Exposing The New World Translation: Part 2 

They also used another spiritist

wrong opinion- the SAHIDIC COPTIC text states A god.

@@Mr.DC3.1914 which one did the WTBTS get the Idea from. Greber was living in New Jersey near the WT HQ. The WTBTS used Greber's name and bible to support the NWT until they discovered what he actually was.

@@wfqsfg AGAIN - the SAHIDIC COPTIC text states A god. so that is NOT WRONG. Even Greber called Jesus as CHRIST as he was working as a translator. As a translator was he wrong in calling Jesus as CHRIST? Nope. spiritism is wrong so that's why when Greber was found out to practice spiritism, JWs stopped using his translation

@@Mr.DC3.1914 AGAIN! Greber said the spirits helped him with his translation. So the spirits are misleading us. It is wrong. "A" god is incorrect. I have as much credibility as you. Probably more. Spend a little time away from RU-vid. LOL!!

It makes it then rather hard to disfellowship so easily, so they just dropped it!! Whatever works right?! 🤔♥️🔥

Hey Aaron, I agree that the NWT is very flawed and extremely biased, especially in Christological passages. However, we need to be fair in our criticism. John 7:53-8:11 is not believed to be original by the vast majority of Greek scholars and most English translations will have a note that says "The earliest manuscripts do not contain 7:53-8:11." So is the NWT justified in removing these verses? I believe they are. I think that in the near future a mainstream translation will come out and will also not include these verses. There are lots of places where the NWT clearly errs, so there's no need to criticise places that dont deserve criticism. Let's be fair of our critique. We want them to hear what we say so they can come to know the triune God, not cut their ears off with unjustified criticism. Hope this helps.

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

@@theresefournier3269 All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible????????

@@kevinfromcanada4379 All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible??????????

The WT quit producing the Kingdom Interlinear years ago. I got mine in 1983 I believe. It is on the website but most JWs I know have never looked into the hard copy or the digital copy. To busy working for the WT.

@@yvonnesmith2335 I got my hard bound copy from a woman from my church and some hard bound copies of other books. I don't remember the titles of the others and don't feel like getting up to look. They were given to her by JWs who came to her door. She had no real need for them so I asked if I could have them. I have used the KI quite a bit.

I have, mainly on why Jesus isn’t Michael, but I should do a video just on angels in general.

@@LightoverDarkMinistry okay thanks I will look for it. I do have a question, who owns the watchtower? Their land and buildings? It seem like a multi-billion operation 🤔

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

@@LightoverDarkMinistry All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible??????????

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

@@vusimngomezulu2500 go back and watch the video. The video makes no claims about "all churches nor exjw's". What the video does is expose how Satan has used the Watchtower to misdirect its followers away from salvation through Christ and into slavery through a publishing company.

Watchtower in a nut shell.

@@mattmurdock2868 So all different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????

