Are jehovah's witnesses Christians

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mee

getting back to what the bible REALLY teaches...

Well logically, the Bible, like any text, is open to interpretation ... so when you say "what the bible REALLY teaches" you mean what your teachers teach you about what the Bible means (as do mine ... as does anyone ... even if the teacher is that person themselves).

There is, nor can there be, a definitive and inarguable 'right' translation of any text in one language into another ... ask anyone who is actually involved in the process of translating ... and this applies especially to texts which 'push the limit' of human wisdom and knowledge.

Translation is not a purely mechanical process — its requires skill and sensitivity, and a deep and profound knowledge of the text in question — it is an art as much as a science.

But in this context, being 'Christian' means interpreting the Bible the way 'Christians' interpret it, the same as being 'Jewish' means interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures the way 'Jews' interpret it.

We all three share same Scripture, but we all three have different interpretations.

So what you can say is:
1: JWs choose to interpret the Bible according to their own precepts, which are for the most part uniquely their own (There's no mistaking a Jehovah's Witness once they start talking!)

2: These interpretations are mostly without precedent, and certainly are not what Christians preached before them.

Therefore, we must, unless we throw reason and logic out the window, draw the following conclusion:

Jehovahs Witnesses preach their own brand of scriptural interpretation, but it is not 'Christian' in any sense of a continuity of faith, belief, or practice, but rather reflects the ideas and sentiments of your founder Rutherford (who got rid of everyone else); a man-made doctrine which fundamentally differs from what Christians believed and preached and wrote about for over 1500 years.

They claim to have the true translation of the Bible — which is a nonsensical claim and which is patently insupportable as it was proven in court the editorial committee lacked the necessary scholarship to make a translation anyway.

What actually happened is they rewrote the Bible to suit their own doctrinal ideas, altering the text where they could be disputed.

As the tradition of JW translation and exegesis is unique and so has never existed before, it is a man-made tradition that was not received from Jesus, the Apostles, nor the Church ... is not Christian.

Thomas

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Mee:
1: Your version of the Bible is a translation,

Thomas

very true
In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations.


While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6)

Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.



and what a good translation it has been its good to get back to the pure words of God .
bring it on

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mee

interesting that you say that ,

Check out the facts ... it's all there.

Originally Posted by mee

i think you will find that the reason they printed the
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was because it was the aim of them to get back to the pure words of the original inspired God , without any traditions of man to cloud the thought.

No, I don't think so. I think it was to cloud the word of God with their own traditions.

Originally Posted by mee

and i am glad to say that they have certainly done a good job of doing that.

Well ... yes and no ... they've done a good job of producing a piece of self-confirming work, but there's not one independent scholar of Hebrew or Greek who thinks the NWT is in any way 'good' or 'accurate'.

Thomas

[mee]

WHICH

TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?

Many languages have numerous Bible translations.

Some translations use difficult, archaic language.

Others are free, paraphrased translations that aim for easy reading rather than accuracy.

Still others are literal, almost word-for-word translations.

The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee.

This version, in turn, has been the primary text used for translations into about 60 other languages.

Translators for those languages did, however, make extensive comparisons with the original-language text.

The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning.

The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.

Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.

One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States.
In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world."

Besides the New World Translation, the others were The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.

His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning.

What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators.

However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation."

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version "emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.

Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation.

In 1989 he said: "This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

Ask yourself: ‘What is my goal in reading the Bible?

Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy? Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)

Your objective should determine your choice of translation.

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by mee

so what would you say are the fundamentals?

would it be a sound understanding of the fundamentals of the Scriptures, or on something else

I would say it starts with being born again, accepting Christ into our lives. knowledge and understanding of scripture comes afterward.

[mee]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

I would say it starts with being born again, accepting Christ into our lives. knowledge and understanding of scripture comes afterward.

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. john 17;3


THAT KNOWLEDGE ITS ALL IN THE BIBLE ,

[mee]

[quote=Saltmeister;167736]Who knows, there might be some hellfire preachers in a congregation. quote]


not in the worldwide congregations of Jehovahs witnesses.
we focus on what the bible REALLY teaches, and its not hellfire

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Nice run on the Catholic Christian take on faith. However, we don't believe in praying to Mary, the saints, or anyone else but God.

And I have directly responded to Mee's points, but so conveniently have been ignored by the same...no matter.

Exactly, tis another thing I find interesting. Seems a group that has been discriminated against for so long would have a tendency to be a little discriminating as to how they put down others for their varied beliefs.

