JW Good Video on Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,156
1,221
71
Sebring, FL
✟654,625.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Chances are that you have had Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, among other problems. The last time they came to my door I invited to come to the church I was going to.

I'm going to present a couple of videos on what is wrong with basic JW doctrine and how best to talk to them.



How to Talk to Jehovah’s Witnesses About Jesus


96,073 views
•Sep 13, 2017
5:08 Minutes


Link
 

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,156
1,221
71
Sebring, FL
✟654,625.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is another video on dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses from a Christian point of view.
Sam Tolley has done other videos on the subject as well.


The question Jehovah Witnesses cannot answer without denying their false Theology!

Jehovah Witnesses say that Jesus was not resurrected bodily. Jesus said he was. Who is lying?


899,706 views
•Sep 25, 2016






Samuel Tolley
5.5K subscribers


Link
 
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

If you can overlook the audio quality this video from Walter Martin is an excellent resource too. It even showcases how well the witnesses can string together seemingly true scripture in favour of their own perspective (before the Christian gets to reply.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dale
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,156
1,221
71
Sebring, FL
✟654,625.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

If you can overlook the audio quality this video from Walter Martin is an excellent resource too. It even showcases how well the witnesses can string together seemingly true scripture in favour of their own perspective (before the Christian gets to reply.)


This Walter Martin video is good. It is in a dialogue format, which should make it easier for many people to maintain their interest. It points out that a lot of things the JW's say are very confusing even when they aren't completely wrong. In one section they discuss the limitations of the JW translation. The translators invented a tense in Greek unknown to anyone else to change the meaning of a word. At the end, Martin shows that the verse in Revelation where Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, which is Revelation 1:8, can be used the show the JW's that they are wrong to deny the Divinity of Jesus and the Trinity.

This video focuses on the issue of whether Jesus is a member of the Trinity or simply a created messenger, as the Jehovah's Witness organization claims. It mentions their repeated failed predictions of the end of the world.

It doesn't deal with the special place of the 144,000 or that the claim that some Christians will go to heaven but most will live in an earthly paradise, in the JW scheme of things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
This Walter Martin video is good.

I hope it’s enjoyed by all. In my opinion there aren’t many links shared on these forums that truly help arm Christians in the defence of the faith, usually we’d get more done and learn more if we came together as a community and just shared scripture that we think goes against the Watchtower, then we’d get a second opinion from hopefully learned believers in Christ.

On that topic, the Watchtower are defo running scared from the Bible.

The translators invented a tense in Greek unknown to anyone else to change the meaning of a word.

That’s true. I actually have an old version of the Watchtowers kingdom interlinear translation, which contains both their English translation and the Greek text side by side, the number of errors and outright deception is incredible.

They recalled it later because of the backlash it received and because people were using it in conversation against them.

In general though, you can be sure there’s deception afoot when the person you’re speaking to replies “this is what it says in the Greek.” They don’t know Greek for a hill of beans :tearsofjoy:

My advice is to learn the smallest thing you can about Koine Greek, that way you can see how they’re full of bunk.

I learnt the Greek alphabet through a song, it took less than a day, maybe just a few hours. Ask about Greek letters and I’ve never gotten a reply from the watchtowers supposed Greek experts on the street level. They’re reading a script.

This goes for inter denominational disputes too, if we can choose between arguments from the scripture grounded in reason and principles or “the Greek,” go with reason and principles every time, we know reason and we can explain principles, we don’t know koine Greek.

In my experience one of the most helpful verses on the deity of Christ is Hebrews 1:8, where the Father says to the son “thy throne O God is forever.” Great verse and great chapter against the Watchtowers.

ON TOPIC: Piper is right about the “everything that was made” argument. Using Colossians 1 works as a good backup chapter to that material in John 1. Colossians 1 shows Jesus to be the creator of everything that was made, “visible and invisible.” Visible and invisible is literally everything.

It’s a good chapter so long as the Christian doesn’t get tripped up by verse 15, Jesus the “firstborn of all creation,” knowing the story behind that verse (it’s in the video I think) works wonders.

Christians should fellowship over these things more and google search for answers less :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
In my experience one of the most helpful verses on the deity of Christ is Hebrews 1:8, where the Father says to the son “thy throne O God is forever.” Great verse and great chapter against the Watchtowers.

