So sneaky! These people come to my door often. They are told not to google their own organization or read any other translations other than the KJV and this NWT. I’ve pointed out their cultish false gospel and begged them to repent and pray with me that they would understand and accept the true Gospel. The only Gospel of the one true Jesus that can save them. They are not our enemies, but the mission field. Judgment and vengeance belongs to the Lord. And they will be judged. But we must endeavor to pull them out of this cult and bring them to the one true Jesus. Galatians 1:8-9 [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (ESV) The false gospels almost always contain 99% truth. It’s the 1% of heresy that sneaks in. Good job pointing this out and thank you for the warning!
Tim, I have a hardbound copy of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures from 1985 on my bookshelf. It contains the Greek Text Above (The NT In the Original Greek by B.F Westcott & F.J.A. Hort 1881), English Translation Underneath (An interlinear word for word translation into English - 1969), & English Text alongside (NWT - 1984 Revision). I also have a hardbound copy the NWT - 1984 Revision as well. I acquired both copies from a former Episcopalian turned JW, who was renting space to a friend of mine. We both used to go back and forth in Bible ping pong quite a bit when I visited. Tbis woman has since passed on, but she always developed the shingles after we spoke. I use both as evangelism tools whenever they come "a knockin'." God bless.
Thank you for this, Tim. The changes you point out in John 1 may seem subtle and will likely be unnoticed by many people, they are critical to understanding who Jesus is and accepting Him in His entirety. This "translation" was intentional.
Yep, I used to speak with them quite a bit 20 years ago before they came out with the edition that eliminated the brackets. I used it against them many times and also showed them the Greek which didn't have either Greek word for "other" (heteros/allos) in the original text of Colossians 1 and it was persuasive. Now, without the brackets, it's harder to make this grammatical argument; at least it has been in my experience.
I hope you do a video about the passion translation. Lately, I hear so many "leaders" quoting from it. It disturbs me that they don't know that it shouldn't even be referred to much less treated as a good or maybe even superior translation. They may as well be reading from the Quran or the book of Mormon.
Years ago I gathered quite a collection of older WT books from Ebay, including several editions of their NWT. (Tim, I even have an old Rutherford LP recording that they used to tote around with a record player - you might find that cool). My intent at the time was to use them when speaking to JWs when they came knocking in order to show them the errors, unfulfilled prophecies etc. from their own literature. I also wanted to demonstrate that the deity of Christ was still clearly taught in their "scriptures." Long story short, I never used any of it and they've been sitting around collecting dust. I don't know whether to sell or donate them to other Christians who might use them when witnessing to JWs, or just toss them all. I don't want them in the hands of someone who could be deceived by them. I've read that JWs are known to buy up their old literature when they find it online and destroy it themselves, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.
I received one from a family member and attended a meeting. The fact they were literally reading a magazine article and asking/answering questions based on the article rather than the Bible was disturbing.
