A Lost Bible Translation Rediscovered. A scholar's response to JW Broadcasting

Подписаться 9 тыс.

Просмотров 7 тыс.

50% 1

JW.org video examined by Biblical Scholar Jason Wright BTh., M.A.T.S.
Dawn talks to Jason to analyse “A Lost Bible Translation Rediscovered” on JW Broadcasting (May 2024). We discuss the scholars featured in the video and set the record straight. See full contents list and links below.
CONTENTS:
@0:00 intro clip
@1:51 Introduction
@6:47 The message of the JW broadcasting video
@9:44 Insights on the scholars featured in the video
@12:31 Dr. Malcolm Dick
@13:27 The Lunar Society
@14:16 Unitarianism
@15:01 Dr. David Wykes
@16:50 Dr. James Aitken
@18:16 Dr. Nicolas Bell (and Robert Garnam)
@19:21 Dr. Christopher Reid
@20:40 Summary of Scholars discussed
@22:04 The King James Version: Claims made, manuscript evidence
@29:06 Summary of KJV issues
@30:18 Was the Church of England founded upon the KJV?
@32:22 18th Century Scholars featured in the video
@34:13 Hopton Haines
@35:35 Theophilus Lindsay
@37:58 Nathaniel Lardner and Robert Clays
@38:33 Political Influences at the time of Priestley
@39:30 Priestley as a secular millennialist
@40:43 Robert Edward Garnam
@41:45 Summary so far
@45:10 Using the work of Trinitarian scholars
@46:45 Is the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament Manuscripts?
@48:02 Video clip, translation “rules” used
@50:20 Scholarly comments on rules used and theological bias
@53:28 Biblical Interpretation in history and today
@54:58 Comparing the KJV scholars with the 18th Century scholars
@57:42 The name Jehovah in texts before Priestley (13th to 18th centuries)
@1:05:12 Garnam's work, why add the name to the New Testament?
@1:07:14 Inconsistency in the insertion of “Jehovah” in the New World Translation
@1:09:45 Summary so far and overall thoughts on JW reaction
@1:11:56 Claims about the Anglical church: The historical record
@1:15:58 The Birmingham Riots, the facts
@1:19:52 Video clip: Priestly the “independent thinker”
@1:22:40 Is there any basis whatsoever for inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament text?
Video on JW broadcasting www.jw.org/en/library/series/...
kingsdivinity.org
"Know your bible" course, enter "WFJ2024" into the form. You pay the registration fee.
A video on the NWT claims (in the appendix) about the name • Was God's name removed...
Playlist "Is Jesus God?" • Is Jesus God? PART 1: ...

Опубликовано:

2 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 207

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

@1:51 Introduction @6:47 The message of the JW broadcasting video @9:44 Insights on the scholars featured in the video @12:31 Dr. Malcolm Dick @13:27 The Lunar Society @14:16 Unitarianism @15:01 Dr. David Wykes @16:50 Dr. James Aitken @18:16 Dr. Nicolas Bell (and Robert Garnam) @19:21 Dr. Christopher Reid @20:40 Summary of Scholars discussed @22:04 The King James Version: Claims made, manuscript evidence @29:06 Summary of KJV issues @30:18 Was the Church of England founded upon the KJV? @32:22 18th Century Scholars featured in the video @34:13 Hopton Haines @35:35 Theophilus Lindsay @37:58 Nathaniel Lardner and Robert Clays @38:33 Political Influences at the time of Priestley @39:30 Priestley as a secular millennialist @40:43 Robert Edward Garnam @41:45 Summary so far @45:10 Using the work of Trinitarian scholars @46:45 Is the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament Manuscripts? @48:02 Video clip, translation “rules” used @50:20 Scholarly comments on rules used and theological bias @53:28 Biblical Interpretation in history and today @54:58 Comparing the KJV scholars with the 18th Century scholars @57:42 The name Jehovah in texts before Priestley (13th to 18th centuries) @1:05:12 Garnam's work, why add the name to the New Testament? @1:07:14 Inconsistency in the insertion of “Jehovah” in the New World Translation @1:09:45 Summary so far and overall thoughts on JW reaction @1:11:56 Claims about the Anglican church: The historical record @1:15:58 The Birmingham Riots, the facts @1:19:52 Video clip: Priestly the “independent thinker” @1:22:40 Is there any basis whatsoever for inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament text?

@Mikolaj_Kapusta Месяц назад

If you put this into the description of the video, the chapters will appear on the timeline. But you must add 00:00 on the beggining, calling it "intro clip" or something (otherwise it doesn't work).

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

@@Mikolaj_Kapusta thanks! I had the list but not the 0:00 😊

@Mikolaj_Kapusta Месяц назад

@@WitnessForJesus Yeah, I see now, superb! Thank you so much for this video. I'm from Poland, I'm catholic, and I'm talking with JW's lately. I've even done the unthinkable, and received invitation to Kingdom Hall where I've been already 3 times - even though I still ask them hard questions about Jesus Deity and do so even in the Kingdom Hall with other members. It's bizzare situation, and I'm starting to think that other JW's will be angry at those who invited me that they did it to early. :D I'm having a great time and I'm growing in understanding Bible doctrine about the Trinity. All the best!

