Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,828 Year: 3,085/9,624 Month: 930/1,588 Week: 113/223 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jehovas Witness Bible, any exclusive contradictions?
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6124 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 64 (368397)
12-08-2006 9:14 AM


By exclusive I mean contradictions that are only in the Jehovas Witness version of the bible, not in the bible in general.
Just a few general points about the beliefs of JW's.
JW's don't take a stand on how old the universe is, the JW's I've met believe the universe to be billions of years old.
JW's don't take a stand as how the universe was created. So big bang theory is all good.
JW's don't take a stand on how old the earth is. But they do take the stand that Noah's flood must have happened recently (6000-10000years)
JW's don't believe in hell. After you die and if you've been too "naughty" you don't get ressurected to an infinite afterlife in paradise like the good people. You just die and will never feel a thing.
JW's believe that 144000 people go to heaven to rule by side with Jesus, to rule the people ressurected on paradise. That wouldn't be slavery but just making laws and things of guidance or such with jesus, to the people on the paradise.
The paradise is just an better earth for your knowledge...
JW's to my knowing do insist on biblical inerrancy.
I'd like this thread to be alike in substance to "What is the biggest bible contradiction" (http://EvC Forum: What is the biggest bible contradiction? -->EvC Forum: What is the biggest bible contradiction?) except this time concerning the Jehovas Witness edition of the bible.
I've been having a lot of fun (maybe even learned something) on the other thread, I hope here too.
I don't know that very much about JW's believes or the bible so be free to correct me.
Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-08-2006 10:48 AM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 4 by anastasia, posted 12-08-2006 12:56 PM Neutralmind has replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-08-2006 9:32 PM Neutralmind has replied
 Message 63 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 12:55 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 64 (368413)
12-08-2006 10:29 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18266
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 64 (368420)
12-08-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
12-08-2006 9:14 AM


David Reed is a place to start.
I once read a book by ex Witness David Reed. Reed seemed honest and a seeker of truth, and I found a lot of interesting differentiations between JW and Orthodox Christian theology.
The two biggest ones:
  • JW's believe that Jesus was the first created thing...That Jesus was once Michael the Archangel. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Gods Son and always existed, along with His Father and in One communion.
  • The translation about the Word being God or the word being a god!

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 9:14 AM Neutralmind has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2006 12:54 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 62 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 4:31 AM Phat has not replied

      
    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5954 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 4 of 64 (368468)
    12-08-2006 12:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
    12-08-2006 9:14 AM


    I do not know the subject well enough to decide if there are textual contradictions in the JW Bible itself that are different from those in Orthodox Christian Bibles. I would assume that there are fewer contradictions if anything since the JW's are prone to changing important texts to suit their views. There are definitely contradictions between their Bible and the bulk of christianity, and probably contradictions in their own doctrinal interpretation of the Bible.
    The JW's like to rely on the ignorance of most people in relation to the Greek language. It is almost as if they assume no Greek speaker or scholar will join, and they will not be found out.
    John 1 is correctly interpreted as 'the Word was God'. The indefinite article 'a' is not to be assumed as part of the English translation, as in 'the Word was a God'. This is grammatically incorrect. Firstly, the Greeks do not use indefinite articles, but they have a suffix to indicate them, which is not used in the passage. Second, 'the Word was God' is written the same exact way as 'the Word was with God'. To accomodate the JW translation, the passage would have to also read 'the Word was with a God'.
    Either way, is smacks of polytheism, which is contradictory to their theology.
    If you look even deeper, there seems to be a direct contradiction of view in just the three sentences 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like a God'. In all of christianity, this passage has been used to refute any claim that Jesus was not God. It is believed to have been written for that purpose alone. The JW's will say otherwise, but their interpretation makes no sense. God is without beginning. When John says 'in the beginning' he means 'before time' and before creation. By saying 'in the beginning was the Word' he is clearly showing that the Word/Jesus has also existed before time and creation. Even to say that Jesus is 'like a God' is to assume that He was not created. Yet, JW's do not believe He is God, and they somehow think that John can go directly from a very specific discription of God, to a general discription of 'gods'. So, how can a created being be with God in the beginning? And further, how can an archangel be with God in the beginning, if angels are shown in other Biblical passages to have been created? The whole idea is self-destructive, they can not have it both ways. Jesus is at once a human who was created after angels, an angel who has no flesh, and 'a god'. Is He to be worshipped as a god? If so, is that not polytheism, and what then distinguishes the real God, from others like Him? Obviously these contradictions were already noted, and the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was the only answer to the problem. Still, JW's have insisted on a very poor theology in this regard, and their changing of the passage does little or nothing to support their case beside giving rise to polytheism and extra-biblical conjecture. I suspect they will try to say that the 'beginning' here does not refer to the actual beginning as the rest of the christiand world sees it, but the beginning of time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 9:14 AM Neutralmind has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2006 1:24 AM anastasia has replied
     Message 9 by Neutralmind, posted 12-09-2006 5:22 AM anastasia has replied
     Message 32 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 4:22 PM anastasia has replied

