It clearly says in Revelation 22:18 not to take away or add to...woe to them that do. Apparently the Jehovah Witnesses make a big deal of the word "a" being left out of John 1:1meaning that their is more than one god.....their is only one god, not more than one. And they don't believe in the trinity...which to me is practically the same thing as rejecting it, which is not a good thing. Can someone please explain to me?
2007-07-20 08:23:10 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Restoring proper translation of the Greek and Hebrew is not changing the bible.
Notice how one scholar agreed with the NWT, and yet chose to miss translate their bible anyway.
Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
How many other bibles have been 'made to agree' with the KJV traditions?
As to the correctness or accuracy of the NWT please read.
Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
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
Per Dr BeDuhn to Translate 'The Word was God'
is the same as saying "Snoopy was dog"
Ask your English teacher if "Snoopy was dog" is correct english.
NAB footnote to John 1:1 states that God(2) is a quality and not an identification.
1 Cor 8:6 states that God the Father (Jehovah) is the only God.
John 17:3 Jesus tells us that The Father (Jehovah) is the only true God.
Rev 1:6 John tells us about the God and Father of Jesus.
Rev 3:12 Jesus tells about his God, (the God of me)
John 1:1 Per Dr BeDuhn, only the NWT translated this verse correctly of the bibles reviewed.
He did say he perfered "the Word was divine" but again divine is a quality not an identification.
When we say 'God is divine' we don't mean God is God.
we mean God has godly qualities.
Jesus has Godly qualities because Heb 1:3
He is an exact representation.
2 Cor 4:4 If we believe Jesus is more than an image of God, then we are being blinded by Satan.
.
2007-07-21 12:18:54 · answer #1 · answered by TeeM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a question of interpretation. Someone can read something, and understand it to mean something different then someone else.
Also, the bible has been changed over time. The scripture in Revelation was ONLY meant for THE BOOK OF REVELATION!!! If it wasn't, then all the gospels of John wouldn't have been added. They were written after Revelation. So does that mean that John himself- who also wrote Revelation- would be cursed for adding to his own writing? Revelation may have been put at the end of the bible, but is for sure wasn't the last book written.
The bible as we know it today, was put together at the same council that decided on the trinity doctrine. They decided what books would be included, and which books wouldn't. I'll bet you didn't know that there are other books that weren't put in the bible itself, but that still have meaning to us. I know that the Catholic church has these books available to read, if you wanted to. Just because it isn't in the bible, doesn't mean it can't be God's word.
Just because a church doesn't believe in the trinity doesn't make them wrong. The trinity wasn't even decided upon until AFTER the 3rd century, and wasn't even doctrine until after the 4th. I think if Christ wanted this doctrine to be well known, he would have spelled it out better. Since He didn't there is room for interpretation, and for others to think differently. Just because you believe it, and think it's right, doesn't mean that someone else can't believe something else. That is our right. Everyone has a right to believe as they see fit.
I'm not going to judge someone for thinking something different then I do, or for following what they believe to be right. So what if it's different from my own personal beliefs? Does that make it wrong? Maybe for me, but not for them. Give us all a break, and just learn to be tolerant to what others believe. Maybe if we all did that, we may learn something interesting along the way, and maybe be able to see everyone for the children of God that we all are.
2007-07-20 09:06:14 · answer #2 · answered by odd duck 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Holy- meaning sacred, of divine origin..
Bible- from the Latin word for "library", a collection of books or records..
Most religions see "evidence" of their own religion in the Bible, even though even Christian religions have differences between them. As MirandaJ said, it's all about interpretation, how each individual views and understands what they read.
In the US, there is a freedom of religion. That means that we are all allowed to believe and worship as we see fit. I'm pretty sure that you and I believe different things, and I suspect that we both disagree with how and what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You and I have a constitutional right to worship and belive as we please. Please allow the Jehovah's Witnesses to do the same.
2007-07-20 16:47:27 · answer #3 · answered by Yoda's Duck 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And why we can take the bible of your desk and show you exactly the same we believe with your own version?
And how do you know if the book you called bible (Which is a translation) is not corrupted?
Have you compare with other versions and with the Diaglott Emphatic (greek bible) I did it would you like to see and get surprised with some "fixes" done to some bibles?
You don´t know how much do I enjoy showing people the bible in greek and when they see with their own eyes how John 1:1 was changed in their bibles when they see that in the original scriptures are written in the way NWT translated.
Would you like to see it? are you prepared to see it? what are you going to say when you see that we don´t changed cause it was written in that way?
2007-07-20 08:30:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Popular versions of the Bible are produced by denominationally-oriented publishers that have their own peculiar bias. The Catholics have their own Bibles. Protestants have their own Bibles, too. Each have their merits and weaknesses.
The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.”
It was the satanic lying Jews that accused Jesus of being God. Jesus corrected them saying he is the Son of his father, a god, just like the Jews were called gods.
2007-07-21 04:58:48 · answer #5 · answered by keiichi 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its just a book put together at a conference called by emperor Constantine in Nicea I believe. Many books (gospels) that early christians used were voted out until a consensus was reached to get to the bible you have today. so exactly what's so sacred about a book put together by a committee.
Even the book you use today has been altered since those days.
2007-07-20 08:31:35 · answer #6 · answered by discombobulated 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
guess what, our bible is the same as the king james except Jehovah's name is put back in the places it belongs. I have a king james bible and I check everytime I use my bible. if anyone changed the bible it is the king james bible because they took out Jehovah's name and put in Lord or God. that is not his name, that is only titles
2007-07-20 08:46:15 · answer #7 · answered by lover of Jehovah and Jesus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you! the J.W. movement is nothing short of a cult and I only read a King James as it has remained the same since it was first published in the year 1611
the warning given in Revelation should be taken very seriously as one of the plagues mentioned in the Bible is death.
2007-07-20 08:29:56 · answer #8 · answered by mandbturner3699 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I posted the same question not to long ago...their theology is so shaky that they have to rewrite the scriptures to even have a religion.
I spent over 20 years as a JW...It took 18 to deprogram ans now I am an avid Bible researcher..It is so important to not be fooled by counterfeit theology.
2007-07-21 17:13:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cross-linguistic misunderstanding, cultural misunderstandings, political agendas, personal agendas, and ego.
There is no one original bible. Even ancient versions of the same books have significant differences among them.
2007-07-20 08:28:59 · answer #10 · answered by Scott M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