JW's Preach A Different Gospel

[Aquitaine]

So your answer to the problem is that we toss out ALL translations?

My answer would be to regard religious texts as works of fiction, until proven otherwise. Basically, treat it like you would a Harry Potter book.

 

[Pegg]

Please consider your Watchtower organization, which you are a member of.. Are you not militant against ALL CHRISTENDOM? Aren't you like the pot calling the kettle black here?

We challenge the false teachings, sure. But so did the Apostles. So did Jesus.

We overturned the false hellfire and trinity teaching back in the 18th century.
Brother Russell gave a talk in in the 1800's in which he said the '6 days of creation were not 24 hours each but 6 Epochs of time' (signifcant considering all christians back then believed in the 6 days of creation)
The WT promoted the name of the Father and our first bible restored that name where other denominations had taken it out.
They have been actively proclaiming the coming of Gods Kingdom as mankinds only hope since the 1800's
The WT teaches all of us to be preachers and teachers and supports us in that work.

I feel prepared for Armageddon which I also feel is going to be very very soon. Jesus wanted his disciples to 'keep awake' and Im very satisfied that the WT are helping us to do that. So you may criticize them all you like, but they are a faithful and wise slave of Jesus and Jehovah who are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, unlike many other denominations who get involved in politics and actively support war and dont uphold Gods moral laws and have prevented people from coming to know the Father by hiding the identity of Jehovah. The fruits of the WT organisation are recognizable and in my view, that is extremely important.

 

[JayJayDee]

I realize, that on the other thread KMG started about the GB, I was rude and condescending about your religion and beliefs, and for that I humbly apologize. If one of you would let Pegg know I apologize to her as well, I would greatly appreciate it.


I hope you can see my confusion in what you are telling me, what your literature says and what the Bible says.

I hope that was sincere and not just a ploy to get us to stop ignoring you. Please forgive my skepticism.

Our beliefs are in line with scripture and reflect the beliefs that the ancient Jews held about their future Messiah.
What prevented them from accepting Jesus was their false expectations about what Messiah would do for their nation.
The religious leaders had interpreted Jesus' role as one of a strong political figure....a liberator who would restore the nation to their former independent state and re-establish Israel as a mighty nation who would triumph over their enemies. The Pharisees saw their own place in that arrangement as glorifying them and their position and power. On that score, Jesus was a great disappointment. All he did was preach against them and their hypocrisy, whilst directing honest hearted ones to the truth, which had been mangled out of all proportion by an apostate religious system. History repeats.

*** rs p. 216-p. 217 Jesus Christ ***
Did Jesus have a heavenly existence before he became a human?

Col. 1:15-17, RS: “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation . . . All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things.”

John 17:5, RS: “[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” (Also John 8:23)


The above verses seem to be arguing the existence of "Jesus" before His birth. It doesn't say He was Michael. If they are not, it is very misleading to say the least.

When analysing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no point in judging them according to Christendom's point of view. We hold very little in common with the churches because we study the Bible as a whole and at a deep level. Some of us are serious students who dig deeper and others are content to know the basics. Not everyone is a natural born student....but all 'know the truth and it has set them free' from the teachings of an apostate religious system that had its beginnings so long ago that most have no idea how old the apostasy actually is. The "weeds" planted by the devil were not sown recently. (Matt 13:24-30) The foretold apostasy was "already at work" at the end of the first century. With the death of the apostles, the church began to do what men had always done with God's worship.....they began to introduce their own ideas and it ended up not resembling the original at all. This is the foundation upon which Christendom is built.

We have little in the way of formal worship because Christianity was about teaching the truth of God's word, not supporting the false teachings of a powerful religious system that had its beginnings in the early centuries and ended up as corrupt (if not more) than Judaism became in Jesus' day. The "lost sheep" heard the voice of their shepherd and became a new nation. When Israel failed to accept Jesus as Messiah, God cast them off and chose a new nation whom Paul called "the Israel of God" (Matt 23:37-39; Gal 6:16; Acts 15:14). This new "Israel" was made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

“Now You Are God’s People” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Col 1:15-17 (ESVST) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


This is my understanding of it all, if (the role) "Jesus Christ" did not exist before His birth, it was (the role) Michael that was directly created by God, (because the role of Christ did not exist), and it was through (the role) Michael that everything else was created (because the role of Christ did not exist). If Jesus Christ did not exist before His birth, "the role" of Jesus did not exist (before His birth) when God created Michael. So in all actuality, it is said of Michael, "He is the first born of all creation, and, by him all other things were created."

