Skip to main content

The Dangers of Adding to the Bible: Guest Post by Jacob Lambert

Image
By



Today, when we come across Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons we find that they are led by a group of people who hold unquestioned authority. Members of this group know this, some even believe it themselves.

This puts them in a powerful position, even to the point where they can create their own Bible. Two examples are the Joseph Smith Translation of the Mormons and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They can add words into their own Bible, words that are not in other, respectable, translations.

For example, in the Greek, Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus created all things:

‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.’ Col.1:15,16, ESV

Jehovah’s Witnesses say that this runs counter to their understanding that Jesus is God’s first created being, so they admit they add the word ‘other’ to the Bible:

‘...because by means of him all other things were created…’ v.16, NWT

Who do we Believe?

So, my question would be, who do we believe, the Watch Tower, or the original Greek? The Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to say that they believe the Watch Tower. They are saying they believe the Governing Body, those men with power, over the original Bible language. They say this because they believe that the Governing Body are God’s own channel of truth, therefore they are fed directly by God through the Governing Body.

My argument is this, why did Jehovah direct the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society to add the word ‘other’ but did not direct Paul, the author of the letter, to write ‘other’ in Colossians. We know God does not change his mind (Malachi 3: 6-12) How does a Jehovah’s Witness explain this addition to God’s Word?


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more