Atheists - Check Mate!

Post Reply New Topic

Do you know Jehova's witnesses are the only people who actually read the Bible properly... and yet they get made the most fun out of O_o

They the most forward thinking!! !

And they are the NICEST bunch of people you will ever ever meet collectively.

Next time they knock on your door.... have a conversation with them. Not necceserally about religion, but just to see how nice they actually are

I agree with you here. I don't agree with Descartes later on, but the first and second meditations are quite thought-provoking (IMO he should've stopped there...LOL). There is reason to question what we can know, and it is not a bad idea to keep that in the back of our minds when considering other points of view. It doesn't mean you have to be an "omni-agnostic" or that you have to be paralyzed in daily living, only that you leave your mind open to the possibility that you may not know what you think you do.

~Kate

Awwwww....I take their leaflets and put them in my son's gerbil cages!

~Kate

Well at least it's useful!! !

Oh, SURE, they're nice and all. But don't be mistaken: They do NOT read the Bible properly.

They have a unique Bible translation. The scholarly qualifications of the translators who composed the New World has repeatedly been called into question. That committee remains anonymous, purportedly so that God would be glorified and not the translators. Well, if the translators are so knowledgable of the Bible and have so much to offer in the "proper" rendering of the text, why hide? Witness doctrine had been set BEFORE their translation was written, and, conveniently enough, the New World has several renderings that, different from other renderings, conforms the Bible to their doctrine. Why should this happen? Does it not make better sense to conform doctrine to what is written in the Bible?

That's not to say Biblical text SHOULDN'T be reviewed and questioned. Catholic prayers for the dead and the concept of purgatory are drawn from OT apocrypha, books of the OT that even the Jews recognize as not being inspired text and therefore unworthy of inclusion. Protestants understand that the sole reason for the inclusion of those texts is to support a specific pre-conceived doctrine. And, at least with the case for purgatory, the "scripture" that is oft quoted in support really has nothing to say for purgatory!! !

The Bible affirms that Jesus was considered by His followers to be the Son of God and worthy of worship. A reading of the New World contradicts this, as it was deliberately rendered to do so. John 1:1 from the New World says this: In the beginning, was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god. Such renderings are done with the intention of denying the deity of Christ.

Witnesses also have no intention to actually listen to what others have to say about correct Biblical teaching. I once had a lovely discussion with a pair of Witnesses up until the point I excused myself to get my own translation of the Bible. No sooner had I entered the room, they got in a real hurry to leave. I wonder why. Could it be they assumed I was just any other regular Joe with no real knowledge of what was actually in the Bible, and then panicked when they realized I actually knew what I was talking about?

REAL Biblical debate ought have no fear of challenges, even from unbelievers. My general rule is if I get stumped on something, all I have to do is simply say, "Hmmm... I don't know about that, but it sounds fishy to me. Let me read up on that so I can get a clearer picture, and maybe I'll have a better response next time." I've found PLENTY of things I grew up believing that I was taught by people I thought knew what they were talking about that are simply just not true. It doesn't mean that the people I learned these things from are evil people. It just means that they honestly believed the same things they were taught from an early age and never saw fit to question those things. It's no different with Witnesses, just on a grander scale.

Personally, I may be critical of what Witnesses believe. One SHOULD be. But I'll never make fun of them. Such gross and deliberate misinterpretation of scripture is no laughing matter.

Hmmm... I don't know about that, but it sounds fishy to me. Let me read up on that so I can get a clearer picture, and maybe I'll have a better response next time

But seriously, I will ask my Witness friends about this, and see what they say about it, cause I don't know enough about it to answer questions that go so deep into it.

I shouldn't have brought up such a deep subject, really lol

Okay, let's crack my New American Standard, just for comparison purposes. Let's see - here we are, John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Can't find my KJV just at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it's almost exactly the same wording. How does this deny the divinity of the Christ? In point of fact, that seems to be established by the passages which follow. John 1:2-4: "He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men."

John 1:3 is a bit redundant, though (although it also makes a good counterargument for one YEC claim, that evidence for a 4-billion-year-old Earth was created by Satan to lead us astray; this obviously contradicts Biblical teaching, and thus must be dismissed by the very tenets which propose it).

I can't say I'm terribly familiar with the root beliefs of JWs, as their door-to-door proselytizing of professed Christians immediately runs afoul of Romans chapter 14 (read it; it's really quite interesting, especially in light of modern evangelism), and thus turns me away from any further study. I don't have a lot of patience with internal inconsistency.

How is that a mistranslation? I mean, that is exactly what it says in the original Greek. "En archay ain ho logos, kai ho logos ain pros ton theon, kai theos ain ho logos." (Apologies for the transliteration, I'm too lazy to find a Greek font) That translates to "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." That verse is usually one of the biggest ones used to argue for the divinity of Christ.