I always appreciate your thoughts and views on things and especially how much you love and respect God's word, as shown in your reviews and other topics, and the recent posts about caring for our Bibles, etc, but I would express some difference of thought as to this subject. Now first off, I am not a JW and never was one, but I do have this edition and have used all their other revisions of the NWT, with all the other main versions, Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, etc. And while I admit that I do not particularly care for the translation, the 2013 is much better than the previous editions as far as readability, I must say that the bias and such that goes into the NWT is also done by other versions, in the opposite theological direction. For instance, the ESV, and the NASB line of Bibles. (LSB being the biggest example in a few spots) As examples, in almost all of the verses which have Christological significance, the ESV and the NASB translators go out of their way to translate the verse to sound the most trinitarian, and they also delete any footnote which may suggest an alternate reading or textual variant. So if you look at verses such as Psalms 45:6, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Acts 20:28, and of course Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, all of these verses are translated in the NWT text in the way that other Evangelical editions show in footnotes or in the actual text. For instance the RSV, NRSV, NABRE, NEB, REB, (non Evangelical versions) and also even the NIV 2011, NLT, CSB, NET (Evangelical versions) all have a footnote which give the alternative readings which match what the NWT places in the text. Now personally I don't particularly care for the NWT, but not because of the reasons most don't like it. I do not prefer it because of the distinct JW peculiarities, such as words like torture stake instead of cross, undeserved kindness instead of grace, "declared righteous" instead of "justified" (some of my favorite versions use this last phrase as well, in some places anyway) I prefer the traditional theological words and phrases. The NWT also leaves out many translation possibilities and footnotes which may contradict their theology. This comment is becoming a book and I apologize for that, but I think we should at least acknowledge that some Evangelical translations/translators are guilty of the same bias and tactics as the WTBTS and the NWT translators, though on opposite ends of the theological spectrum. And both no doubt do so because of conviction and integrity, though I disagree with the tactic on both sides. Again ESV and LSB do the same more than probably most other Evangelical versions. Why not at least put the footnotes in? Even if they translate it in their preferred theological way, show the people the other variants or translation possibilities. The truth will be found, why hide things? Anyway, God bless, and I hope this comment doesn't trouble anyone 🙏
Tim thank you for the review of the NWT and being even handed in mentioning some of its positive aspects in addition to the anti-Trinitarian portion (which is where most reviews stop). As a former Jehovah’s witness of over 40 years who now is without a home, theologically speaking, I would like to add just a couple of comments here that may help “flesh out” the review. While the NWT certainly has a clear bias when it comes to Trinitarian theology, it also has many redeeming portions. The way this translation handles scriptures like Matthew 5:3 is truly well done (instead of “poor in spirit” it renders “conscious of their spiritual need” (somewhat similar to the NLT)). The same is true of Genesis 1:3 and 14, where most translations have God creating light twice, while the NWT makes the distinction between the Hebrew words used (light and luminaries). Young’s Literal is the only other one that gets it right there. It also does a very good job in rendering Hebrew verb tenses, such as Genesis 2:3 “he has been resting” vs. almost everyone else’s “he rested”. (This comports also with Hebrews 4:3 - 11.) Those positives stated, the 2013 edition of the NWT (the edition you reviewed) takes a deep dive into cult waters in several ways. For instance the Colossians 1 passage that you referred to used to have brackets to show the insertion of the word [other] to alert readers to inserted material. That is no longer the case, as you pointed out. Other notable changes from previous editions include the rewriting of Micah 6:8, which changes “love kindness” to “cherish loyalty”, which reinforces Watchtower’s agenda of absolute unquestioning loyalty to their organization. Another self-serving change is to change the rendering “older men” (a description) in relation to the congregation to “elder” (a title) which carries a denomination specific definition that only JW’s would know. Someday, I would love to chat with you about John 1:1, specifically a preferred translation of the text. There is an article in the 1973 JBL by Phillip Harner that covers this extensively. Thank you for making such great content.
@@matthewmencel5978 Matthew, apologies, but your comment is unclear. Did you mean to say polemic? And were you referring to Tim’s review, my comment, or both?
I stopped at my local kingdom hall and asked for one a couple years ago - guy gave me one without a sales pitch or anything - so if anyone wants one for research purposes (please don’t join the cult), just stop some time when it’s not busy looking and let them know you heard their version is really readable (not a lie) and ask if they one. I’m sure some people wouldn’t be comfortable doing that, but for those that are it’s an easy ask. It’s kinda too bad too because it’s a really well put together budget type Bible. Get the same materials and format for a NKJV and it would be a great deal for like $25.
Tim, totally agree with you concerning the NWT. But you're going to have to "splain yourself" (as Ricky Ricardo would say) in reference to the use of the word "scriptures." Jesus Himself said, "Search the scriptures for in them [the scriptures] ye think ye have eternal life;and they [the scriptures] are they which testify of me." John 5:39 So what am I missing? Why is referring to the Bible as the scriptures some kind of heresy? BTW great videos.
