First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply ~HELL~
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/7/13

AcadGlade wrote:

Now the Bible has great advise on how to live a clean simple life, but YOU don't have to heed it if YOU don't want to, YOU can go off and do as YOU please, and suffer the consequences of YOUR actions.


Which bible do you keep quoting from by the way? I'm curious.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/7/13
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does that help?
10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 5/7/13

AcadGlade wrote:

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does that help?


Jehovah's Witness' translation... ok that makes more sense to me now... Interesting group. Especially all the failed prophetic armageddons.

For those that dont know. The NWT was written in the 1960's. Its actually considered fairly unbiased. Except where parts are changed to support JW doctrine and policy. But that is to be expected with any religious group translation.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/7/13
That is YOUR opinion, which is not according to fact, There are no parts of the Bible that have been changed to support JW Doctrine, of course you have NEVER actually gone through the New World Translation yourself, I would suggest before you go trolling a translation, would be to throughly go and get a copy for yourself, I would recommend the hard bound large print with cross references, then check the forward and introduction

New World Translation is a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.

On what is the “New World Translation” based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.

And where YOU say failed, sure some had expectations that were not realized, But at least we haven't given up keeping on the watch, and as Proverbs 4:18: " But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established, " we have come to realize that we are deep in what is termed " The last days of the wicked system of things " and as Mark. 13: 33: " Keep looking, Keep awake, for YOU do not know when the appointed time is. " Then Jesus gives an illustration as to how the appointed time would be like, than adds finally, " But I say to YOU I say to all, Keep on the watch. "

3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/7/13

AcadGlade wrote:

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does that help?


yup, Just wanted to know. There are tons of translations and many omissions made in linguistic bias from the original text. Unfortunately I don't speak Greek or Aramaic so I don't really have much to offer to this discussion.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/7/13 , edited 5/7/13

spacebat wrote:


AcadGlade wrote:

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does that help?


yup, Just wanted to know. There are tons of translations and many omissions made in linguistic bias from the original text. Unfortunately I don't speak Greek or Aramaic so I don't really have much to offer to this discussion.


neither do I, I only have the emphatic diglot, that is tranlated KJ Bible from the original Kione greek, I also have a KJ bible that I don't know where it came from., But all you really have to do is get for yourself the NW Translation and the King James, or which ever translation you use and compare them. like Psalms 83:18, or 1 Corinthians. 10:14; or Luke. 4:8
10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 5/7/13 , edited 5/7/13

AcadGlade wrote:

That is YOUR opinion, which is not according to fact, There are no parts of the Bible that have been changed to support JW Doctrine, of course you have NEVER actually gone through the New World Translation yourself, I would suggest before you go trolling a translation, would be to throughly go and get a copy for yourself, I would recommend the hard bound large print with cross references, then check the forward and introduction

New World Translation is a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.

On what is the “New World Translation” based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.

And where YOU say failed, sure some had expectations that were not realized, But at least we haven't given up keeping on the watch, and as Proverbs 4:18: " But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established, " we have come to realize that we are deep in what is termed " The last days of the wicked system of things " and as Mark. 13: 33: " Keep looking, Keep awake, for YOU do not know when the appointed time is. " Then Jesus gives an illustration as to how the appointed time would be like, than adds finally, " But I say to YOU I say to all, Keep on the watch. "



Really? You want to do this once again? Ok... Just remember you opened this door, not me.... All bible translations for a specific group always try to change things to support their doctrine. THAT IS FACT!!!! I was in no way trying to chastize or condemn you for it. I even stated its common to see. Nothing bad to me. But you had to go and try to insinuate things. Ok then. But again remember, you opened this door. Not me.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Nearly all translations of the bible translate this verse exactly like this. The NWT, however, makes a completely different view by adding a one letter word and not capitalizing another.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Now this may seem to most as being just a minor thing. In christian religion Jesus was the word, the word was god so Jesus was God. But the JW dont believe this. Colossians 1:16 is another that makes sure Jesus isnt God.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

All things were created for him and by him. And the NWT versions says.....

