TiggerII
Active Member
Certainly. My only point is that the writers of scripture always assigned a masculine gender to God and other heavenly persons.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?
- Thread starter calm
- Start date
Just to address these point for clarity....
This is the kind of thinking needed to justify fault finding....its nothing new...look at Israel after their release from Egypt.
In Jude 5...after reminding his brothers to beware of those who sought to subvert the faith of others, especially those who once identified as Christ's followers, Jude said....
"Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those not showing faith."
Having been a 'former member' is not really a good indicator of the truthfulness of what is portrayed. It is merely their perception. Ex's are inclined to dwell on the negatives. They have to justify their defection because.....well, they know why.
Many of Jehovah's Witnesses received their 'qualifications' before becoming JW's, so are able to share their knowledge and expertise with others. I see nothing in the scriptures that argues with this. Where did Jesus get his carpentry skills? It doesn't require a higher education obtained at a university to earn a living.
As Paul said.....
"Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced. From now on, let . . . . those making use of the world as those not using it to the full; for the scene of this world is changing." (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)
Using the world to further Kingdom interests is quite acceptable......using it purely for selfish pursuits is not.
His example certainly does count. He is our role model. We cannot imitate him perfectly, but we can try, to the best of our imperfect ability, just as the Apostles did. Did Jesus expect them to be perfect? (Mark 14:38)
Saul was taught originally by the Pharisees.....did Jesus say that they were "the best"? Or were they only "the best" in their own eyes? (Read Matthew 23) Only by their own standards were they considering their kind of education as necessary. Jesus and his apostles' lack of their particular education, made them an object of mockery....uneducated fools. (John 7:14; Acts of the Apostles 4:13)
When Saul had his vision on the road to Damascus, only after that encounter, was he then re-educated by "the best"...Jesus Christ himself.
What education we receive is used for "food and clothing" (1 Timothy 6:8) but it is also used for the good of our work. It funds our ministry and our contributions help with disaster relief, supporting missionaries, and building work in poorer nations.
Construction work on larger projects can train many young ones in building skills, passed on by qualified brothers. So our work skills can definitely be tied in to our religion.
Of course. Why wouldn't we? Would any of our message be acceptable to people without the scholars who teach us the languages of the Bible? Who was responsible for the Hebrew scriptures? Who twisted them all out of shape so that the Jews became unsalvageable as a nation? Jesus was not sent to the religious leaders of Judaism, but to the "lost sheep" who were neglected by them.....and he found them, and taught them, and led them out of that corrupt system into a new arrangement, under a new covenant.
We hope to do the same....to lead those who see the futility and hypocrisy of today's "Christianity"...those who are seeking to find God somewhere else. Once they learn the truth, many appreciatively choose to keep it...some walk away, imagining that because they see faults in imperfect people, that it can't be the truth.....then finding nothing that compares....wandering about lost and unable to find their "fit" anywhere else.
The truth has that effect on people. If people want to find fault, then God will let them.....we don't need them in our brotherhood. Did they jump or were they pushed? They have no idea.
This is the kind of thinking needed to justify fault finding....its nothing new...look at Israel after their release from Egypt.
In Jude 5...after reminding his brothers to beware of those who sought to subvert the faith of others, especially those who once identified as Christ's followers, Jude said....
"Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those not showing faith."
Having been a 'former member' is not really a good indicator of the truthfulness of what is portrayed. It is merely their perception. Ex's are inclined to dwell on the negatives. They have to justify their defection because.....well, they know why.
Many of Jehovah's Witnesses received their 'qualifications' before becoming JW's, so are able to share their knowledge and expertise with others. I see nothing in the scriptures that argues with this. Where did Jesus get his carpentry skills? It doesn't require a higher education obtained at a university to earn a living.
As Paul said.....
"Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced. From now on, let . . . . those making use of the world as those not using it to the full; for the scene of this world is changing." (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)
Using the world to further Kingdom interests is quite acceptable......using it purely for selfish pursuits is not.
His example certainly does count. He is our role model. We cannot imitate him perfectly, but we can try, to the best of our imperfect ability, just as the Apostles did. Did Jesus expect them to be perfect? (Mark 14:38)
Saul was taught originally by the Pharisees.....did Jesus say that they were "the best"? Or were they only "the best" in their own eyes? (Read Matthew 23) Only by their own standards were they considering their kind of education as necessary. Jesus and his apostles' lack of their particular education, made them an object of mockery....uneducated fools. (John 7:14; Acts of the Apostles 4:13)
When Saul had his vision on the road to Damascus, only after that encounter, was he then re-educated by "the best"...Jesus Christ himself.
What education we receive is used for "food and clothing" (1 Timothy 6:8) but it is also used for the good of our work. It funds our ministry and our contributions help with disaster relief, supporting missionaries, and building work in poorer nations.
