last" or "Alpha and Omega" between Jesus and Jehovah does not prove the Trinity.
- **Counterargument:** The doctrine of the Trinity is not proven by titles alone but by the entirety of biblical testimony regarding the nature of God. The sharing of divine titles is significant because it indicates that the same attributes and roles are being applied to both the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit in other contexts). The Trinity is understood as one God in three persons who share the same essence but are distinct in personhood. The use of titles like "First and Last" or "Alpha and Omega" is part of a broader scriptural pattern where Jesus is consistently identified with the divine identity.
### **Conclusion:**
The logic used in the rebuttal presents a selective interpretation of biblical texts, failing to consider the broader context and theological implications. While it's true that different individuals can share titles, the titles given to Jesus in the New Testament carry significant theological weight that aligns with the attributes of God. Jesus' death does not disprove His divinity but is understood within the framework of the incarnation, where God the Son took on human nature. Therefore, the argument that Jesus cannot be Jehovah because of His death or shared titles is based on a limited understanding of the complex and nuanced doctrine of the Trinity.
@@MichaelSmith-lm5sl
On UA-cam there are 3 parts, each being more than an hour long. They explain all the different problems encountered when the trinity was being analyzed.
Search on: "Trinitarianaism is Theological Disneyland, Part 1 Introduction"
Great upload Seth! “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
- Revelation 22:18-19
Thank you for watching!
It is dishonest to use this verse, and claim, as Seth does in the video, that it says you shouldn’t add or take away 'from the Bible'. You are ripping that verse out of its context, and making it say something it is not. The passage clearly only refers to the Book of Revelation.
@@jonspencer9461 But that’s how the Watchtower employed that verse in the article Seth quoted. Clearly he was just using their own logic to demonstrate that they failed to live up to their own standards.
@@jonspencer9461 That is true but it is wise not to change the words of God.
Proverbs 30:5,6 Every word of God is tested and refined . He is a shield to those trust and take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words , or He will reprove you and you will be found a liar.
very good job, Seth
Johannes Greber was into spiritism when he translated like that, doing so long after he had left the Catholic Faith. demons led him into anti-trinitarian lies.
Sad but true. Thanks for watching and commenting!
As an ex-JW of 40+ years whose specialty was the Trinity (which nobody but nobody discusses these days) I have to say this is one of the better done critiques of the NWT. Thank you Seth. By focusing on translation rather than theology, it sidesteps a lot of the baggage and name-calling (heretic, Arianism, etc.) that comes with this discussion. I will take issue with your argumentation around John 1:1. The issue here is not only the definite vs. indefinite article, (which would make your subsequent material more relevant) but also the grammatical placement of the second occurrence of theos (god). The second use of theos and its placement in the sentence makes it an anarthrous (without the definite article) predicate noun. There is a very good explanation of this in the NET Bible online and in print in the full notes edition. Essentially the statement there is that the use of the anarthrous theos in this part of the sentence make its usage qualitative vs. identifying. The 1984 edition of the NWT also does a pretty good job of going through the reasoning on John 1:1, although many would not accept it merely because JW’s were the ones saying it. While I don’t agree with JW’s ultimately, they at least have a defensible position on this verse. Other than that point, your argumentation here is brilliant.
Had to add that I had no idea that Benjamin Wilson was a Christadelphian.
“The congregator sought to find delightful words and to record accurate words of truth.” Ecclesiastes 12:10
“Close friendship with Jehovah belongs to those who fear him, And he makes his covenant known to them.” PSALM 25:14
“Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me. 22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else.” Isaiah 45:21,22
“For that reason my people will know my name; For that reason they will know in that day that I am the One speaking. Look, it is I!” Isaiah 52:6
FULFILLMENT:
“I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. 26 I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” John 17:6,26
WHO IS LIVING UP TO THIS PATTERN?
“In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely.” 1 Peter 2:21
“I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one.” John 5:43
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19
WHO ARE THE ONES BAPTIZED IN THE FATHER’S NAME?
“You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.” Isaiah 43:10
“At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.” Malachi 3:16
“For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Romans 10:13
“Do not put out the fire of the spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21
“So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” 2 Peter 1:19-21
“Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’” Acts 15:14-18
“For then I will change the language of the peoples to a pure language, So that all of them may call on the name of Jehovah,
To serve him shoulder to shoulder.” Zephaniah 3:9
“And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him.” Malachi 3:17
“At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” Matthew 11:25-27
“And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.” Jeremiah 31:34
BOTH JEHOVAH AND JESUS ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE CAN COME UP WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THAT’S WHY TO GET IT RIGHT, IT COMES FROM THE SOURCE THAT THEY HAVE APPOINTED: “ “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.” Matthew 24:45-47
“Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of you a wicked heart lacking faith by drawing away from the living God” Hebrews 3:13
@WatchtowerHunter
WROTE: "The 1984 edition of the NWT also does a pretty good job of going through the reasoning on John 1:1, although many would not accept it merely because JW’s were the ones saying it. While I don’t agree with JW’s ultimately, they at least have a defensible position on this verse. Other than that point, your argumentation here is brilliant."
The important take away here is the identification of the Logos and God; the Logos was God even though there’s recognition of some kind of distinction because the Logos is with God. John’s claim here, right at the start of his gospel, is he wants us to read the rest of the gospel in light of his even more direct, that the Word was God. D.A. Carson had this to say:
“A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, has no definite article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do . There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has ben shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the ver, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the Word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense so say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God….. Here then are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity.”
The primary thrust of the argument seems like we have a claim that the Word participates in the very identity of God in some sense and of course John will say just a few verses later that this Word is the one who becomes incarnate as Jesus.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him and cried out, “This is one of whom I said, ‘He who comes after mee ranks before me, because he was before me.’” (John 1:14-15)
This understanding of John 1:1 where we have this explicit identification that the Logos was God coherent with what we see through the rest of John’s gospel. We can see elsewhere in Jesus’ own teaching, this sense of an awareness of divine identity and authority. We get this the most in Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees, for example in John 8 where we have two different claims here. First, we see the claim that we must believe in him to have our sins forgiven in verse 24, and then later we see Jesus saying he existed before Abraham.
Something else to note is that John 1:1 wasn't John just coming up with something clever to describe the Son. It came straight from the Old Testament.
GENESIS 15:1-7
1 After these things THE WORD OF THE LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”
2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.”
4 And behold, THE WORD OF THE LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.”
5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
7 And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”
DEUTERONOMY 34:4-6
4 And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” 5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to THE WORD OF THE LORD, 6 and He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.
THE DEITY OF CHRIST AS PROPERLY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE: “For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend-of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground- 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11
JESUS IS THE “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD” JOHN 3:16
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
JESUS WAS THE ONLY ONE DIRECTLY CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD THEREFORE HE: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” Colossians 1:15
ALL CREATURES ARE CREATED AS THUS JESUS EXPLAINS HIS POSITION: “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God” Revelation 3:14
METAPHORICALLY A PARALLEL IS SHOWN TO US AS EVE WAS CREATED FROM ADAM’S RIB
LIKEWISE, PROVERBS 8:22-36 SHOWS HOW THE ONE SENT TO EARTH TO BECOME JESUS WAS CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD
WITH COLOSSIANS 1:16 BRINGING IT ALL TO LIGHT: “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.”
WHY THE USE OF EVE METAPHORICALLY?
IN COMPARISON CONTRAST, WE ARE TOLD: “…Adam named his wife Eve, because she was to become the mother of everyone living.” Genesis 3:20
THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF WHO THE CREATOR JEHOVAH GOD IS AND WHO JESUS IS STANDS OUT AS IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THESE WORDS TELL US: “This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ” John 17:3
JOHN GIVES US THE BEST RECOGNITION BY TELLING US ONE OF THE MANY TITLES OF JESUS’ OFFICE WHEN CALLING HIM “THE WORD”
SO THE QUESTION HERE BECOMES, WHERE DO WE FIRST SEE “THE WORD” EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF THAT OFFICE?