Colossians 1:16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

Notice him is just "him" and not "Him". Its been a long time since I talked with a JW about the bible since they run scared from me. So you tell me AcadGlade. Doesnt the JW believe Jesus is more of an angel or prophet and not God or the Son of God?

Here is another one.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.

And the NWT version

Hebrews 1:8
But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

Completely different translations denying Jesus as God as the trinity teaches most christians.

I think what happened, if memory serves, that the greek word for God is Theos and the greek word for god is theon. Whenever Theos would come up in reference to Jesus the translators of the NWT would see it as theon.

Another issue is the word "Holy Spirit" that is said in many verses. In the NWT the holy spirit is not capitalized because the JW do not believe in the trinity. They do not believe the holy spirit is God or a being. Its just an object or force. So when reading the NWT you dont see it as a being, more a force. This is prevalent in the entire NWT. But none more then John 14:17

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

Now take note the references to "him" through out this verse. The spirit of truth being the holy spirit of course. Lets look at the NWT shall we.

John 14:17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU​ know it, because it remains with ​YOU​ and is in ​YOU.

Now see the references as to "it" and not "him". And why is that? Because JW dont see the holy spirit as a being but as an object. Sometimes the translation is a little sneaky in how its done. As in Acts 2:4

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Very clearly this shows how the spirit is a being. But lets look at the NWT.

Acts 2:4 and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.

First note the "holy spirit" which is not referred to as a being. And then note the "jus as the spirit" or "as if". Or "if it was a being but it really isnt."

Now the next part is about this thread itself. And one thing I do agree on in the NWT. The NWT does not refer to any punishment to the evil apart from death. There is no hell in the JW doctrine. And I agree with it whole heartedly. So I wont include that argument as its one they got right IMO.

There are a ton of other instances I can bring up. I am tired of typing right now. Anyone wanting to talk to a JW, ask them about how only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses will go to heaven and no one else.

AcadGlade just remember you opened this door. Not me. Oh and I expect an apology in your reply to me since you accused me of never reading the NWT. As I said before I have read alot of translations of the bible. And have 4 on hand at this moment. Including.... You guessed it, the NWT. And besides the bible I also have a Quran and Tankh. And have read them all. The difference to me reading them or a religious person reading them is I read them with an open mind not seeing what I already believe. They read them seeing what they already believe.

And as everyone else can see what I stated is NOT opinion. It is fact. The NWT was a translation in such a way to support their doctrine.
Posted 5/7/13
I don't Believe in noting We just ROT in the ground......
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/8/13 , edited 5/8/13
You go to just ONE Scripture as proof? and because other translations, who base their versions on the King James Version as being correct.
The problem YOUR not seeing is in the wording, John 1:1 " In the beginning was the word " So we can establish the " Word " is speaking of Jesus's pre-human exsistance in spirit form, okay?, so it says in the beginning, meaning the word had a beginning, right?, and as we go on, " And the word was with God " so the word was with Almighty God, The Creator of Everything, right? Then how can the word Be God, when the word had a beginning, It doesn't say God had a beginning, only says " In the beginning was the word " So the word had a beginning, besides at the end it doesn't use " God " but " god "

Just a little later John clarifies what he said earlier by quoting John 1:18: " No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god*+ who is in the bosom [position]+ with the Father is the one that has explained him

The word, " Only Begotten " means that God Almighty Directly Created his son, and then through him all the other sons of God were created.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 5/8/13
Hell is densities/dimensions 1 to 3. We are in density 3. If you study quantum physics and spirituality, you will know we are already in Hell, dumbasses.
10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 5/8/13 , edited 5/8/13

AcadGlade wrote:

You go to just ONE Scripture as proof? and because other translations, who base their versions on the King James Version as being correct.
The problem YOUR not seeing is in the wording, John 1:1 " In the beginning was the word " So we can establish the " Word " is speaking of Jesus's pre-human exsistance in spirit form, okay?, so it says in the beginning, meaning the word had a beginning, right?, and as we go on, " And the word was with God " so the word was with Almighty God, The Creator of Everything, right? Then how can the word Be God, when the word had a beginning, It doesn't say God had a beginning, only says " In the beginning was the word " So the word had a beginning, besides at the end it doesn't use " God " but " god "

Just a little later John clarifies what he said earlier by quoting John 1:18: " No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god*+ who is in the bosom [position]+ with the Father is the one that has explained him

The word, " Only Begotten " means that God Almighty Directly Created his son, and then through him all the other sons of God were created.