He's attacking a particular translation. The New World version is different than other translations on that passage.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The big difference is "was God" and "was a god".

I don't see the problem they have with Romans 14. I haven't been evangelized by a Jehovah's Witness though.

That's my point. The intended reading of John 1:1 is to AFFIRM that Christ is equal with God, that they are one and the same and that Christ Himself is divine.

If you're checking out the original Greek, you'll notice that there is no definite article ("the") in the Greek before "God." That's where the Witnesses get "a god." But sentences of this form in Greek, which are two nouns joined by a form of the verb "to be," normally placed the article ONLY before the subject of the sentence, regardless of word order. The traditional translation IS the correct translation.

When "god" is mentioned in the Bible, it has different meanings. The Egyptian pharaoh, for instance was regarded by his people as "a god." Deification of a king made sense, even if it was wrong, because that solidified the ruler's authority over his people. In fact, it was customary at the time within surrounding cultures to refer to kings as "gods," not surprising in that often the same words translated "gods" also meant "kings." The varying words from which we get the English "God" ACTUALLY referred to a "king" or a "lord." The chief objection to installing a king over Israel, in fact, derived from the fact the most learned and pious of the ancient Israelites recognized that God alone was "King" and that having a human, earthly king diminished God's authority over His people. Hence we have reference to God being "God of gods, King of kings, Lord of lords," and so on. The word Baal, likewise, was a word that meant "Lord." But as a proper name it also referred to a deity separate and apart from God, the worship of whom violated God's commands and sovereignty and was, indeed, a false god represented by man-made images and who had no real power as he didn't really exist.

Now, it is true that God's true name has been obscured over the millennia, and there is good reason for it. In reading the ten commandments, we find "Do not misuse the name of God." God's actual name was so sacred that the common person was forbidden to even speak it. Ancient Hebrew spelling of God's name does not include vowels, which renders the spelling (English equivalent) YHWH. German biblical scholars and translators rendered a German equivalent, a very loose transliteration based on their understanding of it at the time. Y is replaced with J (which has the same sound in the German language), and the German "W" is pronounced like the English "V." God is also referred to Adonai, and it is believed that the vowel sounds of "adonai" were used to fill in the gaps, which gives us the name Jehovah.

No true contemporary Biblical scholar believes for one second that "Jehovah" is God's real name, although it has come into common usage among Christians. Because of the restrictions on the use of God's name, it has become lost. The ONLY clue we have as to the correct pronunciation of God's name comes from the Samaritans (who happen to still be around). Thus YHWH is rendered Yahweh.

The words that we translate "God" or "god" were not derived from the Name. There are, however, references to "Sons of God" in the plural sense, which is taken as a reference to the angels. There are OT references to "The Angel of the Lord," or the "Messenger of the Lord," which might EASILY be understood (correctly) as a reference to Jesus Himself prior to the virgin birth. For example, when Jacob wrestles with "the angel of the Lord," there is also a reference to Jacob communicating with God. These terms are not unclear. Which is it? An angel? God Himself? The idea of Jacob wrestling with the pre-incarnate Son of God is not illogical nor is it inconsistent.

Witnesses will say that references to the archangel Michael and to Abaddon are references to Jesus Himself. They are NOT.

To relegate Jesus to one of the "gods" or angels is to deny that Jesus is one with God the Father. To them, Jesus was the first angel, a special creation of God apart from God. That makes Jesus a (little "g") god, not (big "G") God. This runs contrary to Jesus' teachings.

I could go on and on, moving from changes within the Bible, what the actual truth of the Bible is, to Watchtower teachings external to the text that are inconsistent, but I'd be typing all day long. MUCH of NWT is actually pretty good translating. But key points in translation are clearly biased in favor of Witness doctrine.

What is God's true name and how did anyone find out what it was since it seems to be unmentionable?

Jehova, and according to the original scriptures, it's not unmentionable or too holy, as God wants to be known by Jehova.

Christians make that mistake today, by thinking they not allowed to use his name as it's blasphemy :S which ain't true

my guess would be somebody spelled dog backwards.

Because labels apply to concepts and not just objects or people? LOL that was too easy...

I don't want to sound rude to you but.........*facepalm*.

God has different names in different religions, times and languages: Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, etc..... so even though different parts of the world have their own concept of a deity, they don't call it "God".

Sorry, that's a very weak arguement.

If God had a name, what would it be? topic

Humans are obsessed with names and conspiracy theories. Then we write leaflets, scatter them to the wind and tell anyone who listens that this is the word of god, or is it dog?