Dr. James White on the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Here is a wonderful lecture by apologist Dr. James R. White on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This teaching is packed with need-to-know info on this dangerous group. I’m sure you will find it quite helpful. I suggest that you pay special attention to the information that Dr. White relays on the New World Translation; the Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Bible. It is quite eye-opening.


4 thoughts on “Dr. James White on the Jehovah’s Witnesses

  1. It is interesting how many find the JW translation of the bible not to their liking .
    To set matters straight, the major doctrines taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses were already in place long before the New World Translation of the Bible came into existence. Pastor Russell put the fires out in Hell in the 1800s.
    It was from the KJV that JWs found out that “the soul dies”, there is no “Trinity” teaching in the scriptures and “purgatory” isn’t even alluded to in scripture.
    The only danger JWs present are to the Pagan teachings that have been incorporated into the “Christian church” and have been made part of it’s liturgy. ( ie. Catholic church in Central and South America )
    Any encyclopedia will tell you that the celebrations of Halloween, Christmas, and Easter were highlights of pagan nations long before our Lord came onto the scene. ( They changed the name and kept on celebrating un-christian dogma )
    Close your eyes to history and you close your eyes to truth.

    • Thank you for your comments. I normally would not allow comments from someone who the orthodox faith deems a “cult” member, but I chose to make an exception in this case. Now, not wanting to get into a long debate with you, because I have neither the time nor the desire to argue via the web, I will respond to both of your comments that you posted. Furthermore, I will filter all further comments from posting because I feel that I have the responsibility to respond to objections made on my blog…and again, I simply do not have the time to carry on a long drawn out discussion via the internet. Now, to the response.

      You stated; “It is interesting how many find the JW translation of the bible not to their liking .”

      Response: Yes, it is not to my liking because it is not a faithful witness to the original manuscripts or intent of the authors. It has been well documented that the NWT mistranslates key passages in relation to the deity of Christ, the person-hood of the Holy Spirit, and the New Testament name of the Father. For the sake of time and space, I will cite only a few examples.

      Starting with Christ: The NWT removes the eternality of Christ in key passages which prove his deity, and also attempt to take clear references to the deity of Jesus and twist them.

      Ex. 1: I already mentioned Col. 1:16, where the word “panta” in the Greek, which means “all” is re-translated in the NWT as “all [other]” – hence, it purposely attempted to make Jesus a temporal creature, rather than the eternal creator. Moreover, I noted out of the Kingdom Interlinear that “panta” means “all things” – rather than “all other things.” To dispute this is to dispute your own interlinear translation.

      Ex. 2: The Granville Sharp Rule is ignored in 2 Peter 2:1 and Titus 2:13 in the NWT and as a result, the NWT attempts to make the passage applicable to both the Father and the Son. However, this is against basic rules of Greek grammar, as the Granville Sharp rule notes. Both verses are speaking about the “great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” while the NWT adds the definite article “the” before Savior to split up the reference (great God and “the” savior). Again, this is against the rules of Greek grammar. http://vintage.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html

      Ex. 3: In John 1:1, the indefinite article is added to clause 1:1c, which totally ignores Colwell’s rule when translating a predicate nominative. The NWT also ignores what many scholars see as the qualitative aspect of 1:1c as well, along with the fact that 1:1c is an anathrous noun. Moreover, John, in 1:1a uses the timeless word “en” in the verse, which signifies that the Logos is eternal, rather then using “egeneto” as he uses in 1:14 to speak about the temporal aspect of the Logos becoming “flesh” (sarx). Hence, 1:1a is known as the eternal “en” because it is non-temporal in nature. This alone disqualifies the NWT rendering of 1:1c. http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

      Ex. 4: The NWT inserts the name Jehovah into the text 236 times with no warrant, when the word Theos is simply being used, in most instances. Point-in-fact, the name Jehovah is of German decent and not of Hebrew or Greek decent, with the proper name of God being Yahweh. Anyway, Theos equals God, not Jehovah and this is a purely arbitrary and non-texual maneuver.

      Next you mentioned that major doctrines were already in place, yet, you failed to mention that these doctrines were deemed as heretical by the orthodox church.

      You went on to mention the KJV and for the life of me, I cannot figure out the connection and this seems like a Red Herring. I could care less what the KJV states (all though, you are simply begging the question to assert that it supports all that you claimed). Did I appeal to the KJV, or, the Greek? What do the Greek manuscripts say, is the question!

      Moving on, you mention Halloween, Christmas and Easter, and to this, I say that I certainly do not see these as Holy days, and for those who do, I would correct them. So, you have simply knocked down a straw-man with this comment.

      Finally, you stated; “Close your eyes to history and you close your eyes to truth.” Yes, I could not agree more, and this was the same segment of history that declared Arianism as heretical in A.D. 325 – and you are an Arian. I find it odd that you cite some of history on this subject, but, not all of it.

      Finally, I will note in closing that you did not attempt to deal with any of the arguments that I set forth in my original post. You did not deal with the fact that YOUR Greek translation proclaims that Jesus “created all things” in Col. 1:16. You did not deal with Hebrews 1:3 and the fact that the Greek states that Jesus is the “exact representation of the essence” of the Father – which would include His power and eternality. You did not deal with the fact that John 1:18 calls Jesus the “only unique God” and is referent to the Old Testament sightings of Yahweh on the OT http://vintage.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html. I do hope you reflect on this, to the glory of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Good day…

  2. Thank you for your reply ( most don’t bother ).
    I agree with your statement about arguing. I strongly believe John 10:27,28. It is all in His hands.
    A healthy interchange of ideas is more to my liking. I am looking forward to exploring your information in the upcoming weeks.
    With regard to the KJV or any other translation/version, our doctrines were almost completely formulated before our own Bible was translated.

    My best to you.

    • And thank you. In regards to your comments on the KJV, I now see your point and I agree. Only, please note, I would say the the WTB&TS simply misread these texts with no solid form of exegesis. Again, thank you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s