@davidegral7152 Месяц назад

Thanks Dawn. Great video with an excellent guest. Very enlightening

@user-uj9lj1yp2p Месяц назад

None of this “discovery” changes the fundamental fact set here - there is not a single manuscript of the Greek Scriptures (NT) that contains the divine name (with the exception of Revelation where the divine name is used in abbreviated form). The Watchtower video may be well done in terms of production value, but like all things Watchtower it presents only one side of the story without providing any context, either of the history of the translation itself or of the scholars invited to participate. No matter how Watchtower tries to shape the narrative, pretending they are “restoring” what apparently never existed in the first place, it cannot change the facts.

@bridgetazaz Месяц назад

Exactly! So someone else did the same thing WT did, "restoring" the Jehovahs to try to support their unitarianism...yawn.

@moisesfrias1117 Месяц назад

Revelation where the divine name is used in abbreviated form...SO THE LAST book has it,,,why the previous 26 didnt? cause was removed by Catholics

@ericbulman1752 22 дня назад

@@moisesfrias1117 you say the Catholics removed it . What proof do you have ? Do the Catholics translate and print all Bibles. Explain how the Catholics were able to do remove it from all Bibles ?

@H.T.2forever 8 дней назад

But how do you really know God's Name was not used in the original autographs of the NT, since we don't have any manuscripts that date to the apostolic period of 1st cent. CE to know for certain? However, in the very early copies of the Greek LXX produced by pre-Christian Jewish scribes that date to that time and even slightly before. ALL of those contain a form of the DIVINE NAME. Yet all copies of the LXX produced by Christendom's scribes centuries later have substitutes for the DN, mostly "kurious" (Lord) and sometimes "theos" (God). So if Christendom's early scribes eventually removed the DN in the copies they produced of the LXX. Why is it not a logical assumption they did the same to the NT manuscripts they produced as well?

@user-uj9lj1yp2p 7 дней назад

@@H.T.2forever We don’t. If there were, I would celebrate that discovery. However, until manuscripts evidence emerges to support that supposition, it is deceptive to use the word “restore” in relation to the Divine Name. You are correct that the Septuagint used the Tetragrammaton in the vicinity of the writing of the Greek scriptures, within 200 years or so. That in itself proves nothing regarding the use of the Divine Name in the CGS. Without clear textual evidence, it is imprudent for a translator to include it simply because they believe it was there originally.

@try_himsee3335 Месяц назад

I've been waiting for a biblical and scholarly response to their video. The WT willfully false teachings must be continuously exposed. Thank you so much for this video

@bygeorgehemayberite8385 Месяц назад

I can tell u, w/ certainty, JW leadership looks for confirmation bias to propel & validate its teachings, no matter the source or background. They’ve used spiritual to validate their claim on changing John 1:1 to render “a” god, (Johannes Greber found in their now defunct “Aid” Book). They’ve used New Religion Sociologist (Massimo Introvigne) to defend its religious practice [Massimo also defended Scientology & was the director of the Transylvania Society of Dracula]. They’ve highlighted independent Bible scholars who are Unitarian biased that sympathize with the rendering of the NWT, & they’ve hired different groups to speak on their behalf. This is why whatever source they list, it’s imperative to do research behind it to find out their credentials, origins, or quite frankly full quotes b/c that’s another thing WT will do, remove or edit out context to make it appear that literary work agrees w/ them. Also, it appears Priestley’s work greatly influenced the Adventist movement which JWs are an indirect descendant of.

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 ; Yes, I see. ... Because in order to be a really "good" and "credible" scholar, you first have to be a "good" and "credible" Trinitarian like Wright in the video correct? And if not, then they're automatically to be brushed aside as just some, "Spiritualist", old "liberal Unitarian" or "Adventist" know-nothing or some other, right? And, what does Greber really have to do with JWs contextually disputing the absurd contradiction of rendering Christ at Jn. 1:1(c) as the God he is supposedly "with" at the same time in 1:1(b) and 1:2, in the traditional translation preferred by Trinitarians? Or consistently translating the grammar used for the Greek "theos" at Jn. 1:1c as indefinite, just as with the predicate nouns of most other occurrences of that grammar throughout John's Gospel? Jn. 1:1c - " ... was God" (traditional rendering) *********************************** Jn. 1:1c - " ... was a god" (NWT) Jn. 4:19 - "... are a prophet" Jn. 6:70 - " ... is a devil" Jn. 8:34 - " ... is a slave" Jn. 8:44 - " ... was a murderer" Jn. 8:44 - "... is a liar" Jn. 8:48 - "... are a Samaritan" Jn. 9:8 - " ... was a beggar" Jn. 9:17 - " ... is a prophet" Jn. 9:24 - " ... is a sinner" Jn. 9:25 - " ... is a sinner" Jn. 10.1 - " ... is a thief" Jn. 10:13 - " ... is a hired hand" Jn. 12:6 - " ... was a thief" Jn. 18:35 - " ... am not a Jew" Jn. 18:37 - " ... are a King" Jn. 18:37 - " ... am a King" So what's Greber got to do with any of that? ... Since that's what the NWT rendering of Jn. 1:1 is really based on. And not anything Greber had to say about it.

@davidmcbrine4527 Месяц назад

With the WT inserting the name "Jehovah" in place of "Lord" anywhere they choose, they have given themselves license to control the identity of who God is. Another blatantly obvious place where they replaced Lord with Jehovah where it's clearly speaking about Jesus is Jude 4-5. Well done Witness for Jesus. 👍

@tongakhan230 Месяц назад

June 4,5 has no name Jehovah?

@davidmcbrine4527 Месяц назад

@@tongakhan230 No, just read it in the interlinear. Lord (kyrios)

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

Thanks! Excellent point about Jude. The fact is that the oldest manuscripts have "Christ" in that verse. Christ led them out of Egypt!