There is a single mindedness to your approach that demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge what is right in front of you.

The scripture you quoted here, highlights a portion that is misunderstood when you ignore the first part of that passage. (The part you didn't underline)

"Col 1:15-17 (ESVST) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

What does it mean that Jesus is "the image" of his Father? Is an image the same as the original that it reflects? The moon reflects the light of the sun, but it isn't the sun. The sun is the source of its light. Jesus is a reflection of his Father.

What does it mean that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation"? The word "firstborn" (monogenes) is the same word as any other "firstborn" in a family. Are there other "sons of God"? Yes, but the pre-human Jesus is called "the only begotten" in this family of God's sons. What does this mean? It means that the Father "begat" this son before any and all other creation. This "firstborn" son obviously spent eons of time before the creation of other sons and the material universe, forging an unbreakable bond and becoming "the Word" or spokesman for his Father. And then the son was blessed with the task of bringing all other created things into being. He is the agency through which creation came about. (Prov 8:22, 30, 31; John 1:2, 3) How is that hard to understand?

If the trinity is in the forefront clouding the simple truth, then any wonder there is confusion. There is only one Creator....the Father who brought all the raw materials into existence from nothing...and there is one who fabricated those materials into all that we see in creation. This is why God says "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26. They were a team in creation.

If the role of Jesus did not exist before the birth of Jesus, it cannot be said of Him that "Jesus" is God's first creation. It has to be Michael.

Actually if you want to be pedantic about the semantics, then it was "The Word" who was with Yahweh "in the beginning" according to John 1:1. So because "the Word became flesh" (the man Jesus) can we say that because the Word was called "theos" (a mighty one) that he is equal with "ho theos" (THE God) mentioned together in this one verse?

In John 1:18, the Word is called "the only begotten god", which is rather a contradiction since Almighty God cannot be "begotten".
In an attempt to get readers to overlook this discrepancy, the KJV translated that verse as "only begotten Son" and yet, "theos" is used in this verse. So if "theos" is translated in verse 18 as son, then verse 1 should also be translated the same way......"the Word was (the) son".

We don't see any evidence from the scriptures that there is any equality between God and his most trusted servant...his beloved son.

Before Catholicism introduced the notion of a trinity and made it doctrine in the 4th century....it was not in the belief systems of either Judaism or original Christianity.

We understand why people attack us on a regular basis, because we pose the same threat to Christendom that Jesus and his disciples posed to Judaism. We are just a small minority compared with Christendom's church system, but the fact that we cop so much flack for so little offence is telling. They must feel threatened by us or the feelings would not be so intense. Jesus said we would be hated and persecuted for doing what Jesus commanded. (John 15:18-21)
Just like the early disciples, we are attacked primarily by those who claim to worship the same God.

We have to "get out of" "Babylon the great" or we will not escape sharing in her sins or her fate. (Rev 18:4, 5)

 

[katiemygirl]

My answer would be to regard religious texts as works of fiction, until proven otherwise. Basically, treat it like you would a Harry Potter book.

Then I guess we have no common ground for a conversation because I do believe that we have the infallible word of God.

 

[katiemygirl]

We challenge the false teachings, sure. But so did the Apostles. So did Jesus.

We overturned the false hellfire and trinity teaching back in the 18th century.
Brother Russell gave a talk in in the 1800's in which he said the '6 days of creation were not 24 hours each but 6 Epochs of time' (signifcant considering all christians back then believed in the 6 days of creation)
The WT promoted the name of the Father and our first bible restored that name where other denominations had taken it out.
They have been actively proclaiming the coming of Gods Kingdom as mankinds only hope since the 1800's
The WT teaches all of us to be preachers and teachers and supports us in that work.

