Mike. I think you are on dangerous ground here.
I don't feel from what you are saying that you have actually done your homework.
Though everyone is entitled to think what they want about how much homework I have done, I would like to point out that I spent over two years in personal study with the Jehovah's Witnesses as well as attend meetings throughout that time period. In addition, I have interacted with countless JW's on the internet since that time. However, I would ask that the reader look at the work that i've produced in relation to JW's to see if it comes from someone who has done his homework.
I think you are wholly misleading the church here. Because you are talking to the Christian Church at large.
I don't know if you are bowing down to a bit of Critisism or if you are Liberal !!
Is it really misleading to give credit where credit is due? Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with my videos and blogs know that I am extremely critical of the beliefs and practices of JW's. So what is ServiceProcess really speaking of here?
But either way, you are at odds with the Christian Church with some of your views.
This is a very bold accusation my friend. If this statement isn't backed up, then I really hope you will retract it.
The Witnesses emphasize the name Jehovah as God's name when it isn't. No one knows Gods name.
This is an interesting claim. But it doesn't answer any questions. Since we don't know with one hundred percent certainty how the Hebrews pronounced the Tetragrammaton, then what is ServiceProcess suggesting we put in place of it where it appears over six thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Is he actually suggesting that "LORD" is a proper rendering? What about other Hebrew names? If we weren't sure about how some other Hebrew names were produced, would it justify substituting a title in its place? Or would it be more proper to transliterate it the best that one can? What is interesting here is that there are countless protestant scholars who, for centuries, had no problem in using "Jehovah" as the English transliteration of the divine name. Read Calvin's institutes. Its all over the place. Read Warfield's work on the Trinity; all over the place. Obviously, it is controversial as to what is the most proper way to retain the Tetragrammaton in our translations. In my opinion, using the English equivalents "YHWH" would be the best, as it leaves the reader to decide for himself how to pronounce it. But one thing is for sure: "LORD" is not in any way, a proper way to translate or pronounce the Tetragrammaton at all. And if I remember correctly, i've even heard James White echo this very view.
They have restored it in the new testament alright; and changed the meanings of many of the passages in the process; they have also put the name in the new testament where it wasn't before. Over 270 times.
Objective : To take the focus away from Jesus;
Instigated by : Satan
Is that what you think we Christians should do ?
You really really need to retract on this one my friend.
Where ServiceProcess gets the idea that I am endorsing the New World Translation in inserting the Divine Name in the Christian Scriptures is beyond me. In fact, if my fellow brother here had taken a few seconds to look, he would have noticed that I have made several videos criticizing the NWT for doing this very thing! Obviously, we all can come up with our reasons for why the NWT is wrong and what their motive for this practice is, but at this point it is irrelevant since I never addressed this aspect in the first place.
Jehovah's Kingdom. Mike, Jesus talked more about Hell actually, should we talk alot about that ?
Of course we should talk a lot about hell as well as all the other things that Jesus taught. So is my brother suggesting that I shouldn't emphasize God's Kingdom when I proclaim the gospel? And if my memory serves correctly, what is the first thing Jesus preached? Hell, or God's Kingdom?
However, let me be clear in stating that I don't believe the JW's are correct in their understanding of the Kingdom of God, as it is heavily linked to 1914, which I obviously reject. Thus, I would explain to a JW something along these lines; "You are correct in that you are emphasizing God's Kingdom in your preaching work, but let me show you where I think you are off on some of its details." Am I doing something wrong here?
it might be printed on there, it doesn't mean they talk alot about it. They Don't.
Jesus's focus was on love for God and Man.
On the contrary, JW's do talk a lot about hell. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a JW at my door where we didn't discuss hell. Also, there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy in what ServiceProcess said here and what he said a sentence or two previous. "Jesus talked more about hell actually" vs. "Jesus' focus was on love for God and man." So which is it?
The JW's do focus on this in their shunning and theocratic warfare (lying) practices.
Yep, good advice for the Christian Church at large.
Where in the Scriptures is there a precedence for rebuking a fellow Christian using sarcasm?
NWT Interlinear. Mike. Seriously. The JW bible is not the Christian Bible, please don't recommend it to us Christians. (No wonder all the JW's enjoyed this presentation).
I stand by my claim; the Kingdom Interlinear is a helpful resource to have. In fact, I can't tell you how many ex-JW's came to saving faith in Jesus Christ by reading...you guessed it, the Kingdom Interlinear! Yes, the resource contains the NWT on the right margin, but that is one thing that makes this resource so valuable! Any student of the Bible can compare the literal Greek with the NWT or any translation of their choosing. Furthermore, I don't think I am alone in suggesting that the KIT may very well be the most valuable resource one can have in witnessing to JW's.
Listen. The JW Bible says there are 2 Gods. Jesus is A God, and Jehovah is a God.
That is absolutely not Christianity ... its .... well ... its.... Pagan.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT US REAL CHRISTIANS TO BELIEVE.?
seriously. Don't bow down to pressure from me or them, but do do your homework Mark.
Notice that, in my video, I wasn't commending the NWT, but the KIT. I would never recommend the NWT for Christians to read; not necessarily because I believe it is a bad translation, but because it was not done by a trained committee who are scholars in the original languages. In fact, I wouldn't recommend any Bible that was not done in this regard!
JW Bible Dictionary ! Insight on the Scriptures!.
In your next video could you please provide positive points on Voodoo !!
You are playing with fire my friend.
Thayer's Greek lexicon is a very popular and timely resource that has been used by evangelicals for a very long time. Personally, I have found this to be a very valuable lexicon that I think every Christian should have on their bookshelf. Do I endorse everything that Thayer would say in his lexicon? Of course not. Is Thayer a Christian? No, unless you consider Unitarians to be Christians. And what about other lexicons and Bible dictionaries? BDAG? HALOT? Are these Greek and Hebrew lexicons produced by evangelical protestants? If not, then should we not be telling practically all seminaries to quit admonishing their students to use these resources?
This is something that we need to be careful of; throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even the most rank heretic is capable of doing good research, even though we may not always accept their conclusions. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this. Dr. Ehrman is a brilliant scholar who has done some very good research. But obviously, I don't agree with all of Ehrman's conclusions. The same goes with the Insight books. Is there good research in some Watchtower publications? Of course! Do I agree with all of the conclusions? Of course not! Like with any book I read, I do so with discernment.
The bible doesn't say to commend the false prophet does it.
Christianity isn't happy with falsety within you know.
The JW denies Jesus Christ as the only name given by which we must be saved.
There is no salvation in it.
I fully agree that there is no salvation in the WT system, for the reason you mention here as well as their denial of justification apart from works (Romans 4:5). But again, is it wrong to look at a publication produced by an unbeliever and say, "wow, this is some really good research!" I simply don't see what's wrong with that.
In conclusion, I want to thank ServiceProcess for seeking to correct me on these matters, though I can't find myself agreeing with much of what he said. But I will say that I will continue to prayerfully consider these issues as I approach them in the future in hopes that I bring glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.