He's not saying that it's wrong to call these books the scriptures, but that it's usually a red flag when the translators actively avoiding calling it the Bible.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have had copy of NWT and their Greek Interlinear NT since the 1990/2000’s. It is gathering dust now, but I used to refer to it when witnessing to the witnesses. It used to be an interesting exercise, but it was not as fruitful as I would have hoped. I found that dealing with indoctrinated people who are content with their surroundings rarely goes the way you would like. Each persons view of the Holy Spirit just cancels each other out.
Yeah the intent of this video really isn’t to confront JWs, but more to just show Christians in the quickest way possible that this translation is wacky. Some may see it and think, oh look, a translation I don’t own not realizing what it is.
@@djpodesta Catholics and Orthodox are well aware of this heretical group alongside Mormons & Seventh Day Adventists. Ironically all 3 heresies have people who were directly related.
It's even worse than that, Tim. Their translation of John 1:1 implies with their use of the small g that He whom we know as God is a false god. This is blatant heresy of the worst kind.
Muslims aren't monotheistic either. They claim their Koran is uncreated. Thus they have 2 untreated things. It gets even worse that individual chapters can speak to their allah according to their hadith.
@@jacobpalmer2572 YHWH God is 3 persons but all 3 share essence, nature and Divinity. At no time do they act independently of one another. The Son & Holy Spirit also come directly from The Father. Genesis even shows us there are two persons identified as YHWH as you have the one who eats food with Abraham & the other which is commanded to rain down sulfur on Sodom & Gomorrah.
Please remember; MANY Bible based groups try to explain that the word "Trinity" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE! And "the word was devine" IS ACCURATE. It was the Catholic church that forced the whole "Three in One" doctrine on the World. If your an actual Bible Scholar, you know that there is not a single verse to "back up" Catholic Trinity doctrine! The "Holy Spirit" is never described as a "Person" or a "god" or as equal to even THE SON Jesus! Take up your Bible and READ !
It's a "catholic" doctrine in the sense that it's universally held by true Christians. This matter was settled before the division of the original united church into smaller groups (including the ones that now call themselves Catholic).
I'm sorry, But YOU ARE DOING POLMIEMICS and NOT a CRITIQUE/REVIEW of a bible when ALL you do is go "they render x proof text for my pet doctrine in a way that differs from my traditional translation supporting my pet doctrine, ergo, its wrong and heretical and to be avoided". Here is a challenge to ANY Bible reviewer.. Analyze the NWT using NON-DOCTRINALLY CHARGED passages (doctrinally charged from either side of the debate). I'm not a JW nor do I use the NWT nor do I agree with its reading of John 1:1. But the standard criticism people blasts the NWT with is all the EXACT SAME content and about the SAME 3 to 5 verses that are theologically charged along the Arian/Trinitarian debate (and even using DOUBLE STANDARDS in those very arguments). What you are doing (on either pro-NWT or ANT-NWT sides is straight up Polemics and NOT doing HONEST AND FAIR REVIEWING of translations!
Have you watched my videos on the varying translations or are you the pot calling the kettle black? Before you use fancy words, make sure you know the context. Also this video is not a review. I do lots of reviews though, and yes even of translations that I’ve read (moving toward 18 as of now). With this is NOT a review it is a reason to avoid a heretical translation. Calling it Polemics is not unfair. It’s what it is and I’m not ashamed of what it is.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews yea, I have looked at other bible reviews you have done. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black, as I'm calling a polemical attack on a translation, rather than an actual review of the translation, AND I'm not guilty of the very thing I'm criticizing.
@@matthewmencel5978 the purpose of this video has nothing to do with trying to review the translation. It is a quick video to point out a clear heresy, just in case some unaware Christian thinks they’ve found a nice translation. This video was not made in a vacuum but as a result of reading a lot of translations. As I said in another comment. You talk a lot and say very little. Just throw in a big word (that you’ve misspelled several times) and hope it lands.