I feel prepared for Armageddon which I also feel is going to be very very soon. Jesus wanted his disciples to 'keep awake' and Im very satisfied that the WT are helping us to do that. So you may criticize them all you like, but they are a faithful and wise slave of Jesus and Jehovah who are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, unlike many other denominations who get involved in politics and actively support war and dont uphold Gods moral laws and have prevented people from coming to know the Father by hiding the identity of Jehovah. The fruits of the WT organisation are recognizable and in my view, that is extremely important.

You overturned nothing! There are millions and millions of people who love the Lord and preach the gospel. Watchtower and its followers preach another gospel and another Jesus.

 

[Aquitaine]

Then I guess we have no common ground for a conversation because I do believe that we have the infallible word of God.

If you assert your God's word to be "infallible" then how can anyone possibly counter that?

 

[JFish123]

My answer would be to regard religious texts as works of fiction, until proven otherwise. Basically, treat it like you would a Harry Potter book.

We know Jesus was an actual historical person. Harry Potter... Not so much

 

[JFish123]

I hope that was sincere and not just a ploy to get us to stop ignoring you. Please forgive my skepticism.

Our beliefs are in line with scripture and reflect the beliefs that the ancient Jews held about their future Messiah.
What prevented them from accepting Jesus was their false expectations about what Messiah would do for their nation.
The religious leaders had interpreted Jesus' role as one of a strong political figure....a liberator who would restore the nation to their former independent state and re-establish Israel as a mighty nation who would triumph over their enemies. The Pharisees saw their own place in that arrangement as glorifying them and their position and power. On that score, Jesus was a great disappointment. All he did was preach against them and their hypocrisy, whilst directing honest hearted ones to the truth, which had been mangled out of all proportion by an apostate religious system. History repeats.




When analysing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no point in judging them according to Christendom's point of view. We hold very little in common with the churches because we study the Bible as a whole and at a deep level. Some of us are serious students who dig deeper and others are content to know the basics. Not everyone is a natural born student....but all 'know the truth and it has set them free' from the teachings of an apostate religious system that had its beginnings so long ago that most have no idea how old the apostasy actually is. The "weeds" planted by the devil were not sown recently. (Matt 13:24-30) The foretold apostasy was "already at work" at the end of the first century. With the death of the apostles, the church began to do what men had always done with God's worship.....they began to introduce their own ideas and it ended up not resembling the original at all. This is the foundation upon which Christendom is built.

We have little in the way of formal worship because Christianity was about teaching the truth of God's word, not supporting the false teachings of a powerful religious system that had its beginnings in the early centuries and ended up as corrupt (if not more) than Judaism became in Jesus' day. The "lost sheep" heard the voice of their shepherd and became a new nation. When Israel failed to accept Jesus as Messiah, God cast them off and chose a new nation whom Paul called "the Israel of God" (Matt 23:37-39; Gal 6:16; Acts 15:14). This new "Israel" was made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

“Now You Are God’s People” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY



There is a single mindedness to your approach that demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge what is right in front of you.

The scripture you quoted here, highlights a portion that is misunderstood when you ignore the first part of that passage. (The part you didn't underline)

"Col 1:15-17 (ESVST) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

What does it mean that Jesus is "the image" of his Father? Is an image the same as the original that it reflects? The moon reflects the light of the sun, but it isn't the sun. The sun is the source of its light. Jesus is a reflection of his Father.

What does it mean that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation"? The word "firstborn" (monogenes) is the same word as any other "firstborn" in a family. Are there other "sons of God"? Yes, but the pre-human Jesus is called "the only begotten" in this family of God's sons. What does this mean? It means that the Father "begat" this son before any and all other creation. This "firstborn" son obviously spent eons of time before the creation of other sons and the material universe, forging an unbreakable bond and becoming "the Word" or spokesman for his Father. And then the son was blessed with the task of bringing all other created things into being. He is the agency through which creation came about. (Prov 8:22, 30, 31; John 1:2, 3) How is that hard to understand?