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

@@tongakhan230 Whom must all true worshipers of God acknowledge as their only Lord? What word appears in the basic Greek text in Jude 5? "Kyrios" or "Jehovah" Jude 3-5 ( N W T Study Edition) 3 Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common,d I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faithe that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct* and who prove false t o o u r o n l y o w n e r * a n d L o r d ( "K y r i o s " ) , J e s u s C h r i s t . 5 Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind y o u t h a t J e h o v a h , * (note: original: " K y r i o s" ) h a v i n g s a v e d a p e o p l e o u t o f t h e l a n d o f Eg y pt , afterward destroyed those not showing faith.

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

@@tongakhan230 Priestly is praised by the Watchtower Society in the official video contribution as an independent thinker. Are independent thinkers also welcome in the Watchtower organization? Or is independent thinking only praised by the organization when it is directed against other doctrines?

@annbalfour447 Месяц назад

Thank you for this. I had watched that video and spent a couple of days trying to research it all, but not being in any way a scholar it was tough going and I gave up.! Well done you two.

@moisesfrias1117 Месяц назад

Fallacy of authority ....if a scholars who dont like something say somethnig about what he doesnt like it must be true cause he is scholar

@pds002 Месяц назад

An excellent discussion. Thank you. Those who dig very deeply into a complex subject become aware of the most up-to-date information we can rely on and the differing evidence. In order to perpetuate a theological spin, it is necessary to strain out and hide the exculpatory evidence they are clearly aware of. It's disingenuous but not unexpected. I enjoyed the anomaly pointed out regarding their portrayal of Priestley as a free thinking seeker of truth (an incredible stretch) and their advocation of the sheep-like qualities of automatons for their own members.

@adechalus Месяц назад

This may be the best that can happen for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Adding Jehovah is the New Testament will backfire on them because it’ll prove Jesus is God. They’re going to have to change the New Testament entirely

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

They already did add "Jehovah" into the New Testament version of their NWT bible. This apparent new discovery is being promoted by them in order to support the insertion of the name. In the video we discuss the fact that the don't add the name Jehovah in certain verses where it would prove Jesus is Jehovah. Such as Phil 2:11. That is a double standard.

@adechalus Месяц назад

@@WitnessForJesus that’s right! Just that quickly I forgot smh. Yeah they added the name where they believe it should be but they only confused the text. The good thing is they’re already calling Jesus Jehovah, we just need to show them in context. John 12:36-41 with Isaiah 6 and many more …psalms 102 &45 Hebrews etc… I truly believe God allows for these errors to happen in order to reveal to JWs the deceit in their religion.

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

@@adechalusthe title κυριος probably achieves the linking of Jesus with Jehovah a bit more effectively. The NT writers understand Jesus to be be representatively God but not ontologically God.

@moisesfrias1117 Месяц назад

Jesus is his own father??? Jesus is the almighty and also his Son? Wow

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

@@moisesfrias1117 no. We do not believe that Jesus is the Father. Check the new video I just uploaded which will explain fully what we believe

@AnnC.... Месяц назад

Thank you

@danielcolla4530 Месяц назад

Another very very deceiving JW video.

@H.T.2forever 8 дней назад

Well, what's really so "very very deceiving" about the JW video? Evidence that not all scholars agree God's Name should be excluded from the N.T. as well as other problems with the KJV tradition? What's so deceptive about that? And as far as Wright's claim the scholars in the video are, or connected to, "liberal Unitarians." Well Wright and those who agree with him are "conservative Trinitarian" scholars. So why should I automatically trust that his scholarship is not influenced by theological bias for his personal religious beliefs as well?

@anniesavedbygrace Месяц назад

Thankyou to you both for having this discussion. I watched the jw video and was left so confused. It said so much but said so little of substance that i was left wanting to know hang on wheres the rest..wheres the actual evidence. You've both really helped me ask the right questions to understand the deeper infirmstion. Much love God Bless x blessings be upon your PHD. Xx

@rataroto3065 Месяц назад

Solid video. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that this "lost Bible translation" from the 18th century is at all significant for understanding the original composition of the new testament.

@KevinRoseYT 24 дня назад

God's name is in the OT about 6800 times. They had this in the time of Jesus. Even the Greek Septuagint of that time had the name written as the Tetragrammaton. The are no original existing NT texts from that time, only copies. This doesn't mean the name wasn't there originally, just that by the time copies were made they replaced it in the same way they changed it in the later Septuagint using the word "lord". There are direct quotes in the NT from passages in the OT. It is unlikely that the person quoting would not have used God's name. It's also unlikely Jesus would not have used God's name, although no one now would know where he did say his name and where he did just say God. If the Israelites were using God's name during the time of the OT it's unlikely they stopped using it in the time of Jesus. If they did Jesus himself would not have avoided using it because of Jewish superstition. After all, it's the name above any other. I agree that it was not appropriate to just put the name in the NT in an arbitrary way. But it is appropriate where the direct quotations are from the OT. Where is the evidence that Phil 2:10-11 is quoting Isaiah 45:23? Just because both texts "say every knee should bend and every tongue etc? Not every saying that is similar had to have a link. Phil 2:10-11 is referring to everyone in relation to Jesus. Isaiah 45:23 is referring to the Israelites in relation to God due to how they are going to be delivered using Cyrus. Read the whole chapter in context. You're doing the same thing JWs do and connect unconnected texts. (I know some scholars have connected the texts as well but that doesn't mean they are right just because they are scholars). New King James 1:9 That is why God, your God, anointed you. What? God anointed God?