I grabbed the one everyone is familiar with. Now if you want to keep this going I can go ahead and post every single translation of every single verse I put up in that post if you wish. Going all the way back to 1380 AD with the Wycliffe translation, written almost 300 years BEFORE the king james translation. I have access to every single english translation on my nook. So just give the word and it will be done.

Your translation, the NWT, uses god and not God in John 1:1. All other translations use God.

Wycliffe translation (circa 1380 AD) of John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]

Tyndale translation (circa 1520s) John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible (crica 1580s) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is the word in the bible. And Jesus is also God as is the holy spirit. Its called the holy trinity. God is Jesus, God is the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is in all of us. Because in Luke 17 it says the kingdom of god is within all of us. Not just one man but all man. So we have the spirit in us and the spirit is god. Hence its god in us.

And John 1:2 the very next verse says he was with God in the beginning.

And as for the NWT translation of John 1:18

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only‐begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Again the "jesus is God" is brought down minor once again to god and not God. Look at a few other translation. Wycliffe and Duay Rhiems predate the KJV by the way.

Wycliffe bible John 1:18 No man saw ever God [No man ever saw God], but the one begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, he hath told out.

KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

DR John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

And one last one then I am heading back to my movie

NWT John 14:11 Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe on account of the works themselves.

DR John 1:18 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?

Wycliffe John 1:18 Jesus saith to him, So long time I am with you, and have ye not known me? Philip, he that seeth me, seeth also the Father. How sayest thou, show to us the Father?

Remember those two Duay Rhiems and Wycliffe predate the king james version. So dont try to use that as an excuse please.

The NWT says the son is with union with the father. Not one in the same. Yet these other two and all others I can find say the son and father are one in the same. So in your next reply please answer one question. Does the JW believe god, jesus, and the holy spirit are one in the same? If you answer no then it proves that the NWT was written to support JW doctrines since most other translations, of which many predate the KJV say differently.

Now of course we get to the argument of personal interpretation. Again one of the biggest issues I have with the bible. You will say the translation you follow is the correct one and all others are wrong. Ok fine but that is based on personal interpretation from the JW doctrine. Whether its correctly translated or not makes no difference here. Its all based on personal interpretation and the translation was created with JW doctrine in mind. It would look something like this.

Nathan Knorr: Hey lets translate the bible!
New World Bible Translation Committee: Great idea but what about the things in the bible that go against our doctrine?
Nathan Knorr: Well we can change those parts to support our doctrine.

Interestingly enough the NWT was translated partially from the masoretic texts and Westcott/hort texts. Many bibles used that as the main basis of their translations. Oddly enough not many current "modern" bibles use the KJV. Most use masoretic, greek or westcott/hort texts. So the argument of "Well all your examples were translated from KJV." is wrong. Not many used the KJV. American Standard Version, English Standard Version, Holoman Christian Standard Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible, and many more used other texts and not the KJV for their translations. So they are translated from the exact same texts your bible used as the basis of its translations. And that most of them come up with completely different translations But they aren't trying to justify the JW doctrines.


Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 5/8/13
The Bible is not going to get you any where with those people, use some science to back up your spiritual beliefs.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/8/13

-Vega- wrote:

The Bible is not going to get you any where with those people, use some science to back up your spiritual beliefs.


hahaha I like you.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 5/8/13
Did you guys know I am God? Come on, man. Connect the dots.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/30/13

kaibigan39 wrote:


AcadGlade wrote:

That is YOUR opinion, which is not according to fact, There are no parts of the Bible that have been changed to support JW Doctrine, of course you have NEVER actually gone through the New World Translation yourself, I would suggest before you go trolling a translation, would be to throughly go and get a copy for yourself, I would recommend the hard bound large print with cross references, then check the forward and introduction

New World Translation is a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.