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God.
Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.


Stay safe and well,
LB
 
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Ordinarily I don’t respond to large replies that have been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the internet, @LightBearer. Especially when it’s not clear how much of the response you wrote on here yourself. Still, I’ve got some free time and would like to help if you’re not fully convinced of that quotation.

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Well, because there’s always disputes, let’s take the preponderance of Bible translations into account. Are they supportive of “God is your throne,” or “Thy throne, O God.”?

You shared that the “NW” uses a different rendering, as it’s not clear how much of the original message you wrote maybe this isn’t helpful, but could you specific what translation the NW is?

If by NW you mean the New World translation, as was the case in the other threads where this message has been found, well, it’s not surprising that a version of the Bible fabricated and then published by the Watchtower would mistranslate or depart from the norms of translating when it came to areas of the Bible which they found didn’t agree with their organisation.

The translators working for the Watchtower do so anonymously, which shouldn’t surprise us (I wouldn’t lend my name to such questionable work.) Quoting a mystery man or mystery men for our understanding of Hebrews isn’t the most helpful idea.

From Bible hub I read 29 definitions and none of them read God is your throne, some used things like “God is your kingdom” or “You are God” but the vast majority use the phase “Thy throne, O God, is forever.” Almost all of them. So the Father speaking to or about Jesus calls Him God.

If readers from either the Christian camp or the Watchtower organisation can’t understand Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, the preponderance of translations done by reputable men and women who can read those languages should cause them to side with the translation that reads “Thy throne, O God...” Anything else is fridge scholarship at best or a dastardly con job at worst.

The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God.

“God” in this section can be in reference to God the Father, Jesus never blushed at calling the Father His God (John 20:17,) in the same way that the scripture never blushes at alluding to God as the Holy Spirit (Acts 5,) God as Father and God as the Son.

It’s much like how the Bible attributes things like the creation event to both God the Father (Isaiah 44:24) and God the Son (Colossians 1.) Even insisting that God the Father alone did these creative acts, yet Jesus is attributed the glory of having preformed the action later, ruling out the possibility that God the Father was alone.

Still, that’s going way beyond what you’re asking for. :)

The structure of Hebrews 1 seems very clear, the writer explains these are things with regards to the angels, then he continues on into writing how much better things are regarding the Son. It’s a section glorifying the Son.

God bless and protect you too, my friend
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,156
1,221
71
Sebring, FL
✟654,625.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God.
Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.


Stay safe and well,
LB



It is good to see a response from someone who is a Jehovah’s Witness.

You dispute the meaning of Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45.

Here is John Gill’s commentary on Hebrews 1:8.
Gill is a very famous historical commentator known for his skill with languages and his knowledge of ancient manuscripts.


Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son, he saith

What he does not to angels, and which sets him infinitely above them; which shows him to be a Prince and King, and not a servant, or minister; and which even ascribes deity to him:

thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
this, with what follows in this verse, and the next, is taken out of ( Psalms 45:6 Psalms 45:7 ) which psalm is not spoken of Solomon, to whom many things in it will not agree; he was not fairer than other men; nor was he a warrior; nor was his throne for ever and ever; and much less a divine person, and the object of worship; but the Messiah, and so the ancient Jews understand it: the Targum applies it to him, and mentions him by name in ( Hebrews 1:2 ) and some of their modern writers affirm it is said of the Messiah; though Aben Ezra seems doubtful about it, saying, it is spoken concerning David, or Messiah his Son, whose name is so, ( Ezekiel 37:25 ) . Deity is here ascribed to the Son of God; he is expressly called God; for the words will not bear to be rendered, "thy throne is the throne of God, or thy throne is God"; or be supplied thus, "God shall establish thy throne": nor are the words an apostrophe to the father, but are spoken to the king, the subject of the psalm, who is distinguished from God the Father, being blessed and anointed by him; and this is put out of all doubt by the apostle, who says they are addressed "to the Son", who is not a created God, nor God by office, but by nature; for though the word "Elohim" is sometimes used of those who are not gods by nature; yet being here used absolutely, and the attributes of eternity, and most perfect righteousness, being ascribed to the person so called, prove him to be the true God; and this is the reason why his throne is everlasting, and his sceptre righteous, and why he should be worshipped, served, and obeyed. Dominion and duration of it are given to him; his throne denotes his kingly power, and government; which is general, over angels, good and bad; over men, righteous and wicked, even the greatest among them, the kings and princes of the earth: and special, over his church and people; and which is administered by his Spirit and grace in the hearts of his saints; and by his word and ordinances in his churches; and by his powerful protection of them from their enemies; and will be in a glorious manner in the latter day, and in heaven to all eternity; for his throne is for ever, and on it he will sit for ever: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; he will have no successor in it, nor can his government be subverted; and though he will deliver up the kingdom to the Father, it will not cease.