@michaelthomas9654 Месяц назад

Excellent insights. It's good to be brought carefully through a process of clear and critical thinking.

@alexandercoppejansontdekhe7044 Месяц назад

Wonderful video. Thank you Dawn

@watchtowervsbible Месяц назад

However ‘scholarly’ this guy was or how well he can understand Greek if he works under a ‘rule’ that makes him change the bible to fit his doctrine then it is no longer a translation, it becomes a commentary. Everything else the WtS includes in its video is just padding and adds nothing to the truth of what he translated. None of the modern scholars said that how he translated the bible was correct or not. Yes, a historical find, but not a theological one. This translator made the same mistake as those who translated the NWT; they did so that it would fit what they wanted it to say rather than what it actually says.

@reginaoost6511 Месяц назад

Thank you . 🇳🇱

@deborahrosefistner6421 Месяц назад

I love this video, thank you so much!

@exjwukmusicalescape9241 Месяц назад

Ye shall know them by their fruits. The fruits of altering the Bible was even revealed on their video a loss of faith! Sadly also the birth of kangeroo court religions like the watchtower which twisted their gutted text of scripture to legitimise their false authority claims. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you [...] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. John 15-17 KJB

@rubenoeschger5728 Месяц назад

Well done !! Dawn.

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

Thank you. Jason did most of the work tbh. :D

@RiverDanube Месяц назад

Right, it doesn't prove anything or does it? If anything, if this biblical version was important due to including the name, wouldn't it have remained available, particularly in a time of awakening. I wonder what the Watchtower thinks about the Holy Spirit ensuring that the Word has survived but not the name?

@scottpeterson7500 Месяц назад

High Control Religious Group according to the BITE model. JW videos make me think of words such as "cherry picking" and "disingenuous"

@michaelthomas9654 Месяц назад

John MacArthur has produced a Bible, using the ESV, in which Jehovah is added back into the Old Testament.

@elliesambrook5929 Месяц назад

Yahwah is put back in its a nice bible

@judyarellano6196 Месяц назад

If the watchtower has direct access to Jehovah, why would they need worldly scholars?

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

JWs don't really need them. ... But since scholars like this are the people the world looks up to and respect. JWs quote them to show that even they admit these things. So maybe you'll believe them, as you certainly wouldn't believe it if only JWs say it.

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

That's a terrific focus of study! The influences in CTR are so eclectic that finding a solid hermeneutic is not going to be easy. Seems to me that JFR's influences may be more emotional than intellectual. Ending the study in 1935 seems to me that the modern influences on the hermeneutic will be missed due to Franz' overshadowing presence in translation and Bible interpretation.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

You can say that again. Certain exegetical pillars exist alongside various sub-sets. No strict rule exists. However over and above eclectic methodology is the cultural and community forces at work which help direct final meaning. We shall see how it turns out.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

I guess I might have to write a volume 2 for later methodologies, although I am convinced that the hermeneutical pillars were set by 1935; what follows is application of those methods allowing for revision etc.

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

@@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 I was just reading the Questions From Readers this morning in the July 2024 Study edition of the Watchtower which is on Isa 60:1 and thinking about how the Watchtower began to see themselves in certain prophecies. As I recollect JFR changed CTR's interpretation of Rev 12:5 in the March 1925 Watchtower article entitled Birth Of The Nation which created a stir. I was friends with an former C.O./D.O. named Floyd Kite who was quite a character and a historian of the "Organization" and he would talk about these changes and the sentiments amongst the "friends". It was very fascinating. He passed just before the 2017 regional convention. I'm pretty sure he passed just to avoid the embarrassment of the placing of blame on the members for believing 1975 was going to be Armageddon.

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott was influential on CTR's exegesis as well as was Westcott/Hort's Greek text. The exegetical approach was and is a historio-linguistic one. The current lack of governing body members with a grasp of the original languages is concerning to some of us.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

I would agree in part - my research looks beyond the historicist method which has a long History among Millennialism. Methodologies for arriving at meaning shift after 1916 when exegesis drifts from Historicism toward a reader-response criticism.@@ScottLawson-uw1fh

@funtimesforever7709 Месяц назад

Do you have a vid about why the name Jesus is used. When his name was actually Yeshua and the English translation of Yeshua is Joshua? Thank you.

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

Hey, I'd like to see something like that myself.... A video explaining why it's acceptable to use other English name forms like "Jesus." Yet unacceptable for the English form "Jehovah?" And on top of that, why people have such an aversion for the name Jehovah. Yet not for names directly derived from Jehovah? Such as ... "Jeho-vah" ("Jehovah causes to become") "Jeho - shua," or its shortened form "Je - shua" for the English names "Jesus" or "Joshua" ("Jehovah is Salvation") "Jeho - addah" ("Jehovah has decked himself"). "Jeho - addan"/or "-addin" ("Jehovah has shown pleasure"). "Jeho - ash" ("Jehovah is a burning fire"). "Jeho - hanan" ("Jehovah has shown favor" or "Jehovah has been gracious"). This is where the name Bible name "John" originates from. "Jeho - iachin" ("Jehovah has firmly established"). "Jeho - iada" ("May Jehovah know") "Jeho - iakim" ("Jehovah raises up") "Jeho - iarib" ("May Jehovah contend" or "Jehovah has conducted out our legal case"). "Jeho - nadab" ("Jehovah is willing, noble, or generous"). "Jeho - nathan" ("Jehovah has given") "Jeho - ram" ("Jehovah is high" or "exalted") "Jeho - shabeath" ("Jehovah is Judge") "Jeho - saphat" ("Jehovah is Judge") "Jeho - sheba" ("Jehovah is plenty") "Jeho - zabad" ("Jehovah has Endowed") "Jeho - zadak" ("Jehovah pronounces Righteousness") So what's up with that double-standard? ...