Construction work on larger projects can train many young ones in building skills, passed on by qualified brothers. So our work skills can definitely be tied in to our religion.
Of course. Why wouldn't we? Would any of our message be acceptable to people without the scholars who teach us the languages of the Bible? Who was responsible for the Hebrew scriptures? Who twisted them all out of shape so that the Jews became unsalvageable as a nation? Jesus was not sent to the religious leaders of Judaism, but to the "lost sheep" who were neglected by them.....and he found them, and taught them, and led them out of that corrupt system into a new arrangement, under a new covenant.
We hope to do the same....to lead those who see the futility and hypocrisy of today's "Christianity"...those who are seeking to find God somewhere else. Once they learn the truth, many appreciatively choose to keep it...some walk away, imagining that because they see faults in imperfect people, that it can't be the truth.....then finding nothing that compares....wandering about lost and unable to find their "fit" anywhere else.
The truth has that effect on people. If people want to find fault, then God will let them.....we don't need them in our brotherhood. Did they jump or were they pushed? They have no idea.
Last edited:
Continued.....
Its not wanting a better education that is the problem...its the kind of education they seek and for what purpose.
Motivation can come from a bad place.....human selfishness and a desire for what money can buy is deceptive.
As Paul wrote to Timothy...
"But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains." (1 Timothy 6:9-10)
You see, we all need money to live in this world.....so it isn't money that causes the problem...its "the love of money" and what it can buy that creates a desire in many people to pursue well paying employment just to support a materialistic lifestyle. You don't have to be rich to love money. The poor are just as subject to this love, and just as likely to commit crimes to obtain it....just not so good at hiding it.
I find that culturally, some people are more inclined to complain and to be disgruntled about anything and everything. Israel were complainers. Its hard to fight those ingrained attitudes (like racism) but as Christians we are admonished to "strip off the old personality" and put on the new one.
Colossians 3:5-10...
"Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it."
The "old personality" is not like a comfortable suit that you hang up in your wardrobe so that you can put it back on when you feel like it......it needs to go in the trash. Complainers are negative people. No one likes being around fault finding nit pickers.
You do understand what that political party card symbolized though, don't you? It meant compromise.....it meant joining forces with an extremely corrupt government that was forcing our brothers to sacrifice their Christian neutrality.
What they suffered was acceptable to God because it furnished proof that the devil could not overreach them through fear. (1 Peter 2:20) It was a Job-like trial...and one that they endured with faith. Jehovah will reward such ones like he did Job. (Job 42:10-17)
Think back to the Christians in the Roman arenas. Whole families were subjected to the most heinous of deaths just because they were Christians. Yet all they had to do to walk free was to place a pinch of incense on the alter as an act of worship to the Emperor. They refused, knowing that they and their children would be torn to pieces by wild animals. Death does not separate us from God. (Romans 8:38-39)
That is rubbish. The pedophile problem is small in our organization compared to so many others, but we have dealt with it as responsibly as we can these days.
We can no more keep those predators out of our ranks than can any other organization where there are children. We are naturally trusting because that is what we are taught to be amongst our brethren. Pedophiles know this and are very good con artists but we have taken all the necessary steps to eliminate them from our ranks as much as we are able. This crime is reported to the police.
It seems as if the flaws in humans must be eliminated altogether in order for a brotherhood to be acceptable to some, but in this world, it isn't remotely possible. A glance back at Israel might reveal that humans are humans with human failings. It didn't stop them from being God's people. He still used them to accomplish his purpose. When any member of that nation sinned against Jehovah's laws, they were punished. (Hebrews 12:5-6)
"Shunning" seems to get people's hackles up, but it is entirely scriptural. It is a form of discipline that is meant to bring a person to their senses and appreciate what they had, but threw away. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Matthew 18:15-17; 2 John 10; Hebrews 13:17) No one is shunned who hasn't committed a grave error unrepentantly. They want to blame everyone else but its their own fault.
If you commit the crime in full knowledge of the penalty, why bother complaining about it?
It works much like the account of the Prodigal Son. Only the humble return and are welcomed "home".
Good for you. That is not the experience of all however. Giving personal testimony is pointless because for every story in the positive, there are many that are negative. Its all about putting yourself in harm's way....and most especially dangerous when one is a boarder at those universities, far away from home and the influence of responsible parenting. Paul leads his warning with "do not be misled" when he spoke about associating with those who may be a negative influence. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
oh good grief....since when do the people of those faiths come to your door with the good news of the Kingdom? The only ones are Mormons who don't even come with a Bible. Its a whole other Jesus with a whole other message. They haven't been to my home in years. They used to....we had some nice talks.
Recruitment? Is that what Jesus did? Seriously.....
Have any of those you mentioned called at your door lately? Do any of them call on their neighbors in any routine way to give them a hope for the future? Jesus said that this work would be done right to the end, because he was backing it.....I see no one else doing what we do consistently, for as long as we have. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) It was a command after all.