With all due respect, I do find this video hypocritical. The KJV has an intention error, taken from manuscipts that was added by a trinitarian scribe when they changed 1 John 5:7 to support the doctrine of the trinity. Most modern biblical scholars and textual critics agree that the Comma Johanneum was likely a later addition to the text, not part of the original manuscript of 1 John. It appears to have first surfaced in Latin manuscripts around the 4th century and gradually made its way into later Greek texts. Correct me if I am wrong but I have never seen you make this critique when reviewing KJV bibles.
Yes, E.W. Bullinger points out the addition of much of 1 John 5:7-8 in his Companion Bible, but these additions are a mistake, and they do not necessarily compromise any doctrine. The difference here is that those who put together the NWT deliberately and blatantly changed the verse to suit their doctrine, with full knowledge of what they were doing.
I have made dozens of videos regarding textual criticism and the textus receptus. This is clearly an intentional heretical text. You don’t need 1 John 5:17 to verify the Trinity anyhow.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It was criminal what they did, that you justify it because you think this is what the bible teaches anyway, is amazing. It is a betrayal of the honor and respect with which the word of God was supposed to be handled. I find it very strange that you who claim to be a lover of bibles is not as appalled as I am. You can't give the trinitarians a pass because you side with them, again my point stands you are a hypocrite. Even Martin Luther refused to add it to his version.
@@derrickpurdy7011 ! John 5:7 was no mistake, the critics all agree this was intentional, the trinitarian scribe inserting what he thought should be there. In my opinion that it remained unchanged for hundreds of years is the greater sin. Trinitarians act like its no big deal, but it is.
I wouldn't find that a form of Hypocrisy. The KJV is translated from a text that has the coma. It would be hypocritical if he were to review of the KJV and DEFEND its Blanket INSERTION of "GOD" in Acts 7:35, when the Greek text does not have that word AT ALL (at least "a god" is grammatically plausible), thus CREATING support for orthodox doctrine of Jesus' deity.. or defending translations lthat ADD "like" in Exodus 7:1 to correct the Hebrew calling Moses "God/god"
Even the Hebrew indicates an unmarried woman which is by implication of the time a virgin. This is a non debatable theological fact. Matthew quotes it as virgin. The end.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews that may be the correct interpretation. But that is most definitely not what the Hebrew text says. I mean do you want to be intellectually honest here or force an interpretation onto the actual text. Is it or is it not what the Hebrew word means? And should the translation reflect the actual meaning of the word?
So sneaky! These people come to my door often. They are told not to google their own organization or read any other translations other than the KJV and this NWT. I’ve pointed out their cultish false gospel and begged them to repent and pray with me that they would understand and accept the true Gospel. The only Gospel of the one true Jesus that can save them. They are not our enemies, but the mission field. Judgment and vengeance belongs to the Lord. And they will be judged. But we must endeavor to pull them out of this cult and bring them to the one true Jesus.
Galatians 1:8-9
[8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
(ESV)
The false gospels almost always contain 99% truth. It’s the 1% of heresy that sneaks in.
Good job pointing this out and thank you for the warning!
There are still verses in it with which you can prove Jesus is God. Satan makes mistakes
Absolutely.
The NWT is straight out of Hell. Thank you for doing these warning videos, pastor.
Tim,
I have a hardbound copy of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures from 1985 on my bookshelf.
It contains the Greek Text Above (The NT In the Original Greek by B.F Westcott & F.J.A. Hort 1881), English Translation Underneath (An interlinear word for word translation into English - 1969), & English Text alongside (NWT - 1984 Revision).
I also have a hardbound copy the NWT - 1984 Revision as well.
I acquired both copies from a former Episcopalian turned JW, who was renting space to a friend of mine. We both used to go back and forth in Bible ping pong quite a bit when I visited. Tbis woman has since passed on, but she always developed the shingles after we spoke.