@Joe-pu3qi Месяц назад

The tetragrammaton is Hebrew. The NT was written primarily in koine Greek. Jews substituted Adonai( Lord) for YHWH, too Holy to be pronounced by human lips. The Grk equivalent was kurios( Lord) for Adonai. Although a shortened form of YHWH can be found in Matt 1:11,12 in Je chonias.

@akingdom4mypeople343 Месяц назад

Tetrogramathon or not the name Jehovah was never a name from the original Hebrew language as j was never in their alphabet neither was there a j sound

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

Then why is it acceptable to use names like "Jesus", "Joseph", "John", "Jeremiah", "James" "Jonah", etc., and a host of other English name forms that begin with the letter "J"? Or when Hebrew names in scripture were translated into the Greek of the LXX and NT, the Hebrew "Y" became the letter "I" in Greek. Even though there's no actual letter "I" in the Hebrew alphabet either. So why did the inspired NT writers do that? It's just the nature of the way different languages happen to evolve is all.....

@akingdom4mypeople343 7 дней назад

@@H.T.2forever you really need to use your powers of understanding or to exercise them I can't explain it to you as you already know by the knowledge your displaying or is it simply because you have to much time on your hands.

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

@akingdom4mypeople343 ; But this is just your mere assertion and no proof my knowledge is defective here. So to ask again, why is it acceptable to use other English names that begin with the letter "J" like "Jesus" and not "Jehovah?" And where does that rule come from to begin with? That whenever a name is translated into another language, the letter it begins with must also be included in the alphabet of the original language? Where does that come from? ....

@tim..t175 Месяц назад

They act like they invented the name Jehovah. They didn’t. All they have done is turn people away from that name and God . They always make a big issue of trivial matters that somehow make them superior, yet in the scheme of things are not matters for salvation anyway

@H.T.2forever 6 дней назад

@@tim..t175 ; Wait a minute now ... What did Jesus say was to be done at the start of the model prayer at Matt. 6:9? " ...Our Father which art in heaven, **Hallowed be thy name**" (KJV). And you dismiss that as only "trivial"?! Sanctifying the most important name in existence is trivial?! ... And for those who are turned off by it, is an indictment on them. As they holler about "Jesus", "Jesus", "Jesus" all the time ("as though they invented it"), but don't want to honor the one who is responsible for Jesus Christ and everyone, and thing, else being here (Rev. 4:10, 11). Which people that only want to talk about Jesus all the time actually make no sense anyway, considering that "Jesus" means "Jehovah saves" or "Jehovah is salvation." .... Yet don't want to hear the name Jehovah itself? .... Like I said, a severe indictment on them then. ...

@QuestionsnAnswersify Месяц назад

Romans 14:11 is quoting Isaiah 45:23. "It is written" Philippians 2:10, 11 is about Jesus who in the context of verse 9 was actually exalted by God. This act of exalting Jesus would be meaningless if Jesus was God or if Jesus was Jehovah as you say. Just because philippians contains a similar phrase it does NOT mean its quoting Isaiah in the same way Romans 14:11 is actually quoting it.

@QuestionsnAnswersify Месяц назад

No one putting Gods name in the new Testament? The original writers put the old Testament in the new Testament. You just said it.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

Your missing the point; the WT argument is that the Tetragrammaton should be interested verbatim as Jehovah - and not just where OT quotes are made but arbitrarily. Why? To distinguish between God the Father and Jesus the Son - which itself is a theological bias toward Arianism. The counter argument is where is the MSS evidence for insertion? If no extant MSS exists to warrant use of the Tetragrammaton why add it? The answer is surely theological and emotional? Because 'they want Jehovah to be there' - not because it ever was.

@majafleur9646 Месяц назад

Former JW here, and have a Master's degree in Christian Studies... It's still hard to eliminate certain JW doctrines though. Try as I may.

@deanpixx Месяц назад

Maybe doing your PhD will help you eliminate the rest.

@Rupunzelsawake Месяц назад

Lets face it. Some mainstream Christian doctrines are far more horrendous than anything the WT puts out.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

Yes indeed. As a person of faith the key is not necessarily theological ping-pong but a tangible encounter with God. The latter confirms in the heart what the head wrestles with. Well that's my experience.

@stephenrandell7152 Месяц назад

Is there evidence of talking snakes?🧐

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

Erasmus' reconstructed Greek text is theologically biased towards a Trinitarian view. See Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

My first reply to this seems not to be working? In short Bart Ehrman as a textual critic has his own axe to grind, following the 'Walter Bauer thesis' which reconstructs early Christianity as competing 'orthodoxies'. For those interested in the 'Bauer-Ehrman thesis' see The Heresy of Orthodoxy by J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger IVP 2010. Regarding Erasmus Textus Receptus Ehrman is right to tackle theologically bias text, such as 1 John 5:7 but Ehrman tends to go the whole hog and suggest Erasmus intentionally doctored the whole Greek text, when in fact only isolated examples exist. It is more likely Erasmus makes an informed decision based on marginal notes. In fact fabrication makes no sense when we consider Erasmus was attempting to establish an authentic greek master copy. Furthermore the WT while pointing out Erasmus blunder holds him in high esteem as a scholar and translator. Cf. When the Plowboy Delights in God’s Word The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom-1982 9/15 pp. 8-11.