      
    Taz
    Member (Idle past 3292 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 5 of 64 (368574)
    12-08-2006 9:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
    12-08-2006 9:14 AM


    I'm just curious about something in JW's beliefs. When I was in college, I met a young man who was a JW. He was the only JW I have ever known. Anyway, he never got tired of telling people how much he loved to masturbate. This is no exaggeration. He kept telling people how much he masturbated each day. He went as far as telling people that sometimes only clear fluid came out because he ejaculated more times than semen can be produced.
    I never got the nerve to ask him about JW beliefs. How do JWs view masturbation?

    Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
    The thread about this map can be found here.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 9:14 AM Neutralmind has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Jon, posted 12-09-2006 12:24 AM Taz has not replied
     Message 10 by Neutralmind, posted 12-09-2006 5:37 AM Taz has not replied

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 64 (368598)
    12-09-2006 12:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
    12-08-2006 9:32 PM


    EW! I hate when that happens! I'm not a JW, but my mother comes from a family of JW's, and I've never heard anything like what you've said here. I really can only guess that this guy was a little bit on the sick side. From the stuff I've heard with my mother's side, JW's are pretty much all about not having fun... so I can't see them being too much into anything pleasureful.
    J0N

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-08-2006 9:32 PM Taz has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 7 of 64 (368606)
    12-09-2006 12:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
    12-08-2006 10:48 AM


    Re: David Reed is a place to start.
    W's believe that Jesus was the first created thing...That Jesus was once Michael the Archangel. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Gods Son and always existed, along with His Father and in One communion.
    "son of god" seems to refer to angelic beings in hebrew. there is some overlap between the two ideas, though i have never seen a basis for jesus being michael. many christians claim him to be "the angel of the lord," however. (do some consider that character to be michael? nearest i can tell, there is some confusion in the bible between the angel of the lord and the lord himself.)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-08-2006 10:48 AM Phat has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 8 of 64 (368607)
    12-09-2006 1:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by anastasia
    12-08-2006 12:56 PM