I use both as evangelism tools whenever they come "a knockin'." God bless.
Thank you for this, Tim. The changes you point out in John 1 may seem subtle and will likely be unnoticed by many people, they are critical to understanding who Jesus is and accepting Him in His entirety. This "translation" was intentional.
Thank you for warning and explaining
Yep, I used to speak with them quite a bit 20 years ago before they came out with the edition that eliminated the brackets. I used it against them many times and also showed them the Greek which didn't have either Greek word for "other" (heteros/allos) in the original text of Colossians 1 and it was persuasive. Now, without the brackets, it's harder to make this grammatical argument; at least it has been in my experience.
Thank you for sharing, brother
I hope you do a video about the passion translation. Lately, I hear so many "leaders" quoting from it. It disturbs me that they don't know that it shouldn't even be referred to much less treated as a good or maybe even superior translation. They may as well be reading from the Quran or the book of Mormon.
I’ve already made one.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews great,thanks!
Years ago I gathered quite a collection of older WT books from Ebay, including several editions of their NWT. (Tim, I even have an old Rutherford LP recording that they used to tote around with a record player - you might find that cool). My intent at the time was to use them when speaking to JWs when they came knocking in order to show them the errors, unfulfilled prophecies etc. from their own literature. I also wanted to demonstrate that the deity of Christ was still clearly taught in their "scriptures."
Long story short, I never used any of it and they've been sitting around collecting dust. I don't know whether to sell or donate them to other Christians who might use them when witnessing to JWs, or just toss them all. I don't want them in the hands of someone who could be deceived by them. I've read that JWs are known to buy up their old literature when they find it online and destroy it themselves, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.
Wow. That would be wild.
Just threw those away today
I got one from a JW cousin. Sadly, it makes me feel like I need to wash my hands, and ask God's forgiveness.
I received one from a family member and attended a meeting. The fact they were literally reading a magazine article and asking/answering questions based on the article rather than the Bible was disturbing.
Where can one find their greek side by side? Thank you for making this informative known about their scripture being tampered with!
It may only be available online. Not sure if they have it in print.
Thank you very much ! @@anickelsworthbiblereviews
Not a translation I’d get. Thanks for the great video.
I always appreciate your thoughts and views on things and especially how much you love and respect God's word, as shown in your reviews and other topics, and the recent posts about caring for our Bibles, etc, but I would express some difference of thought as to this subject.
Now first off, I am not a JW and never was one, but I do have this edition and have used all their other revisions of the NWT, with all the other main versions, Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, etc. And while I admit that I do not particularly care for the translation, the 2013 is much better than the previous editions as far as readability, I must say that the bias and such that goes into the NWT is also done by other versions, in the opposite theological direction. For instance, the ESV, and the NASB line of Bibles. (LSB being the biggest example in a few spots)
As examples, in almost all of the verses which have Christological significance, the ESV and the NASB translators go out of their way to translate the verse to sound the most trinitarian, and they also delete any footnote which may suggest an alternate reading or textual variant. So if you look at verses such as Psalms 45:6, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Acts 20:28, and of course Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, all of these verses are translated in the NWT text in the way that other Evangelical editions show in footnotes or in the actual text. For instance the RSV, NRSV, NABRE, NEB, REB, (non Evangelical versions) and also even the NIV 2011, NLT, CSB, NET (Evangelical versions) all have a footnote which give the alternative readings which match what the NWT places in the text.
Now personally I don't particularly care for the NWT, but not because of the reasons most don't like it. I do not prefer it because of the distinct JW peculiarities, such as words like torture stake instead of cross, undeserved kindness instead of grace, "declared righteous" instead of "justified" (some of my favorite versions use this last phrase as well, in some places anyway) I prefer the traditional theological words and phrases. The NWT also leaves out many translation possibilities and footnotes which may contradict their theology.