THE FIRST CLEAR EVIDENCE IS SEEN WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO ABRAHAM: “Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mamʹre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day 2 He looked up and saw three men standing some distance from him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and he bowed down to the ground. 3 Then he said: “Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. 16 When the men got up to leave and looked down toward Sodʹom, Abraham was walking with them to escort them.17 Jehovah said: “Am I keeping hidden from Abraham what I am going to do?”Genesis 18:1,2,3,16,17
NOTICE THIS: “The two angels arrived at Sodʹom by evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodʹom. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth” Genesis 91:1
ALL THE WHILE ABRAHAM WAS ENTERTAINING ANGELS OF WHICH ONE OF THEM SPOKE AS IF HE WAS GOD (Hebrews 13:2) NO WONDER JESUS TOLD THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES THAT BEFORE ABRAHAM - I AM
HOWEVER, THE OUTSTANDING THING TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT ONE OF THE ANGELS WAS SPEAKING AS IF HE WERE GOD, AND THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD “Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father.” John 6:46
THE OBVIOUS HISTORY OF "THE WORD” IN ACTION IS HERE WHERE “THE WORD” (Jn 1:1) SPOKE WITH MOSES ON JEHOVAH GOD’S behalf: “Then Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush. As he kept looking, he saw that the thornbush was on fire, and yet the thornbush was not consumed.” Exodus 3:2
THE WORD god IS A TITLE THAT IS EVEN BESTOWED UPON THE DEVIL: “in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving” 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4
JESUS IS IN NO WAY LESS THEN THE ANGLE THAT USE TO BE HIS lil’ BROTHER WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL: “He makes his angels spirits, His ministers a consuming fire” PSALM 104:4;
“For our God is a consuming fire” HEBREW 12:29
TAKEN THE FACT THAT UPON JESUS RETURN TO HEAVEN HE HAS THIS TO TELL US: “‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.” Revelation 3:12
YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE A GOD TO BE A HIGH PRIEST FOR AND STILL YET BE AN EQUAL PART OF THAT SAME GOD AT THE SAME TIME (HEBREWS 3:1)
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT JESUS IS THE ANGEL THAT SPOKE ON GOD’S BEHALF
THE BIBLE REVEALS THAT ALL OF THE ANGELS ARE SONS OF GOD: “the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose” Genesis 6:2; “And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6; “When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” Job 38:7
THE FACT THAT ANGELS ARE ALSO REFERRED TO AS “MORNING STARS” SEALS THE DEAL AS JESUS IS NOT ONLY TOLD TO BE THE SON OF GOD BUT IN JESUS OWN WORDS HE SAYS: “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star.’” Revelation 22:16
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS ONLY: “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:6 THEREFORE BECAUSE HE IS THE CREATOR HE DOES NOT HAVE AN EQUAL
HOWEVER HIS CREATION DOES HAVE EQUALS MAKING THE ANGELS A PART OF A UNIVERSAL FAMILY OF BROTHERS: “For this reason I bend my knees to the Father, 15 to whom every family in heaven and on earth owes its name.” Ephesians 3:14,15
MOREOVER, IT IS BECAUSE JESUS IS THE VERY FIRST SON OF GOD THAT ALLOWS HIM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE BROTHERS: “For it was fitting that the one (JEHOVAH) for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons (JESUS AND HIS BROTHERS) to glory, should make (JESUS) the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both the one (JEHOVAH) who is sanctifying and those (JESUS AND HIS BROTHERS) who are being sanctified all stem from one (JEHOVAH), and for this reason (JESUS) he is not ashamed to call them brothers,” HEBREWS 2:10,11
JESUS SAID OF THOSE GOING TO BE WITH HIM IN HEAVEN: "In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection" Luke 20:36
SINCE JESUS SAID OF THOSE GOING TO HEAVEN WILL BE LIKE THE ANGELS AND PAUL EXPLAINED THAT: “because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8:29
THUS GIVING HIM THE TITLE OF “THE WORD OF GOD” ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE JOHN 1:1 SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAY WHERE I HAVE ADDED PARENTHESIS: “In the beginning (OF BOTH THE SPIRITUAL CREATION AND THE CREATION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” AS JOHN 5:19 STATES: “Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner” (MEANING THAT HE IS NOT THE CREATOR)
THE DEVIL INVENTED THE TRINITY TO TRY AND MAKE JESUS LOOK JUST AS BAD AS HIM BEFORE GOD AS HERE WE ARE SHOWN ABOUT SATAN: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens. Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne, And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting, In the remotest parts of the north. 14 I will go up above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself resemble the Most High.’” ISAIAH 14:13,14
AS A CONSUMING FIRE BOTH SATAN AND JESUS ARE IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD HOWEVER WHEN IT COMES TO JESUS WE SEE THIS BIG DIFFERENCE: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human” PHILIPPIANS 2:6,7
ALL OF THIS DOESN’T END GOOD FOR THOSE ALLOWING SATAN TO TWIST WHO THEY RENDER GODLY DEVOTION TO: “But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8
@@virgiliogarrett4463
I won't even go through your twisted renderings of scripture. I'll show you that Jesus said He is the Lord God Almighty.
ISAIAH 44:6
Thus says YHWH, the King and Redeemer of Israel, YHWH of Hosts: “I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST, and there is no God but Me.
REVELATION 1:7-18
7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail[b] on account of him. Even so. Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet
11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,
15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
The Son of Man is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the who is coming soon with the clouds, the one who is and who was and who is to come, the one who died and is now alive forevermore, the Lord God Almighty; Christ Jesus.
God the Father is not coming with the clouds, is not the one who is who was and who is to come, nor was He ever dead and then alive forevermore.
_______________________
YHWH is spirit, invisible, cannot be seen, has not been seen, has shown any form, dwells in unapproachable light and anyone who would see Him would die.
In GENESIS 18, YHWH and two other men visited Abraham and His wife Sarah. They spent time with them, ate a meal they prepared, washed their feet in water Abraham brought them, talked about what YHWH was going to do to Sodom and Gomorrah, and then He went on His way. The two men were angels and were sent on their way to Sodom to make preparations to destroy it.
How did YHWH appear as a man to Abraham and Sarah?
Grading the New World Translation (NWT) involves evaluating several aspects such as translation accuracy, consistency, theological bias, and readability. Here’s a detailed evaluation based on these criteria:
### 1. **Translation Accuracy: C-**
- **Pros**: The NWT strives to be a direct translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Some passages are translated accurately and offer clarity.
- **Cons**: Many scholars criticize the NWT for altering passages to fit the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notable examples include the addition of words like “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 and the rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god," which are not supported by the original languages.
### 2. **Consistency: D**
- **Pros**: The NWT aims to maintain consistency in translating terms, particularly those central to Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines.
- **Cons**: There are significant inconsistencies, especially with the translation of the Greek word "proskuneo" (worship) and the rendering of terms related to the nature of Christ. In Romans 8:9-10, the phrase "in union with" is added inconsistently.
### 3. **Theological Bias: F**
- **Pros**: The translation reflects the specific theological perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, making it consistent with their beliefs.
- **Cons**: The NWT is heavily criticized for allowing theological biases to influence translation choices, resulting in a version that supports their unique doctrines rather than adhering strictly to the source texts. This bias is evident in passages like John 8:58 and Philippians 2:9-10.
### 4. **Readability: B**
- **Pros**: The NWT is generally readable and uses contemporary language, making it accessible to modern readers. It includes clear footnotes and cross-references that help with study.
- **Cons**: Some renderings can be awkward or unusual, reflecting the influence of doctrinal adjustments rather than natural English usage.
### Overall Grade: D+
- **Summary**: While the New World Translation has strengths in readability and some aspects of direct translation from original texts, its significant theological bias and inconsistencies hinder its acceptance as a reliable translation among broader Christian and scholarly communities. The adjustments made to align with Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines often lead to departures from the original language intent, resulting in criticism from biblical scholars.
Brilliant comments Michael. Well done.
Thank you Michael "Copilot" Smith.
SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT says A god in John 1:1 so you are wrong
Here are additional examples of passages from the New World Translation (NWT) that have been criticized for their differences from other mainstream Bible translations, along with a summary of the issues they present:
1. **Hebrews 1:8**:
- **NWT**: "But about the Son he says: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'"
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"
- **Problem**: The NWT renders "God is your throne" rather than "Your throne, O God," which changes the meaning of the verse and avoids directly calling the Son (Jesus) "God."
2. **John 14:14**:
- **NWT**: "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it."
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."
- **Problem**: The omission of "me" in the NWT changes the implication of praying directly to Jesus, which aligns with the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that prayers should be directed to Jehovah, not Jesus.
3. **Colossians 2:9**:
- **NWT**: "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."
- **Problem**: The phrase "divine quality" in the NWT softens the statement that the fullness of deity (God's nature) dwells in Jesus, which aligns with their view of Jesus as a created being rather than fully God.
4. **Acts 20:28**:
- **NWT**: "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son."
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."
- **Problem**: The NWT adds "Son" to the verse, which shifts the focus from God purchasing the church with "his own blood" to "the blood of his own Son," aligning with their distinction between God and Jesus.
5. **Titus 2:13**:
- **NWT**: "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ."
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."
- **Problem**: The NWT separates "the great God" and "our Savior, Jesus Christ," while other translations often combine them to refer to Jesus as "our great God and Savior," thus reinforcing the deity of Christ.
6. **Philippians 2:6**:
- **NWT**: "who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."
- **Other Translations (e.g., ESV, NIV)**: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."
- **Problem**: The NWT's rendering implies that Jesus did not aspire to be equal to God, rather than the more common interpretation that Jesus, already equal with God, did not cling to His divine status.
To be fair, Acts 20:28 could be translated this way. The German Elberfelder translates it as "by the blood of his own [Son]", correctly putting "Son" in brackets. In the footnote, it says that you could also translate it the classic way as "by his own blood."
That doesn't get rid of the clearer verses, which prove, that Jesus is God, though.
Also, and I just noticed this: There is a textual variant. The Textus Receptus and Majority Text say "his own blood", the Nestle-Aland can be translated both ways.
Praise Jesus.this truly blessed me...thanku brother xx
You're very welcome! I'm so glad it was helpful
@19:03 -- I tried to, as the speaker suggested, "look up 'prosekunysan' in any Greek dictionary", and I was unable to find it either in the Aland-Metzger Greek New Testament's dictionary or in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible,
So I went to Google Translate, and it came up "they prostrated themselves" -- which would seem to fit both "they worshipped and "they did obeisance".
That's because you're not looking up the lexical form, ie, the form of the word used in the lexicon/dictionary. The lexical form of προσεκύνησαν is προσκύνεω (proskuneō). Hope this helps.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Yes, it is the case that the meaning of proskuneo is indeed "worship" . Thanks.
Just a follow-up. Not everyone has access to scholarly lexicons, so I thought I would post this for you. According to BDAG (considered the best Greek-English Lexicon):
Proskuneō was “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy.) to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully…. This reverence or worship is paid (A) to human beings, but by this act they are to be recognized as belonging to a superhuman realm…. (B) to transcendent beings…. (α) of deity in monotheistic cult…. (β) of image worship in polytheistic cult…. (γ) the devil and Satanic beings…. (δ) angels…. (ε) The risen Lord is especially the object of worship: Mt 28:9, 17; Lk 24:52.”[1]
Therefore, "obeisance" can be a proper translation of proskuneō when the object is a human, the (A) category. However, when an entity is receiving proskuneō as a transcendent being (God, gods, angels, demons-the (B) category), then the proper translation is “worship.”
The NWT abides by this for α (Mat 4:10), β (Acts 7:43), γ (Mat 4:9), δ (Rev 22:8), but not for ε.
They incorrectly translate proskuneō as "obeisance" when the object is Jesus.
Hope this helps.
[1] Walter A. Bauer, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,_ 4th ed. (Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 2021), s.v. Προσκύνω.
Very respectfully done, thank you. What about Jesus, which is Joshua or Yeshua?
Excellent information , thank you for sharing this video !!!
Thank you for watching! I'm glad it was helpful
So talk about this with the JW when they come to your door next time! They'll be just happy to do that.
@@s.unosson LOL. JWs run away as fast as they can when they begin talking to someone who knows their Bible.
I am amazed. I always thought JHWs were a type of Christian. But if they don’t believe Jesus is part of the indivisible holy trinity then they can’t be.