    contradictions all over, wt does no better or worse with these
    The JW's like to rely on the ignorance of most people in relation to the Greek language. It is almost as if they assume no Greek speaker or scholar will join, and they will not be found out.
    actually, there a number of traditional points in christian theology that disappear with simply reading the bible in any language. and there very, very many fundamentalist ideas that are totally demolished by a 3rd grade comprehension of hebrew.
    Either way, is smacks of polytheism, which is contradictory to their theology.
    to be honest, there is A LOT in the bible that smacks of polytheism, all of which is contradictory to ANY judeochristian faith. the degree of strictness of the monotheism varies from book to book. for instance, in job, god appears to have a council, much like the ugaritic iluhim, the council of the god "il." (the words should sound familiar).
    the phrase used is ‘ —, beni ha-elohim, sons of the god. "sons of..." is actually a sloppy english translation, the closest literal meaning. really, it encompasses women, and grandchildren, etc, in some usages. "beni yisrael" for instance means all the sons of israel, people from the family of jacob. israelites.
    it's possible that beni elohim means "from the family of god." as in "other gods." i don't think this is a good reading, but there is definitally an implication of other heavenly powers that do have influence. it's perhaps the most polytheistic part of the bible, other than this part in the septuagint:
    quote:
    Deu 32:8-9
    When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
    when he separated the sons of Adam,
    he set the bounds of the people
    according to the number of the children of [god].
    For the LORD'S portion is his people;
    Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
    the word in brackets was changed between the septuagint and the masoretic to read "israel." which makes little sense, because at this point (when god divided the sons of adam into nations, genesis 11) there were no sons of israel because israel himself had not yet been born.
    rather, what the text seems to say is that god, the "most high" of all the other gods, watches israel. other gods watch other countries. strange, in an extremely (and violently!) monotheistic book.
    If you look even deeper, there seems to be a direct contradiction of view in just the three sentences 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like a God'. In all of christianity, this passage has been used to refute any claim that Jesus was not God. It is believed to have been written for that purpose alone.
    some have suggested that "the word" comes from a greek translation of on particular aramaic (targum) rendering of the concept of god. in genesis, god first creates by speaking. so the aramaic verb meaning "to speak" was used as a pseudonym for god in some translations.
    it's possible that john is addressing an aramaic confusion here. "the word" simply means "god" and to john, jesus is god incarnate. this is not quite the same idea as found in the synoptic gospels, where jesus walks around calling himself "son of man" which idiomatically means "lowly mortal" and is a traditional title for a prophet (see all of ezekiel, any time god speaks) but not god and not the son of god. in fact, it means the opposite of "god."
    yet the synoptic gospels make him a kind of separate divine being. you're right to point out that the jw's translation betrays the point john is trying to make, but this one fewer contradiction, not one more.
    Is He to be worshipped as a god? If so, is that not polytheism,
    worship of yahweh and any other entity is polytheism. worship of anything made in the image of god is idolatry. worship of any image of god (including a physical being, a man) is idolatry. worship of anything mortal (capable of being killed, say on a cross) is idolatry.
    the problem is not whether or not jesus is THE god, or A god, but that he was also a man. jesus is the path to god, but not the focus of worship. really, because of this issue, there is still this polytheism contradiction in standard orthodox christianity. in one text, jesus is the one and only god. in others, he is clearly not. jw's modify john a bit to try to reconcile it with the other texts, standard christianity comes up with the trinity. both hare frought with problems, and neither really fits the text very well. because the contradiction -- the debate -- is in the text.
    Still, JW's have insisted on a very poor theology in this regard, and their changing of the passage does little or nothing to support their case
    changing the text of the bible is, imho, always a bad thing. i think translations should be as literal as possible, while still balancing the idiomatic intentions of the authors -- but left unmodified for doctrinal reasons. i have yet to find a single translation that does not modify something for dogmatic beliefs. which is why i'm learning hebrew. even the kjv does it, btw. they choose the qere over the kethiv. the equivalent of going with the footnotes of "we think they meant this..." instead what's in the text.
    I suspect they will try to say that the 'beginning' here does not refer to the actual beginning as the rest of the christiand world sees it, but the beginning of time.
    i'm confused. i thought that WAS the actual beginning, as the majority of christians understand it.
    Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, typo


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by anastasia, posted 12-08-2006 12:56 PM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by anastasia, posted 12-09-2006 8:21 PM arachnophilia has replied
     Message 16 by anastasia, posted 12-11-2006 12:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Neutralmind
    Member (Idle past 6124 days)
    Posts: 183
    From: Finland
    Joined: 06-08-2006


    Message 9 of 64 (368614)
    12-09-2006 5:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by anastasia
    12-08-2006 12:56 PM