I'm afraid that your arguments are one sided and shallow. I imagine the first Christians had to put up with the same kind of thing. Jesus told us to expect it. (John 15:18-21)
Its not wanting a better education that is the problem...its the kind of education they seek and for what purpose.
Motivation can come from a bad place.....human selfishness and a desire for what money can buy is deceptive.
As Paul wrote to Timothy...
"But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains." (1 Timothy 6:9-10)
You see, we all need money to live in this world.....so it isn't money that causes the problem...its "the love of money" and what it can buy that creates a desire in many people to pursue well paying employment just to support a materialistic lifestyle. You don't have to be rich to love money. The poor are just as subject to this love, and just as likely to commit crimes to obtain it....just not so good at hiding it.
I find that culturally, some people are more inclined to complain and to be disgruntled about anything and everything. Israel were complainers. Its hard to fight those ingrained attitudes (like racism) but as Christians we are admonished to "strip off the old personality" and put on the new one.
Colossians 3:5-10...
"Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it."
The "old personality" is not like a comfortable suit that you hang up in your wardrobe so that you can put it back on when you feel like it......it needs to go in the trash. Complainers are negative people. No one likes being around fault finding nit pickers.
You do understand what that political party card symbolized though, don't you? It meant compromise.....it meant joining forces with an extremely corrupt government that was forcing our brothers to sacrifice their Christian neutrality.
What they suffered was acceptable to God because it furnished proof that the devil could not overreach them through fear. (1 Peter 2:20) It was a Job-like trial...and one that they endured with faith. Jehovah will reward such ones like he did Job. (Job 42:10-17)
Think back to the Christians in the Roman arenas. Whole families were subjected to the most heinous of deaths just because they were Christians. Yet all they had to do to walk free was to place a pinch of incense on the alter as an act of worship to the Emperor. They refused, knowing that they and their children would be torn to pieces by wild animals. Death does not separate us from God. (Romans 8:38-39)
That is rubbish. The pedophile problem is small in our organization compared to so many others, but we have dealt with it as responsibly as we can these days.
We can no more keep those predators out of our ranks than can any other organization where there are children. We are naturally trusting because that is what we are taught to be amongst our brethren. Pedophiles know this and are very good con artists but we have taken all the necessary steps to eliminate them from our ranks as much as we are able. This crime is reported to the police.
It seems as if the flaws in humans must be eliminated altogether in order for a brotherhood to be acceptable to some, but in this world, it isn't remotely possible. A glance back at Israel might reveal that humans are humans with human failings. It didn't stop them from being God's people. He still used them to accomplish his purpose. When any member of that nation sinned against Jehovah's laws, they were punished. (Hebrews 12:5-6)
"Shunning" seems to get people's hackles up, but it is entirely scriptural. It is a form of discipline that is meant to bring a person to their senses and appreciate what they had, but threw away. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Matthew 18:15-17; 2 John 10; Hebrews 13:17) No one is shunned who hasn't committed a grave error unrepentantly. They want to blame everyone else but its their own fault.
If you commit the crime in full knowledge of the penalty, why bother complaining about it?
It works much like the account of the Prodigal Son. Only the humble return and are welcomed "home".
Good for you. That is not the experience of all however. Giving personal testimony is pointless because for every story in the positive, there are many that are negative. Its all about putting yourself in harm's way....and most especially dangerous when one is a boarder at those universities, far away from home and the influence of responsible parenting. Paul leads his warning with "do not be misled" when he spoke about associating with those who may be a negative influence. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
oh good grief....since when do the people of those faiths come to your door with the good news of the Kingdom? The only ones are Mormons who don't even come with a Bible. Its a whole other Jesus with a whole other message. They haven't been to my home in years. They used to....we had some nice talks.Recruitment? Is that what Jesus did? Seriously.....
Have any of those you mentioned called at your door lately? Do any of them call on their neighbors in any routine way to give them a hope for the future? Jesus said that this work would be done right to the end, because he was backing it.....I see no one else doing what we do consistently, for as long as we have. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) It was a command after all.
I'm afraid that your arguments are one sided and shallow. I imagine the first Christians had to put up with the same kind of thing. Jesus told us to expect it. (John 15:18-21)
Last edited:
Thanks for those words!I think you will find if you spoke to any Jehovah's Witness they would know a GREAT deal more about evolution than any other person you are likely to ask. People often confuse being well educated with being wise, I have met many well educated fools.
Out of all religions if there is a God and if the Bible is the truth then I have no doubt Jehovah's Witness are the one's who are chosen to spread the gospel. I may not be brilliant but I consider myself to be quite well educated.
My problem is getting over the last hurdle of believing without any doubt there is a god
Actually, that's one thing I recognized when I began talking with them over 40 years ago. And the way they tied in the Scriptures to explain this confused and fearful world we live in, it just all 'clicked' with me!