This comment is becoming a book and I apologize for that, but I think we should at least acknowledge that some Evangelical translations/translators are guilty of the same bias and tactics as the WTBTS and the NWT translators, though on opposite ends of the theological spectrum. And both no doubt do so because of conviction and integrity, though I disagree with the tactic on both sides. Again ESV and LSB do the same more than probably most other Evangelical versions. Why not at least put the footnotes in? Even if they translate it in their preferred theological way, show the people the other variants or translation possibilities. The truth will be found, why hide things? Anyway, God bless, and I hope this comment doesn't trouble anyone 🙏
I’ve done individual videos on some of those translations.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have watched quite a few of them. I always find them interesting.
I've seen dozens of them in thrift stores.
You knew the comments would get frustrating, but it needs to be said.
Oh it hasn’t even begun yet. Ha ha.
Tim thank you for the review of the NWT and being even handed in mentioning some of its positive aspects in addition to the anti-Trinitarian portion (which is where most reviews stop). As a former Jehovah’s witness of over 40 years who now is without a home, theologically speaking, I would like to add just a couple of comments here that may help “flesh out” the review. While the NWT certainly has a clear bias when it comes to Trinitarian theology, it also has many redeeming portions. The way this translation handles scriptures like Matthew 5:3 is truly well done (instead of “poor in spirit” it renders “conscious of their spiritual need” (somewhat similar to the NLT)). The same is true of Genesis 1:3 and 14, where most translations have God creating light twice, while the NWT makes the distinction between the Hebrew words used (light and luminaries). Young’s Literal is the only other one that gets it right there. It also does a very good job in rendering Hebrew verb tenses, such as Genesis 2:3 “he has been resting” vs. almost everyone else’s “he rested”. (This comports also with Hebrews 4:3 - 11.) Those positives stated, the 2013 edition of the NWT (the edition you reviewed) takes a deep dive into cult waters in several ways. For instance the Colossians 1 passage that you referred to used to have brackets to show the insertion of the word [other] to alert readers to inserted material. That is no longer the case, as you pointed out. Other notable changes from previous editions include the rewriting of Micah 6:8, which changes “love kindness” to “cherish loyalty”, which reinforces Watchtower’s agenda of absolute unquestioning loyalty to their organization. Another self-serving change is to change the rendering “older men” (a description) in relation to the congregation to “elder” (a title) which carries a denomination specific definition that only JW’s would know. Someday, I would love to chat with you about John 1:1, specifically a preferred translation of the text. There is an article in the 1973 JBL by Phillip Harner that covers this extensively. Thank you for making such great content.
it ain't a review, but a plemic!
@@matthewmencel5978 Matthew, apologies, but your comment is unclear. Did you mean to say polemic? And were you referring to Tim’s review, my comment, or both?
@@WatchtowerHunter his review
I stopped at my local kingdom hall and asked for one a couple years ago - guy gave me one without a sales pitch or anything - so if anyone wants one for research purposes (please don’t join the cult), just stop some time when it’s not busy looking and let them know you heard their version is really readable (not a lie) and ask if they one. I’m sure some people wouldn’t be comfortable doing that, but for those that are it’s an easy ask. It’s kinda too bad too because it’s a really well put together budget type Bible. Get the same materials and format for a NKJV and it would be a great deal for like $25.
They aren’t hard to find for $1.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews that might still a bit steep for a translation that invites heresy, lol
Ha.
Thanks Pastor Tim. This one is out there for sure. We’ve had a couple of questions pop up about it at our church over the years.
The Russellites? Are those guys still going?
Oh yeah. They have a location in my town. Still walking the streets too.
Sadly. They're all over the midwest US.
ISR and TLV did a translations that they call The Scriptures too.
Yeah this is actually an old video I had to edit and re-release. But I’ve since done videos on a few others they are on the end screen.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Why did you have to edit and re-release?
I thought you would makes this video about the Passion "translation" lol
I actually have. It’s on the list.