If the trinity is in the forefront clouding the simple truth, then any wonder there is confusion. There is only one Creator....the Father who brought all the raw materials into existence from nothing...and there is one who fabricated those materials into all that we see in creation. This is why God says "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26. They were a team in creation.



Actually if you want to be pedantic about the semantics, then it was "The Word" who was with Yahweh "in the beginning" according to John 1:1. So because "the Word became flesh" (the man Jesus) can we say that because the Word was called "theos" (a mighty one) that he is equal with "ho theos" (THE God) mentioned together in this one verse?

In John 1:18, the Word is called "the only begotten god", which is rather a contradiction since Almighty God cannot be "begotten".
In an attempt to get readers to overlook this discrepancy, the KJV translated that verse as "only begotten Son" and yet, "theos" is used in this verse. So if "theos" is translated in verse 18 as son, then verse 1 should also be translated the same way......"the Word was (the) son".

We don't see any evidence from the scriptures that there is any equality between God and his most trusted servant...his beloved son.

Before Catholicism introduced the notion of a trinity and made it doctrine in the 4th century....it was not in the belief systems of either Judaism or original Christianity.

We understand why people attack us on a regular basis, because we pose the same threat to Christendom that Jesus and his disciples posed to Judaism. We are just a small minority compared with Christendom's church system, but the fact that we cop so much flack for so little offence is telling. They must feel threatened by us or the feelings would not be so intense. Jesus said we would be hated and persecuted for doing what Jesus commanded. (John 15:18-21)
Just like the early disciples, we are attacked primarily by those who claim to worship the same God.

We have to "get out of" "Babylon the great" or we will not escape sharing in her sins or her fate. (Rev 18:4, 5)

In Christendom, there are a multitude who study the bible on a deeper level as well. Your post implies only Jehovahs Witnesses do so which is foolish pride.
And you don't think one of the Apostates was Arius who taught Jesus was not God?

 

[JFish123]

Dr. James White vs Greg Stafford (Jehovahs Witness) in a formal debate.

 

[Aquitaine]

We know Jesus was an actual historical person. Harry Potter... Not so much

Yeah, he may have been a person who lived, but is there any evidence (not scripture) which points to him being the son of a deity?

 

[McBell]

The JW's preach a different and false gospel. Those who preach another gospel are accursed (Gal. 1:6)

"Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah's Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah's Witnesses is really "gospel" or "good news," as of God's heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914." (Watchtower, May 1, 1981, p. 17)

Bold empty claim supported with bold empty claims is not the least bit convincing.
You have not shown that the JWs version is false.
Of course, you will have to show which version is true.
Now since we all know you cannot do that, all you have is that the JWs believe differently than you do.
Now, what does your Bible say about bearing false witness?

 

[JFish123]

Bold empty claim supported with bold empty claims is not the least bit convincing.
You have not shown that the JWs version is false.
Of course, you will have to show which version is true.
Now since we all know you cannot do that, all you have is that the JWs believe differently than you do.
Now, what does your Bible say about bearing false witness?

Are you judging someone Mestemia? That's a no-no (wag of the finger)
Also, the NWT is flawed because the translators were flawed.
The New World Translation has been rebuked by so many Greek and Hebrew scholars for it's many errors and a completely biased translation to fit the Watchtowers ideology into the Bible, instead of the other way around.
Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the text of the NWT concluded that the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation. It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others, it is neither modern nor scholarly." No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is, "an insult to the word of God."
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament', calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation."
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible."
In view of the wide spread "thumbs down" by Bible scholars, it is highly revealing that the Watchtower Society has always resisted efforts to identify members if the NWT committee. The claim was that they preferred to remain anonymous and humble. But an unbiased observer will also note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.
The Watchtower Society must have been utterly embarrassed when the names of the translators of the NWT were made public. The reason for this was that the translators were completely unqualified for the task.
4 out of 5 men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education). The fifth was Fred W. Franz, who claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon further examination under oath in court, he was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.
Note that the following cross-examination is from that court. It took place in November 24, 1954...
"Have you made yourself familiar with Hebrew?"
"Yes."
"So you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?"
"Yes, for use in my biblical work."
The following day, Franz was put on the stand again, and the following interview took place...
"You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew do you?"
"I do not speak Hebrew."
"You do not?"
"No."
"Can you translate that into Hebrew?"
"Which?"
"That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis."
"You mean here."
"Yes."
"No, I won't attempt to do that."
While Jehovahs Witnesses may not want to hear it, the truth of the matter is that Franz, like the others on the New World Translation Committee, could not translate Hebrew or Greek with any real proficiency. It is our duty as Christians, as Followers of Jesus Christ to tell them in Love that there being deceived about God, about Jesus, about what's actually written in the Bible by the Watchtower Society. There very souls are at stake...

 

[McBell]

Then I guess we have no common ground for a conversation because I do believe that we have the infallible word of God.

Yes.
That is the problem...
You BELIEVE you have ....
They BELIEVE they have....
on and on and on.

Unfortunately for all of you, none of you can show that you actually do have that which you BELIEVE you have....

 

[McBell]

Are you judging someone Mestemia? That's a no-no (wag of the finger)

If you honestly believe that then you really need to go re-read the Bible.

Also, the NWT is flawed because the translators were flawed.
The New World Translation has been rebuked by so many Greek and Hebrew scholars for it's many errors and a completely biased translation to fit the Watchtowers ideology into the Bible, instead of the other way around.
Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the text of the NWT concluded that the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation. It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others, it is neither modern nor scholarly." No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is, "an insult to the word of God."
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament', calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation."
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible."
In view of the wide spread "thumbs down" by Bible scholars, it is highly revealing that the Watchtower Society has always resisted efforts to identify members if the NWT committee. The claim was that they preferred to remain anonymous and humble. But an unbiased observer will also note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.
The Watchtower Society must have been utterly embarrassed when the names of the translators of the NWT were made public. The reason for this was that the translators were completely unqualified for the task.
4 out of 5 men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education). The fifth was Fred W. Franz, who claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon further examination under oath in court, he was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.
Note that the following cross-examination is from that court. It took place in November 24, 1954...
"Have you made yourself familiar with Hebrew?"
"Yes."
"So you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?"
"Yes, for use in my biblical work."
The following day, Franz was put on the stand again, and the following interview took place...
"You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew do you?"
"I do not speak Hebrew."
"You do not?"
"No."
"Can you translate that into Hebrew?"
"Which?"
"That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis."
"You mean here."
"Yes."
"No, I won't attempt to do that."
While Jehovahs Witnesses may not want to hear it, the truth of the matter is that Franz, like the others on the New World Translation Committee, could not translate Hebrew or Greek with any real proficiency. It is our duty as Christians, as Followers of Jesus Christ to tell them in Love that there being deceived about God, about Jesus, about what's actually written in the Bible by the Watchtower Society. There very souls are at stake...

You have fallen into the same trap.

Until you can show which version is the one true word of the one true god, all you are going to do is point out the differences.
In this case, different does not mean wrong.
At least not until such time as you can show which one is the one true word of the one true god.

 

[JFish123]

Yeah, he may have been a person who lived, but is there any evidence (not scripture) which points to him being the son of a deity?

History is filled with Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Lucian among many others outside the bible that Jesus existed, did miraculous things, was worshipped as to a God, and died by Roman hands and was said to be Resurrected. The Resurrection would be the greatest of Evidences. No one can explain with any first century evidence how a band of scared fisherman suddenly after the third day became bold proclaimers until death. Especially of that of Paul who hunted Christians and did a 180 and proclaimed Jesus until death. And the reason they gave was because they saw the Resurrected Jests with there own eyes. Some good reads are:

 

[JFish123]

If you honestly believe that then you really need to go re-read the Bible.


You have fallen into the same trap.

Until you can show which version is the one true word of the one true god, all you are going to do is point out the differences.
In this case, different does not mean wrong.
At least not until such time as you can show which one is the one true word of the one true god.

At the heart of the problem are two views as to what a translation should be. On one side are those who feel a translation should stick just as closely as possible to every word of the original Hebrew and Greek. They want the translation to be a literal transfer, word for word, of the original words into English. They feel this will provide the greatest accuracy possible and, after all, this is the aim, isn't it?

Unfortunately, that approach encounters real problems. Some words simply don't have an exact equivalent in English. The word order and the entire sentence structure just don't match from one language to another. So these word-for-word translations are wooden and unnatural. They may be used for close study, but they often fail in terms of comprehension and readability. On the other side are those who feel a translation should transfer the message, that is, the exact thought and emotion of the original text. To do this, it should use as many words as are necessary to reproduce the idea precisely in English. You don't really obtain accuracy, they contend, by a word-for-word translation, but you do when you convey the concept, the message, of the original, so that the reader understands it. In the end, they say, a thought-for-thought translation is actually more accurate as well as more understandable.

For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods.
So the vast number of translations say the same thing just using different words to do so such as the KJV, NIV, and NASB.
The only translations anyone should be aware of are those who mistranslate words to fit there OWN ideology, by stating the scripture says what it clearly doesn't such as the NWT the Jehovahs Witnesses use as I've shown why prior.

 

[McBell]

At the heart of the problem are two views as to what a translation should be. On one side are those who feel a translation should stick just as closely as possible to every word of the original Hebrew and Greek. They want the translation to be a literal transfer, word for word, of the original words into English. They feel this will provide the greatest accuracy possible and, after all, this is the aim, isn't it?

Unfortunately, that approach encounters real problems. Some words simply don't have an exact equivalent in English. The word order and the entire sentence structure just don't match from one language to another. So these word-for-word translations are wooden and unnatural. They may be used for close study, but they often fail in terms of comprehension and readability. On the other side are those who feel a translation should transfer the message, that is, the exact thought and emotion of the original text. To do this, it should use as many words as are necessary to reproduce the idea precisely in English. You don't really obtain accuracy, they contend, by a word-for-word translation, but you do when you convey the concept, the message, of the original, so that the reader understands it. In the end, they say, a thought-for-thought translation is actually more accurate as well as more understandable.

For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods.
So the vast number of translations say the same thing just using different words to do so such as the KJV, NIV, and NASB.
The only translations anyone should be aware of are those who mistranslate words to fit there OWN ideology, by stating the scripture says what it clearly doesn't such as the NWT the Jehovahs Witnesses use as I've shown why prior.

You are still not addressing my point.
Until such time as you can show which version is the one true word of the one true god, all you are doing is pointing out the differences between the versions.

How do you know the JW version is not more accurate to what the one true god says than another version?
Fact is, you do not.
All you have is your belief that different from what you believe is wrong.
Same as everyone else in the thread....

 

[JFish123]

You are still not addressing my point.
Until such time as you can show which version is the one true word of the one true god, all you are doing is pointing out the differences between the versions.

How do you know the JW version is not more accurate to what the one true god says than another version?
Fact is, you do not.
All you have is your belief that different from what you believe is wrong.
Same as everyone else in the thread....

I don't think your understanding what I wrote:
1. I showed that most translations like the NIV, KJV, NASB, etc... Say the same thing just using different words. And that they are from the original Greek and Hebrew. So they are the ones which proclaim Gods Truth.
2. The New World Translation I showed does not as the translators didn't know the Greek or Hebrew to translate it correctly among other things.
Those are the Direct answers to your questions my friend

 

[psychoslice]

We know Jesus was an actual historical person. Harry Potter... Not so much

Do we ??.

 

[McBell]

I don't think your understanding what I wrote:
1. I showed that most translations like the NIV, KJV, NASB, etc... Say the same thing just using different words. And that they are from the original Greek and Hebrew.So they are the ones which proclaim Gods Truth.
2. The New World Translation I showed does not as the translators didn't know the Greek or Hebrew to translate it correctly among other things.
Those are the Direct answers to your questions my friend

Yet you make a bold empty claim at the end of point one.

So they are the ones which proclaim Gods Truth.

Prove it.
And no, merely saying that most translations say the same thing is not proof.