Now, I am one!
Welcome to the forums.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There are objective facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, what I consider evidence that He was who He claimed to be, a Manifestation of God, but there is no way to objectively prove that. When people look at those facts they either consider them significant or not. But if they have a bias already in place it will be near impossible for them to read and understand.
I do not really understand how anyone can look at all the prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah and deny that He was the return of Christ and the Messiah. I am not talking about a few verses, because that would not be ample. I am talking about a plethora of verses, all throughout the Old Testament, prophecies that were not fulfilled by Jesus and realistically never could be in the future. If people really want to know the truth they would at least read Thief in the Night by William Sears.
One reason my faith is stronger because many people challenge my beliefs which leads me to do more research, only to find out I was right after all; and the more I discover the more I know it cannot be wrong. From a purely logical standpoint, I cannot see how it could be a false belief since there has been nothing that could ever refute it. The only thing that could ever refute it is if someone was able to uncover something about Baha’u’llah I did not know that would have to mean He was a false prophet, but nobody has ever been able to present anything like that. All the history of the Baha’i Faith shows what kind of a person He was, so the only way that could be wrong is if the history was fabricated.
Then if you are logical, you would have to ask yourself why anyone would go to the lengths to fabricate the entire history of a religion? Moreover, why would Baha’u’llah have sacrificed 40 years of His life if He was a false prophet? What would be His motive? He came from a wealthy family so He could have has an easy life as a minister in the government, but instead He gave up all His wealth and possessions to follow the Bab and as a result he was exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years, this fulfilling this prophecy to a tee:
Micah 7:12 “In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.”
He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.
and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.
The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.
and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.
and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.
and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.
First of all, I do not believe in the creation story as it is presented in Genesis is literal truth. I believe that it is metaphorical. I believe humans, animals and plants evolved over time, they were not created in six days by God 6000 years ago. Such a belief is refuted by scientific evidence but it is also insane, so I would not believe it anyway. I think such a belief is no different from science fiction, it is not congruent with reality. It is also the reason why more and more people are dropping out of Christianity and becoming atheists.
God did create everything in existence by setting the process of evolution in motion, not by waving a magic wand and making all these things appear in six days. Maybe all that science fiction has gone to your head.
There is nothing logical about raising dead bodies from their graves. That has to be the most ridiculous Christian belief although there are others. There is nothing logical about Jesus floating down from the clouds and waving a magic wand and recreating the earth as it once was 6000 years ago like a Garden of Eden. Why would God do such a ridiculous thing? Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God is an idiot. God is also All-Loving, All-Knowing, and All-Wise, so God is not going to do something that is not in the best interest of humanity, and I mean all of humanity, not just a numbered few Christians.
Yes, God created the earth for a purpose, so people could live on it and prepare for their life in the spiritual world. The earth is recreated every time a new Manifestation of God appears but this time is different because it is a complete overhaul of everything that has been in place during the Prophetic Cycle of religion, since Adam.
The Kingdom of God will be built during this new age, the Messianic Age, but it will be built by humans, not by Jesus or God. It is being built for those who are living now and future generations, not for dead people to rise from graves and live here again. Once the body dies, the soul ascends to the spiritual realm and takes on a new form. There is no way we can understand what that will be like until we experience it.
Of course God can perform miracles and the Manifestations of God could also perform miracles, but that does not mean that God has to perform the miracles that Christians concocted by misinterpreting what the scriptures mean.
Here is my belief on science and religion is that if religion is antagonistic to science it is mere superstition. Of course concepts like God, the soul and the spiritual world are not within the purview of science, but they are not disproven or contradicted by science either.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá said:
I have spoken to you of some of the principles of Bahá’u’lláh: The Search after Truth and The Unity of Mankind. I will now explain the Fourth Principle, which is The Acceptance of the Relation between Religion and Science.
There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.
How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.
The Unity of God is logical, and this idea is not antagonistic to the conclusions arrived at by scientific study.
All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.
All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed.
FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)
Are you familiar with acclaimed Bible Scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J.? He was a trinitarian, but his study of Koine Greek made him realize that John 1:1 does not support Jesus being God.
In his "Dictionary of the Bible", he wrote:
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
(If someone has already quoted this in this thread...I'm sorry, I missed it.)
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have the same problem not being emotional about God which is probably one reason why I listen to so much Christian radio. On the other hand, it is not a Baha’i belief that we can have a personal relationship with God, because God is far too exalted to ever approach on a personal level. The only way we can relate to God is through the Manifestations of God. That is what Christians do, relate to God through Jesus, but they have the illusion that Jesus is God so they believe they have a personal relationship with God.
You are right that we have to have emotions towards God to have a proper relationship to God, but we do that through the Manifestation of God and what He has revealed, through prayer and meditation.
“Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men—hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Bahá, upon the Tablet of God’s irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 279
I do have a definite bias when it comes to the Bible, particularly the OT. Maybe other Baha’is take it more literally than I do. I cannot say that there was not a reason for the sacrifices back in those days, but I do not know that God ordered them. Rather the people offered them up. I cannot say I know why and it does not matter anymore as far as I am concerned.
The Abrahamic religions are the religions that are closest to the truth about God, since they teach one God, but that does not mean other religions do not also contain spiritual truth. Are you going to completely discount everything in Buddhism and Hinduism just because they are not under the Abrahamic umbrella? This is a big topic, but in brief the Baha’i belief is that religions were revealed over time and according to the capacity of the people of those ages to understand truth about God. Also, religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism are so changed by man from their original form that what we have cannot really say that they are represent the Word of God. For example, it is a Baha’i belief that the Buddha taught one God. Now most Buddhists do not even believe in God, it has gone that far off track.
Why can’t Jesus with his apostles and Muhammed both be right? The fact that what they revealed is different does not make it contradictory. Why can’t an omnipotent God reveal something different whenever He wants to? After all, humanity changes over time so its need are different in every age. This idea that the whole truth and everything humanity will ever need was revealed in the Bible is ludicrous, if you think about it. Are God’s Hands tied? Moreover, the Jews believe that the Torah is all we will ever need and the Christians believe the Old and New Testament are all we will ever need, so both cannot be right. Do you understand the problem?
Yes, the JWs have a valid claim because I do not know the Bible very well, but they cannot make that claim against other Baha’is who do know the Bible well.
The JW's know most of the bible well. But the parts they do not know are key parts which undermine their faith. And even though they know the strict reading of the Bible well, they do not interpret well.
And that is the salient problem, interpretation. There are so many different ways that verses can be interpreted so how can any one of the Christian sects claim they have the only correct interpretation? What gives them that authority? This is the reason Christianity is so divided. Even though they tried to make it uniform at Nicaea it did not resolve all the differences in interpretation of individual verses throughout the Bible.
And where did those leaders get their authority? As an outsider looking in I think I can be unbiased because after all the Baha’i Faith does not rest upon the Bible. So what I see are all these Christians with different understandings which really only amount to personal opinions since they cannot be proven to be correct.
This sounds more like a cult than a religion. Moreover, if they keep changing their interpretations that shows that they were wrong in the past, so how can they trust the present interpretations?
All this is the polar opposite of what Baha’is have been enjoined to do by Baha’u’llah, to investigate the truth independently. Everyone is free to interpret the Baha’i Writings in their own ways but since Baha’u’llah had a Covenant and appointed interpreters we have their writings to help us understand what Baha’u’llah wrote.
Whereas it is true that no religion can be proven to be true, that does not mean that one religion is not true (or truer than the others).
I do not agree with you on this. Feeling good is not the purpose of life. Living a fantasy is very bad. Are you satisfied with living a fantasy when there is a true reality you could be living? If a religion is a fantasy how is that different from a drug-induced state? For emotional and physical health reasons religion is better than drugs, but the main problem with believing in a fantasy is they you will never discover reality.
So, even though I agree with you that people should only believe what is true, evidence shows that religion has its benefits, therefore can be used for a beneficial purpose (not to ignore the harmful aspect), and that most people don't join religion to find truth. They are there for emotional reasons and for hope. You, a person who strives to be rational in approach to religion, are a rarity.
That is really a sad commentary on humans if most people do not join a religion to find truth. It is probably true that most people are there for emotional reasons and hope,and I have been accused of that by nonbelievers repeatedly. What I tell them is that I do not even like religion or God, so how could I be there for emotional reasons? I would ditch God and my religion in a heartbeat if it could be proven false. I can think of many things I would rather be doing, but this is now my responsibility because I took it on. I cannot be a half-believer and live for self while trying to promote my religion. That is hypocrisy.
Okay, I understand. I was in the same position with that Hindu man. I told him I did not understand Hinduism so I could not discuss it but he thought he knew the Baha’i Faith better than I do. No not really, I have been a Baha’i for 48 ½ years. That man was so arrogant. You are a refreshing change from that. Really, what he was trying to do was to make Hinduism fit into Baha’i, but that is not possible because he believed a bunch of Avatars were Manifestations of God, and from a Baha’i perspective they were simply gurus. Maybe they were enlightened but they were not sent by God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
This passage explains how the world is recreated by the Manifestations of God in every age:
“Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed.”
Here is the entire passage for context:
“From the foregoing passages and allusions it hath been made indubitably clear that in the kingdoms of earth and heaven there must needs be manifested a Being, an Essence Who shall act as a Manifestation and Vehicle for the transmission of the grace of the Divinity Itself, the Sovereign Lord of all. Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.