You're right on the money! I actually made a video discussing some other differences between JW's and Christianity in general and I'll link it below if you're interested!
ua-cam.com/video/RnIjzXIbmOw/v-deo.html
JW's are not the only religion that doesn't buy in the trinity. Search UA-cam you will be surprised as who else doesn't buy that Jesus is God fad.
Absolutely correct. Also the LDS are like this.
@@JosephMcNally-mg6gc
Jesus said He is God. Was He lying?
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
THE BIBLE teaches that Jesus was MADE As Lord and Christ and as Son (ACTS 2:36, Prov 8, HEB 1:5), CREATED/PRODUCED/INSTALLED (Prov 8) , COME INTO BEING/MADE (Mat 21:42 - egeneto) and GIVEN LIFE by the Father - John 5:26 and it uses TODAY (Heb 1:5), and uses future tenses and is a prophecy in Isa 9:6 (Isa 9:6, - WILL BE) . If you are called MADE AND CREATED AND GIVEN LIFE, and NEVER CALLED in the BIBLE as Creator or Maker , then you are A CREATION. ALL FROM THE BIBLE
From the Lord was this (this is referring to the chief cornerstone who is Jesus) , the word WAS is egeneto (made or came into being) - Matthew 21:42 and the exact Greek word used in John 1:3 - MADE, egeneto (came into being) - JESUS WAS MADE/CAME INTO BEING FROM THE FATHER , yes, Jesus was MADE/CREATED!, See also Acts 2:36, Heb 1:5, 1 john 5
Jesus in FACT mentioned the FATHER IS GREATER than I am. JOhn 14:28. BEFORE he WAS SENT, the Father is ALSO GREATER than Jesus.
Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.q John 13:16 . Jesus was SENT BY GOD - and called as SERVANT OF GOD. Acts 4:27
AFTER his resurrection the FATHER IS STILL GREATER than Jesus - WHO IS OVER ALL? Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. GOD and FATHER is OVER/ABOVE ALL and that "All" includes the SON so they are NOT EQUAL
Just became your 1000th subscriber! So satisfying to see that 999 turn into 1000! Love your videos. Super helpful.
Thank you so much! That means a lot and I've been looking forward to that milestone for a long time. I'm so glad you enjoy the content!
@@theologywithseth keep it up 👍
Great video. Thanks for pointing out these translational issues with the NWT for everyone to see. I'm guessing they don't have these Greek-English translations verified by scholars outside the organisation and it's done in-house. It reminds me of the perfect archer parable. The archer shoots the arrow into a tree and then draws the target around the arrow. Bingo. Perfect every time.
Somewhere in the dusty decades of my memory, I remember something about the JW congregation requiring an approved book list. You can't be reading what they don't approve of, and certainly can't bring it into the congregation.
Not sure if they practice this anymore.
@jefftoll604 Thank you! I think your analogy is spot on
Its called inductive reasoning. As opposed to deductive reasoning. The latter is evidence driven. The former conviction driven, seeking support.
You can hear the greek version of the bible in a greek othodox church or talk to a greek orthodox priest.
@theologywithseth
Hey Seth,
How would you explain differences in John 1:1 and 2:19 to a JW?
Thank you, love your work!
Hey, ZT, perhaps I can respond to your question.
If you're interacting with JWs then stay away from John 1:1. They go into autopilot mode just at the mention of the verse and begin to parrot what they've been told. They haven't a sweet clue what they're talking about but they will regurgitate what they've been told. If you have questions about the verse, I can walk you through the Greek or point you to some resources.
As for John 2:19, the issue is going to come up is their non-Biblical view of death. They believe, like the Sadducees, that a person ceases to exist at death. Jesus (speaking of His body) says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (ESV). How can Jesus raise Himself from the dead if He ceased to exist after death? Jesus is emphatic, “I will raise it up.” How can that be true if He ceased to exist? They can say, ‘The Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal 1:1) or the Holy Spirit raised Jesus (Rom 8:11)’ and I would agree with them, but Jesus says that He was also involved in raising Himself from the dead. Just like in Creation and Redemption, all three members of the Godhead are credited with raising Jesus physically from the dead… but how could that be if Jesus didn’t exist after He died? A common JW objection is to say that Jesus was talking about the church which is his body… but that isn’t in the context of John 2:19-22. Was the church destroyed by the Jews and raised three days later by Jesus? No, his physical body was. John makes this clear in v. 22.
A question you can ask regarding this question is: "Did the Jews destroy Jesus' body by crucifying him or did they destroy the church?" IF they play silly and say, "The church," you can ask them which Christians were killed by the Jews and raised by Jesus three days later? They won't be able to give an answer. IF they say, "Jesus' body," then ask them who Jesus claimed would raise it up?
If you have other questions or want to explore this further, let me know.
Thank you very much. Not sure what you mean by "historic christianity". The disciples didn't worship Jesus as God. The blind beggar also said "I am" - exactly the same greek. With your reasoning, anyone that says "I am" is God.
Look at the origin and meaning behind that name that God gave Moses before you make a comment such as this.
@@Goldensphinx "Look up this and that" is said by people who aren't sure what they believe themselves.
@@Goldensphinx
Moses never existed 😂
Excellent work Seth!
Thank you!
And they are closed minded, they say their Bible is the most correct one
That, they do. Jehovah's Witnesses can be very difficult to reason with, which is why we also need to pray for them in addition to doing our homework. We need the Holy Spirit to help them to see the truth!
Thank you for the video. Question, do you have a video on the name “Jehovah” added to the New Testament in the NWT?
I don't, but I may make one before the series is over. You can check out my other videos on my JW playlist on my channel if you'd like!
@faithfulcarpetcleaning Hi there! Just wanted to let you know, I've created a video about this! I'll link it below if you're still interested
ua-cam.com/video/07I6v_w7rNU/v-deo.html
@ yes! Thank you!
@@theologywithseth just watched the video in its entirety. Thank you for the great info!
God work man!!!
I appreciate that! Thank you for watching
@jackpetersen7231 I disagree. The video maker clearly has not done his research, or he has but has been highly selective(and hence has been misleading on purpose) and does not know or studied the original Greek. His video contains many errors and misrepresentations.
@@edwardbarnard5830 eh
@jackpetersen7231 What did you not understand from my comment? Let's take the video's section on John 8.58. He clearly thinks that translating the Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί, there, which is in the present tense, should not be translated by an English perfect. He is wrong.
@@edwardbarnard5830 Eh
I found some more verses the other day that contradict the JW Isaiah 41:4, 44:6 and 48:12 says I Am the first and the last (referring to God)
In Revelation 1:17-18, and 2:8 both say along the lines of I Am the first and the last, He who was dead but am now alive
So if, Jesus is not God then He cannot claim that He is first and last. If God is not Jesus, then He cannot claim that He died.
I've been researching the JW and how they believe since I had one call me 2 months ago and I talked with them for a few weeks before they hung up on me and never called me back.
Jesus is first and last a perfect life for a perfect life. Jesus was the first to conquer death!
1 Corinthians 15:So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.
John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.
Unfortunately, the leaders have misrepresented their authority on Bible transition since the inception of the NWT. A Newspaper article (New York Times 08/03/1950) quoted Knorr as stating their translators were humble men, who wish to remain anonymous, and they come from multinational backgrounds.
What he failed to mention were these “translators” were members of the Board, none of which had any background in Hebrew or Greek, with the lead translator, Frederick Franz, having a background in Greek & “some” knowledge of Hebrew.
Furthermore, even their Greek Interlinear have been tainted over the years especially w/ the advent of the digital copy. If I didn’t consult different Interlinears along w/ Strong’s Concordance, I would’ve been totally oblivious. Their Interlinear still debunks many passages, but it’s still been corrupted to render certain words to match the NWT.
Also, the JW RBi8 NWT, while a biased translation, at least had references, footnotes, brackets to denote if there were other renderings of words, if words were inserted by them, etc. The 2013 version has removed all of that, so it makes it appear that it’s a word for word translation.
Hell, the 1984 NWT would be considered an Apostate Bible. When I was an Elder, I was chairman of their midweek Christian Life & Ministry meeting. A brother who was inactive for a while, wanted to get back active. After some time, the body of elders felt he was qualified to handle assignments during the midweek. He gives the Bible reading for the week & uses the 1984 NWT. The murmurings & mumblings from within the audience.
I complemented him on his reading & jokingly said that Bible reading gave us nostalgia to lighten the mood & spare him embarrassment. One brother approached him after the meeting & said u need to keep up w/ Jehovah’s Chariot my brother, we now use the Silver Sword of God (The nickname for the 2013 & current version).
So indeed, the NWT is a theological biased bible. It renders many passages correctly, but there’s very specific passages that conflict with their doctrine that they’ve either altered, or flat out removed. They will use any biased confirmation to agree w them no matter the scholarly reputation or background of the source, either (see Johannes Greber as an authority to keep John 1:1 as quoted).
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 100%!! 💥💥💥
SAHIDIC COPTIC text says A god in John 1:1 so you are plain wrong
@
Since my comment was erased, I’m pretty sure u don’t want to bring up the Sahidic Coptic as ur reference point. lol.
I don’t think that’s a rabbit hole u’re prepared to go down, but John 1:1 in Sahidic Coptic text not only contradicts the way the NWT translates John 1:1, but now there’s a ton of ?’s u’re not prepared to answer.
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 SAHIDIC COPTIC text says A god in John 1:1. Strong's defines Theos as God or A god. So A god is a correct and valid translation. You just reject it as you don't like it
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 Strong's also defines THEOS as A god, so A god in John 1:1 is CORRECT for the Word
Thank you very much! U helped me alot with these informations! 💪🏻I'm doing a bible course and I apreciate my teacher, but I have a lot of things, I don't agree with them! Thank you!
Thank you for sharing that with me! I truly appreciate all your support. God bless!
Seth, have you considered making a video on the problem of Canon for JWs? A de joure argument is that JWs have no logical reason to assume there is a NT canon, let alone which books are part of that canon because they have cut themselves off from the Christian community by claiming that it was totally corrupt in the second century.
If the Christian community was totally corrupt, then:
- Why do they accept their conclusion that God had provided them with a NT canon?
- Why do they accept list of books the Christian community accepted?