    Anastasia
    Jesus is at once a human who was created after angels, an angel who has no flesh, and 'a god'. Is He to be worshipped as a god?
    JW's believe Jesus literally to be God's son. I don't know what contradictions arise from that though.
    Anastasia
    Obviously these contradictions were already noted, and the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was the only answer to the problem.
    You do know JW's don't believe in the Trinity? Moreover they think it's just hogwash created by mainstream christians.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by anastasia, posted 12-08-2006 12:56 PM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Nighttrain, posted 12-10-2006 10:30 PM Neutralmind has not replied
     Message 15 by anastasia, posted 12-11-2006 11:28 AM Neutralmind has replied

      
    Neutralmind
    Member (Idle past 6124 days)
    Posts: 183
    From: Finland
    Joined: 06-08-2006


    Message 10 of 64 (368615)
    12-09-2006 5:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
    12-08-2006 9:32 PM


    gasby
    never got the nerve to ask him about JW beliefs. How do JWs view masturbation?
    I have a few JW's as friends. They have a very strict line of no masturbation (the bible uses a different word of course) and no premarital sex. No divorcing, with the exception of the other person going a stray.
    And no gay relationships, which should be obvious even to the mainstream christians and to churches. There is a verse that goes something like " thou shalt not sleep with other men". I don't know where to pick up that line in it's original (bible) form.
    Anyway, great story

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-08-2006 9:32 PM Taz has not replied

      
    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5954 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 11 of 64 (368736)
    12-09-2006 8:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
    12-09-2006 1:24 AM


    Re: contradictions all over, wt does no better or worse with these
    I really have relished this reply, there is much I would like to discuss. I will have a busy weekend with a baptism Sunday and out-of-town family, but I would like to ask one question until I have more time.
    I do not go by the King James Bible, if anything I try to go by the Douay-Rheims since that was maybe the first translation from the Vulgate? I have perhaps wrongly assumed that the oldest translation would carry most validity, but I clearly understand that at any point in history the copyists could have changed whatever they wished to suit their motives, and that there can not be only one possible translation when there are so many possible text sources like the septuagint or masoretic.
    I would like to ask you, since you have been studying Hebrew, if you have a recommendation for a standard available Bible that best reflects a true interpretation?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2006 1:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2006 9:26 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 12 of 64 (368744)
    12-09-2006 9:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by anastasia
    12-09-2006 8:21 PM


    Re: contradictions all over, wt does no better or worse with these
    I really have relished this reply, there is much I would like to discuss.
    thanks.
    I do not go by the King James Bible, if anything I try to go by the Douay-Rheims since that was maybe the first translation from the Vulgate? I have perhaps wrongly assumed that the oldest translation would carry most validity,
    well, this is not neccessarily true. for instance, there is at least one other important factor that needs to considered -- which generation of a translation is it?
    in this case, the masoretic ("original") would carry more weight, being in the original language. the vulgate translates the hebrew, and then the english translates the vulgate. so we have a translation of a translation. this invariably would have more errors than a direct translation from hebrew into english.
    but the septuagint has a little more weight to it, because it is actually much older than the masoretic -- we don't have the hebrew it was translated from. and there are differences between the two. in this case, i feel the age balances the generational differences, placing the two about even. i still prefer the hebrew, though.
    there are also a number of arguments for modern translations. we have things like the dss now that help greatly, and it's easier to understand modern language. idiomatic vs. literal is another concern. (i find most idiomatic translations distasteful as they often wrongly impose un-hebrew dogmatic concept on the text, but the new jps happens to be outstanding.)
    long story short, there is no "best" translation.
    but I clearly understand that at any point in history the copyists could have changed whatever they wished to suit their motives,
    different translations and manuscripts attest to this as history instead of speculation.
    and that there can not be only one possible translation when there are so many possible text sources like the septuagint or masoretic.
    and the targums, and the dss, and all kinds of weird and wonderful things.
    I would like to ask you, since you have been studying Hebrew, if you have a recommendation for a standard available Bible that best reflects a true interpretation?
    interpretation is always subjective, and the BEST translations do not force interpretation, but carefully translate the concepts (without excluding ways in which they can optionally be read) the most accurately across languages. luckily, this isn't as big of a problem as you'd expect -- modern english was highly, highly influenced by the kjv, a literal translation of the hebrew. many of the same vagueries carry over from hebrew into english. think "man" as in "a man" or "mankind." adam in hebrew works exactly the same way.
    as far as literal translations, i actually happen to like the kjv -- my only gripes are that it takes the marginal notes in the masoretic instead of what was written, and that the language is a little antiquated. for idiomatic, i love the new jps version (ot only, of course). i find it do be the most consistent with the usage of hebrew in the text, and best translates the ideas of the text without deviating too far from the literal. it does not seem to impose particular interpretations, except in a few key instances, and most of the ones it does are generally accurate to the best guesses of scholars.
    ideally, the best thing to do is take a few hebrew classes. the more you understand about the way the language works, the more contextual information you have about the text and how to read it. and the more the idioms make sense.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by anastasia, posted 12-09-2006 8:21 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    Nighttrain
    Member (Idle past 3994 days)
    Posts: 1512
    From: brisbane,australia
    Joined: 06-08-2004