Can one of sane mind ever seriously imagine that, in view of certain words the meaning of which he cannot comprehend, the portal of God’s infinite guidance can ever be closed in the face of men? Can he ever conceive for these Divine Luminaries, these resplendent Lights either a beginning or an end? What outpouring flood can compare with the stream of His all-embracing grace, and what blessing can excel the evidences of so great and pervasive a mercy? There can be no doubt whatever that if for one moment the tide of His mercy and grace were to be withheld from the world, it would completely perish. For this reason, from the beginning that hath no beginning the portals of Divine mercy have been flung open to the face of all created things, and the clouds of Truth will continue to the end that hath no end to rain on the soil of human capacity, reality and personality their favors and bounties. Such hath been God’s method continued from everlasting to everlasting.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-69
The idea is that every time a Manifestation of God (Messenger) brings the Holy Spirit to the world the world is renewed. Here is a quote along those lines:
“One who does not know God’s Messengers, however, is like a plant growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is, nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits suns, and Bahá’u’lláh is the sun of this “day” in which we live. The suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of former days have kissed into life.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 72
Yes, I am well aware of what JWs believe about the soul, that it is the breath of life so it dies when the body dies, but they have to ignore the New Testament in order to support that belief. Frankly, what I think is that they are dead set on having a resurrection of their body and living in a paradise on earth forever, so they do not really want to look at the verses in the gospels that refute that belief and say there is a soul that is immortal, and that there is a heaven where we go after we die. This is a psychological problem because if people are attached to a belief that gives me comfort and something they are looking forward to they are not going to be willing to look at other beliefs. I think that people should want to know what the truth is, whatever it is.
The soul animates the human body while we are alive on earth. The soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself, so the soul is responsible for the mind, senses and emotions as well as physical sensations. The body is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth, a place to house the soul. The soul is our self, our true reality.
The soul is not the mind/brain. If it was, it could not continue to exist after the body dies. But it DOES continue to exist after the body dies.
The soul is our self, the sum total of who we are, our personality. The soul is responsible for animating the body, and thus the brain. It is the soul that is responsible for our consciousness. The soul works through the brain and mind while we are alive in a physical body, but when the body dies the soul leaves the body it continues to the spiritual world where it takes on another form.Consciousness continues after the body dies because the soul does not need the body to exist.
“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The nature of the soul is not something humans can ever comprehend, as it is a sign of God and a complete mystery...
I do not know what “returns to God” actually means, nobody can ever know that. However, it is interesting how the verse above is so closely aligned with what Baha’u’llah wrote...
“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159
“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156
Matthew 16:23-26 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
No soul is ever actually destroyed, so to “destroy” or “lose” the soul in the verses above means being distant from God. The soul is destroyed in hell when it becomes a victim to self and passion but this is not God’s doing. People destroy their own souls by making the wrong choices and ending up far from God.
The soul (spirit) of man is immortal so it can never be extinguished. All souls continue to exist forever, but some souls have eternal life and others don’t.
“The immortality of the spirit is mentioned in the Holy Books; it is the fundamental basis of the divine religions. Now punishments and rewards are said to be of two kinds: first, the rewards and punishments of this life; second, those of the other world. But the paradise and hell of existence are found in all the worlds of God, whether in this world or in the spiritual heavenly worlds. Gaining these rewards is the gaining of eternal life. That is why Christ said, “Act in such a way that you may find eternal life, and that you may be born of water and the spirit, so that you may enter into the Kingdom.” 2” Some Answered Questions, p. 223
“Likewise, the rewards of the other world are the eternal life which is clearly mentioned in all the Holy Books, the divine perfections, the eternal bounties and everlasting felicity….The rewards of the other world are peace, the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God in the world of eternity.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 224-225
“The meaning is that the life of the Kingdom is the life of the spirit, the eternal life, and that it is purified from place, like the spirit of man which has no place. For if you examine the human body, you will not find a special spot or locality for the spirit, for it has never had a place; it is immaterial. It has a connection with the body like that of the sun with this mirror. The sun is not within the mirror, but it has a connection with the mirror.” Some Answered Questions, p. 242
Those people who are distant from God do not have eternal life, although their soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies.
“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 243
That is an excellent point, Deeje!
And as you said, He disciplined them.
We can't expect perfection from imperfect people!
I'm just glad that we "get rid of bad attitudes", when necessary.
Because that's what it amounts to. We never disfellowship people for their actions; rather, it's all about their attitude concerning what they've done, if they want to continue to practice it.
Gotta love Jehovah's instructions. 1 Corinthians 5
The Biblical god is the epitome of evil, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, 'good' .
So what? There are many biblical scholars who have a different opinion.
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
- "In beginning was the word . . . "
(en arche en ho logos)- A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
- "and the word was with the God . . . "
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)- This same Word was with God.
- "and God was the word."--Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)- This same Word was God.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god" besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?