@ScottLawson-uw1fh Месяц назад

@@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 in fact Erasmus pushed back against the pressure to include what's now called the Johannine Comma.

@H.T.2forever 6 дней назад

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Good point referring to that article by the WTS. Which really summerizes all the Society has ever said about scholars. That It's fine to use and consult what they say, but like most things. You must be balanced and use them judiciously. As many of them have strong personal views and biases, religious or otherwise. So always try to take the good work they do, and reject or work around the bad ....

@QuestionsnAnswersify Месяц назад

Its true there are better and older manuscripts today but those older manuscripts actually prove the trinity false. For example at 1 John 5:7 the king James reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However older manuscripts (אABVgSyh,p) omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." So the better manuscripts which are closer to the 1st century actually prove the trinity wrong. Shows the confirmation bias of the Trinity scholarship where they would actually change the Greek text to add what was not there for the purpose of providing the anti-Christ doctrine of the trinity. Also added was in verse 8. "And there are three witness bearers on earth." That part of verse 8 is also omitted in the older manuscripts closer to the 1st century. The text in the Greek is clear. The trinity is based on a lie. It denies Jesus as the Christ or chosen one making Jesus God, the one who does the choosing. Thats not right. (1 John 2:22)

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

Who say's so? Unitarians, Arians or Modalists? All have their agenda's. Provide academic evidence.

@danielbarton8974 25 дней назад

Here’s how I see it . Yahweh and Jesus =different Judaism and Christianity =different Jesus teachings and apostolic teachings =different. After Jesus death they had no idea what to do all the prophesy of Jesus failed created cognitive dissonance .they were still hanging on to old traditions and superstitions and amalgamated the two ideas together . It’s the same way any other religion has formed .its verifiable if u parallel it against all other Abraham’s religions .jw no different.Russell used old traditions from the millerite movement and his own opinions to create something new but also at the same time not so different that it’s alien to the target audience .

@tongakhan230 Месяц назад

God only gives understanding of his word to his chosen. Daniel 12:10. How can anyone who cannot understand the Bible find fault with those who do?

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

Whom must all true worshipers of God acknowledge as their only Lord? What word appears in the basic Greek text in Jude 5? "Kyrios" or "Jehovah" Jude 3-5 ( N W T Study Edition) 3 Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common,d I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faithe that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct* and who prove false t o o u r o n l y o w n e r * a n d L o r d ( "K y r i o s " ) , J e s u s C h r i s t . ==================================================================== 5 Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind y o u t h a t J e h o v a h , * (note: original: " K y r i o s" ) h a v i n g s a v e d a p e o p l e o u t o f t h e l a n d o f E g y p t afterward destroyed those not showing faith.

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

Priestly is praised by the Watchtower Society in the official video contribution as an independent thinker. Are independent thinkers also welcome in the Watchtower organization? Or is independent thinking only praised by the organization when it is directed against other doctrines?

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

Paul declares in his Epistle to the Romans that of all true worshipers of God, Jesus is to be recognized as Lord, and that all true worshipers have the s a m e L o r d o v e r t h e m , whom all true worshipers of God must call on. To reinforce this core message, Paul quoted the prediction from Joel 3:5, in which the tetragrammaton appears. Question to the Bible scholar ======================== Whose name must the true worshipers of God call upon in the sign of the New Covenant? Jesus or Jehovah? Romans 10,9-13 ( N W T Study Edition) 9For if you publicly declare with your mouth that J e s u s i s L o r d (note: " K y r i o s " ), =================================== and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declarationn for salvation. 11 For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is n o d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n J e w a n d G r e e k. T h e r e i s t h e s a m e L o r d (note: " K y r i o s " ) o v e r a l l , ======================================================= w h o i s r i c h t o w a r d * a l l t h o s e c a l l i n g o n h i m . ========================================================== 13 F o r “everyone who c a l l s o n t h e n a m e o f J e h o v a h (note: Greek: "K y r i o s ) will be saved.” =========================================================================================

@MR-gx3gc Месяц назад

Who is the only Savior foretold to the Israelites in the Hebrew Scriptures? Jehovah or Jesus? Philippians 2,9-11 (N W T Study Edition) 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior positiono and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that i n t h e n a m e o f J e s u s e v e r y k n e e s h o u l d b e n d -of those in heaven and those on ============================================================= earth and those under the ground- 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lordr to the glory of God the Father. Isaiah 45,21-23 (N W T Study Edition) 21 Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? I s i t n o t I , J e h o v a h ? T h e r e i s n o o t h e r G o d b u t m e; A r i g h t e o u s G o d a n d a S a v i o r, t h e r e i s n o n e b e s i d e s m e . ====================================================================== 22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else. 23 B y m y s e l f I h a v e s w o r n ; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: T o m e e v e r y k n e e w i l l b e n d , E v e r y t o n g u e w i l l s w e a r l o y a l t y ==================================================================================== Matthew 1,20-21 (N W T Study Edition) 20 But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take your wife Mary home, for what has been conceived in her is by holy spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and y o u a r e t o n a m e h i m J e s u s , ( J e h o s h u a : I a m t h e s a v i o r ") ======================================================================= f o r h e w i l l s a v e h i s p e o p l e f r o m t h e i r s i n s .” =======================================================

@Rupunzelsawake Месяц назад

Yeah, but lots of people say they have the "correct" understanding, yet are at odds with eachother. It seems to me likely that no one has a correct understanding .

