Jehovah's Witnesses Knocked on My Door

[Hockeycowboy]

No it's actually called deleting, once you delete and had your word in its place, that's changing what was there in the first place and adding your word in it's place, thats called deleting and adding to.

Why do you not want God's Name restored to the places He put it?
How would you like it, if Bible translators took Jesus' name out? I know I wouldn't like it at all.

You didn't even address the 'hellfire' issue. Grief, what a God-dishonoring doctrine! No wonder that so many have turned away from the Christian God! I never did believe that before I was a Witness.

Those in Christendom who started that doctrine, just a bunch of liars who wanted to control people through fear.

And yet, JW's are the ones who changed the Bible, go figure.

 

[Deeje]

Why are you asking me, go ask JW's since their the ones that deleting and adding to.

LOL......so you can't cite any actual occurrences where your accusations apply....that's a bit lame don't you think?

Who makes accusations without knowing what they are talking about?

 

[savagewind]

I have been noticing the parking lots of the Kingdom Halls along my way driving. It seems the JWs are not too very concerning about me being executed.

 

[Faithofchristian]

LOL......so you can't cite any actual occurrences where your accusations apply....that's a bit lame don't you think?

Who makes accusations without knowing what they are talking about?

No it's more lame on your part,for not being smart enough to figure out that all you have to do, is go get a JW's bible and read it for yourself, Therefore you will have the proof in your lame hands and don't have to rely on someone else's word on it. But the proof will be in your hands in the JWs bible.
It must be awful lame on your part not to figure that one out.

If anyone goes and gets a JWs bible and go to the book of the gospel of John and read Chapter 1 Verse 1, JWs bible deleted the word
( With ) and replace it with the word ( A ) changing the whole sentence of John into
saying --->In the beginning was the Word, and the word was a God, and the Word was a God

In the KJV it reads like this ---> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

A big difference, you think. So now by all means, is there not a change and deleting and adding to.

Just in case the KJV 1611 was way before JWs were even around or known of at that time, when the KJV 1611 was being put together.

But then no one has to take my word on it, just go get a JWs bible and read it for yourself, As I did.

 

[Deeje]

No it's more lame on your part,for not being smart enough to figure out that all you have to do, is go get a JW's bible and read it for yourself, Therefore you will have the proof in your lame hands and don't have to rely on someone else's word on it. But the proof will be in your hands in the JWs bible.
It must be awful lame on your part not to figure that one out.

Oh seriously....you can't produce one instance of what you lamely accuse us of doing......a bit like everything else you claim.

I have several Bibles and there are lots more online that I use.....so where are these "proofs" you speak of? I have not found any differences that a reference to Strongs did not solve. It's called research...you should try it.

 

[savagewind]

No it's more lame on your part,for not being smart enough to figure out that all you have to do, is go get a JW's bible and read it for yourself, Therefore you will have the proof in your lame hands and don't have to rely on someone else's word on it. But the proof will be in your hands in the JWs bible.
It must be awful lame on your part not to figure that one out.

If anyone goes and gets a JWs bible and go to the book of the gospel of John and read Chapter 1 Verse 1, JWs bible deleted the word
( With ) and replace it with the word ( A ) changing the whole sentence of John into
saying --->In the beginning was the Word, and the word was a God, and the Word was a God

In the KJV it reads like this ---> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

A big difference, you think. So now by all means, is there not a change and deleting and adding to.

Just in case the KJV 1611 was way before JWs were even around or known of at that time, when the KJV 1611 was being put together.

But then no one has to take my word on it, just go get a JWs bible and read it for yourself, As I did.

What is really funny is that they say God will never corrupt The Word, but, there you have it, it was corrupted and they take very much pride in their 'fixing' it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Oh seriously....you can't produce one instance of what you lamely accuse us of doing......a bit like everything else you claim.

I have several Bibles and there are lots more online that I use.....so where are these "proofs" you speak of? I have not found any differences that a reference to Strongs did not solve. It's called research...you should try it.

You yourself is to lame to figure out all you have to do, is go get a JWs bible and read it for yourself. Why are you relying on someone else's word, when could have the proof in your own hands, that's really lame on your part, to even want to rely on someone else's word, when you could have the proof yourself, in your lame hands.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What is really funny is that they say God will never corrupt The Word, but, there you have it, it was corrupted and they take very much pride in their 'fixing' it.

Your right about that, that's how JWs are. Always deleting and adding, to fit their agenda.

This is how alot of Bible's are, that's out there. deleting and adding to, this I learned many years ago, This is why I have and go by the
KJV 1611, and the Strong's Concordance and the Bullinger Companion bible. That with these 3 helps me out alot.to get to the root meaning of a word.

 

[savagewind]

Your right, that's how JWs are. Always deleting and adding, to fit their agenda.

They do that. I have reported them.

 

[Faithofchristian]

They do that. I have reported them.

All a person has to do, Is go get a JWs bible and read it for themselves.
Then they will have the proof in their own hands, and will not have to rely on someone else's word.

