-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are JW's NWT only?
- Thread starter Emily
- Start date
TheOliveBranch
New Member
JW's will quote anyones Bible to attract that users attention. After you begin to study with them, they will let you continue to use your Bible, while they use their's. They will point out the "correct" translation, if they don't agree with your Bible, though.
The funny thing is, they will also use the line that theirs has been translated from the "older and better text", if you use the KJV. They even have their own Greek interlinear to prove their translation is accurate.
They will not condemn the use of your Bible. They will state that all Bibles are pretty much the same.
The funny thing is, they will also use the line that theirs has been translated from the "older and better text", if you use the KJV. They even have their own Greek interlinear to prove their translation is accurate.
They will not condemn the use of your Bible. They will state that all Bibles are pretty much the same.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
JWs r particularly happy abt the KJB's translation of Titus 2:13 n 2 Pet 1:1, where the deity of Christ is suppressed (as opposed to MVs' rendering in accordance to the Granville Sharp Rule). in both their NWT n the KJB in those 2 passages, Jesus Christ is not identified as God.
i've also noticed some of the JWs carrying Interlinear Bibles as well. they seem to be able to impress the simple w their apparent mastery of the Greek language, n whipping out the Interlinear is one of their known tactics.
In my 'hood, the JWs use whatever BV they think will accomplish their goal of the moment, much as many of us do. Their MAIN BV, however, is the NWT.
The Kingdom Interlinear they sometimes use is quite accurate, I've been told. I don't wanna get off topic too much, but I will say that when I see a JW 'missionary' carrying the KI, I ask him/her how familiar he/she is with it,& then ask, "If the correct reading of John 1:1 is 'a god', then where's the Greek article for 'a' in your own Greek edition of that verse?"
Another thing I ask them is, "Who made the NWT translation?" I get a variety of answers, but seldom the correct one. The answer is, "a committee led by Fred Franz(WT prez 1977-1992) and George Gangas, neither of whom could read much Hebrew, nor was comfortable with Koine Greek. They finished their work in 1950."
The Kingdom Interlinear they sometimes use is quite accurate, I've been told. I don't wanna get off topic too much, but I will say that when I see a JW 'missionary' carrying the KI, I ask him/her how familiar he/she is with it,& then ask, "If the correct reading of John 1:1 is 'a god', then where's the Greek article for 'a' in your own Greek edition of that verse?"
Another thing I ask them is, "Who made the NWT translation?" I get a variety of answers, but seldom the correct one. The answer is, "a committee led by Fred Franz(WT prez 1977-1992) and George Gangas, neither of whom could read much Hebrew, nor was comfortable with Koine Greek. They finished their work in 1950."
TheOliveBranch
New Member
Not sure what you mean. I see both of those verses in my KJV and understand the reference to Jesus' diety in both.
But when you bring them to I John 5:7, and Revelation 1:11, both direct references to Christs diety in the KJV, they will quickly tell you that those verses were added, according to the older and better manuscripts, as you will not find in all MV's.
Pete Richert
New Member
There is no greek article for 'a'. The absence of the definite article is the sign of the indefinite 'a'. Therefor, from a very causual reading, John 1:1 does indeed say "a god". However, a word can be definite, even without the definite article, and therefor the passage is not settled one way or another on the presence or absence of the article.
Pete Richert
New Member
Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (KJV)
Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (NKJV).
The KJV could be read either way, we are either waiting for both God and our savior, or God (who is our savior). The NKJV makes it more explicit that it is one and the same by moving the 'our' in front of God, making it sound in more natural english that the two are the same. The NASB, makes things even more explicit by the use of a comma,
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (NASB).
Satan, not only being powerful and evil, is also a complete idiot, for when he altered the NASB he accidently made Titus 2:3 explicit that Christ and God are the same while it could be argued, and even seems more natural, that they are being refered to us to different people in the KJV. Stupid stupid Satan.
Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (NKJV).
The KJV could be read either way, we are either waiting for both God and our savior, or God (who is our savior). The NKJV makes it more explicit that it is one and the same by moving the 'our' in front of God, making it sound in more natural english that the two are the same. The NASB, makes things even more explicit by the use of a comma,
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (NASB).
Satan, not only being powerful and evil, is also a complete idiot, for when he altered the NASB he accidently made Titus 2:3 explicit that Christ and God are the same while it could be argued, and even seems more natural, that they are being refered to us to different people in the KJV. Stupid stupid Satan.