Jehovas Witness Bible, any exclusive contradictions?

I do not know the subject well enough to decide if there are textual contradictions in the JW Bible itself that are different from those in Orthodox Christian Bibles. I would assume that there are fewer contradictions if anything since the JW's are prone to changing important texts to suit their views. There are definitely contradictions between their Bible and the bulk of christianity, and probably contradictions in their own doctrinal interpretation of the Bible.The JW's like to rely on the ignorance of most people in relation to the Greek language. It is almost as if they assume no Greek speaker or scholar will join, and they will not be found out.John 1 is correctly interpreted as 'the Word was God'. The indefinite article 'a' is not to be assumed as part of the English translation, as in 'the Word was a God'. This is grammatically incorrect. Firstly, the Greeks do not use indefinite articles, but they have a suffix to indicate them, which is not used in the passage. Second, 'the Word was God' is written the same exact way as 'the Word was with God'. To accomodate the JW translation, the passage would have to also read 'the Word was with a God'.Either way, is smacks of polytheism, which is contradictory to their theology.If you look even deeper, there seems to be a direct contradiction of view in just the three sentences 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like a God'. In all of christianity, this passage has been used to refute any claim that Jesus was not God. It is believed to have been written for that purpose alone. The JW's will say otherwise, but their interpretation makes no sense. God is without beginning. When John says 'in the beginning' he means 'before time' and before creation. By saying 'in the beginning was the Word' he is clearly showing that the Word/Jesus has also existed before time and creation. Even to say that Jesus is 'like a God' is to assume that He was not created. Yet, JW's do not believe He is God, and they somehow think that John can go directly from a very specific discription of God, to a general discription of 'gods'. So, how can a created being be with God in the beginning? And further, how can an archangel be with God in the beginning, if angels are shown in other Biblical passages to have been created? The whole idea is self-destructive, they can not have it both ways. Jesus is at once a human who was created after angels, an angel who has no flesh, and 'a god'. Is He to be worshipped as a god? If so, is that not polytheism, and what then distinguishes the real God, from others like Him? Obviously these contradictions were already noted, and the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was the only answer to the problem. Still, JW's have insisted on a very poor theology in this regard, and their changing of the passage does little or nothing to support their case beside giving rise to polytheism and extra-biblical conjecture. I suspect they will try to say that the 'beginning' here does not refer to the actual beginning as the rest of the christiand world sees it, but the beginning of time.

I really have relished this reply, there is much I would like to discuss. I will have a busy weekend with a baptism Sunday and out-of-town family, but I would like to ask one question until I have more time.I do not go by the King James Bible, if anything I try to go by the Douay-Rheims since that was maybe the first translation from the Vulgate? I have perhaps wrongly assumed that the oldest translation would carry most validity, but I clearly understand that at any point in history the copyists could have changed whatever they wished to suit their motives, and that there can not be only one possible translation when there are so many possible text sources like the septuagint or masoretic.I would like to ask you, since you have been studying Hebrew, if you have a recommendation for a standard available Bible that best reflects a true interpretation?

Yes, I know this. The point I am making is that rather than be forced to accept what the text indicates they (wt, JW) are forcing the text to suit their views. They believe Him to be God's son, yes, but not God. I have a book here put out by wt society. On page 41 it says 'He (Jesus) had a beginning, whereas Jehovah God has no beginning'. Yet John 1 clearly says 'in the beginning was the Word'.Page 42 says 'this dear Son was just like His father'; just a few sentences after it says 'the only begotten Son never tried to be equal to His father'.They also talk about God creating through Jesus, so either God is not so omnipotent, or Jesus is a pretty special creature to be able to create like God.There are contradictions all over in this little 250 page booklet. They are not only an extreme stretch from what all other christians have found in the Bible, but are confusing even in their own right.So again, no matter how hard to swallow, the Trinity is the only way to reconcile what the Bible really says.

I will not take time to respond to your Message 12. It all makes sense, but for this topic, an NT included Bible would be needed. I understand enough Latin from my monastery days to check with the Vulgate for major discrepencies, assuming it is a faithful translation of the Hebrew. It is pleasantly? surprising to hear your opinion of the kjv, but it again does not contain all the books of a Catholic Bible.So, back to JW's..... I am not making up what I said about Greek. Their pamphlet says 'most people do not know Biblical Greek, so how can they know what John meant?'. So they go on to cite versions of the Bible which have been interpreted to their liking, all JW based Bibles, of course, and holy cow! You can trace the original usage of the phrase 'the Word was a God' in their Bibles, back to a man named Johannes Greber, who claims to have been in touch with a 'spirit world' and whose wife was a medium to the spirit world! Jehova's Witnesses back in 1956 warned that he was in contact with demons and involved in spiritism, and yet went on to use his Bible! Greber claims to have seen 'correct' interpretations of scripture flash before his eyes in gold letters! How convenient! and how much of an affront to people who apply themselves diigently to a careful translation! (sorry for the exclamations;it is crazy)I am interested btw in the other fundamentalist ideas which you have said which are demolished by an understanding of Hebrew. Here, are you saying that the idea of Trinity disappears, or just the Jehova W. version?Yes, polytheism is restricted in judeochrisian theology. That stems from a comprehensive look at the Bible, and not from a few passages. The ones which you have mentioned, Job and Deu 32 I myself do not see blatantly meaning this; You said Israel had not yet been born, so if you say God 'watches Israel' you mean what was to become Israel? Just curious...but otherwise I would take 'children of god' to mean men, not other gods, unless there is a good reason not to. Are you saying John is talking about God the Father here, and not Jesus? If the 'word' simply means God, then why would John say 'the Word was with God right after? But Jesus is man also; I am not sure what you mean by 'one fewer contradiction' except that you mean the JW's have reconciled the synoptics with John. That may be, but so has the doctrine of the trinity and the incarnation, and in any event, the JW's have only done so by forcing the literal text. I did say, if anything, I would expect fewer contradictions in a bible that has been so re-worked to include their views. There is no polytheism contradiction in standard christianity or the trinity. It may be confusing, but I see no reason why God could not divide Himself a million times and yet remain one God. It is more impossible for me to imagine God becoming lesser or different with successive divisions, or not being God if He sent His spirit into a mortal body.I do not think JW's have conciously tried to reconcile anything; they do not even quote the synoptics in their discussion of Trinity. They are clearly lost in John himself, and not sure how Jesus could be with God, and yet be God. They are trying to reconcile John with John and dumb down what was profound. What is confusing? Sorry if my wording was vague.

You can find a lot about this online. It was a trial in Scotland in 1954 where the Vice-President of the Watchtower Society, Franz, was asked to translate one sentence of Genesis into Hebrew, and refused. He had previously sworn under oath to know Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, and other languages.The wt society refuses to say who was on their translation committee, but none of the leaders of the time knew any biblical languages, and were found to have produced an erroneous and made up Bible.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

It is not a dumb question; the Trinity is not in the Bible. To a lot of people the Trinity does not make sense, and is even considered an affront to God (take Islam) but yes, I think it is the only way to get all the different texts to make sense. The early christians were confused about some of this stuff, too. They came up with countless ideas which were cast aside as heresy, like the Nestorian Heresy. The heretics did not however stoop to actually changing the Bible that I am aware of. The JW's have.I do not know if you have read the previous posts, but there is some interesting info there.

Just like with other denominations, there is not one single JW Bible. There are a number of New Testaments which the Witnesses find acceptable.I would ask you if possible to find the exact version which your friend uses. Then we could research the origins of that particular translation. What I have found so far about the versions I know of, is unbelievable.I am not sure if your intentions are in possibly joining the JW sect. I strongly would advise you against it. I will attempt to explain this if I can.Many translations of the Bible used by Jw's are the offshoots of those by a man named Johannes Greber. In 1923 this former priest was asked to do an exorcism, or a least to study the nature of the spirit that seemed to be possessing a young boy. Greber was not an experienced exorcist, but the normal procedure in determining the presence of a spirit is to ask questions which a man who is acting, or mentally unbalanced, could not answer. If it seems clear that there is a possession of the body, a priest will often ask the spirit to profess Jesus as Lord. In this case, Greber began by asking a very bad question. He said 'I have come to learn the truth'. The spriit/boy replied that 'no one can know the truth any longer because the bible has been mutilated and corrupted'. The spirit would give no evidence of who the culprits were in the mutilation, but long story short, promised to reveal to Greber the 'correct' Bible.Greber after this incident was directly involved with spirits, and wrote books about how to become involved. It is important to note that communication with spirits is everywhere decried by followers of the Bible. However, Johannes Greber wrote little by little a translation of the NT that had been 'revealed' to him by the 'spirits' as the true one that God 'meant to say'.There are later instances of translations where a panel of spiritists put together a Bible. The JW's as I have mentioned refuse to list the names of the men involved in the translating, but were forced to admit they had no credentials other than their high position in the secret spirit world.So again, the 'spirits' told Greber that the Bible we have has been edited beyond recognition. I am sure they do consider their own to be un-edited, because they think it has come straight out of God's mouth complete and unabridged just for them and very recently. What they mean by un-edited, and what the rest of christianity means by it, is very different.Just beware.

It all depends if you are studying it out of curiousity, or something more. I can't tell what you mean there. If it is curiousity, fine, but I certainly wouldn't say that it is the only one worthwhile of study. There are other groups that are just as fascinatingly mixed up; try the Swedenborgians, or the Mormons.I think that many of people on here don't have a passion for this topic, but you can find out an awful lot about JW's online yourself, and there is an unbelievable amount of literature out there from non-partisan sources which denounces the soundness of their doctrine, the scholarly absence in their translations, and the practices in general of the members.it is interesting, too; JW's oppose the internet, and all studying of other relgions...and voting!If you have any questions, feel free, just don't get too blind-sighted without comparing what they say.

Sorry truthlover, I totally missed this response!I had thought this thread was pretty well ended. Point taken. I did not not how to copy links back when I posted, but my 'knowledge' was only based in my 'faith' in the site I had read.I don't want to be a stickler; I believe that one of the JW translations is 'the Word was like a god' or 'as a god' and I don't know if that changes things accuracy wise, but...Say that 'the Word was God' and 'the Word was a God' are both acceptably inaccurate, I would still find that the JW's would not use the latter, as they do not recognize more than one God. That translation would be just as problematic as 'the Word was God'...which still leaves us with 'the Word was like a god'. What would the text say about that? I don't see this a problematic either way.'With the God' is singular God, fine. If the word was with God, or with the god, it has not much bearing on whether the word was God, or like a God. The issue of 'the word was a god' would be even more problematic though. How could the word be 'a god' and yet, with, THE GOD?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Surely you agree that the JW's are monotheistic in intention, if not in effect? I have never heard the 'almighty/mighty god' phrase but that clearly indicates two gods, even if one is subordinated to the other. I suppose here the issue of creator/creature comes in, and the JW's believe they have solved this by making Jesus at once a creature and the means by which God created everything else. Very problematic. If Jesus is a means of creation, is He a creator?While I obviously subscribe to the belief that Jesus was a means of creation, as in 'through Him all things were made' this is no way makes Jesus lesser. Works for me. That only leaves the question; how much like God, or in what way?I am sorry I ditched my JW literature, although I could likely find it again...but I am pretty sure they did say 'like a god' not 'like god'. It seems that ANY of these translations leads to vaguery and has room for interpretation. The point is that the end result of monotheism must be attained, and I am not sure that the JW's have effectively done that. Sure, but he missed the paradox of the Trinity. He began to understand the persons, but not the unity. The unity was indeed in substance, but, it seems Tertullian did 'divide' the substance, while not changing the substance.Still, the word was with god' or 'the word was with the god' in itself does not change the number of gods. It does sound pertinent to JW theology. I have heard them use the same argument that we are all sons of God, but only one is begotten, and He achieves His heirarchy more through His first-born capacity than through His unity with the godhead. Obviously though, being raised to godliness and being God are different in that creator/creature aspect.I am not sure how the JW's use the word 'begotten' because this is supposed to be the delineator between what is 'made' and what exists.

I am pretty clear on that; they portray Jesus as mediator, leader, and model, but not God. It is still messy for me to figure in a divine nature. I have read Tertullian here and there, but I plan to do an in-depth at some point.I think rather that I did not make myself clear, and it is not the easiest thing to express. For me, to say that a thing is indivisible, means that you can not have two gods, or allude to two gods. There are simply two persons in the same god. What I thought about Tertullian is that he had the idea right, but was not a purist in the sense that he 'divided' God into two seperate entities with the same substance. The way I see it, you are either perfect, or not. There are not two 'perfects' but one 'perfect' and Jesus was as absolutely perfect in substance although different in nature. He was another personification of perfect, not an alternative 'perfect' as in two gods, nor a lesser 'perfect' as in JW theology. I am being very simple here; the sentence itself, 'with God' or 'with the God' does not change the number of gods. It is only when you bring in the other sentences that there is a conflict.But to answer your question; if someone has the character and nature of God, as I said above, they ARE God, and, as there is only one God allowed for in scripture, they must be the same One God. There can not be two gods, one must be lesser or one greater in degree of perfection. If not, they are the same, and the same two gods = one god. Indivisible. I understand, but I don't agree. There is no need for 'unbegotten'. Rather, you have missed something, namely, eternity. Jesus was there in the beginning, has no beginning or end. He did not come second to God, as a normal son must, but only in time did he come second as a human.The word, the idea, the wisdom of God, was present with God forever. It was NEVER seperate from God, or a seperate God. It is always part of the same God. The one god can not be seperate from His Word, and the word can not exist without God. In only this sense Jesus was 'second' to God; in that He could not exist without God. God did not 'create' Jesus, but Jesus could not have existed without Him. God likewise could not be God without His word, but His existance brings about the word, and not vice versa.I am sure that is extremely confusing. Unfortunately it makes good sense to me even if I can't express it well. Begotten, or made?'Made' is as in 'made' from something.
'Begotten' is as in, uncreated.
Therefore, no need for 'unbegotten'.Jesus was not created or made. He sprang from the Father as your ideas spring from you, but entirely with perfection, as our ideas can not be. In other words, God could not 'make up' anything, but purely by thinking He made truth so real it was God/perfect. He put His truth into human form, rather than 'into' a human. Jesus is subordinate only in that sense, as in, He sprang from the father and not vice versa. But He is exactly as the Father, and therefore as equally to be worshipped.

Well, after-all, I am on the 'orthodox' side. The JW's are in agreement with Arius, and in some cases herald him as a type of prophet precursor of their elders. There is a point where scripture can point in two or more directions, and the rest is up to logic and reasoning.

Hm. I don't think we have to read an orthodox meaning into the text exactly. I am sure you know there is no real 'orthodox' meaning. I also do not quite buy that the 'unorthodox' sects of christianity were using ideas from all over the Bible to any greater extent. What I am saying is simply what Arius proved; he was able to make a case against the Trinity as we know it using only the same Bible and passages that had been used to make a case for it. So, as far as Biblical support goes, both were 'orthodox' but not equally accepted based on extra-biblical logic. Hm, again. How do the contradictions disappear? They don't, really, they are just ignored if the Bible is looked at book by book. If you put all the pieces together, you can actually solve some contradictions, like the Trinity.I definitely did not mean that I take the Bible as a collection of stories alone; I see its major importance being in the unfolding of one story.Luther picked over things he didn't like. You can't really decide to invalidate one book based on your own failings. What if we all did that? I don't see a problem. There are other reasons why Paul preaches a different religion. There are many things which appear for the first time with Jesus. IMO reading the Bible entirely one way or the other is overlooking some valuable insight.

True, and the example you gave of the clearing of the Temple is one of those contradctions where it is beyond me that people would insist that this must have happened twice. I had almost had some temporary amnesia and forgotten that there are those types out there. But then you get into other contradictions; Jesus as man, as God, as the son of man, the allusions in the OT, and there are obvious reasons why some clear picture of exactly who He was would need to be developed. Reading book by book is not going to solve it. Yes, but there is a difference between Luke and Luther. A big huge time gap, for one, making what Luther did a disregard for certain texts based on his theological problem. The Trinity is a resolution of the contradictory texts, one of several. That is not to say that the Trinity is less of a mystery in itself. Yes, I agree. It is a conclusion which has been arrived at by extra-biblical reasoning, which incidentally was what prompted this swing in the conversation. I understand completely, the JW sect being one of those non-Trinitarians...although in certain terminologies they are not considered christian. It is possible as you say that if the other early interpretations had gained as large a following christianity as we know it would not include this Trinity clause, but these are the types of things which I believe led to the early orthodox church gaining such a following; the Trinity is not the most Biblical, but the most logical explanation...which is to say, that while others may be just as viable if you are flying sola scriptura, they don't entirely solve the logical inconsistancies, and that is something which is extremely necessary if Scripture is to have any of the value which is ascribed to it.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, they did have different Christologies, just as I have a different Mariology than my mother spiritually speaking. We can 'relate' to certain aspects of a person and talk about what we see as being Christ or being Mary. There is still a very big need to define who Christ is before you can base a religion around only Mark's Jesus, or only John's. It is one thing that we have different sects of christians, but christians can't believe Jesus changes in every book. He can't be only God, and then only Man. He must be both/and or either/or.And yes, I do think a solution can be a mystery! What matters is that Luke is in the Bible, and Luther isn't. Therefore, whatever Luke did matters to Bible readers, and whatever Luther did is take-it-or-leave-it. That is complicated. I am Catholic, and I don't feel that all churches have found the 'right' answer in Bible interpretation. The churches don't agree with one another, so they can't all be equally 'true'. It is not a matter of being biased, but only of following my own logic. I like the Trinity, for example, so I can't like Unitarianism the same way.If you say 'more christian' that could mean more Biblical or more orthodox. Generally speaking, Christians follow Jesus as God. Other people believe in Jesus as a teacher or minor God or prophet, even outside of Christianity. So, depending upon one's definition of 'Christian' it might be appropriate to say that there are true Christians and other kinds. It is mainly as internal thing...if I want to explain the teachings of JW's to a possible convert, it is important to note these differences in the status of Jesus. To leap from being Presbyterian to Methodist, or attending the services, is much different than it would be to jump into some of the other sects, because some main tenets which MOST Christians follow are denied, and one of those is that Jesus is God.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.