@donjarsi Месяц назад

Thank you for this information and review. However, you are ignoring or covering up the fact that there are partial copies of the Greek scriptures going back to the end of the first century that include the Tetragrammaton within the Greek. I would hope that you research this aspect as well. Otherwise the show can be seen as a Trinitarian White wash. Also, Charles Taze Russell and his followers used the KJV almost exclusively to teach their view of God and in the late 19th century the 1st version of the American Standard Version did have the name Jehovah out in place about 6,000 times. And yes, it is more correct to pronounce the name as Yahweh. Once again I thank you both for a very interesting discussion.

@JeremyEdwards-rd7qw Месяц назад

@donjarsi Hello, can you please provide some information about these greek texts from the 1st century containing the tetragram. Where can they be viewed? Thank you.

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

Please provide evidence? There are no manuscripts of the Greek New Testament which contain the name. Notice I said NEW TESTAMENT- we are not talking about the Septuagint

@cleliac.2470 Месяц назад

"However, you are ignoring or covering up the fact that there are partial copies of the Greek scriptures going back to the end of the first century that include the Tetragrammaton within the Greek" - Could you, please, cite a source where one can research this claim? (Some years ago, Watchtower cited on their website a scholar who had written a paper about Bible translations where he favorably mentioned the NWT from 1984, one argument being that it contained God's name in the Old testament or Hebrew scriptures. But, at the end of the paper there was a chapter which, of course, Watschtower did not mention, where he wrote that there was no good reason known by scholars to include the name in the New Testament / Greek scriptures.)

@Gabby-er1sr Месяц назад

If Jesus is his father the same being , , while the scriptures contradict the dogma . Perhaps the only refuge from from all these blind intellectuals is to go stark raving mad like my favourite apostle Paul 😅

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

What scriptures are you referring to?

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

You are confusing the ontology of God. Trinitarians agree with Jehovahs' Witnesses that God is ontologically 'one' but disagree on who make up this oneness. In other words the N.T. data presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each as deity (theos). If true the only solution is Trinitarianism. What perhaps you are describing is Modalism; One god acting the parts of Father, Son and H.S. - whereas JW's hold a semi-Arian position.

@oscarmusician Месяц назад

Hi, there are evidence that Jeus is the Son of God and the Father is YHWH. This is so clear just hearing what Jesus said about him and his Father, John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” It´s easy to see Jesus call "brothers" to his disciples, He don´t teach we are brothers of God, did he?

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

So do you imagine that it’s ok to change the Bible based on this belief?

@deborahrosefistner6421 Месяц назад

We are under the New Covenant of grace through Christ because of what He did for us and not of our own works. Under the New Covenant the MOTB is to deny the deity of Christ!

@oscarmusician Месяц назад

@@WitnessForJesus you have to argue to Jesus why he said "my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Also you have to ask Paul why, after Jesus resurrection, he said in many places like Philippians 1: 2 "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." or in Colossians 1:3 "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," ect. So the Bible base is clear, Jesus is the Son of God. John 10: 36 " So how can you say that the one whom the Father has made holy and sent into the world insults God because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"

@oscarmusician Месяц назад

@@deborahrosefistner6421 Jesus is god but not thre Almighty God. Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God," Hebrews 10:12

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

You did not answer my question which relates to the video. Is it OK to change the bible to suit your belief? Also, my playlist on this channel, "Is Jesus God?" answers all of those objections. You may want to review that playlist and comment on each video if you disagree.

@deborahbradford3000 Месяц назад

I still am not convinced that Jesus is God. The name YHWH has been discovered in ancient writing that is dated much older than the bible and the meaning of that name is completely different from what Jesus name means in the ancient language. In addition the name Jesus is not even pronounced that way in the ancient language and for some reason that bothers us not. What happens when you want to find out whether something is true or not? Most of the time you would take all the evidence you have for each set of beliefs and go from there. You go with the "preponderance of the evidence", which simply means which is more likely than not. I find more scriptures that prove Jesus is not God, than I can find that proves Jesus was God. In fact a ton more that prove Jesus was the son of God, exactly what the Bible states. “We could go on nearly forever about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed, either accidentally or intentionally….the examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands”. Bart Ehrman. Everyone thinks they are the ones that have the only answer to these mysteries and search for stuff that validate their own bias. I keep praying for insight knowing that I too have bias in my belief system. Therefore I research EVERYTHING and ALL points of view, but I pray for direction from Gods own word and not mans. Also we need to look into the ancient Jewish tradition of not writing, removing or speaking Gods name. Nehemia Gordon, PhD, is on RU-vid

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

Go to playlists on this channel and watch the playlist "Is Jesus God?"

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

Can you provide academic sources that explain the 'meaning' of the divine name in antiquity? As far as I am aware although the Tetragrammaton has been found inscribed outside of Israel (Moabite stone) the meaning is not obvious - other than YHWH is the God of Israel. Thanks

@QuestionsnAnswersify Месяц назад

Yahweh is not more accurate it is the shortened form of Jupiter from Samaritans

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

This is new to me - please provide academic source evidence.

@jamessanchez7717 Месяц назад

All of you persecuting the only religion that is trying their best to do GODS will. Repent Study the Bible with guidance of GODS holy Spirit and you will see that Jehovah witnesses are the closest thing to GODs truth. When they make changes is because they study GODS word and admit they made an error and corrected. They seeking the truth ain't that what we should all do?

@c.c.2320 Месяц назад

Criticism isn't persecution. Pointing out error isn't persecution. If they were, JWs would be guilty of persecuting Catholics and others for the last 100 years.