- How do they know they didn't leave out some or added some that shouldn't be there?
They claim the Christian community deliberately corrupted the NT books by removing the divine name, so what reason do they have to believe they didn't add things to the books or remove other things? They can't claim to know what the Scriptures say because they don't know what the original authors wrote, let alone what books should be considered scripture.
These are two different issues: Textual criticism and Canon. However, they are related.
It doesn't matter what model of Canon one uses, it is problematic for JWs.
I hadn't planned on it, but that's a great idea! I will certainly consider it. I hadn't really thought about that issue before, but it's a valid question. Why trust what the early Church taught about the canon if they reject virtually everything else they taught? Food for thought indeed. Thanks for the recommendation!
@@theologywithseth It doesn't matter what definition of Canon you employ-Fixed Canon (c. 4-5th century), Functional Canon (c. 2nd century), or Ontological Canon (1st century)-because the Christian community (the Church) play a role in all of them. Even if you define Canon by ontology (a God-inspired book was Canon the moment it was complete), the Church still played a role in receiving it and recognizing it as canonical.
If the Church was totally corrupt, then how do they know that God didn't inspire a number of books that the Church didn't recognize as Canon because of their corruption? There may be missing books out there. Or, how do they know the Church didn't pronounce something canonical that wasn't inspired by God? For instance, Luther didn't think the Book of James was canonical.
JWs must employ both the functional and fixed view of Canon-both of which are from the Church's perspective-to hold the 27 books of the NT, all the while claiming "the Christian congregation became thoroughly corrupted" (Watchtower, Feb 2024).
The JW position is problematic for anyone who takes a moment to study the history of the Canon.
Very well presented! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful! Thank you for watching
THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU AS THERE IS NO WAY FOR ALMIGHTY GOD TO HAVE BROTHERS BUT HIS SON CAN AND DOES HAVE BROTHERS
AS THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES WILL EXPLAINS:
“He said to him: “What is written in the Law? How do you read?” Luke 10:26
“Jesus said to them: “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection.” Luke 20:34-36
“But our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body by his great power that enables him to subject all things to himself.” Philippians 3:20,21
“because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8:29
@@virgiliogarrett4463 , your battle is not with us. Your battle is with scripture itself.
Good job & very thorough. I wish I had this info years ago when I was in the cult.
Thank you so much! Glad it was helpful!
I was jw but now I am evangelical thank goodness I found the real Jesus. ❤
Happy for you
@@w1ckedfool He became amish
@@droptozrosorry that you are that lost.
@@droptozroTrinitarians agree that there's one God we just believe the Father Son and holy spirit are distinct
@@XiomaraReyes1 There's never a place in the entirety of the Bible that the word/term "God" refers to all three. There's no justification to force-fit "this person is called God" into that "one God" concept beyond your own belief. Moses is called a god to Pharoah, angels are called gods, the dang religious leaders are called gods per Jesus' refutation of their accusation quoting the Psalm. None of this makes them part of a Trinity, or a binity, or a quatinity(made up word?). It is purely man-made contradictions, redefinitions of words and then eventually when you realize it you just call it a "Mystery" and let your mind forget. I'm asking you not to forget.
1) Jesus has a God over him(Rev 3:12 as one of many examples)
2) Jesus is not that God
3) Jesus is thus another God/god
No matter what you do, you must deal with the words without equivocating and trying to redefine "God" to now mean nature--which the only thing that follows is #3 then.
I’ve yet to see someone discuss the Interlinear. I know from when they revised the NWT the leaders talked about the difference between transliteration and translation, which they used to excuse biases, albeit they didn’t use the word ‘bias’. Instead they explained they were able to *interpret* the original *intended* message of Bible writers. It’s how they decided the name ‘Jehovah’ could be justifiably added to greek scriptures. In other words, the average Jehovah’s Witness will not find it problematic to translate the Bible in this way seeing the earliest members still found this ‘truth’ without the NWT (that’s a whole nother can of worms tho) Anyway -
I have tried to broach the topic of Johannes Greber who also wrote a book called ‘Communication with the Spirit World of God’ with Jehovah’s Witnesses, showing the similarity between his New Testament and the NWT, but they immediately clam up when you mention his having been a spiritualist. How can we approach this topic? Any ideas?
Also check out NWT rendering of Hebrews ch1. Apparently, according to Watchtower, God is a throne?
@@purplejay8115 ....and that is how other translators and commentators have said the underlying Greek does or at least can mean. Let me know if you wish me to show you.
Biblehub will clarify things 🙂
@@purplejay8115 Bibehub is fine but has limitations. Better by far is to go to a good theological library. Or, do what I've done, get yourself a library. And, if one can, learn Greek. Still, the fact is it is not black and white as you might have been led to believe.
Very fair treatment, lovingly presented. How 'odd' that they translated things correctly in their interlinear, yet not in the printed NWT - I wonder how their study leaders explain away the discrepancy? Or maybe they think the average Witness won't look at the (Watchtower's own) interlinear.....
My guess is, they'd probably try to argue that the interlinear is the literal word-for-word, but then the NWT is the true "meaning" behind the words or something to that effect. Regardless, I think most fair-minded people can see the obvious disconnect between the two. Thanks for watching!
@@peterwilding1203 There are no "discrepancies" between the Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the NWT. But there are plenty in this video. But those who are unfamiliar with the GNT and like their ears to be 'tickled' will gulp down what they hear. Wiser to heed the counsel of Proverbs 14.15 and 18.17.
👆 This response shows you how they get away with it. The members are in complete denial and are programmed to believe they have "the truth" despite the discrepancies. And also, they don't research their own teachings, they just take the governing bodies (leaders)word for it whom they believe are incapable of lying to them
👆 This response shows how they get away with it. The members are in complete denial and can't accept the fact that maybe they don't actually have the truth as they've been told their entire lives
@@jemz4555 Your response to my response show that like the video maker you too do not know Greek. Take John 8.58 for an example(see at 13m 25s in the video). The video maker asserts that ἐγὼ εἰμί there, 'I am" should only be translated " I am". But has he not heard of the durative present in Greek. No, it is obvious he has not. Does he not know that at times the Greek present should be translated by the English perfect? Has he not understood that before ἐγὼ εἰμί there is an adverbial expression of time, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι? And this means that ἐγὼ εἰμί should be translated "I have been" and to do with the length of Jesus' existence? That is what is the basic meaning of εἰμί, 'to be in existence'.
The video maker ignores this and ignores those translations(so decieves those who do not do their own research)who try to bring this out in their translations, such as those by Edgar J Goodspeed in An American Translation and The NT in the Langauge of the People by Charles B Williams. More recently is
The Source New Testament (TSNT) by Greek scholar, Dr. Ann Nyland.
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born".
It does appear to me then you have been duped by this video.
Great video
I appreciate that!
Seth, I have spent hours comparing the NWT and The King James Version with pencil in hand correcting the changes that were made by them to enforce their doctrine. Also Raymond Franz disclosed the names of the original translators and only his uncle Fred Franz knew any Hebrew, and he was self taught.
You're spot on! I believe he only had about 2 years of Greek study and was only self-taught in Hebrew. Not exactly a solid scholarly base to make a Bible translation from if you ask me. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@theologywithseth
Given the almost endless list of changes made to their doctrines/ stated positions , the false world end predictions( for all of which zero accountabilty exists?), the obscured leadership and clear lack of financial transparency, is there no point in spending some time on this whole mishmash as a separate topic?
I saw somewhere that the JW translator was not a sufficiently respected Biblical scholar in his arena of expertise. 🎉
You're correct! Actually none of the translators had any sufficient credentials behind them. It was a team of a half dozen men or so, and they only had about 2 years of biblical language study between them- Hardly a good foundation to undertake a translation like this
@theologywithseth OK that's it. Thx 😊
Thank you for this video! I think it's a good idea to not use apostate material.
Thank you for watching and commenting!
@@theologywithseth You're welcome, God bless you in your endeavor to expose their cult!
That you, super easy and professional overview. It would be interesting to test if "Jehovah" has been added to the NT of the NWT.
Thank you! And to answer your question, *yes* , the Watchtower has added the word "Jehovah" into the New Testament over 200 times, even though that name isn't found in any of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. That's another big example of a deliberate mistranslation based on theological grounds that I didn't even touch on. God bless you!
The NWT has not only added the divine name in the NT but also to several times in the OT to places where the tetragrammaton isn't found in Hebrew mss. Two significant places are Psalm 16:2 and 35:23.
In Psalm 16:2, David says that Jehovah is his Adon (Heb for Lord; I said Adon rather than Adonay because the vowel pointing was not added till the 5th c AD). Then in Psalm 110, David says, "Jehovah said to my Adon, 'Sit at my right hand.'" Who is David's Adon? Jehovah. Yet, Jehovah is speaking to David's Adon (who is Jehovah). Two persons who are identified as Jehovah. Starting to see where I'm going with this? And if we were to read this passage the way Jesus did, we would see the Holy Spirit in this verse too (Mat 22:43). Here in Psalm 110 we have the Spirit supplying David with the theodramatic conversation[1] between Jehovah and David's Adon-who is Jehovah. That's the trinity. But, since Christians can make these connections the JW leadership has obscured this by inserting the divine name into Psalm 16:2 rather than correctly translating Adon as "Lord."
As for Psalm 35:23, the same words are used by Thomas in John 20:28 (but in reverse order). David calls Jehovah, "My God and my Lord," and Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God." In Greek, they are both in the nominative for the vocative (which will not mean much to someone who doesn't know Greek, but is significant). Again, the connection between the two is obvious, so JW leadership inserted the divine name into Psalm 35:23 to obscure the connection.
The same theological trickery can be seen in the NT.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.
That JW bible is right from the depths of hell.
@@Ken-h9r lol actually your Catholic bible is
Thank God for the translation it's great
@@MargaretRobinson-fj2eg You really think so?
@@Yeezus20 the word "think" is not applicable for most of JW 😕
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE:
You said:
Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context.
Key Biblical Criteria:
1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament):
• Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws?
• How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)?
2. Worship of God and Jesus:
• Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)?
3. Focus on the Kingdom of God:
• Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament?
4. Ministry and Evangelism:
• Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles?