Tim, totally agree with you concerning the NWT. But you're going to have to "splain yourself" (as Ricky Ricardo would say) in reference to the use of the word "scriptures." Jesus Himself said, "Search the scriptures for in them [the scriptures] ye think ye have eternal life;and they [the scriptures] are they which testify of me." John 5:39 So what am I missing? Why is referring to the Bible as the scriptures some kind of heresy? BTW great videos.
He's not saying that it's wrong to call these books the scriptures, but that it's usually a red flag when the translators actively avoiding calling it the Bible.
Are you keeping this scripture book on your shelf?
Not with my office books no.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have had copy of NWT and their Greek Interlinear NT since the 1990/2000’s. It is gathering dust now, but I used to refer to it when witnessing to the witnesses.
It used to be an interesting exercise, but it was not as fruitful as I would have hoped. I found that dealing with indoctrinated people who are content with their surroundings rarely goes the way you would like.
Each persons view of the Holy Spirit just cancels each other out.
Yeah the intent of this video really isn’t to confront JWs, but more to just show Christians in the quickest way possible that this translation is wacky. Some may see it and think, oh look, a translation I don’t own not realizing what it is.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Hopefully a RCC audience is watching… 😄🙏
@@djpodesta Catholics and Orthodox are well aware of this heretical group alongside Mormons & Seventh Day Adventists. Ironically all 3 heresies have people who were directly related.
You should look into the SDA “Clear Word”. It’s even worse
It's even worse than that, Tim. Their translation of John 1:1 implies with their use of the small g that He whom we know as God is a false god. This is blatant heresy of the worst kind.
I’m not sure their stance on capitalization and its meaning.
There is a "translation" by a group that calls themselves the Palmarian Church. It is also blasphemous
Jews, Muslims & Christians believe in ONE GOD!!! Doesn't making Jesus A god make the JWs polytheistic?
I’d say so.
Muslims aren't monotheistic either. They claim their Koran is uncreated. Thus they have 2 untreated things. It gets even worse that individual chapters can speak to their allah according to their hadith.
Wouldn’t saying Jesus is God be polytheistic as well? How can God be 3 and there be only 1 God?
@@jacobpalmer2572 YHWH God is 3 persons but all 3 share essence, nature and Divinity. At no time do they act independently of one another. The Son & Holy Spirit also come directly from The Father. Genesis even shows us there are two persons identified as YHWH as you have the one who eats food with Abraham & the other which is commanded to rain down sulfur on Sodom & Gomorrah.
Jehovah's Witnesses basically believe Arianism/Adoptionism.
Please remember; MANY Bible based groups try to explain that the word "Trinity" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE! And "the word was devine" IS ACCURATE. It was the Catholic church that forced the whole "Three in One" doctrine on the World. If your an actual Bible Scholar, you know that there is not a single verse to "back up" Catholic Trinity doctrine!
The "Holy Spirit" is never described as a "Person" or a "god" or as equal to even THE SON Jesus!
Take up your Bible and READ !
I’m trinitarian because I read my bible.
It's a "catholic" doctrine in the sense that it's universally held by true Christians. This matter was settled before the division of the original united church into smaller groups (including the ones that now call themselves Catholic).
Yikes, this is even worse than the Passion "translation".
I'm sorry, But YOU ARE DOING POLMIEMICS and NOT a CRITIQUE/REVIEW of a bible when ALL you do is go "they render x proof text for my pet doctrine in a way that differs from my traditional translation supporting my pet doctrine, ergo, its wrong and heretical and to be avoided". Here is a challenge to ANY Bible reviewer.. Analyze the NWT using NON-DOCTRINALLY CHARGED passages (doctrinally charged from either side of the debate).
I'm not a JW nor do I use the NWT nor do I agree with its reading of John 1:1. But the standard criticism people blasts the NWT with is all the EXACT SAME content and about the SAME 3 to 5 verses that are theologically charged along the Arian/Trinitarian debate (and even using DOUBLE STANDARDS in those very arguments). What you are doing (on either pro-NWT or ANT-NWT sides is straight up Polemics and NOT doing HONEST AND FAIR REVIEWING of translations!