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 Месяц назад

I am very sorry you feel this way, and have no intention of causing pain to Jehovah's Witnesses. The issues raised are academic and theological and are not aimed at individuals who hold this faith. It is rigorous critical study that yields truth. This requires stepping outside the safety of religious faith and practice.

@H.T.2forever 7 дней назад

@bourneevangelicalchurch1009 ; That is ... Unless one is a Trinitarian scholar like Wright in the video of course. As they're not really required to "step outside "the safety of their religious faith and practice." But are quite free to remain well within it and let it regularly influence their scholarship. Whereas only non-Trinitarians are expected to do this. And even when they honestly do, they'll still be accused of not really doing it unless they agreed with the dominateTrinitarian position on an issue. Otherwise, their scholarship will be dismissed by Wright and others as influenced by their supposed religious bias. Such as "liberal Unitarianism" or some other. ...

@user-mj5bl5dy1b Месяц назад

El. The god that had a wife and son Removed from the Hebrew bible why. It did not fit the agenda of the Jewish people El was the supreme god who allocated all others to look after their chosen people. ,The bible is not a fact it's a lie

@bradwhelan4466 Месяц назад

Correct.

@watchtowerdefence571 Месяц назад

According to a non Christian, but a Jewish man, with a doctorate in ancient Hebrew, he claims that he has evidence that the Gospels were first written in Hebrew. The originals no longer exist just as there are no originals of of any the Greek text. The evidence is in the language that is used because a back translation from Greek to Hebrew would not produce the type of information those old manuscripts. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zUCRXIW9L1Y.html A trinitarian view of the Bible is more biased to theology than the the individuals that are spoken of in your video. Your guest seems to be biased toward the the KJV which is full of errors.

@misterauctor7353 Месяц назад

"A trinitarian view of the Bible is more biased to theology than the the individuals that are spoken of in your video." Do you have evidence?

@watchtowerdefence571 Месяц назад

@@misterauctor7353 Yes by the way that trinity ideology has influenced changed words in the Bible to suit the trinity idea. Bibles translated by trinitarian groups are notorious for not following the rules of grammar when translating and ignoring those rues were they believe the passage should support the trinity. Most Bibles will use masculine pronouns when it comes to the the hoy spirit. Instead of the Greek pronouns that ALWAYS refer to the holy spirit as an it. Some other texts where they don't follow the grammar are John 1:1; John 8:58; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1 and others

@misterauctor7353 Месяц назад

@@watchtowerdefence571 "Instead of the Greek pronouns that ALWAYS refer to the holy spirit as an it." That's not true. He refers to as he. As he can speak (Act 8). " Bibles translated bt trinitarian groups are notorious for not following the rules of grammar " Do you have any evidence? And, it's JWs notorious for not following the rules of grammar. "Some other texts where thy don't follow the grammar are John 1:1; John 8:58; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1 and others" They do follow the grammar. You're just upset that John 1:1; John 8:58; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1 support the Trinity. It's JWs that don't follow the grammar. "It is manifestly impossible to attempt to refute in one brief article even a fraction of the distortions of Biblical interpretation perpetrated in the voluminous writings of this sect...the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek...In Col. 1:15-17 the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation falsifies what Paul originally wrote...In still another crucial verse the New World Translation has garbled the meaning of the original so as to avoid referring to Jesus Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 ... Exactly similar to the last error considered above is the rendering of II Pet. 1:1 in the New World Translation....The New World Translation, in harmony with its bold twisting of Col. 1:15-17 (considered above), is also in error at Rev. 3:14 ..." -THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND JESUS CHRIST: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal By Bruce M. Metzger

@misterauctor7353 Месяц назад

@@watchtowerdefence571 "Yes by the way tat trinity ideology has influenced changed words in the Bible to suit the trinity idea. " There is no evidence for this claim.

@watchtowerdefence571 Месяц назад

@@misterauctor7353 There are no texts in Acts 8 where the holy spirit is called a "he". There are no texts in any Greek manuscript of the Bible that refers t o the holy spirit as a '"he". I would not say that unless I have studied every instance in the Greek. Have you???? I can prove by non JW sources that that John 1:1 is grammatically wrong in most English Bibles. For Titus and 1 Peter, Bruce Metzger was relying on what is known as "Sharps Rule" which has been proven to be wrong. He also relied on "Colwell's Rule" f0r John 1:1 which no reputable Greek scholar uses today. I have hundreds of pages of information That I can give you inks for on those topics. Which topic would you like the for firsts, say John 1:1?

@Dee_Dan_ Месяц назад

The same old fallacy in this video, no genuine claim or solid recommendation. If you have any genuine things to do with your time don't waste your precious time watching this video.

@WitnessForJesus Месяц назад

What do you mean exactly?

@Dee_Dan_ Месяц назад

@@WitnessForJesus all crap video

@davidmcbrine4527 Месяц назад

@@Dee_Dan_ What do you have for brains? If you have a specific point, just make your point. Otherwise SHAATAAP!

@billblackmore2957 Месяц назад

Excellent discussion guys. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems that the majority of Christians these days have been dumbed down in tandem with the rest of society, and this sort of thing turns them off. Sad, but true I fear. However, we really need this sort of forensic examination because, as they say, the devil is in the detail. And in this case that's quite literally true! Anyway, ignore the naysayers and keep up the good work. Thanks for both your diligence and dogged fortitude in rooting out the truth that lies behind the Watchtower's narrative spin. 😉

@tongakhan230 Месяц назад

2 Timothy 3:13 has to be fulfilled by someone.