(June 24, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Metis Wrote:(June 24, 2015 at 11:58 am)Won2blv Wrote: 1. Read the wikipedia page. The most critical are religious figures that have biases of their own. Less biased scholars do criticize for certain aspects but give it an overall good rating for being literal and conservative. The main word that gets added is Jehovah for Kyrios. At some points it makes perfect sense because it'll be in a reference to an OT scripture that used YHWH but sometimes it might have been a bit of a stretch. I will give you that. But it only serves the purpose of the noun or proper noun not the actual context of the scripture. Oh and something being the first result on google is not exactly a proof of its validity
Can you show me a link to a scholar that accepts the NWT as a good translation because as a theologian I can tell you know if I brought a copy of that thing to a debate I'd be laughed out the door. Nobody except Jehovas Witnessess use it because it diverges so greatly from the language used within both the Septuagint and the Masoertic texts.
I'm not saying this as some fundamentalist preacher who only wants you to use the good ol' King James (that's also a terrible translation by the way, stick to to the NIV or the Douay-Rheims unless you're debating Orthodox where you'll need the extra OT books; I use the Amharic for that but that's purely because it contains almost every book used by the different Orthodox groups which have their own canons but for everything else the NIV or the Douay-Rheims is excellent).
I picked it because when I typed in Jehovas Witnessess it was the only one that didn't say the JW religion was a cult. Do you deny any of the points contained within, I felt they were rather valid.
Quote:2. No where in the NWT is a scripture stated that Michael is Jesus. Its a doctrinal issue only. JW's believe that they are the same person. So that is bunk to claim that we changed the scriptures to suit that belief
Ah, I never said it was scriptural. We're talking about pagan influence right? I'm saying the doctrine of Michael as Jesus is proof of pagan influences.
Origen was the only Church Father to even hint that reincarnation was a Christian belief and he was almost unanimously condemned later as a heretic for it. Reincarnation of Michael as Jesus is not a Christian doctrine. It supposes that Angels can become Humans or vice versa (condemned by the early chuch) as well as the metamorphosis of spirit (also a heresy to every other Christian denomination).
We can also move onto the JW belief that the soul is mortal, which is also not a traditional Christian belief and owes more to later outside factors.
Quote:3. Again look up the wiki for stauros. In classical greek it wasn't never used for 2 pieces of wood at a cross. It did later have that identity but there is debate on whether or not it was the method for execution when Jesus was on earth. And what the writers were even referring to. Regardless though, even if Jesus died on a cross it would never be condoned to worship that image. Especially when many scholars have acknowledge that the religious symbol is an amalgamation of the pagan ankh. So it wouldn't make a difference to JW's ultimately whether or not he died on a cross but it seems like some would have a biased reason to make it a biblical "truth"
I'm a scholar and I say that's total hookum. The Ankh was later adopted by the Coptic Orthodox Church as a national symbol but by nobody else, and even they use it sparingly because they fear it might give people the wrong impression. The cross was used as a tool of execution by the Italians long before they established regular direct contact with Egypt.
We have plenty of Classical accounts that affirm that when Romans crucified people they did it with a cross, not a stake. It's not as humiliating or debilatating to be stood upright as you die, but if you're spead eagled it hurts a hell of a lot more and you don't die as fast either.
You're also assuming that Catholics/Orthodox worship the cross which they do not. When you see a picture of yourself are you looking at you or just a depiction of you? It's the same for an image of a saint, you might gaze upon it during prayer but you're not praying to the picture, you're praying to whoever you have in mind. Otherwise you better not look at a table when you pray, you might be worshiping the table!
Really, I'd love to see who all these scholars are and if they're Jehovas Witnesses or not. Of all the Christian denominations studied in my uni department JW's are probably taken the least seriously and that's been true of everywhere I've ever taught or studied.
Quote:4. Yeah sorry but those were all pretty useless. Jehovah is the most common know rendition of the tetragrammaton. That is why JW's use it. It isn't exactly the most important thing as to whether or not it is the correct one. We don't know the original pronunciation of his name. Those references didn't address the point you're making which I believe is that Jehovah a syncretism of Zues or Jupiter or Jove. Or that Jehovah and Yahweh are 2 separate entities. Hint, if they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same
It doesn't gurantee they share an etymology, but in this case they undoubtedly do. Why do Jews who say the word today (I know Orthodox/Conservative ones never do) never say Jehova in their scholarly works? Why do they always use Adonai, occasionally Kyrios or most commonly Yahweh?
The Watchtower society has incorperated many more non-christian influences into their theology than the other Christians have ever accomplished. Joseph Smith tried to write his own "revision" of the Old and New Testaments and even he scrapped the idea because it was so nutty (hence why the Community of Christ Church formed, they used the scraps Joe Smith gave up on and that the LDS reject today).
You can go to the wikipedia page and look up the quotes from there. I am not denying that there are some criticisms. But I just don't think that you're complete dismissal is valid. And what is the Amharic? I thought that was an Ethiopian language
I have never said that Michael is a reincarnation of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus would be the archangel AKA Michael. Its not uncommon in the scriptures for kings and rulers or even apostles to have different names used for them.
The cross is worshipped and viewed as a holy relic. And what it represents is similar to the way the egyptians would carry around an ankh as it represented the symbol of eternal life. If I look at a table when I pray it has not spiritual meaning. If I carved a piece of wood into a symbolic relic that represented my beliefs then I would be guilty of carving out false idols. In Isaiah a man is virtually mocked for taking a piece of wood and using half to cook his food and half to carve out and idol to worship. The point is not that god thinks that idol will actually become a deity but rather that our faith and worship should not be needing a visible tangible item to go along with it.
Jehovah is the most commonly known rendition for YHWH. Adonai is not a name and neither is kyrios. Yahweh is another separate rendition for YHWH. The fact that we don't use Yahweh is not a rejection of that but just a matter of convenience.
