Sunday, October 31, 2010

See Your Enemy, Part 2

I was rather swiftly responded to Part 1 by an apparent Jehovah's witness, who said the following:

JohnOneOne said...
Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year study (as of 10/2010), a thoroughly researched reference work in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), as it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

When finally published, you will see that there are some 400+ scholarly reference works which have opted to say something other than, “and the Word was God,” and that, among these, are included over 100 which had chosen to use “a god” within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
October 31, 2010 3:17 AM

My response to this was too long for the comment section, and is therefore the body of this post.


So the corroborating efforts of "400+ scholarly reference works" supporting one of your most crucial, faith-changing alterations of Scripture are supposed to hold significance over the number of times the Watchtower Society has both doubled back and recanted its own prophecies in its own publications, and outright omitted words and replaced them with words that were not ever written in any language in any translation, such as "worship" replaced by the lesser term "obeisance" in reference to Jesus? How many dates were moved, or altogether scrapped, that were planted by "bible scholars" and accepted by more sheep than could fill a modern stadium, only to end up as nothing else than what they are--false prophecies declared by false prophets?

At what point is an acknowledged *and* proven false prophet to be believed? At what point does the hubris of an organization that believes *it* has the right to continually change the UNCHANGING Word of God to suit its doctrine's purposes reach critical mass in blasphemy? Is it when "400+ scholarly reference works" agree?

Having read and been instructed under one of the more studious and serious Witnesses over the course of 2 years, I have learned how highly Jehovah's Witnesses place value in their scholars, as though the label implies mastery of a thing. But there are two definitions of the word "scholar" according to Webster's Dictionary, and the Watchtower Society hides behind the lesser primary one while implying the greater secondary. This is clever. It is also shady.

Miriam Webster's "scholar" definition 1) A person who attends a school or studies under a teacher (pupil).

Miriam Webster's "scholar" definition 2) A person who has done advanced study in a special field.

Your teaching tools clearly imply the latter is the case for those who receive the scholar title among you, as it is used to pad the reasoning behind why they are not publicly named. My mentor from the local Hall said something to the effect of, "They were scholars and therefore knew their craft, and gave their efforts to anonymity, that God alone may be glorified rather than them."

It sounded so noble that I missed the fact that the anonymity also made it so that they could not be questioned. In spite of this, the facts of the education and training of the "bible scholars" that fabricated the New World Translation do not even facetiously approach the assertion of their mastery.

I have learned very recently that the actual authors of the New World Translation, whom Jehovah's Witnesses do not name publicly, are not only in fact numbered and named, but occupy at best the former definition.

There were 6 of them:

Frederick W. Franz
Nathan H. Knorr
Milton G. Henschel
Albert D. Schroeder
Karl Klein
George D. Gangas

Number of "bible scholars" *at all* trained in the biblical languages: 1.

One single man listed as the main author. Not quite the misleading plural defined by the Witnesses. These verbal gyrations do not lend credibility to a group that has discredited itself with their false prophecies. But since when does the average person even care to verify anything they are told?

The NWT's "main writer" was Frederick W. Franz, taught in entry level Greek consisting of one 2 credit hour class in "Bible Greek" and 21 credit hours in classical Greek. George Gangas was a Turkish national who spoke modern Greek and translated English-to-Greek publications. The other 4 I guess all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, because they had no training in the languages in which the Bible was written, but share the first definition of "scholar" with George.

So now there are over 400 "scholarly reference works" to back up one of the altered scriptures? I wonder if any of the names the Watchtower Society will be at liberty to reveal in the bibliography will be people whose views we can receive firsthand, for those of us who have faith only in God and His Word rather than in those who are on record as having unabashedly lied to the planet over the span of 5 generations and counting.

I have a few questions;

1)Again, at what point should a false prophet, with numerous false prophecies acknowledged even by its own elders over the span of 100+ years, be finally believed? Should it be when one of their choices to anonymously change the Word of God to reflect their doctrine, is corroborated by "400+ scholarly reference works"?

2) I am to understand that no fewer than 401 "scholarly reference works" have discovered that John the Apostle, the Revelator, one of the Sons of Thunder, who walked, ate and learned at the feet of Jesus, was somehow inept in the use of sentence structure of the language of scholars in his day, and did not write what YHWH intended... while your one individual who even attempted entry level comprehension of the dialect of the language could do it better? Seriously?

3)Or am I to understand that those who even teach classical Greek today are just as inept at comprehending a sentence phrase consisting of no fewer than *5 words*, 5 words which leave as much room for optional meaning in their written form as that of an octagonal red STOP sign on a street corner?

4) I am to believe all of this from the Watchtower Society, which has simply republished a new modification of the NWT when the Bible is found not to match with their doctrine, as if the hubris to presume that the Word of God must be altered to align with man's doctrine rather than the other way around is perfectly acceptable?

5) Do these "scholarly reference works" have the title of scholar by virtue of the same qualifications that the 6 authors of the NWT received theirs? Are they scholars because they agree with the Watchtower Society or have studied with them... because the first definition of scholar has only "being a pupil" as a requisite. I ask because 83% of the NWT authors were nothing close to the latter; they were not serious students of the Bible, having no knowledge of the languages in which it was written, and had to rely on the word of Frederick Franz and his entry level Greek course work. On what planet is a person with entry level knowledge considered a master of their craft?

Not this one.

The Truth is that the Jehovah's Witnesses have altered, by both omitting and adding where it suited them, the Word of God since the 1800s, and people will eat it on the plate because they are mostly comprised of folk with neither knowledge of the Bible nor desire to do anything about it but be led by the nose to their slaughter. Now there are 400 "works" to join the cause of exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

I, on the other hand, will look to the Word of God. In it, without need of any modification, we are instructed on what to do when we encounter those whose prophecies are false:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15

It is much more likely that it simply takes 400+ "scholarly reference works" to even begin to make a serious effort to cloud the Truth of the Word of God. Even for sheep that are lulled to sleep and don't bother to look up in time to see the blade coming for their necks.

1 comment:

  1. With respect to your claim that, throughout the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have proven themselves to being "False Prophets," the following two weblinks might be of some help in putting the fact of Jehovah's Witnesses failed expectations into proper perspective:

    "The Churches, Jehovah's Witnesses,
    and the Question of
    Unfulfilled Prophetic Expectations"


    "The Problem with 'False Prophecy' Polemics"