 

[savagewind]

All a person has to do, Is go get a JWs bible and read it for themselves.
Then they will have the proof in their own hands, and will not have to rely on someone else's word.

Except for the people who do not believe that the Bible is infallible.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Except for the people who do not believe that the Bible is infallible.

Would not logic tell a person, with all those other Bible's that are out in the world which is causing so much confusion, Now if all people had just one bible, how much less confusion there would be, everyone would be on the same page

I use to go out collecting different Bible's, But then I stop, and said to myself, why am I out trying to accommodate everyone else by having all these different Bible's. No I will have only one, if people do not like it Oh well that's them and not me, I am not going to have so many different Bible's trying to please everyone else, when I should be pleasing me first.

So I have only the KJV 1611 and the Strong's Concordance and the Bullinger Companion bible. To help me to get to the root of a word to get to it's actual meaning.
of the Hebrew and Greek language into English.

 

[savagewind]

Would not logic tell a person, with all those other Bible's that are out in the world which is causing so much confusion, Now if all people had just one bible, how much less confusion there would be, everyone would be on the same page

I use to go out collecting different Bible's, But then I stop, and said to myself, why am I out trying to accommodate everyone else by having all these different Bible's. No I will have only one, if people do not like it Oh well that's them and not me, I am not going to have so many different Bible's trying to please everyone else, when I should be pleasing me first.

So I have only the KJV 1611 and the Strong's Concordance and the Bullinger Companion bible. To help me to get to the root of a word to get to it's actual meaning.
of the Hebrew and Greek language into English.

If there was just one Bible, I would still be confused.

 

[Faithofchristian]

If there was just one Bible, I would still be confused.

That's Logical

 

[savagewind]

That's Logical

I don't know that logic is pertinent. The Bible is to be interpreted to correspond to one's way of life, but as it is translated it doesn't conform to reality.

 

[Deeje]

You yourself is to lame to figure out all you have to do, is go get a JWs bible and read it for yourself. Why are you relying on someone else's word, when could have the proof in your own hands, that's really lame on your part, to even want to rely on someone else's word, when you could have the proof yourself, in your lame hands.

Lame excuses!

Now who is being lazy? If you cannot substantiate you accusations, then withdraw them. It appears as if you are relying on others to furnish you with ideas that you have not checked out for yourself. That is called gullibility.

Show us these scriptures and I will explain them. If you can't show them...well you know the saying ....."put up or....."

 

[Faithofchristian]

Lame excuses!

Now who is being lazy? If you cannot substantiate you accusations, then withdraw them. It appears as if you are relying on others to furnish you with ideas that you have not checked out for yourself. That is called gullibility.

Show us these scriptures and I will explain them. If you can't show them...well you know the saying ....."put up or....."

Are you kidding me, did I not say, I have read the JWs bible, and if a person gets a JWs and read it for themselves, they will not have to rely on someone else to tell them
You must be a JWs, seeing your going into the defense mold, Your acting the same way JWs do,When I bring it to their attention and compare their bible to the KJV 1611. I also gave the gospel of John 1:1, for a reference.that how the JWs bible had deleted and added unto.

So if you have any questions, go read and compare the KJV 1611, to the JWs bible.

 

[savagewind]

Lame excuses!

Now who is being lazy? If you cannot substantiate you accusations, then withdraw them.

Easier said than done. Isn't it @Deeje ?

 

[12jtartar]

That doesn't sound like they intend to mislead, so I wouldn't call it a lie.

Blu 2,
You are a wise man!!!
Many people do not know that translation involves more than just translating words. If a translator does not understand what the purpose of God is, it is very easy to translate a word wrong. Just like in English, some words have many meanings, so, if you do not know what God’s purpose, or true message is, you can mistranslated a Scripture, even though the translation might be technically correct. There is also the problem of many versions, different manuscripts, that say something a little different, but when put together give the same truth. There are many variant Scriptures, some Bibles even mention in a foot note, about these, and list them, between chapters in the Bible, such as the Byington Version, The Bible in Living English.
There have been many Bible Scholars who have rated The New World Translation, highly. I myself do not like it!

 

[blü 2]

Many people do not know that translation involves more than just translating words. If a translator does not understand what the purpose of God is, it is very easy to translate a word wrong. Just like in English, some words have many meanings, so, if you do not know what God’s purpose, or true message is, you can mistranslated a Scripture, even though the translation might be technically correct.

On the one hand I agree that the precise range, denotative and connotative, of an ancient word (in any language) can sometimes be hard to pin down, but just as with other words, we have to rely on the best opinions of the most objective scholarship (and not whatever suits our personal politics).

On the other, I disagree about 'understanding what the purpose of God is'. The central thing we're concerned with when we translate ancient texts is what they actually say.

When we nail that, others may have views on the correctness of the theology, but that's not important. Only the words of the document are relevant to the document.[/QUOTE]