@@davidagnew8792 Your statement is to be agreed in principle. Jesus and his royal priests will rule over the still unredeemed humanity. How an earthly king rules over his subjects. However, it is conclusive to deduce from Revelation where the seat of government will be located during the millennial reign of Christ. According to Revelation 20:7-9, the rebellion will take place at the end of the millennial reign against whom on earth? What do you think is meant by the terms "saint" and "beloved city"? The heavenly Jerusalem and its inhabitants or the world headquarters in New York and former district overseers and elders of your organization? Revelation 20:7-9 (NWT Study Editon) „Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners o f t h e e a r t h , Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the w h o l e e a r t h and encircled the camp of the h o l y o n e s and the b e l o v e d c i t y. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them.“ If God wants to eliminate the separation between Him and humanity, He will not station the most important instrument, His government, hundreds of millions of light years from Earth during the most important phase of His plan of salvation. That the seat of government will also be stationed on earth during the thousand-year reign of Christ can be deduced from Revelation 5:10. However, this understanding presupposes that a translation committee practices a coherent translation methodology. It is highly revealing that the Watchtower Society has translated the identical sequence of words as in Revelation 5:10 in other passages of Revelation in the sense of "on earth." ("ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" or "epi tēs gēs") Revelation 3,10 (NWT Study Edition) Because you kept the word about my endurance,*s I will also keep you from the hour of test,t which is to come upon the entire inhabited earth, to put to the test those dwelling on the earth . („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“) Revelation 5,3: (NWT Study Edition) „But no one in heaven or on earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“) or underneath the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.“ Revelation 13,14: (NWT Study Edition) „It misleads those who dwell on the earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“) , because of the signs that it was permitted to perform in the sight of the wild beast, while it tells those who dwell on the earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“) to make an image to the wild beast that had the sword-stroke and yet revived.“ Revelation 14,6: (NWT Study Edition) „And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“), to every nation and tribe and tongue* and people.“ Revelation 16,18: (NWT Study Edition) „And there were flashes of lightning and voices and thunders, and there was a great earthquake unlike any that had occurred since men came to be on the earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“) , so extensive and so great was the earthquake.“ Revelation 17,8: (NWT Study Edition) „The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss,l and it is to go off into destruction. And the inhabitants of the earth („ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς“ or „epi tēs gēs“)-those whose names have not been written in the scroll of lifem from the founding of the world-will be amazed when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present.“

@@MR-gx3gc Where the Greek word "basileuo" appears in context, epi is translated as "over". The context of those other verses you quoted are not connected to basileuo. Where "basileuw [to reign as a king] epi" occurs (as it does in Revelation 5:10) you will be able to see that in every case "epi" means "over", eg., Luke 1:33; Acts7:18. Micah 4:7 LXX contains the same verb "to reign as a king" with the prepositions "epi" and "en" and is translated by Brenton as "and the Lord shall reign over [basileuw epi] them in[en] mount Zion." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: "...KELLY translates, "reign over the earth" (Greek, "epi tees gees"), which is justified by the Greek (Septuagint, Matthew 2:22). The elders, though ruling over the earth, shall not necessarily (according to this passage) remain on the earth...." Note here that translating epi at Revelation 5:10 as "over" is "justified by the Greek."

@@davidagnew8792 Your explanations are highly surprising. On the one hand, you reject the statements of secular scientists, on the other hand, they are explicitly quoted if they are suitable to substantiate your ideological point of view. In this sense, I have only used your own version of the Bible to make you aware of the inconsistency of your own translation practice. You have rightly pointed out that the Greek word 'epi' can be understood and translated in the sense of 'over' or 'on'. The authoritative choice of words therefore depends on the inner context of the text to be analyzed. Revelation 5:9-10 describes a particular scenario, namely the group that benefits primarily from the blessings of the voluntary sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in this epoch, the New Covenant. The apostle John identified this group as "royal priests" in the introduction to his book. (Revelation 1:6; 1:9). That these "royal priests" have the task of ruling "over" unredeemed people who will be "on" a new earth needs no special mention. Where else but "on" earth should the still "unredeemed" humans be? This fact goes without saying. However, John, as the recipient of this divine vision, intentionally added a sentence to make it clear where the place from which priests will perform their duties will be. Against this background, one is obliged to include all statements in this regard in his considerations. In the same book, John also reveals to us against whom the rebellion of the people on this earth will take place. That is why, in my last comment, I also asked you the following question, which you may want to answer this time. Question: ==== Who or what did the apostle John mean by the terms "the saints" and "the beloved city" according to Revelation 20:9)?

@@MR-gx3gc NWT and Darby consistently translate basileuo epi as rule/reign over. Most other bibles are inconsistent. Luke 1:33 (Darby): "and He shall reign over (basileuo epi) the house of Jacob." Micah 4:7 (Darby): "and Jehovah shall reign over (basileuo epi) them in mount Zion." Rev 5:10 (Darby): "and they shall reign over (basileuo epi) the earth."

@@davidagnew8792 My reasoning is based solely on the statement of the apostle John, who intentionally added a sentence to reveal a certain fact to his readers. This addition would not have been necessary otherwise, since it goes without saying that the Messianic government will rule "over" an unredeemed humanity, which will of course be stationed on Earth. Moreover, the same result is achieved through the application of a consistent translation methodology within the Book of Revelation. The basic teaching of the Watchtower Society is that in Armageddon the "Great Crowd" on Earth survives and enters an earthly paradise. This great multitude is to help the rest of humanity to perfection within the framework of the general resurrection. Therefore, it is elementary for the Watchtower Society that the doctrine of the two-class society is maintained and cultivated. If the seat of government of Jesus and his brothers were stationed on earth, today's training program for district overseers and elders as future princes on this earth (i.e., as the proxy organ of heavenly Jerusalem) would no longer be tenable or dispensable. However, this teaching also presupposes that the existing earth is preserved and not replaced by a new earth. (Revelation 21:1-5). John, as the recipient of the divine vision, explicitly stated that the first earth and the first heaven will have passed (Revelation 21:1). The apostle Peter, who did not use symbolic terms in his letters, also confirmed that the "parousia of Christ" will go hand in hand with the literal disappearance of the elements, heaven and earth. (2 Peter 3:10-13). In his letter to the Hebrews, the apostle Paul interspersed a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures that also refers to this future scenario. Against this background, I would like to ask you to answer the following question. Questions: ========= 1.) Regarding whom did the apostle Paul use this quote in his letter to the Hebrews? Jesus or Jehovah? 2.) Did the apostle Paul and the author of the underlying Bible text have the "literal earth" in mind when they recorded these terms in their scriptures or not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hebrews 1,10-12 (NWT Study Edition) „And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.” Psalms 102,24-27 (NWT Study Edition) „I said: “O my God, Do not do away with me in the middle of my life, You whose years span all generations. 25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. 26 They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. 27 But you are the same, and your years will never end.“ Against this background, we would like to renew our question as follows. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yessir!

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

What is the T for in NWT? N=New. T=??? Why isn't it titled the New World Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures? Which version is it an interpretation of?

I agree in principle but hit was first a translation. The Translation turned out to be cumbersome so the language has evolved since the 1950's. But what if they started calling it the New World Version? That would lead to a legalistic can of worms. Trademark is involved. Copyright issues. But also the net effect would be confusing and divisiv, so most likely it will remain " Translation ". In Doing this type of work we are confronted with these challenges because the living language is dynamic and time doesn't stand still. We have to be genuine and current and up to date. But you are right that technically it is now somewhere between a version and a translation. Imho

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible??????????

What if they were forced to grow up as a Jeovah Witness like myself and now after I officially left I'm lost

@@nancia24how are you doing spiritually and otherwise Nancia? Were you able to start reading or listening to the Bible in an accurate translation? I said a prayer for you just now!

@@nancia24 wah made u leave ? Rn I'm just studying jw. I know jw is sus but I want to find something so logical it would actually make them think. If u have any ideas let me know. Thank u

Hell is the grave, not a place of fiery torment. A loving God wouldn't torture his children for eternity.

Why does it matter what those scholars say? You have literally thousands of scholars who say the opposite, why does their educated opinion now matter less?

@@LightoverDarkMinistry It matters because it shows that the NW translation is grammatical justifiable. I never said other opinions matter less. Of course they don't. I'm sorry if I came across that way. My point is that, since most Hebrew scholars prefer "I will be what I will be" (or the like), it's not a very good critique to insist "Actually, this either means "I am that I am" or "I be that I be"", don't you think? You need to demonstrate your claim, not just assert it. Likewise, before you start accusing the NWT of "adding words" to their translation, you might want to see the reason why more than a dozen translations (including the Trinitarian NRSV) choose to use "son". Given that "the own" in Greek is often used as a substantive similar to "the beloved" (a common title of Jesus), it's fitting that Paul should say God purchased the Church with the blood of "his own" (meaning "his beloved one"). The NW translators added "son" because Greek isn't English and sometimes we need to clarify, e.g. many translators add "home" and "people" to John 1:11, even though the text just says "his own".

@@Bowen12676 Couple things, you said “most scholars” do you most scholars believe “I be what I be” or “I will become what I choose to become” because the overwhelming amount go with the former, not the latter, and they are not the same. Also I could rant for hours in other translations, but the issue is, many of are paraphrases and will openly admit that, and will say their translations have a orthodox Christian bias. The issue is, the NWT claims to be unbiased and one of the most accurate translations today. Which is simply not true as I’ve proven.

@@LightoverDarkMinistry According to _A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament_ (Bruce C. Birch), "most scholars prefer a translation of the phrase that suggests a more dynamic relationship to existence-either "I will be what (who) I will be," or "I will cause to be what I will cause to be"" (p. 113). Of course, most translators with a theological viewpoint about the eternal nature of God will follow the traditional "I am that I am". There is nothing _per se_ wrong with that. But it doesn't make other translations (such as future translations) wrong.

The beauty of 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be is that it carries the thought that Jehovah can change to accomplish his purpose but also he can change his creation to accomplish his purpose.

Did you watch the video? Please don't spam the comment section. If you are a defender of the JW's, then address the claims made in the video.

@Light over Dark Ministry, I will address your points on my next comment. Please stay tuned.

@Light, Here is one example of your in vain painstakingly effort in trying to disprove NWT. Acts 20:28 “own son”. Have you counter reference this scripture with 1 John 1:7 ? You obviously have *not* . There we read: “However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, *and the blood of Jesus his Son* cleanses us from all sin.”

Acts 20:28 does not have the word "son" (υιος), you are adding to the text. It says, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (which he purchased through his own blood). Your verse in 1John 1:7 does not support your interpretation. 1Jo 1:7 "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” This verse simply tells us the means of cleansing-the blood of Jesus. Which Jesus? His (God's) Son. Sorry, this doesn't say that the Father is the one making the purchase. Now, if you go to Gal 3:13 we read clearly that Jesus redeemed us (Christians), ie. bought us back. Who did the purchasing? Jesus. You can also go to 1Pe 2:1 which says that false teachers deny their master (despotēs) who bought them. Is this Jesus or the Father? Jesus! You'll want to argue this but go to Jude 1:4 and tell me who Jude says is our only master (despotēs). Funny how this is the only verse you even attempted to refute from this video and even here did a very poor job.

@Kevin, Why do you play word games ? Typical Trinitarian apologist. Jesus’ blood accomplished several things: *Purchase, Cleanse* and more. It was *not* God’s blood the one shed, *it was that of his son* . Therefore, to add “son” in Acts 20:28, it is proper. It does *not* distort the message in any way. This is second by John 3:16 which reads: “ *For God* loved the world so much that *he gave his only-begotten Son* , so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) “But when the full limit of the time arrived, *God sent his Son* , who was born of a woman and who was under law, *that he might release by purchase* those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5) It was God the one primarily responsible for providing the ransom (Jesus) to purchase his people.

Facts. I was never a JWs but did agree to so called Bible studies with them while in college. These so called Bible studies were indoctrination sessions. I ask a ton of critical thinking questions about their teachings and not even ONE was answered. They evaded my questions like snake oil sales men trying to sell me Live Forever on Earth potion #9. If the Bible said Jesus died on a stake JWs would say he died on a cross. If the Bible said celebrating Holidays was bad. JWs would find a twisted way to say it was good.

All different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible??????????

The false religion called JWs has a big problem with Jesus being God. Why? God is only a title which based on the scriptures is a title that can be applied to anything worship/revered. If there is only one true God and The Bible is very clear Jesus is God at John 1:1, then Jesus has to be the True God along with the Father. This means that God is simple a title of a divine organization comprised of 3 eternal beings whom we are to be baptized in their names. Matthew 28:19

@@anonymousprofessor8866 But your ignore my simple questions, all different churches including exjws are Jesus's followers according to the Bible?????????

@@anonymousprofessor8866 Because if Jesus is God, fake "Jehovah" cannot be God.... and Watchtower wrote "bible," starring the god they created.