On what is the “New World Translation” based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.

And where YOU say failed, sure some had expectations that were not realized, But at least we haven't given up keeping on the watch, and as Proverbs 4:18: " But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established, " we have come to realize that we are deep in what is termed " The last days of the wicked system of things " and as Mark. 13: 33: " Keep looking, Keep awake, for YOU do not know when the appointed time is. " Then Jesus gives an illustration as to how the appointed time would be like, than adds finally, " But I say to YOU I say to all, Keep on the watch. "



Really? You want to do this once again? Ok... Just remember you opened this door, not me.... All bible translations for a specific group always try to change things to support their doctrine. THAT IS FACT!!!! I was in no way trying to chastize or condemn you for it. I even stated its common to see. Nothing bad to me. But you had to go and try to insinuate things. Ok then. But again remember, you opened this door. Not me.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Nearly all translations of the bible translate this verse exactly like this. The NWT, however, makes a completely different view by adding a one letter word and not capitalizing another.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Now this may seem to most as being just a minor thing. In christian religion Jesus was the word, the word was god so Jesus was God. But the JW dont believe this. Colossians 1:16 is another that makes sure Jesus isnt God.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

All things were created for him and by him. And the NWT versions says.....

Colossians 1:16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

Notice him is just "him" and not "Him". Its been a long time since I talked with a JW about the bible since they run scared from me. So you tell me AcadGlade. Doesnt the JW believe Jesus is more of an angel or prophet and not God or the Son of God?

Here is another one.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.

And the NWT version

Hebrews 1:8
But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

Completely different translations denying Jesus as God as the trinity teaches most christians.

I think what happened, if memory serves, that the greek word for God is Theos and the greek word for god is theon. Whenever Theos would come up in reference to Jesus the translators of the NWT would see it as theon.

Another issue is the word "Holy Spirit" that is said in many verses. In the NWT the holy spirit is not capitalized because the JW do not believe in the trinity. They do not believe the holy spirit is God or a being. Its just an object or force. So when reading the NWT you dont see it as a being, more a force. This is prevalent in the entire NWT. But none more then John 14:17

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

Now take note the references to "him" through out this verse. The spirit of truth being the holy spirit of course. Lets look at the NWT shall we.

John 14:17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU​ know it, because it remains with ​YOU​ and is in ​YOU.

Now see the references as to "it" and not "him". And why is that? Because JW dont see the holy spirit as a being but as an object. Sometimes the translation is a little sneaky in how its done. As in Acts 2:4

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Very clearly this shows how the spirit is a being. But lets look at the NWT.

Acts 2:4 and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.

First note the "holy spirit" which is not referred to as a being. And then note the "jus as the spirit" or "as if". Or "if it was a being but it really isnt."

Now the next part is about this thread itself. And one thing I do agree on in the NWT. The NWT does not refer to any punishment to the evil apart from death. There is no hell in the JW doctrine. And I agree with it whole heartedly. So I wont include that argument as its one they got right IMO.

There are a ton of other instances I can bring up. I am tired of typing right now. Anyone wanting to talk to a JW, ask them about how only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses will go to heaven and no one else.

AcadGlade just remember you opened this door. Not me. Oh and I expect an apology in your reply to me since you accused me of never reading the NWT. As I said before I have read alot of translations of the bible. And have 4 on hand at this moment. Including.... You guessed it, the NWT. And besides the bible I also have a Quran and Tankh. And have read them all. The difference to me reading them or a religious person reading them is I read them with an open mind not seeing what I already believe. They read them seeing what they already believe.

And as everyone else can see what I stated is NOT opinion. It is fact. The NWT was a translation in such a way to support their doctrine.


I refer you to Colossians 1:14, 15, " In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: ...

And as to your assertion that the Holy Spirit has a gender, and so is a part of the trinity, You forget here in the english language, we don't use he when describing the power of God, his holy spirit, but in the middle east , they do use gender when writing such as a male, female or noun or pronoun, but here that is not the case in the english language. we use the word " it "
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.