Can Jehovah's witnesses use something besides watchtower.org to back up their beliefs?

Question

Lover...no you can't I can use your bible and my bible better then you

Vic the poet..Mosie says I was never a JW..can you get with him and decide between yourselves my past and let me know?

Answer 1

Most people who ask JWs for proof of their beliefs, apart from anything the Watchtower Society has said, will take their New World Translation and flit like butterflies from one proof text to another with amazing dexterity. It soon becomes obvious that they are remarkably conversant with the Bible. Of course, the reason for this is that they have soaked up reams of Watchtower Society literature beforehand, answered millions of questions on it at their meetings (parrot fashion - no answers that disagree with the printed explanations are allowed), and spent years being trained in public speaking and fielding awkward questions. So we've got ourselves into a circuitous state of affairs.

What came first - Watchtower Society explanations of the Bible, or the Bible?

Answer 2

Jehovah's Witnesses use the bible as their authority, and are happy to use any translation which any householder may prefer.

When Jehovah's Witnesses refer interested persons to Watchtower.org or other bible-based publications, it is not as though these are authorities which must be respected by non-Witnesses. Instead, these publications simply contain additional material, and allow the interested person to continue to research as much or as little as the interested person prefers.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/

Answer 3

They use the Bible too. It's just the pamphlets that are from Watchtower to make you want to learn more about the organization. It's definitely a cult. Men can't have facial hair, an earring, or smoke, but drinking is OK. Nobody can be given a blood transfusion. Apparently the JW bible says that a transfusion is against God. I know someone who accepted one to save her life and even her whole family wouldn't talk to her, she was ex-communicated, and ended up dying. The "church" wouldn't hold a ceremony. The JWs pick and choose which passages in their bible to back up beliefs, even if it's out of context from the rest of the passage.

That said, I do know a few nice JWs and they just stop by to see what we're up to, not to proselytize.

Answer 4

Umm...all the information there is from the Bible.

I dont know what you're problem is, with every question i see you post it becomes more clear that if you were a JW before, then you're an apostate now.

Answer 5

we can take you into your own bible as well as our bible also. I don't know what you have with the Jehovah Witnesses. I think you are an apostate also. I don't think so, but I am not going to argue with you because it is not worth it

Answer 6

They could use their own publications. They have them on CD, and the older ones are available online....

Like here, where they said the end would come in 1914:

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.. It will prove that he whose right it is to thus take the dominion, will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date .. It will prove that some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized church of Christ, the 'royal priesthood' 'the body of Christ,' will be glorified with the Head .. It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor .. It will prove that by that date, or sooner, .. the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected .. It will prove that the great 'time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,' will reach its final culmination, and end, at that date .. The condition of things spoken of in symbolic language as raging waves of the sea, melting earth, falling mountains, and burning heavens, will then have passed away .. It will prove that before that date, God's kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth, and will have smitten and crushed the Gentile image .." C.T.Russell: Studies in the Scriptures II - The Time Is At Hand, 1888-9, 1891, 1895, 1898, 1901-20, 1923-7

"The 'Time of the End', a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures." C.T.Russell: Studies in the Scriptures III - Thy Kingdom Come,
1891, 1895, 1898, 1901-20, 1923-7

Answer 7

They can use their own weird translation of the Bible. Its called the Revised Standard Perversion.

Opps, that's my pet nickname for it.

They call it the NWT: New World Translation.

Which is the KJV edited by a few high school dropouts to put their own beliefs into the text.

They can use it, but its not a valid translation.

Pastor Art

Answer 8

Yes, it's called the Bible.

Why, do most translators of the english bible use improper english to prove a non bible teaching.

Example: Ask your english teacher what is wrong with these sentences?

Snoopy was dog.
(you can't use 'the' because it is not in the Greek)

Before you were, I am.

These sentences are proper Greek, but are not proper translations into english.

According to the NAB footnote to John 1:1

God(2) is a quality and not an identification.

The Word is godlike, divine, or a god.

But the Word is not (the) God.

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

According to Dr. BeDuhn, only the NWT translated all the above verses correctly.

"and the Word was a god." we have:

The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808)
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J. Becker, 1979)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J. L. Tomanec, 1958)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J. S. Thompson, 1829)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S. Schulz, 1975)

The Translator's New Testament says:

"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos(God)so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"

Please note divine means godlike or like god.

This angel food cake is divine doesn't mean It is God.

===

Edit for Anna

Col 2: 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

That the New World Bible Translation Committee were perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them.

Thus Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (Col 2:9) (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).

It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, "the fullness of God's nature."

The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity."

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that "carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," and they are urged to "go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul's argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious "fullness," in Christ.-Col 2:10-12."


This understanding is in harmony with

Heb 1: 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being,

Col 2:9 is in harmony with John 1:1 in that Jesus has the qualities of God, not that he is God.

Again why are you teaching Plato over Christ?
Why are you promoting philosophy of men over Christ?

Why are you teaching image worship?


2 Cor 4:4

.

Answer 9

The fact is that no matter what they do or who they use to say what they believe, the truth remains: their teachings go against the Bible. As long as they don't profess themselves as followers of Jesus Christ, then they have the right in the USA to practice their own religious beliefs. I respect that, esspecially today when I got an urgent email notifying me that very soon we will be losing our rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech here in America. Its a shame: thats what our parents in the old days used to explain to us was so wonderful about this country, and now its just about gone.

Answer 10

They are the watchtower.org. They print that. Other than that, I guess they use the bible like most other Christians.