Link
Hebrews 1:8 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse
 
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Ordinarily I don’t respond to large replies that have been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the internet, @LightBearer. Especially when it’s not clear how much of the response you wrote on here yourself. Still, I’ve got some free time and would like to help if you’re not fully convinced of that quotation.



Well, because there’s always disputes, let’s take the preponderance of Bible translations into account. Are they supportive of “God is your throne,” or “Thy throne, O God.”?

You shared that the “NW” uses a different rendering, as it’s not clear how much of the original message you wrote maybe this isn’t helpful, but could you specific what translation the NW is?

If by NW you mean the New World translation, as was the case in the other threads where this message has been found, well, it’s not surprising that a version of the Bible fabricated and then published by the Watchtower would mistranslate or depart from the norms of translating when it came to areas of the Bible which they found didn’t agree with their organisation.

The translators working for the Watchtower do so anonymously, which shouldn’t surprise us (I wouldn’t lend my name to such questionable work.) Quoting a mystery man or mystery men for our understanding of Hebrews isn’t the most helpful idea.

From Bible hub I read 29 definitions and none of them read God is your throne, some used things like “God is your kingdom” or “You are God” but the vast majority use the phase “Thy throne, O God, is forever.” Almost all of them. So the Father speaking to or about Jesus calls Him God.

If readers from either the Christian camp or the Watchtower organisation can’t understand Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, the preponderance of translations done by reputable men and women who can read those languages should cause them to side with the translation that reads “Thy throne, O God...” Anything else is fridge scholarship at best or a dastardly con job at worst.



“God” in this section can be in reference to God the Father, Jesus never blushed at calling the Father His God (John 20:17,) in the same way that the scripture never blushes at alluding to God as the Holy Spirit (Acts 5,) God as Father and God as the Son.

It’s much like how the Bible attributes things like the creation event to both God the Father (Isaiah 44:24) and God the Son (Colossians 1.) Even insisting that God the Father alone did these creative acts, yet Jesus is attributed the glory of having preformed the action later, ruling out the possibility that God the Father was alone.

Still, that’s going way beyond what you’re asking for. :)

The structure of Hebrews 1 seems very clear, the writer explains these are things with regards to the angels, then he continues on into writing how much better things are regarding the Son. It’s a section glorifying the Son.

God bless and protect you too, my friend

Hi there Cormack,

Notwithstanding how other translations render the phrase, they are wrong to translate it other than "God is your throne" or similar because the bible, in numerous places, clearly teaches that Jehovah is the seat and source of Christs authority, kingly or otherwise. God is his throne or seat/source of his authority.

All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples.”—MATTHEW 28:18, 19.

Context is King, and the the context supports and confirms the NW translations rendering.

My post stands, "God is your throne" is the correct translation according to the "King" context, not other translators, supposedly scholarly or otherwise..

I'll ignore all the attacks by the way and put them down to ignorance.

Stay safe and well,
LB
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Hey @LightBearer!

Notwithstanding how other translations render the phrase,

Well, I’m not sure we can remain honest to the material and reply never mind those other translations. They’re a very serious objection. If I reproduce nearly 30 Bible translations online, and they’re all geared towards my understanding of the verse, and you return with a single translation of the verse that favours your reading, that’s not good enough. Right?