5. Moral and Ethical Standards:
• Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct?
Religions and Denominations that Stand Out:
1. Jehovah’s Witnesses:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings.
• Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings.
• Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide.
• Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this.
2. Seventh-day Adventists:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice.
• Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom.
• Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry.
• Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible.
3. Roman Catholic Church:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles.
• Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith.
• Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church.
• Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor.
• Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles.
Conclusion:
If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
In your screen shot of " About The NWT " the Watchtower reference Revelation 22:19 and use the word " Tree's of life" ......is that word used in any manuscript?
Yes. I assume from your question that you read the KJV, am I correct? The KJV is based primarily on the Textus Receptus (TR), specifically the 3rd edition (Stephanus' 1550 ed.). The TR was put together by Erasmus. He didn't have a full copy of Revelation so he back-translated portions of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate. He did a really good job, but one of his mistakes is found in this verse. The older Greek manuscripts have "tree" instead of "book." The NET Bible has a good note on this verse.
The KJV is a great translation, but it isn't perfect. JWs like to criticize the KJV but are not honest in their critique. On the one hand, they will criticize the KJV for being based on later mss but, on the other hand, they will appeal to it when it suits them (e.g., their omission of "me" in John 14:14).
If you read the KJV, don't let this shake you. Keep reading it, but just be aware of its faults. Read other versions along with your KJV, like the NET Bible, ESV, NIV, etc.
@BasicBiblicalTruth yes to all, I have study the K.jV for many years and yes their are some mistakes, but context corrects the mistakes, I could give many mistakes in modern Bibles with my eye's closed. The Watchtower in every version of their NWT have been removing verses that show the deity of Christ. As you know Jesus declared he was the I am throughout the New Testament. The deity in the Old testament told Moses to tell the Israelites that I am what I am sent you in exodus. The Watchtower said we can't have that because Jesus uses the I am all over the New Testament and we can't remove all of those so let's remove it from Exodus and what did the Watchtower do? Your right they removed the word I am in Exodus.
Yes, I've dealt with the "I Am" issue many times with JWs. Did you know that John 8:58 is the only place in the NT that the NWT translates εγω ειμι as "I was" instead of "I am"?
Their explanation has changed over the years, so it's "funny" when I see JWs regurgitate an old rationale from the Governing Body. JWs don't know Biblical Greek (otherwise they wouldn't be JWs), and they usually don't understand the arguments they regurgitate, but they will speak with such confidence.
I never appeal to Exo 3:14 for Jesus' "I Am" statements because, even though it is foundational and the Hebrew says "I am," the Greek LXX translated God's words as a participle phrase, ο ων "The one who is." So I appeal to Deu 32:39, Isa 43:10, etc., where God refers to himself as the "I am."
Interestingly, Deu 32:39 was a verse Jews appealed to for the belief in the resurrection... and who is the resurrection? Jesus also alluded to Deu 32:39 when he said that no one can pluck anyone out of his hands.
@BasicBiblicalTruth Well said!
@BasicBiblicalTruth Did you know that the Watchtower uses the verse Isaiah 43:10 to justify the reasoning for using the title Jehovah Witnesses? If you go to this verse in the NWT, they have an asterisk at the end of the verse. They back this statement up with two other verses. The first one is Acts 1:8 they don't tell the reader that this is Jesus talking only the verse, which is so deceitful, like everything they say and do...
That added ‘a’ in John 1:1 possibly saved me. It caused me to re-evaluate why I was beginning to attend the Kingdom Hall and, after prayer, to return to normal life. Your video has helped confirm that decision. As with so many ‘recruits’ to the JWs, I was caught at a low point but low points pass. Genuine evangelical friends, sensible guidance and trust are the answer, not membership of a cult. Thank you for your time and expertise in producing this presentation.
Bless you, you dodged a bullet.
SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT says A god in John 1:1. so you are wrong.
GOD uses ECHAD in Deut 6:4 and Ecclesiastes says two are better than ONE - ECHAD. How many is ONE? it is NOT THREE. ONE flesh is also ECHAD for one, as it is FIGURATIVE. So the plain question for you, is if ECHAD for GOD is FIGURATIVE? NOPE. GOD is ONE. GOD IS ONE-ECHAD FATHER, one-ECHAD GOD - Mal 2:10, so you tell if THE FATHER IS COMPOSED of three persons when it called the Father as ONE-ECHAD FATHER. NOPE. Mal 2:10 shows THAT ONE GOD , IS ONE - ECHAD FATHER and NO OTHER persons are part of that ONE GOD
@@Mr.DC3.1914 This is part of the reason for there being such a division between the two principal parts of the total Christian congregation. The part derived from Catholicism believes in the concept of the Trinity. My church uses the New International Version, before that the Authorised Version. My comment was based upon that which I have believed for around three-quarters of a century and shall continue to do so. In no way am I denigrating your right to believe otherwise. As we used to say in Spain, via con Dios.
@@mikepowell2776 which PERSON OF GOD is talking here? If there are TWO more persons of GOD, then for you this person of GOD is lying. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. - ISA 45:5
@@mikepowell2776 If GOD is three persons and all are named JEHOVAH, and if you see them in front of you, count one by one, how MANY JEHOVAH do you see? that is THREE JEHOVAH, and Deut 6:4 says JEHOVAH IS ONE JEHOVAH. and THAT IS NOT THREE JEHOVAH
2 other examples:
One would be Hebrews 9:16-17, where they say, it is necessary, that the human covenantor must die, because a covenant is not valid, as long as the human covenantor lives. The word "human" isn't there in the Greek text. Now, it isn't neccessarily wrong, because Jesus, the covenantor (or: the one, who made the testament) did become flesh. But in my opinion, it distracts from the fact, that Hebrews 8:8 says, that Jehovah is the one, who makes the new covenant. If I make a covenant (or testament), I have to die, not someone else. So Jesus has to be Jehovah.
Another example is 2. Peter 1:1 and 1:11. The phrases are identical in the Greek, except that one says "God" and the other one says "Lord". But they translate it 2 different ways:
"of our God and THE saviour Jesus Christ" - "of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ". They added a "the", so that our God and our saviour could be 2 different individuals, while our Lord and our saviour is one person.
But to be fair, the KJV has a similar error.
Excellent presentation.
I have to say that when photocopies of Watchtower publications are brought out, a JW will immediately ask "where did you get those?" and the conversation will be diverted.
It's true that some are more guarded than others. But the good news with this content is that you can pull it up on JW.org even using their own JW app! As long as you build some rapport with them and they know you're not out to bash them, I don't think they would object to looking at something on their own app. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@theologywithseth Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@theologywithseth
No Christian wants to bash anyone. Ever.
@@valinorean4816You must be pretty young if you read _The Gospel of Afranius_ in your childhood. It was only published in 1995... Anyone who would believe a work of fiction over the historical accounts given in the Gospels would have to be gullible. OK for a child, maybe, but when you grow up, you should put away childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
@@Berean_with_a_BTh I was born in the early nineties. I don't think you understand, "The Gospel of Afranius" ASSUMES the canonical Gospels, it doesn't contradict them, G-d forbid!
in JW's theology, it's called "tacking"...you can flip-flop your theology until you got it "right"
Helpful, thanks
You're very welcome! Thank you for watching
14:15: Point of order. While in the Masoretic text the phrase is symmetric, Eyeh asher eyeh, in the Sepuagint it is not, reading "ego eimi o on", putting 'ego eimi' as (arguably) the subject with the object (ie, the Name) as 'o on', 'the being one', the latter being the name taken to the Israelites. Now 'o on' wouldn't fit gramatically in what Jesus was saying, but still it does differ. The questions are, was he actually speaking Aramaic here, and if he was speaking Greek, would the audience still have understood it as a reference to Exodus? I am inclined to think they would have, but there is more work you have to do to show that definitively. Notably the tense is suddenly different, arresting one's attention, and as he was speaking to other Israelites, there is a high chance he was actually speaking Aramaic, where the distinction wouldn't exist.
21:00: Is this argument true in all the early extant manuscripts or only some? Articles can easily drop in transcription.
Ironically, what JW does with the NWT is exactly what they warn about..
They take away, they add, and then twist what it DOES say.
Jesus is God...has no beginning...no ending...and there was nothing created that Jesus did not create.
Above q. 1 col1 v15 says Jesus was firstborn of all creation. Rev3v15 says the beginning of the creation by God
@@MargaretRobinson-fj2eg False.
Changing Scripture carries a heavy penalty. Jesus is God. And Creator. I know this because the Bible tells me so. Satan LOVES to lie..he lied to Adam and Eve.. tempted them to be "gods"...
And he is lying to you.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can use any translation available. That is why they knew your teachings right away are falsehoods since the very beginning and in fact hadn’t changed for many many centuries. Trinity, hell and hellfire, immortality of the soul, purgatory, use of graven images, holiday celebrations, etc; where almost each if not all have pagan origin. How can correct that? Whereas Jehovah’s Witnesses can still prove their teachings using whatever translations available.
How could you even claim to know God that you do not even know what really is the Kingdom of God? What it will do and bring for this planet and humanity. Sad to sad, you are unaware about this matter and until now is in fact blind to it. You keep saying something about it as if you knew it but failed to put your hope on it as the only viable alternative government from God.
@@rustysm8080There is a difference from being a god and the God. There many lords and many gods….; but there is only one God, the Father. Even Christ himself has a God and Father and even said: “ his Father is also our Father and his God is also our God.”
You all forcibly claimed Christ as your God and ignored his very own words about it.
@@Hallel-o-jah JW's can use any translation available??? That's a lie. JWs have to constantly say, "Oh, the Bible doesn't say that or mean that, what it really means is...."
JWs are polytheists who have drunk the cool-aid the GB has given them. JWs can't think for themselves but parrot everything the GB tells them.
Respecting the NWT translating as "in union with me" for the Greek ἐν ἐμοὶ, which word-for-word is "in me" and for ἐν αὐτῷ, "in him" with "in union with him"
Did you check this in any Greek-English Lexicon? Did you compare with other translations? If you had, you will see that the NWT has good grounds for dolng how they did and is supported by some other translations. One such is that by the American scholars Edgar J. Goodspeed, which I have before me now. His translation reads at John 15.5, "You must remain united to me, and I will remain united to you."
