Climate change

[Aractus]

Many great points. I am 27 and I only meant that an EVERYDAY JW compared to an EVERYDAY (insert bible based religion) would know more about the bible. I know for a fact that this is true because I have been knocking on doors since I was a child and when I was 10 I could use more scriptures to explain many of my basic beliefs than an adult catholic, mormon, Presbyterian, etc. I even think its humorous that you're an atheist but you still invoke scripture to base some beliefs not held by witnesses, i.e. the trinity. We can agree that if the bible is bunk then we have nothing to argue about but I still think that I can quote way more scripture to differentiate Jesus and Jehovah than you can claiming they're the same. I also think its funny when Atheist bring up how certain moral grounds have improved. Because that does imply an objective moral value. Which is seems to make the moral argument valid. Again, I know that an average JW could explain their beliefs via the bible better than 80-90% of any other AVERAGE bible based religious person. 

Okay well let me put this in a different way then. Orthodox and Catholics believe that (and still believe) that the Septuagint is a more valid form of the OT scriptures than the Masoretic Text. This belief is so well engrained that even when presented with new evidence, such as the emergence of the DSS that proves that the MT was not systematically altered over time (at least since the time of Jesus), they still persist with this belief. In the Council of Trent (16th century) the Roman Catholic Church officially recognised the Latin Vulgate as the authoritative form of the scripture; thus elevating the LXX (or at least the version of it that's in their manuscripts which includes the "Theodotion version" of Daniel) to the same status.

Now there are several errors in the KJV also. In fact, the Greek text that it was based on, the Novum Instrumentum omne, didn't have the final leaf of the book of Revelation - so Erasmus back translated it from the Vulgate. There are several other clear errors in Novum Instrumentum omne - yet the KJV is one of two versions that JW will accept - the other being the NWT. The NWT itself modifies the NT in dozens of places in order to insert Jehovah's name; even though the Tetragrammaton is never used in the NT. This is despite the fact that the NT in fact has an unusual practise of using what's called the Nomina Sacra; not in the originals but certainly in the copies. So in effect; JW's have chosen out of all the instances of the Nomina Sacra to only treat those that refer to "Jehovah" specially, and ignores the rest. The use of the The Nomina Sacra in the Greek suggests that in the OT originals the Tetragrammaton was not written in a special way as it is in the MT and DSS copies. But it was in use at the time of Jesus and at the time that the Gospels were written - therefore if the NT writers had wanted to put in the Tetragrammaton they would have; just as they made some use of Aramaic in the New Testament despite it being written down in Greek.

What JW's "know" about the Bible is subjective; and is dictated by the Watchtower. Just as what Catholics believe about it is dictated by their councils and particularly the council of Trent that tells them that the Vulgate is sola scripture. Even Protestants still base their translations of the OT on understandings they derive from the "LXX" and the Vulgate. There's nothing inherently special or different about the JW's understanding of the Bible. There are many theologians that know every word of the Bible and can quote just about any passage from memory - from all denominations. There are many scholars who intently study the wording of the text to figure out the original readings. Revelation 13:18 - the NWT says the number of the beast is 666 with no footnote. Yet we don't know this; that's one of the examples where the original reading is NOT known. 616 comes from Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus which represents a different linage than most other codices; for a long time it was thought that it was a mistake unique to that codex until it was discovered in P115; and therefore 616 or 666 are equally likely. P115 is one of only two known manuscripts dating to the 3rd century that contain the book of Revelation. So now the two oldest copies have a disagreement in that number. This is a clear example of how knowledge of the Biblical text progresses over time. Just as the other examples I gave you - such as the MT being clearly better than the LXX or Vulgate. I don't see Jehovah Witnesses following these developments and using it to further their understanding of the Biblical text - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sceptics take the gospel of John far less literally than the synoptic gospels. However; as I've shown you the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation in particular make clear claims to the deity of Jesus. Again, I don't see JW's acknowledging this; even though every one else who reads those books can see it clearly. And for the record I don't think the Gospel of John was written in the second century at all - I think it was probably written no later than 80 AD. Furthermore the NWT translates "stauros" as stake instead of cross. Now this is despite the abundance of evidence outside of the Bible that describes the crucifixion method used by the Roman empire. So how is that a "deeper understanding"? It isn't - it's a denial.

See for yourself:



That image dates to sometime from the late-first to early-3rd centuries; while crucifixion was still performed. Here's another:



It dates to around the same time, and clearly mocks Jesus.

And just for good measure here's one though to be from the fourth century:



Notice a pattern? Not a single ancient image of crucifixion has surfaced that doesn't show a distinct cross - until the late 16th century.