If you and I aren’t native speakers or we aren’t confident interpreters in terms of Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we’d do well to respect and pay attention to the larger preponderance of Bible translation committees who can understand the languages. Now you’re insisting my understanding of the verse is wrong not because of the language used or the immediate context involved in Hebrews 1, rather you believe I’m mistaken because.....

in numerous places, clearly teaches that Jehovah is the seat and source of Christs authority, kingly or otherwise. God is his throne or seat/source of his authority.

Afterwards you quoted Matthew 28:18-19. That’s enlisting one section of scripture to do the heavy lifting on another portion of scripture which doesn’t appear to read the way you’d prefer. “Context is king,” but adventuring off into Matthew to help protect a misreading of Hebrews isn’t King context, it’s avoiding the strong principles for interpretation in favour of the weak principles.

Immediate context bests wider context, deriving context from the same author or the exact same book beats going off into the gospels because Hebrews doesn’t support your reading of the material. Respecting context means you and I should appreciate and admire the structure of Hebrews chapter one, where first angels are mentioned in one sense, and after the Son is mentioned in a greater sense.

Switching up the structure so that first the angels are mentioned, then God the Father is glorified as the throne and source of Christ’s authority (instead of the usual glorifying of the Son) is to betray the immediate context and spoil the obvious flow of the chapter. Switching up the structure midway through to distort the context and then moving on to Matthew isn’t proper interpretation in action.

So far as the “king” objection from the book of Psalms goes that’s not an incredibly strong argument. @Dale shared a reasonable reply already, still I’ll help out too. The scripture referencing God or Solomon or King David wouldn’t alter how the author of Hebrews wanted to use the phrase, that’s something we see throughout scripture. In the same way that the Old Testament law of not yoking together certain animals couldn’t be used to attempt to upend Paul’s use of the language in his teaching on marital advice.

I'll ignore all the attacks by the way and put them down to ignorance.

That’s very good of you. :) While I will ignore your sensitive soul and put it down to the fact that you’re using an outdated source like the NW, I too would be on the defensive if I was bogged down by such an awful piece of work as the New World translation.

Although, ignoring my earlier question, you haven’t specified what the “NW” actually is. Would you care to share the full title of your incredible source material?

Of course if you’re an honest to goodness member of the Watchtower, and you’re seriously trying to use a copy of the New World translation to argue for beliefs already promoted by the publishers of the New World translation, you can just imagine the fun I’d have with that.

If that were the case none of these arguments from principles of interpretation, immediate context, plain scripture or God Himself could convince you otherwise (not if you’re a proper witness,) sure they’re fun debate tactics and means of understanding Gods word, but outside of the Watchtowers authority to interpret the Bible for you and settle matters you couldn’t come to any other conclusions.

There’s no testing words against the scripture and being a good Berean because without the Watchtower and it’s publications you would be “in darkness,” according to the organisation anyway. The Bible cannot do the things for which God intended it, witnesses can’t be good Bereans because the Watchtower define for you who Bereans are in the first place.

Meaning the entire pretence of having an independent methodology based on the Bible is one big con job to help induct the unwary into the witnesses one true authority, their organisation.

The same organisation that’s “neither inspired nor infallible,” according to their website. Just imagine the pickle people can get themselves into, quoting scholars in their publications (or their messages online) while denouncing “worldly scholarship,” wanting to teach and convert via the Bible just so the new witness can abandon its teaching authority in favour of a group of men’s uninspired interpretation. Still you might not be a witness in the first place.

I haven’t assumed anything concrete to do with your beliefs, hence my unanswered question about your use of the mysterious “NW” translation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Hey @LightBearer!



Well, I’m not sure we can remain honest to the material and reply never mind those other translations. They’re a very serious objection. If I reproduce nearly 30 Bible translations online, and they’re all geared towards my understanding of the verse, and you return with a single translation of the verse that favours your reading, that’s not good enough. Right?

If you and I aren’t native speakers or we aren’t confident interpreters in terms of Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we’d do well to respect and pay attention to the larger preponderance of Bible translation committees who can understand the languages. Now you’re insisting my understanding of the verse is wrong not because of the language used or the immediate context involved in Hebrews 1, rather you believe I’m mistaken because.....



Afterwards you quoted Matthew 28:18-19. That’s enlisting one section of scripture to do the heavy lifting on another portion of scripture which doesn’t appear to read the way you’d prefer. “Context is king,” but adventuring off into Matthew to help protect a misreading of Hebrews isn’t King context, it’s avoiding the strong principles for interpretation in favour of the weak principles.

Immediate context bests wider context, deriving context from the same author or the exact same book beats going off into the gospels because Hebrews doesn’t support your reading of the material. Respecting context means you and I should appreciate and admire the structure of Hebrews chapter one, where first angels are mentioned in one sense, and after the Son is mentioned in a greater sense.

Switching up the structure so that first the angels are mentioned, then God the Father is glorified as the throne and source of Christ’s authority (instead of the usual glorifying of the Son) is to betray the immediate context and spoil the obvious flow of the chapter. Switching up the structure midway through to distort the context and then moving on to Matthew isn’t proper interpretation in action.

So far as the “king” objection from the book of Psalms goes that’s not an incredibly strong argument. @Dale shared a reasonable reply already, still I’ll help out too. The scripture referencing God or Solomon or King David wouldn’t alter how the author of Hebrews wanted to use the phrase, that’s something we see throughout scripture. In the same way that the Old Testament law of not yoking together certain animals couldn’t be used to attempt to upend Paul’s use of the language in his teaching on marital advice.



That’s very good of you. :) While I will ignore your sensitive soul and put it down to the fact that you’re using an outdated source like the NW, I too would be on the defensive if I was bogged down by such an awful piece of work as the New World translation.

Although, ignoring my earlier question, you haven’t specified what the “NW” actually is. Would you care to share the full title of your incredible source material?

Of course if you’re an honest to goodness member of the Watchtower, and you’re seriously trying to use a copy of the New World translation to argue for beliefs already promoted by the publishers of the New World translation, you can just imagine the fun I’d have with that.

If that were the case none of these arguments from principles of interpretation, immediate context, plain scripture or God Himself could convince you otherwise (not if you’re a proper witness,) sure they’re fun debate tactics and means of understanding Gods word, but outside of the Watchtowers authority to interpret the Bible for you and settle matters you couldn’t come to any other conclusions.

There’s no testing words against the scripture and being a good Berean because without the Watchtower and it’s publications you would be “in darkness,” according to the organisation anyway. The Bible cannot do the things for which God intended it, witnesses can’t be good Bereans because the Watchtower define for you who Bereans are in the first place.

Meaning the entire pretence of having an independent methodology based on the Bible is one big con job to help induct the unwary into the witnesses one true authority, their organisation.

The same organisation that’s “neither inspired nor infallible,” according to their website. Just imagine the pickle people can get themselves into, quoting scholars in their publications (or their messages online) while denouncing “worldly scholarship,” wanting to teach and convert via the Bible just so the new witness can abandon its teaching authority in favour of a group of men’s uninspired interpretation. Still you might not be a witness in the first place.

I haven’t assumed anything concrete to do with your beliefs, hence my unanswered question about your use of the mysterious “NW” translation.


Good morning to you Cormack,

Context is King.

As already mentioned, Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7. This psalm was originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God, of course not, and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God.

Now please note the immediate context. Many, many translations state this or similar in the very next verse.

(NWT) Hebrews 1:9 reads, You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”

(ASV) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

(BBE) You have been a lover of righteousness and a hater of evil; and so God, your God, has put the oil of joy on your head more than on the heads of those who are with you.

And many, many more.

This verse makes it very clear, that the person being addressed in the previous verse (Heb 1:8) is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by his God.

This guy understands the context perfectly. Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that אלוהים [‘Elo·himʹ, “God”] in the original can be addressed to the king. . .Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”

Thus, "God is your throne" or the source of your Kingship/Kingdom or Royal authority is the only correct translation, not only according to the immediate context, but is in perfect harmony with the weight of scripture also. After all, who anoints Jesus the Son of Man as King.

Dan 7:13,14 “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man (Jesus) was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, (Jehovah, his God and father) and they brought him up close before that One. And to him (The son of man, Jesus) there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, (By Jehovah his God and father) that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

And thus, Heb 1:8 correctly reads in the NWT: "God is your throne". Jehovah, Jesus' God and father, is the seat/source of Jesus his son's royal authority, kingship and kingdom.

Brackets mine.

Stay safe and well.
LB
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You’re repeating yourself, @LightBearer. You’re ignoring my message too.

Not every reply is a response,
you’re replying to me but not responding to anything I’ve written in my previous message. If you continue to ignore my messages I’ll have no choice but to consider you a fruitless conversation partner.

So for the third and final time, what translation are you quoting from when you write that the “NW” teaches “God is thy throne”?

Are you indeed quoting from the widely discredited Watchtower translation titled the New World translation?

Are you arguing from a book published by the Watchtower in order to argue for beliefs already promoted by the Watchtower?

This psalm was originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.

Both myself and @Dale have addressed this point in our previous replies, you failed to respond to the content of either message. I’ll have to quote myself again...

So far as the “king” objection from the book of Psalms goes that’s not an incredibly strong argument. @Dale shared a reasonable reply already, still I’ll help out too. The scripture referencing God or Solomon or King David wouldn’t alter how the author of Hebrews wanted to use the phrase, that’s something we see throughout scripture. In the same way that the Old Testament law of not yoking together certain animals couldn’t be used to attempt to upend Paul’s use of the language in his teaching on marital advice.

Afterwards you move on to the Hebrews 1:9 objection (again)...

This verse makes it very clear, that the person being addressed in the previous verse (Heb 1:8) is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by his God.

Again you’re repeating yourself and ignoring the fact that this argument has already been responded to and refuted...

“God” in this section can be in reference to God the Father, Jesus never blushed at calling the Father His God (John 20:17,) in the same way that the scripture never blushes at alluding to God as the Holy Spirit (Acts 5,) God as Father and God as the Son.

It’s much like how the Bible attributes things like the creation event to both God the Father (Isaiah 44:24) and God the Son (Colossians 1.) Even insisting that God the Father alone did these creative acts, yet Jesus is attributed the glory of having preformed the action later, ruling out the possibility that God the Father was alone.

Your methodology isn’t very consistent, @LightBearer.

Many, many translations state this or similar in the very next verse.

And many, many more.

Since the objection using Hebrews 1:9 has already been answered this is my new question. Why would many many translations saying one thing impact your thinking one way or the other when you ignore the many many translations that say you’re wrong about Hebrews 1:8?

Nobody needs to read many many translations on the subject of Hebrews 1:9 because nobody is contesting the words or word order of Hebrews 1:9.

Adding three different translations when nobody has challenged the wording or translation of Hebrews 1:9 is just padding out your reply.

Once more, why would many many translations impact your reasons in one scenario but not another?

When the proper rendering of Hebrews 1:8 was being contested and I pointed you towards nearly 30 translations that disagreed with your 1 (mystery) translation, you dismissed that altogether...

Notwithstanding how other translations render the phrase,

Your quote from scholar B. F. Westcott was fine when you used it in your earlier message, adding it a second time is just more padding.

People have already responded to your points so there’s no need other than filling up a not so interested reply.

Thus, "God is your throne" or the source of your Kingship/Kingdom or Royal authority is the only correct translation, not only according to the immediate context

I’ll just repost this until you’re ready to engage...

Afterwards you quoted Matthew 28:18-19. That’s enlisting one section of scripture to do the heavy lifting on another portion of scripture which doesn’t appear to read the way you’d prefer. “Context is king,” but adventuring off into Matthew to help protect a misreading of Hebrews isn’t King context, it’s avoiding the strong principles for interpretation in favour of the weak principles.

Immediate context bests wider context, deriving context from the same author or the exact same book beats going off into the gospels because Hebrews doesn’t support your reading of the material. Respecting context means you and I should appreciate and admire the structure of Hebrews chapter one, where first angels are mentioned in one sense, and after the Son is mentioned in a greater sense.

Switching up the structure so that first the angels are mentioned, then God the Father is glorified as the throne and source of Christ’s authority (instead of the usual glorifying of the Son) is to betray the immediate context and spoil the obvious flow of the chapter. Switching up the structure midway through to distort the context and then moving on to Matthew isn’t proper interpretation in action.

And thus, Heb 1:8 correctly reads

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

:tearsofjoy: Lastly you’ve ignored this...

Well, I’m not sure we can remain honest to the material and reply never mind those other translations. They’re a very serious objection. If I reproduce nearly 30 Bible translations online, and they’re all geared towards my understanding of the verse, and you return with a single translation of the verse that favours your reading, that’s not good enough. Right?

If you and I aren’t native speakers or we aren’t confident interpreters in terms of Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we’d do well to respect and pay attention to the larger preponderance of Bible translation committees who can understand the languages. Now you’re insisting my understanding of the verse is wrong not because of the language used or the immediate context involved in Hebrews 1, rather you believe I’m mistaken because.....

That’s very good of you. :) While I will ignore your sensitive soul and put it down to the fact that you’re using an outdated source like the NW, I too would be on the defensive if I was bogged down by such an awful piece of work as the New World translation.

Although, ignoring my earlier question, you haven’t specified what the “NW” actually is. Would you care to share the full title of your incredible source material?

Of course if you’re an honest to goodness member of the Watchtower, and you’re seriously trying to use a copy of the New World translation to argue for beliefs already promoted by the publishers of the New World translation, you can just imagine the fun I’d have with that.

If that were the case none of these arguments from principles of interpretation, immediate context, plain scripture or God Himself could convince you otherwise (not if you’re a proper witness,) sure they’re fun debate tactics and means of understanding Gods word, but outside of the Watchtowers authority to interpret the Bible for you and settle matters you couldn’t come to any other conclusions.

There’s no testing words against the scripture and being a good Berean because without the Watchtower and it’s publications you would be “in darkness,” according to the organisation anyway. The Bible cannot do the things for which God intended it, witnesses can’t be good Bereans because the Watchtower define for you who Bereans are in the first place.

Meaning the entire pretence of having an independent methodology based on the Bible is one big con job to help induct the unwary into the witnesses one true authority, their organisation.

The same organisation that’s “neither inspired nor infallible,” according to their website. Just imagine the pickle people can get themselves into, quoting scholars in their publications (or their messages online) while denouncing “worldly scholarship,” wanting to teach and convert via the Bible just so the new witness can abandon its teaching authority in favour of a group of men’s uninspired interpretation. Still you might not be a witness in the first place.

I haven’t assumed anything concrete to do with your beliefs, hence my unanswered question about your use of the mysterious “NW” translation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dale
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
You’re repeating yourself, @LightBearer. You’re ignoring my message too.

Not every reply is a response,
you’re replying to me but not responding to anything I’ve written in my previous message. If you continue to ignore my messages I’ll have no choice but to consider you a fruitless conversation partner.

So for the third and final time, what translation are you quoting from when you write that the “NW” teaches “God is thy throne”?

Are you indeed quoting from the widely discredited Watchtower translation titled the New World translation?

Are you arguing from a book published by the Watchtower in order to argue for beliefs already promoted by the Watchtower?



Both myself and @Dale have addressed this point in our previous replies, you failed to respond to the content of either message. I’ll have to quote myself again...



Afterwards you move on to the Hebrews 1:9 objection (again)...



Again you’re repeating yourself and ignoring the fact that this argument has already been responded to and refuted...



Your methodology isn’t very consistent, @LightBearer.





Since the objection using Hebrews 1:9 has already been answered this is my new question. Why would many many translations saying one thing impact your thinking one way or the other when you ignore the many many translations that say you’re wrong about Hebrews 1:8?

Nobody needs to read many many translations on the subject of Hebrews 1:9 because nobody is contesting the words or word order of Hebrews 1:9.

Adding three different translations when nobody has challenged the wording or translation of Hebrews 1:9 is just padding out your reply.

Once more, why would many many translations impact your reasons in one scenario but not another?

When the proper rendering of Hebrews 1:8 was being contested and I pointed you towards nearly 30 translations that disagreed with your 1 (mystery) translation, you dismissed that altogether...



Your quote from scholar B. F. Westcott was fine when you used it in your earlier message, adding it a second time is just more padding.

People have already responded to your points so there’s no need other than filling up a not so interested reply.



I’ll just repost this until you’re ready to engage...





But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

:tearsofjoy: Lastly you’ve ignored this...

I'll just leave the simple and harmonious truth of what the bible context teaches speak for itself. :)

Thanks anyway.

Take care,
LB
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0