Have you watched my videos on the varying translations or are you the pot calling the kettle black? Before you use fancy words, make sure you know the context. Also this video is not a review. I do lots of reviews though, and yes even of translations that I’ve read (moving toward 18 as of now). With this is NOT a review it is a reason to avoid a heretical translation. Calling it Polemics is not unfair. It’s what it is and I’m not ashamed of what it is.
@anickelsworthbiblereviews yea, I have looked at other bible reviews you have done. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black, as I'm calling a polemical attack on a translation, rather than an actual review of the translation, AND I'm not guilty of the very thing I'm criticizing.
@@matthewmencel5978 the purpose of this video has nothing to do with trying to review the translation. It is a quick video to point out a clear heresy, just in case some unaware Christian thinks they’ve found a nice translation. This video was not made in a vacuum but as a result of reading a lot of translations. As I said in another comment. You talk a lot and say very little. Just throw in a big word (that you’ve misspelled several times) and hope it lands.
With all due respect, I do find this video hypocritical. The KJV has an intention error, taken from manuscipts that was added by a trinitarian scribe when they changed 1 John 5:7 to support the doctrine of the trinity. Most modern biblical scholars and textual critics agree that the Comma Johanneum was likely a later addition to the text, not part of the original manuscript of 1 John. It appears to have first surfaced in Latin manuscripts around the 4th century and gradually made its way into later Greek texts. Correct me if I am wrong but I have never seen you make this critique when reviewing KJV bibles.
Yes, E.W. Bullinger points out the addition of much of 1 John 5:7-8 in his Companion Bible, but these additions are a mistake, and they do not necessarily compromise any doctrine. The difference here is that those who put together the NWT deliberately and blatantly changed the verse to suit their doctrine, with full knowledge of what they were doing.
I have made dozens of videos regarding textual criticism and the textus receptus. This is clearly an intentional heretical text. You don’t need 1 John 5:17 to verify the Trinity anyhow.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It was criminal what they did, that you justify it because you think this is what the bible teaches anyway, is amazing. It is a betrayal of the honor and respect with which the word of God was supposed to be handled. I find it very strange that you who claim to be a lover of bibles is not as appalled as I am. You can't give the trinitarians a pass because you side with them, again my point stands you are a hypocrite. Even Martin Luther refused to add it to his version.
@@derrickpurdy7011 ! John 5:7 was no mistake, the critics all agree this was intentional, the trinitarian scribe inserting what he thought should be there. In my opinion that it remained unchanged for hundreds of years is the greater sin. Trinitarians act like its no big deal, but it is.
I wouldn't find that a form of Hypocrisy. The KJV is translated from a text that has the coma. It would be hypocritical if he were to review of the KJV and DEFEND its Blanket INSERTION of "GOD" in Acts 7:35, when the Greek text does not have that word AT ALL (at least "a god" is grammatically plausible), thus CREATING support for orthodox doctrine of Jesus' deity.. or defending translations lthat ADD "like" in Exodus 7:1 to correct the Hebrew calling Moses "God/god"
Kinda like the ESV and other translations saying virgin in Isaiah 7:14
Yeah, kinda like the Septuagint too.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I guess if we go through enough ancient manuscripts we can find the words we want.
Even the Hebrew indicates an unmarried woman which is by implication of the time a virgin. This is a non debatable theological fact. Matthew quotes it as virgin. The end.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews that may be the correct interpretation. But that is most definitely not what the Hebrew text says. I mean do you want to be intellectually honest here or force an interpretation onto the actual text. Is it or is it not what the Hebrew word means? And should the translation reflect the actual meaning of the word?
So do you not believe that text in Isaiah is talking about Mary, or do you not believe she was a virgin?