The whole passage here in the NWT 2013 reads:
"5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in union with me and I in union with him, this one bears much fruit; for apart from me you can do nothing at all. 6 If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up. And men gather those branches and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in union with me and my sayings remain in you, ask whatever you wish and it will take place for you."
Please note, all of the occurences of ἐν ἐμοὶ and of ἐν αὐτῷ are in fact translated the same way. However, the last occurence in v.7 is not ἐν αὐτῷ " in him" with the pronoun being singular but ἐν ὑμῖν, "in you" and where the pronoun is plural not singular and is preceded by ῥήματά μου, word-for-word "sayings of-me" and not by forms of μείνητε, an inflected form of a word which basically means "remain". This alters how it should be translated in this place. In v.7 it is not a union of persons, and hence can not, should not, and has not, been translated as 'in union' as regards Jesus' "sayings". Hence, you have not looked at the Greek as carefully as you ought to have done. In fact, you obviously have no knowledge of the Greek at all.... *you have no idea what you are talking about* !
To the reader: The video maker should not be taken seriously.
You are correct. There is no issue with the NWT's translation of John 15:4-5.
Unfounded criticism drives me crazy because it causes JWs to stop listening to legitimate criticism of the NWT. For instance, look at John 14:14 of your Kingdom Interlinaer and tell me what word the NWT left out.
@@kevinfromcanada4379
The Greek text of Westcott and Hort reads at John 14.14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ *με* ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω.- bold is mine. It is με, "me" that the NWT in it's translation left out. The NWT 2013 gives its reasons. Have you read those reasons?
Yes, I have. The oldest and best Greek manuscripts have "me" but that conflicts with JW teaching so they don't care what the manuscrip evidence says, they removed it.
In the NT, Christians normally prayed to the Father, but, on occasion, prayed to Jesus (individually: Acts 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 2Cor 12:8. Collectively: Acts 1:24; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; Rev 22:20.)
Jesus words in John 14:14 are consistent with Christians praying to him in the rest of the NT.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 You failed to answer the question I put to you. Look again what that question was, and try to respond to it.
Also, another question for you. If as you claim the NWT ommitted to translate με here in John 14.14 because of their theology, why have some scholars and translators, who do not share the same theology with the JW's, also omit to translate it, or reject it as being in the original Greek penned by John? Please answer.
@@edwardbarnard5830 you asked if I read the reasons the nwt lists for excluding "me." I answered, "Yes, I did." So don't falsely accuse me of ot answering.
Second, why do JWs immediately respond like children, "But, MOM! Other kids do it too." Does that make it right?
JWs are hypocrites. In one breath they will say that their translation is based on better manuscripts and condemn the KJV for 1John 5:7-8 because it isn't found in the oldest and best manuscripts, then will speak out of the other side of their mouth and say, "We don't have me in John 14:14, but neither does the KJV."
Either your Bible is based on the best manuscripts or it simply picks what it wants to support your theology. The Bible should inform your theology not the other way around.
Very helpful, GBU
Thank you for watching!
I missed the Old Testament and in particular Jeremiah 29:10, where "for Babylon" is modified into "in Babylon" to support the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC instead of 587 BC.
Our calendar is set to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD. It is not set at Jesus' birth. Why did the Jews think Jesus was about 50 years old. Jesus shows up at 12 years old and 30 years old. There is about a difference of 20 years.
Also unknown to them is Rev. 7:5-8. Also, is Romans 11. Complete ignorance.
Best translation ever!! For both scholars and common people.
LOL. That's a good one.
Thank You
One point of note is that the Watchtower quote at 3:33 perfectly illustrates how’s the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately or ignorantly use the Bible out of context and fail to demonstrate proper context to their readers. Revelation 22:19 is not merely a quote from “one Bible book”(awkward phrasing, and unnecessarily so). We KNOW who wrote that; it was the apostle John. Also, while I would argue that what the verse is saying is true of the Bible as well, John is writing it specifically about Revelation. The Bible is not one “scroll of prophecy,” but Revelation is. This is a nuance in biblical exegesis, that you can make truthful statements but if you support them with passages of Scripture that didn’t intend that meaning, you are using the Bible out of context. Proper Bible study is not based on what I feel the passage is saying to me, but instead what the author intended when writing the passage.
To be fair, this isn’t only a problem with leadership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Mormons also have a systemic issue with eisegesis(inserting meaning into a passage rather than bringing out the intended meaning), and while I wouldn’t say most Christian leaders have a systemic issue with it, every denomination does have ways in which is strictly interprets particular passages in ways far different than others. Additionally, there are plenty of pastors who don’t know how to properly exegete the Bible and so will quote it as Watchtower did here. However, that is far from every pastor and is often out of ignorance rather than malice.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE:
You said:
Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context.
Key Biblical Criteria:
1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament):
• Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws?
• How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)?
2. Worship of God and Jesus:
• Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)?
3. Focus on the Kingdom of God:
• Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament?
4. Ministry and Evangelism:
• Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles?
5. Moral and Ethical Standards:
• Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct?
Religions and Denominations that Stand Out:
1. Jehovah’s Witnesses:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings.
• Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings.
• Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide.
• Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this.
2. Seventh-day Adventists:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice.
• Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom.
• Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry.
• Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible.
3. Roman Catholic Church:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles.
• Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith.
• Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church.
• Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor.
• Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles.
Conclusion:
If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
The “KIT” Greek portion is simply the Westcott's and Hort's Greek version that they tagged onto and changed to fit their biased views. Great video!
Yes, but I'm sooo thankful that they did that. It's "their" interlinear, so Christians can use it to point to verses like John 14:14 and say, "Hey! Why did the NWT deliberately leave out a word from this verse?"
Or when they make nonsense claims about John 1:1, claiming that "God" with the article is the true God while God without the article is just "a god", I can take them to John 1 and point out vv. 6, 12, 13, 18, etc. and ask, "So, should these verses all be translated as 'a god'?"
@RandallChase1 you'll find that JWs like Jahtruthdefender is great at making ad hominem fallacies but cannot deal with arguments that are presented, as evidence by his post.
As you can see, JWs attack the person because they cannot deal with the argument.
@RandallChase1 Jah, you're actually going to deal with the text?! Great! So answer my question, look at John 14:14 in your Kingdom Interlinaer and tell me what word your NWT left out.
Jah, the Greek text of NA28, UBS5, Tyndale House NT, and even the Kingdom Interlinear is ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω (If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it).
While it is absent in some manuscripts (A, D, L, Ψ, et al), it is supported by the oldest and best manuscripts: P66, P75, א, Β, W, Δ, Θ, et al. UBS5 rates the inclusion με (me) as {B}, ie. the text is almost certainly authentic, which is why it is included in all critical Greek texts.
As for scholarly support, Murray Harris says, “Requests addressed to either the Father (v. 13) or the Son (v. 14) will be answered provided they are offered in the Son’s name (vv. 13-14). In the early church, prayers of thanksgiving or petition were normally directed to God the Father…but on occasion an individual believer (Acts 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 2 Cor 12:8) or a group of believers (Acts 1:24; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; Rev 22:20) apparently invoked the Lord Jesus directly.”[1]
So, according to textual criticism, "me" should be there. According to scholarly consensus, "me" should be there. JW's claim it shouldn't be there... because it conflicts with their theology.
[1] Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015), ePub, 14:14.
I'm only a first year linguistics student, but as far as I know no language has a "perfect indefinitive" because although indefinite is a mood and perfect is a more arbitary term, perfect generally refers to the best of my knowledge the european tense form where a have-verb and past participle are used to form a definitive tense which has some level of past assosiated with it but this can be altered by aditionally conjugating the have-verb.
Part of why I left
Ps 133:1 (KJV 1611) _A Song of degrees of David:_ Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
Joh 15:7 (KJV): If ye abide (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me), and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. *_(Herein -- what? Again, what direct object to the preposition [IN] is missing?)_*
Ps 133:1 (Emphasized Bible 1897): Lo! how good and how delightful For brethren to dwell together even as one. 2 Like the precious oil upon the head descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron,--which descended unto the opening of his robe: 3 Like the dew of Hermon which descended upon the mountains of Zion,-For there did Yahweh command the blessing, Life unto times age-abiding.
Joh 15:7 (EMP): If ye abide (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me) and my sayings in you abide whatsoever ye may be desiring ask! And it shall be brought to pass for you. *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of oneness with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 Herein was my Father glorified, that much fruit ye should bear and become my disciples. *_(Herein -- what? Again, what direct object to the preposition [IN] is missing?)_*
Ps 133:1 (Amplified Bible, Classic Edition 1954) _A Song of [Ascents. Of David]:_ Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment poured on the head, that ran down on the beard, even the beard of Aaron [the first high priest], that came down upon the collar and skirts of his garments [consecrating the whole body]. 3 It is like the dew of [lofty] Mount Hermon and the dew that comes on the hills of Zion; for there the LORD has commanded the blessing, even life forevermore [upon the high and the lowly].
Joh 15:7 (ABCE): If you live in Me [abide vitally united to Me] and My words remain in you and continue to live in your hearts, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 When you bear (produce) much fruit, My Father is honored and glorified, and you show and prove yourselves to be true followers of Mine. (Because this translation clarified vs. 7 with *_united_* as its direct object and *_TO me_* as its prepositional phrase, both of these statements from Christ's mouth are grammatically correct and in unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.)
Ps 133:1 (Stern's Complete Jewish Bible 1998) _A song of ascents by David:_ Oh, how good, how pleasant it is for brothers to live together in harmony. 2 It is like fragrant oil on the head that runs down over the beard, over the beard of Aharon, and flows down on the collar of his robes. 3 It is like the dew of Hermon that settles on the mountains of Tziyon. For it was there that Adonai ordained the blessing of everlasting life.
Joh 15:7 (CJB): “If you remain united with me, and my words with you, then ask whatever you want, and it will happen for you. 8 This is how my Father is glorified - in your bearing much fruit; this is how you will prove to be my talmidim (followers)." (Because Stern clarified vs. 7 with *_united_* as its direct object and *_WITH me_* as its prepositional phrase, both of these statements from Christ's mouth are grammatically correct and in harmony with David at Ps 133:1-3.)