    Message 13 of 64 (368901)
    12-10-2006 10:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Neutralmind
    12-09-2006 5:22 AM


    Hogwash
    You do know JW's don't believe in the Trinity? Moreover they think it's just hogwash created by mainstream christians.
    The Watchtower Society consider most beliefs of mainstream Christians are hogwash.
    Of course, all the failed predictions, the flip-flops in dogma, the change of stances re blood, etc. by the WTS aren`t hogwash, but the 'light becoming clearer'.
    And the introduction to the NWT Bible waffles on about consulting all the versions including Greek, but failed to mention the editing solely by the Governing Body comprised no one with knowledge of Greek.(evidence given by Knorr? Franz? at court trial)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Neutralmind, posted 12-09-2006 5:22 AM Neutralmind has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 12-11-2006 12:20 AM Nighttrain has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 14 of 64 (368913)
    12-11-2006 12:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Nighttrain
    12-10-2006 10:30 PM


    Re: Hogwash
    trial?
    do elaborate.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Nighttrain, posted 12-10-2006 10:30 PM Nighttrain has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by anastasia, posted 12-11-2006 1:26 PM arachnophilia has replied
     Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 5:27 AM arachnophilia has not replied

      
    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5954 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 15 of 64 (368998)
    12-11-2006 11:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Neutralmind
    12-09-2006 5:22 AM


    Neutralmind writes:
    You do know JW's don't believe in the Trinity? Moreover they think it's just hogwash created by mainstream christians.
    Yes, I know this. The point I am making is that rather than be forced to accept what the text indicates they (wt, JW) are forcing the text to suit their views.
    JW's believe Jesus literally to be God's son. I don't know what contradictions arise from that though.
    They believe Him to be God's son, yes, but not God. I have a book here put out by wt society. On page 41 it says 'He (Jesus) had a beginning, whereas Jehovah God has no beginning'. Yet John 1 clearly says 'in the beginning was the Word'.
    Page 42 says 'this dear Son was just like His father'; just a few sentences after it says 'the only begotten Son never tried to be equal to His father'.
    They also talk about God creating through Jesus, so either God is not so omnipotent, or Jesus is a pretty special creature to be able to create like God.
    There are contradictions all over in this little 250 page booklet. They are not only an extreme stretch from what all other christians have found in the Bible, but are confusing even in their own right.
    So again, no matter how hard to swallow, the Trinity is the only way to reconcile what the Bible really says.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Neutralmind, posted 12-09-2006 5:22 AM Neutralmind has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by Neutralmind, posted 12-11-2006 3:36 PM anastasia has replied
     Message 30 by wmscott, posted 02-18-2007 5:06 PM anastasia has not replied
     Message 60 by Peg, posted 01-06-2009 6:00 AM anastasia has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024