One of Jehovah's Witnesses needs your help

[Cyberman]

Have a read about Kissing Hank's Ass.

This is exactly how I feel about what your Bible says.

Or if you want something visual, that's not too abysmal - and to forestall any clickyphobia - try the movie adaptation:

[Aractus]

More than 200 times, I believe.  What's really interesting is that they also released something called a "Kingdom Interlinear" version that has the original language with a translation on one side, and the NWT version on the other side, which shows a number of areas where the NWT diverges from the original.  Almost as if they knew that the members wouldn't bother to notice, or wouldn't dare bring up the discrepancy if they did notice.  That, or it's one of the most amazing examples of a lack of self-awareness that I've ever seen.

All translations diverge from the original language. The problem with the NWT isn't that it's a bad translation - honestly on the whole it's a rather literal and accurate translation. But the problem is that it was translated by Jehovah Witness scholars with no regard to the input of other scholarly thought, and therefore you have variant readings as in John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) The NIV and ESV translations also face criticisms for their biases. In the NIV's case for instance they added Abraham to Hebrews 11:11, a change of far greater significance than the John 1:1 change that the NWT makes. The 2011 NIV then changes it back.

This is what Heb 11:11 says in the KJV: Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

But in the original NIV it read as so: By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

Not only does no Greek text ever say that Abraham was too old to have children, but the Pentateuch makes it clear that it's Sarah's barren womb that makes it unable for them to have children. The Pentateuch is actually correct by the way in that a post-menopause woman is unable to conceive and bare a child, whereas a man even at 100 years old will still have viable sperm, and while it may become more difficult for him to conceive it is possible, whereas for Sarah to conceive is only possible by divine intervention!

[Won2blv]

More than 200 times, I believe.  What's really interesting is that they also released something called a "Kingdom Interlinear" version that has the original language with a translation on one side, and the NWT version on the other side, which shows a number of areas where the NWT diverges from the original.  Almost as if they knew that the members wouldn't bother to notice, or wouldn't dare bring up the discrepancy if they did notice.  That, or it's one of the most amazing examples of a lack of self-awareness that I've ever seen.

All translations diverge from the original language. The problem with the NWT isn't that it's a bad translation - honestly on the whole it's a rather literal and accurate translation. But the problem is that it was translated by Jehovah Witness scholars with no regard to the input of other scholarly thought, and therefore you have variant readings as in John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) The NIV and ESV translations also face criticisms for their biases. In the NIV's case for instance they added Abraham to Hebrews 11:11, a change of far greater significance than the John 1:1 change that the NWT makes. The 2011 NIV then changes it back.

This is what Heb 11:11 says in the KJV: Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

But in the original NIV it read as so: By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

Not only does no Greek text ever say that Abraham was too old to have children, but the Pentateuch makes it clear that it's Sarah's barren womb that makes it unable for them to have children. The Pentateuch is actually correct by the way in that a post-menopause woman is unable to conceive and bare a child, whereas a man even at 100 years old will still have viable sperm, and while it may become more difficult for him to conceive it is possible, whereas for Sarah to conceive is only possible by divine intervention!

Thanks for your objectiveness. I am not going to engage with people that seem to have an agenda instead of simply reading my initial post that clearly states my intentions. I will be doing the research on all of these things. Thanks to for acknowledging that the NWT isn't a horrible translation as many assert. I know it is biased but I know from my own research that the most criticism comes from super christian folks that hate JW's. 

[Jenny A]

Hello, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have started a couple of threads already but I want help with one subject in particular...

    The bibles lack of credibility.

 I have heard many charges against the bibles lack of credibility. Such as, it is a collection of fairy tales, it is historically inaccurate, it borrowed from surrounding religious lore, etc.

Please understand that I am agnostic. I do not know what I believe but I am making an absolute stance on what I believe until I hash out some things. So please, give me links, facts, or whatever else you have to help me with this one subject. Being told, "you know that its a bunch of bullshit, right?" is not any of those things. It may be true but I want to see facts. I don't want to hear about specific JW misgivings, just the bible as a whole. Why we can know for certainty that it is absolutely not the word of a divine being. If you say something that I feel deserves a rebuttal, take it as my lifelong indoctrination or whatever else you want but I promise that I am looking at this from a skeptical viewpoint. I want to clear my mind of the doubt that lingers in my head. I would almost say that I am 70 or 80 percent atheist at the moment. So my 20 to 30 percent may argue. Thanks for your help! I look forward to hearing your thoughts

I would suggest going on a Bart D. Ehrman reading extravaganza.  Don't try to read all his books, there are too many.  But, he can show you how the New Testament shows evolution of theological thought among early Christians.  He can also show you how various parts of it are historically impossible.  But he will not ridicule it.  He merely looks at it as a historical source and examines it as one might examine any other historical source.  Most sources don't stand up very well if the standard is absolute truth and the Bible doesn't either.  That is because it is a set of documents produced by and for humans.  If it were divinely inspired it ought to do rather better than other texts but it does rather worse.

In particular I recommend: How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.

[Aractus]

I don't suggest Ehrman, his views are not the representative of most scholarly thinking - not even of critical scholars. In particular he asserts that the original wording of the gospels and the rest of the NT has been lost. This is not a belief shared by other critical scholars. You're much better off sticking with the historical facts. For instance, there is not a scrap of evidence for a census in 4BC - the census mentioned by Luke happened in 6-7 AD well after the possible time of Jesus's birth. In the synoptic gospels the Last Supper is eaten on the first day of the Passover, but in John it happens the day before and the crucifixion happens on the day of the Passover. Matthew records that Judas hangs himself, but Luke records in Acts that Judas falls and his insides burst open. According to Matthew, after Judas dies the Jewish priests by the "Field of Blood". According to Luke in Acts, Judas buys the filed before he dies and then he dies in the field.

The idea that Pilate would "wash his hands" as described in the Bible is inconsistent with his description outside of the Bible. Historians have said that he would never do such a thing, nor would he take orders to execute someone from Jewish authorities he only took orders from his Roman superiors.

[Aractus]

As a note on the NWT. As I mentioned before, I don't think it's a bad translation. It's one of the few that gets the translation of Is. 7:14 right; with most of the others heavily influenced by the so-called LXX and Matthew. The problem isn't that it's a bad translation, the problem is that JW's are told only to read it or the KJV, implying that people outside of the Watchtower can't read and translate Greek/Hebrew which just isn't true. My suggestion to the OP is to consider other translations of the Bible as well.

[Chas]

Jesus is magic, if he wanted a fig he could just magic up a fig. Instead he goes ape shit on a fig tree he knows is out of season.

Conclusion? He's insane, or wants us to think he's insane. He should not be trusted with the price of ham.

Would you trust a practicing Jew who sold ham?

Yes, because I would deduce that he is both rational and possesses good taste.