Ps 133:1 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures--With References, 1984, large edition): _A Song of the Ascents of David:_ Look! How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity! {f. Ge 13:8; 45:24; Joh 13:35; 17:21; Col 3:14; Heb 13:1} 2 It is like the good oil upon the head {g. Ex 29:7; 30:25; Le 21:10; Ps 141:5; Pr 27:9}, that is running down [or, “descending,” as in vs 3] upon the beard, Aaron’s beard {h. Ex 30:30}, that is running down to the collar [or, “opening,” lit., “mouth”] of his garments {i. Le 8:12}. 3 It is like the dew {j. De 32:2; Pr 19:12} of Herʹmon {k. De 3:9; 4:48; 1Ch 5:23} that is descending upon the mountains of Zion {l. Ps 125:2}. For there Jehovah commanded the blessing [to be] {m. Le 25:21; De 28:8}, [Even] life to time indefinite {n. Ps 21:4}.
Joh 15:7 (Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures; English rendering): If ever YOU should remain (prepositional phrase/first-person objective singular pronoun [IN] me) and the sayings of me in YOU it should remain, which if ever YOU may be willing ask, YOU and it will come to be to YOU . . . . *_(Can't work spoken or printed and be understood: Because a man can't literally BE IN another man, its direct object is missing and it is out of unity with David at Ps 133:1-3.)_* 8 In this (thing) was glorified the Father of me -- or -- In this (thing) with me, my Father was glorified, in order that . . . YOU may be bearing much fruit and should become my disciples. *_(Again, what is this (thing), the direct object to the preposition [IN] missing here that the ABCE and CJB have included to make both of these statements out of Christ's mouth grammatically correct and understood?)_*
Joh 15:5 (NWT 1984): “I am the vine, YOU are the branches. He that remains (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]), and I (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH him]), this one bears much fruit {l: Pr 11:30; Ho 14:8; Joh 15:16; Ga 5:22}; because apart from me YOU can do [or, “produce”] nothing at all. 6 If anyone does not remain (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]), he is cast out as a (dead) branch and is dried up; and men gather those branches up and pitch them into the fire and they are burned {m: Eze 15:4; Mt 3:10; Ro 11:20; Heb 6:4, 8; 1Jo 2:19}. *_7 If YOU remain (double prepositional phrase/direct object [IN union WITH me]) and my sayings remain in YOU, ask whatever YOU wish and it will take place for YOU {n: Mt 7:7; Joh _**_16:23_**_}. 8 My Father is glorified in this, that YOU keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples" {o: Mt _**_5:16_**_; Joh _**_13:35_**_; Php _**_1:11_**_}._*
Awesome!
Glad you enjoyed it! Cheers!
You showed a very good passage from Revelations that most people miss, when translating or understanding the bible. I'm 59 now, and have been studying theology as well as sociology and psychology since about 5th, 6th grade. The passage reads "God will take his portion away from the trees of life". Why is this important in understanding the bible? Because of the way the society back in those days talked and conveyed information. Writing or telling a story was an art. They used metaphors based on old sayings to tell a story. "...from the trees of life." What are the trees of life? At one time, it was said that knowledge or learning something nourished the mind and soul the way the fruit of the tree nourished the body. Where does fruit grow? On trees. So, things that were written down or conveyed were said to be trees. The tree of life is literally translated as the book of life. So, in Genesis it's said that eve was tempted by the serpent to "eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge". So, we now know the fruit of the tree means learning, either by reading or being told. The religion that predates Judaism and where it came from, has the God El, who is said to either have a serpents head or a head full of serpents. Judaism took place of this old religion because people started to think, is God made us, we must be in his image, therefore he can't be part snake. So, what does this passage actually say? Eve was tempted to learn the old religion of the God El, (that religion has the exact same stories as the old testament, and the Hebrew God's name was Elohim. Notice the first part of the name, El.) and she in turn tried to teach this to Adam. Now, they had knowledge of more of the outside world, which can spread like a disease. Who kicked them out of Eden? Probably the Elders of their tribe as it was a punishment for going against their orders not to entertain the thought of the old religion.
Now you can see how things get misinterpreted when you don't understand the old was societies used to talk. BTW, because of all my research, I'm not the least bit religious. I'm ok with people believing in something, it's just not for me, and my life is no better or worse for it as compared to believers and none.
"I'm not the least bit religious", we can clearly see that.
You've baked up a mishmash with an interpretative filler......that I'm sure only you are sitting down to eat. I'm..... ahhh.. ...not hungry all of a sudden.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus good. I'm only here to inform, not to change your belief. I'm all for people believing in whatever sooths them. Btw, it's not mishmash. It's one topic. The use of wording from a long ago society. You will never fully understand the bible until you know how they talked, and what they meant. Just like it's happened in my lifetime, words take on different meanings. If someone from a different society read an article from the 30's that said "this is the bee's knee's", the reader would actually envision someone pointing at a bee's knee's.
In Islam, they say a Martyr will receive 70 something virgins. The thing is, when this was first written, the word actually meant "Luscious grapes", which were highly prized in the desert areas. It was much later, the word was used as a slang to mean virgin, because virgins were as luscious as grapes. So, no days Muslims think they will get 76 virgins if they die for the cause.
You've got to know the past in order to read the past.
This is why the Arian heresy is so insidious: they have to purposely change the language to fit their theology. Great video.
Insidious indeed! Thank you for watching
Has the translation you mainly use the name Jehowah in it? Most translations don't have it, new versions of translations have taken it away, like the Spanish Versión Valera's evangelical version, even stating that the name is "irrelevant".
Thxxxxxxx so muchhhhhhh, ❤❤❤❤❤❤
You're very welcome! I hope it was helpful
I’m not a jw, but you may find their note from their research guide interesting for the scripture you talked about in Colossians:
all other things: A literal rendering of the Greek text would be “all things.” (Compare Kingdom Interlinear.) However, such a rendering could give the impression that Jesus was not created but was the Creator himself. And that idea would not agree with the rest of the Bible, including the preceding verse, which calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15; compare Re 3:14, where Jesus is called “the beginning of the creation by God.”) Also, the Greek word for “all” can in some contexts have the meaning “all other,” as for example at Lu 13:2 (“all other”); Lu 21:29 (“all the other”); Php 2:21 (“all the others”). This agrees with Paul’s inspired teaching found at 1Co 15:27: “God ‘subjected all things under his [Christ’s] feet.’ But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.” So both the Bible’s teachings as a whole and the probable meaning of the Greek word used here support the rendering “all other things.”-Compare study note on Php 2:9
So, seems to confirm your suspicions, doesn’t it? Lol
Yes, you’re definitely a JW explaining it like that
Other or all other in Luke does not change the meaning but unfortunately for you at Colossians 115 to 18 it obviously made Jesus look like he was created, which he isn’t but nice try nobody will believe you
Oh, and the footnote is really important if you add all other, does it change the meaning?
@@danpetrari2329 I didn't explain it any way, I copied and pasted it from their research bible in case he wasn't aware there were notes. I just thought it was funny that they basically admit to doing what he's saying they're doing. Take it easy, sheesh.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN A.I RESPONSE:
You said:
Using both the Old and New Testament if you can only choose one religion out of all claiming to be Christian which one stands out as the one to choose?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Selecting one Christian religion as the "true" one based solely on both the Old and New Testaments is a challenging and deeply personal decision. It hinges on how one interprets the Bible and the weight given to various aspects of Christian faith. Different denominations and religious movements present strong cases for being the most faithful to the Bible, but I’ll highlight some key criteria and how different groups might stand out in that context.
Key Biblical Criteria:
1. Adherence to Biblical Teachings (Old and New Testament):
• Does the religion hold to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, including moral and ceremonial laws?
• How does the religion interpret the relationship between the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (through Christ)?
2. Worship of God and Jesus:
• Does the religion emphasize the worship of Jehovah (Yahweh) as taught in the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (New Testament)?
3. Focus on the Kingdom of God:
• Does the religion prioritize Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, central to His message in the New Testament?
4. Ministry and Evangelism:
• Does the religion actively spread the good news as Jesus commanded, modeling the ministry of Jesus and his apostles?
5. Moral and Ethical Standards:
• Does the religion uphold strong moral principles and align with biblical teachings on ethics and conduct?
Religions and Denominations that Stand Out:
1. Jehovah’s Witnesses:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly emphasize both the Old and New Testaments. They believe they have restored the original Christian faith based on biblical teachings.
• Worship of God: They emphasize the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and recognize Jesus as the Messiah and King of God's Kingdom.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on preaching the good news of God's Kingdom, as central to Jesus' teachings.
• Ministry and Evangelism: Known for their global evangelism efforts, they see themselves as following Jesus' command to preach the gospel worldwide.
• Moral Standards: They emphasize strict adherence to biblical moral standards, and their lifestyle reflects this.
2. Seventh-day Adventists:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: Seventh-day Adventists emphasize both the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament. They observe the Sabbath on Saturday, aligning with the Old Testament practice.
• Worship of God: They hold to traditional Christian beliefs, emphasizing worship of God and the centrality of Jesus.
• Focus on the Kingdom: Adventists stress the imminent return of Jesus and the establishment of God’s Kingdom.
• Ministry and Evangelism: They are active in evangelism and health ministries, following the example of Jesus’ holistic approach to ministry.
• Moral Standards: They promote a healthy, ethical lifestyle, often adhering to dietary laws inspired by the Bible.
3. Roman Catholic Church:
• Adherence to Biblical Teachings: The Catholic Church incorporates the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments and emphasizes the continuity of faith from the apostles.
• Worship of God: Catholics emphasize the worship of God through the sacraments and veneration of Jesus as central to their faith.
• Focus on the Kingdom: While focusing less on earthly preaching, Catholics emphasize the spiritual kingdom of God through the Church.
• Ministry and Evangelism: The Catholic Church has a long history of evangelism and mission work, with a focus on social justice and helping the poor.
• Moral Standards: The Church holds to traditional Christian moral teachings and emphasizes the importance of living a life according to biblical principles.