Source: John 1:1, "The word was a god" | CARM.org
Yes, its true. I guess it depends on whether the scholar is a trinitarian or not. Bias would force the verse to support the trinity.
Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1 in the New World Translation
Jason BeDuhn is a historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. His book "Truth in Translation" rated the NWT an accurate rendering of John 1:1 from the Greek.
He writes.....
"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."
Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who believes there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)
So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh)
belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: "The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.
No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans."
Quoted from
New World Translation Defended: Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1 in the New World Translation
Another scholar's interpretation.
JW garbage.
Following are comments by some of the experts in the field of Biblical languages:
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear TransIation): "A shocking mistranslation. "Obsolete and incorrect." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1 :1 "The Word was a god.'
Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "Irepre-hensible" , " If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar In their mistranslation of John 1 :1 "
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar" .
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of , or read of any Greek Scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses . . . I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." ..
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is translated: ". . the Word was a god," a translation which is grammatically impossible. . . . It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with "God" in the phrase "And the Word was God." Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".
(Barclay and Bruce are generaIIy regarded as Great Britain's Ieading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!)
Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".
Dr. Philip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Iogos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. In the form that John actually uses, the word "theos" is placed at the beginning for emphasis."
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No Justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as "the Word was a god." There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct. . . I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John. 1 .1 , there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible- The committee worked under him.)
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text, not the English parts used in the Emphatic Diaglott ):
"So numerous, and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1: 1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth".
Other scriptures without the definite article
The following passages, as with John 1:1, also identified the word "God" in the Greek scriptures without the use of the definite article as in John 1:1. Yet, if you will see the NWT, the Watchtower does not translate these passages as "a god" as they did in John 1:1! The following are quoted directly from the 1984 New World Translation.
John 1:6 There arose a man sent forth as a representative of God, his name was John. (no definite article)
John 1:13 and they were born, not from blood, or from a fleshly will, or from man's will, but from God. (no definite article)
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him. (no definite article)
John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifies me; he who YOU say is YOUR God. (no definite article Noun/Nominative case as in John 1:1)
Each of the above scriptures, clearly speaking of God the Father, could NOT be translated by the Watchtower as "a god" without creating suspicion by their followers. Yet, each of these passages are written in the Greek, without the definite article, as in John 1:1!
Source: John 1:1 What do scholars say?
Scholars' explination for the "missing" definite article!
John 1:1
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos e¯n ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agape¯ estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson's Word Pictures)
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But Theos, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Theos is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Theos would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. (Vincent's Word Studies)
The notable Greek scholars agree, by proper Greek grammer, the reason that the article is omitted here in John 1:1, is because John was defining who the "Word" was, not who "God" was! To include the article in John 1:1, would change the entire structure and meaning of the verse to be defining who "God" was, instead of defining who the "Word" was! Instead of saying "and the Word was God," by including the article it would say "and God was the Word" which was not the intent of John!
No doubt the Watchtower is aware of this fact, but has hidden it from their flock. If they were to reveal this truth to their subjects, their followers would realize they are lying about their false teachings about the Christ and this anti-christ group would cease to exist. Since John 1:1 is a key scripture identifying that Jesus is God, it is most vital for them to continue to hide the truth! Thomas knew the truth, and declared the deity of Christ when he finally believed:
John 20:28-29 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Source: John 1:1 What do scholars say?
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Scholars' explination for the "missing" definite article!
John 1:1
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos e¯n ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agape¯ estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson's Word Pictures)
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But Theos, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Theos is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Theos would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. (Vincent's Word Studies)
The notable Greek scholars agree, by proper Greek grammer, the reason that the article is omitted here in John 1:1, is because John was defining who the "Word" was, not who "God" was! To include the article in John 1:1, would change the entire structure and meaning of the verse to be defining who "God" was, instead of defining who the "Word" was! Instead of saying "and the Word was God," by including the article it would say "and God was the Word" which was not the intent of John!
No doubt the Watchtower is aware of this fact, but has hidden it from their flock. If they were to reveal this truth to their subjects, their followers would realize they are lying about their false teachings about the Christ and this anti-christ group would cease to exist. Since John 1:1 is a key scripture identifying that Jesus is God, it is most vital for them to continue to hide the truth! Thomas knew the truth, and declared the deity of Christ when he finally believed:
John 20:28-29 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Source: John 1:1 What do scholars say?
Hi Calm. You might find the below link interesting:
Examples of misquotes, lies and deception in Watchtower publications
I know about the brochure mentioned in the link. (I might have the brochure in digital format if my Watchtower CD Rom still works.). The quotes I haven't checked out to confirm their accuracy though but I can confirm that they get the Trinity wrong. My discussion with Shiranui117 enlightened me on the extent of the topic. I do know that they selectively quote/proof text many scriptures so that they dont address the verses in the chapter that contradict their viewpoint. For instance, there are many verses in Romans chapter 8 that they haven't had a commentary on since 1975 or before. If you want to check the scriptures omitted from commentary then all you have to do is download the JW Library app on your phone. The app has a section where one can look up commentaries on scriptures by looking up up scriptures and thereby finding the commentaries. It is amazing how many scriptures they do not comment on even though those scriptures might contradict their doctrine such as certain verses in Romans 8.
Last edited:
Your pov, although popular, makes John's statements ambiguous.. Jesus is "with God", but then he "is God"?
Then just a few verses later, John writes: "No one has ever seen God"?
How muddy y'all make the clear waters of truth!
Whatever...
But just so you know, the John 1:1 pov of JW's agrees with others, even other trinitarians; it's not solely our construct, as you seem to imply.
▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
▪ 1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
▪ 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[15]
▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)
▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible
▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible
▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Irrelevant point. That is the kind of reasoning any religion or cult group could use, and many have used it. If one rejects them for certain reasons, even if valid, the religion brushes them off as fault finding. Thanks for letting me know that God will destroy me
Very nice of you.And being a member of a group is not really a good indicator of the truthfulness of what is being portrayed either. It is merely their perception. JW's are inclined not to deal with the negatives. They have to white wash their religion because.... well, they aren't aware of why. Your reasoning here doesn't achieve anything and is irrelevent. Also, don't be assuming. That is illogical.
Many JW's also pursue higher education (against the organisations wishes) and do the same. And I agree with you with the rest. I never argued those points because I have no reason to say anything against them. So, therefore, you missed the point. I was addressing this point of yours: "That kind of education does not mean much to God, who always educated his people in the important things". And thanks for agreeing with my point by saying this "Many of Jehovah's Witnesses received their 'qualifications' before becoming JW's, so are able to share their knowledge and expertise with others." Your quote is evidence that God does value higher education much. I mentioned your point about skills in my previous post to you "I would agree though that people should also invest in developing skills, such as plumbing and building, because they are in demand. (JW's often do skilled labour jobs)."
A valid point which I never disagreed with. I would add that if pursuing a certain aspect of higher education furthers kingdom interests (whatever that means to a believer, even besides JW's), such as through saving people in surgery, or helping with Law or developing software etc, then that is good.
I suspect that you missed my point again. I was saying that Jesus isn't a good example to use to prove your case because of how exceptional he was. There was a reason why he didn't have a human father. Because of that he was sinless in youth and wouldn't be affected by its consequences. So he would obviously be better at reasoning than sinners. So I disagree that he is a good example to prove your point. I did not disagree with your point though. I confirmed your point about the apostles and the fact that they are a good example to use to validate your point.
The interesting thing about Paul is that he was taught by Gameliel, the leading authority in the Sanhedrin. He was then reeducated by Christians because his knowledge that he was taught by the highest Jewish authorities was not the truth.
Agreed.
Yes. Never disagreed with that. I am referring to this point you made: "Jesus had no formal education but even in his youth could run rings around the religious leaders, confounding them with his knowledge and ability to understand the scriptures at a much higher level than they ever could. He deliberately chose uneducated men as his apostles for a good reason.....the education that the Jews received in the rabbinical system was distorted. He castigated the Pharisees for promoting their traditions over scripture. He called their teachings "leaven" (corrupting)" Maybe I should clarify. This quote above is about understanding religious truth. I was not referring to religious truth, as I confirmed that the Apostles is a good example of not needing higher education to know the scriptures. I can see by saying "religion" that I wasn't being clear enough. My apologies.
Exactly. And they needed higher education for understanding ancient languages as well as the study of the ancient cultures through archaeology. Therefore, Higher Education does means much to God. Thanks for confirming my point.
More assuming. Which is the opposite of humility., and one thing I did learn from JW's is that God requires his people to be humble. In fact it was a common topic in Watchtower meetings. You should work on it
Or some walk away because the JW's understanding of scripture doesn't add up, the organisation white washes what actually happens in the group, there is no proof that they are being guided by the anointed, the organisation's shunning policy (which clearly you are against?) causes some exJW's to commit suicide (far from loving), they use the two Witness rule with regards to pedophilia, the organisation deliberately lies by omission, misquoting others and lying about their history, are illogical and suspect by not wanting other members to view alternative views, and many other things. If you want proof I am willing to supply you with some. But I think my thread about New Light was sufficient.I am glad to say that it wasn't because of people's faults that I left, but doctrine, I have found many superior and enlightening commentaries on the Bible (such as John Gill's awesome translation. Deals with more scriptures than the JW's do), know where I am and fit in well where I am. I am much happier now than when I was a Jehovah's Witnesses. I even have a much better relationship with my family since leaving
So I know that JW's do not have the truth, are not God's chosen people and that I did make the right decision.Just to let you know I disassociated myself. I chose to leave. I don't want to be among you. And you and I can both agree that that was a good choice