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

Originally Posted by mee

The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee.

I'm sorry to say I believe the evidence suggests your committee was hiding its lack of scholarship behind its anonymity. When asked the reason for this in a Scottish courtroom, Frederick Franz, then Vice President of the Jehovah's Witness movement, replied, "Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto." The attorney who asked the question then commented, "Writers of books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?"

My own Course Director sits on a board overseeing Scripture translation. he is fluent in Ugaritic, hebrew and Greek. Not famous though, nor glorified.

The five known members of the committee were: Nathan H. Knorr, then President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; Frederick W. Franz; Albert D. Schroeder; George Gangas; and Milton Henschel. All five men have been members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body. Of these men, Franz alone is said to have had a University education, and even he dropped out after his second year. None of the members was a qualified Biblical language scholar. Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student.

Originally Posted by mee

The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning.

So someone interpreted the text might mean when they translated it, which has been my point all along. Your text is your interpretation of the text, a man-made interpretation, one which is without precedent.

Originally Posted by mee

The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.

Maybe that's what they thought, but in reality they had no idea who understood what in those days (other than in the tradition come down from those days, which you have denied), and all the evidence of archaeology today tells us that any assumptions they made were most likely wrong.

But we know the text needed explaining then, as is evidence by Scripture itself, recall the meeting of Philip with the Ethiopian:

"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

So even Scripture states, quite plainly, that it does not interpret itself.

+++

Originally Posted by mee

Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias. One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world."

His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning.

What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation."

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version "emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.

Yes ... but he disagreed with the use of the term Jehovah, didn't he ...

There is also ample evidence of bias from many other informed scholarly sources indicating a subtle yet definite bias, including inserting words not existing in the original, notably in cases where the text might indicate the divinity of Christ ...

I can cite examples if you like.

Thomas

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

Are jehovah's witnesses Christians ?

jehovah's witnesses seem to share some teachings with Christianity but much of their teaching is heretical and not Christian.

Are they Christian ?

No, because christianity does not teach polytheism, it teaches one God in three persons.
No, because chrisitianity believes Christ is God, not an angel or lesser god, or created being who magically and invisibly appears at the fall of the temple multiplied by some fuzzy math.
No, because christiantity believes the Holy Spirit is God working personally with the individual and the church, not a force field or static electricity.
No, because christianity believes God the Father expresses his love, grace, salvation and judgment thru his Son, and thru his Son one may know the Father, and to be born again is thru the Spirit; not God the Father alone as God.

[I, Brian]

Just a quick question - which version of Christianity are JW's being accused as not being a part of?

Let's be truthful here - every single denomination has rewritten how the Bible should be interpreted and added to it.

Therefore if anyone wishes to claim which denominations are outside of Christianity, let's first define which denomination defines Christianity wholly and without question.

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Let's be truthful here - every single denomination has rewritten how the Bible should be interpreted and added to it.

Firstly, that is not true.

Therefore if anyone wishes to claim which denominations are outside of Christianity, let's first define which denomination defines Christianity wholly and without question.

And, the Jehovah's Witness Cult is not a denomination ! it is an abomination

[Penguin]

Firstly, that is not true.

Really!

And, the Jehovah's Witness Cult is not a denomination ! it is an abomination

This is all getting rather personal in my opinion. Who are you, or anybody else here to judge what makes somebody a "Christian" or not.
Take people for what they are! A lot of posters on this thread regard themselves as "Christians" I think it's very "un-Christian" for them to be deciding if somebody is "Christian" or not to be honest.
Who's going to be the next target then? We all know this is indirectly aimed at one person who visits here and it stinks.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are you kidding? This is how Jesus said Christians would be recognized:

John 13:34-35
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Sectarian tests are not how you separate Christ's disciples from the non-disciples, according to Jesus....

Originally Posted by Penguin

Really!



This is all getting rather personal in my opinion. Who are you, or anybody else here to judge what makes somebody a "Christian" or not.
Take people for what they are! A lot of posters on this thread regard themselves as "Christians" I think it's very "un-Christian" for them to be deciding if somebody is "Christian" or not to be honest.
Who's going to be the next target then? We all know this is indirectly aimed at one person who visits here and it stinks.

Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Love Fulfills the Law


7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

Firstly, that is not true.

Okay, tell me which denomination of Christianity provides the one true definition of what constitutes "real" Christianity, and I'll be happy to throw that recommendation to the community for a vote.