Conclusion:
If you are looking for a religion that places a strong emphasis on adherence to biblical teachings (Old and New Testaments), active ministry and evangelism, and a focus on God’s Kingdom as central to Jesus' teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses might stand out as the group that closely aligns with these criteria. They are particularly noted for their commitment to preaching and living according to biblical standards.
I'm an ex-Jehovah witness. And this makes so much sense and connects many of the missing puzzle pieces. beautifully well collaborated and being non-biased, all most like investigative journalists.
I actually majored in journalism so that makes sense, haha! I'm very glad you enjoyed the content and have escaped the Watchtower. Blessings!
Not a Christian but your work is good
I appreciate that! Thank you for watching and commenting
Not a Christian? What are you waiting for? Most of the prophecies are accomplished
The reason the Watchtower went from the KJV bible was to remove the deity of Christ period. No other reason, because they are Arian in belief. They believe that Jesus was a created being and not a divine person. Dont let them tell you any different like the language in the KJV is hard to understand or the language needs to be updated to modern wording. That's all BS. If you look at all the NWT versions, you will see that the verses that refer to Christ deity have been changed. Not only their bible but hymns they sang have removed Jesus deity. The Watchtower teaching is of Satan. What better way for Satan to place doubt of who Jesus is is by changing the words in the bible.... check out john 1:1 in their bible then go to their inner greek translation and see if they changed the deity of Christ.
@@RG-qn2qm Yes, I was a JW my entire life up until I woke up a couple years ago and through my research, I've concluded that the Watchtower organization is literally an antichrist cult...they do everything they can to take away any divinity/power from Jesus
@edwardbarnard5830 you must be a special kinda stupid person. John 1:1 in the Greek manuscripts is exactly the same as the KJV. "a god" is the evil Watchtower translation. You really don't understand Greek do you? Take to long to explain to a special kinda person like you. I suggest you Utube Sam Shamounian and look for a video about John 1:1 to learn some Greek grammar.
@@RG-qn2qm The NWT at John 1.1c is an accurate translation of the Greek.
@edwardbarnard5830 so let's go with your theory. So the Word is a god right? John 1:14 says this Word became flesh, so know you now have a godman that dwelled among men. Plus you now, have two God's.
Do copyright laws influence the translations??....not that that makes that right but just saying
No. Mark Ward has an excellent video addressing this question.
Seth, you've shared some fascinating theology once again! And the ideas on how to share and communicate with our JW friends is so appreciated.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:19
Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
I have heard that Watchtower has been sued for copyright misuse after they changed the NWT to their new "Silver Sword".
Is it true that Watchtower bought copyrights from another bible company, and printed their bible from their translation? I do not think Watchtower translated nor wrote their own bible.
Any one can sue anyone. Whether such an action has any merit is another thing. The case was dismissed by the judges.
Very interesting. Thank You. JWs also believe that when a person dies, they are truly dead with no consciousness. They are, at a latter time, raised up & judged. (Seventh Day Adventists also believe this) In the KJV, Luke 23:43 reads - And Jesus said onto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The NWT reads - And Jesus said onto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Do you see how the comma was conveniently moved over to fit their doctrine? Thank You again
That's a very good point! There's a bunch of discreet changes like that lurking in the NWT. Thank you for sharing and watching!
It was a JW that showed me that. "It's a matter of where you place the comma" he said. I latter asked a family member who had studied Ancient Greek, if it was even possible to interpret that verse more than one way. He said that the verse could only be interpreted one way. The KJV got it right. Thank you for your channel. I will start watching.
Jesus also said about the dead Lazarus that he was sleeping.
@@s.unossonPoint?
@s.unosson Yes, and that is a doctrinal issue. Jesus used many metaphors. "I am the vine; you are the branches. whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst". etc. I am referring to the accurate translation of an ancient text. There was a lawsuit in the 1950s where the Jehovahs Witnesses sued a Methodist minister for slander. The minister claimed that there was not one Greek or Hebrew scholar on the "Translation Committee". The JWs could not produce even one, and therefore lost their case. (most couldn't even repeat the Greek alphabet while on the witness stand)
Genuine question, doesn’t the King James also take away from the Bible, as both Catholic and Orthodox Christian bibles have more in their canon and predate Protestant Christianity?
This is a question of canonicity, "Is the Apocrypha part of the canon?"
Roman Catholics and Orthodox say, "Yes." Other Christians say, "No." One of the reasons that Protestants say, "No," is because the Apocrapha was not accepted as scripture by the Jews from whom Christians received the OT canon. It was recommended reading, but not considered scripture. When Christianity lost touch with its roots, some of the early church fathers, like Augustine, argued that the Aprocrapha should be part of the canon. Other church Fathers, like Jerome, who were more aquanted with the roots of Christianity, said it not scripture but is only instructive reading for outside the church. Augustine's view won the day for over 1000 years. When Christians sought to get back to foundational things, the qustion of canon was raised again, and the Church was divided over the issue.
So, you will find KJV's that have the Aprocrapha and other KJV's that do not have it.
Acts 20:28 is a good verse.
That's one of my favorites as well!
@@medusa210562 There are many translations that agree with how the NWT reads at Acts 20.28.
What original biblical sources did the JW use to create a new translation...( oldest existing texts, since there are no original text in existence) one complete text is held at the Vatican..did the Vatican give JW access to its text?
For the New Testament they used the Westcott and Greek text and consulted others. There are other modern critical Greek texts, one I have is that produced by the United Bible Societies(UBS). I think mine is the 4th edition. All Bibles are based on a text produced by textual critics( Texutal Critcism is a science).
Ex-JW here: Another interesting thing is that until 2013, a lot of the additions in the NWT were highlighted with brackets. For example, it used to be "by means of him all [other] things were created" to indicate that they acknowledged that they were adding words "for context".
But with the new revision of the NWT released in 2013, they removed the brackets, which is even one step further into trying to cover up the fact that they are changing the bible to fit their doctrines.
That's true! Thank you for pointing that out to me. Very telling, indeed
@@InvestigadorTJ I was you 12 years ago. I hope you wake up someday.
@@InvestigadorTJ I no longer believe in the existence of any god character, trinity or otherwise, so I don't particularly care about a trinitarian response or interpretation of that verse.
I see your point of course, (Because I used to make the exact same argument about this exact same verse.) and you may be correct about the text itself in this example.
But that doesn't matter to my point. My point was that the JWs used to use the brackets to acknowledge their edits, and now they've not only made more edits in the 2013 revision of their bible, they've made more egregious edits, and on top of that, they've removed the only acknowledgement of their edits.
They can no longer claim that they are aiming for as literal a translation as possible, when in reality they are just making their own doctrine-based changes and not even using brackets to call those out.
Like I said, I was you 12 years ago. I knew the scriptures to use and all the JW responses and rebuttals to all the apostate "lies". But when I opened my mind to actual evidence and logic, I was able to see the actual truth; that JWs are just another protestant offshoot religion with their own agenda, and that they are 100% led by men and not any god.
The obvious doctrine-based edits to their bible are just one tiny corner of the evidence against them.
John 10:32-35 Matthew 24:45-47
The Governing Body is not the Antichrist. They are not a friend of the World! Revelation 17:17.
The Great Apostasy is a term that appears in the Bible in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, where the Apostle Paul warns Christians that a great apostasy will happen before Christ's return. The scripture is interpreted differently by different churches, but some key points include:
The term
The term "Great Apostasy" comes from the Greek word apostasia, which can also be translated as "falling away", "betrayal", or "rebellion".
The time
The Great Apostasy is thought to happen during the Antichrist's reign at the end of time.
The events
The Great Apostasy will include a worldwide rejection of God's revelation, many people turning away from the faith, and the rise of many false prophets.
OK I am not a JW but I have a KJV, Modern Language, New World, Catholic Bible ( which is different) some weird Bible from a Pentecostal Church and guess what other than the Catholic they are the same.
Read John 1:1 and tell me if the KJV and the NWT are the same.
Even your approach of reaching witnesses is perfect advice. Thank you so much!
You are so welcome! God bless you
Have you asked Watchtower's translation department? Write a letter to them.
I thought Vsauce was on the thumbnail ngl
I love Vsauce! I'll take that as a compliment
The thing I don’t understand is how they can trust their book when I have a older one around the 1960-1970’s or so (have look again) , and it’s not the same as the one that is out now, while the KJV is still the same and it’s over 200 years old
Let's be fair. The KJV has gone through many revisions over the years. The KJV you have is not the same as the ones printed in 1611. The difference is that the KJV's updates were almost entirely based on language changes (like English spelling) and typographical errors. The NWT's revisions are theologically motivated to reflect their changing theology. For instance, at one time, JWs said it was appropriate to worship Jesus. That has changed, so they have changed "worship" to "obeisance."
Excellent breakdown showing inconsistencies in the NW translation, which are likely intentional changes. I think you reach a little far in stating what the "actual" and "historical" accurate meanings are, considering how little of the original writings have ever been shown or preserved and how diverse the writers were by intentions and audiences.
The Bible says that the word of God should not be changed:
Warnings against adding or taking away
The Bible includes several passages that warn against changing the words of God, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19.
God's message is unchanging
The Bible says that God's message has not changed since the beginning of time.
God's word is eternal
The Bible includes passages that say that God's word is eternal, such as Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, and Matthew 24:35.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)
Notice their version is called 'The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures'? Its because it really can't be considered the Bible because they've changed it so much. Thanks Seth ❤✝️
Agreed! Thanks for watching
“New world” is also pretty culty talk.
Like new world order.
Yes@@mmltpb14
Whatever changes of their translations, nobody can deny that the scriptures rule and commandments were intended for physical Israelites, and the Spiritual Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem of God, the Jw's org,@ Deut, 4:1-2/ they teaches parallel to the apostles following Jesus instructions, "Go and make disciples in all earth, and teach them to do the same what I teach you," you are not part of this world,@Mat,28:19-20, and the Jw's, got these exactly,
Your examination of NWT should ring alarm bells for sincere students of scripture. The cognitive dissonance of the average JW means they refuse to acknowledge anomalies within their Watchtower Bible.
Here in Germany they used to use the "Elberfelder bible" which is on of the most literal translations to the original texts, really makes me think if in the past they had "more pure" goals as an Religion or organization
Very informative video!
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching