Against a Jehovah's Witness
Bible scholar of a horrible mistranslation of the Scriptures (New World Translation) and a the heretical theology of the heresiarchs Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Franklin Rutherford.
These two thought they understood more than GOD Himself and had to declare the Church in apostasy so early that the Apostles had to be false teachers for their ideas to work.
Yet you use the Biblical Canon that was Canonized by what you call the Apostate Chruch.
They claim to be restores, but use the linquistical hodgepodge of Jehovah as GOD's Divine Name instead of YAHWEH and they didn't correct Jesus to Yeshua.
When anything points to the Trinity, you are taught to interpret the Bible in ways that break your own rules of interpretation to avoid the reality that the Trinity was present from the very beginning of the Old Testament.
Kevin Dewayne Hughes
From my experience studying various Bible translations and religious doctrines, I’ve found the New World Translation (NWT) used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to be quite controversial among scholars. Unlike more traditional translations that use "Yahweh" for God's name, the NWT opts for "Jehovah," which many argue is a linguistic compromise rather than an accurate reflection of the original Hebrew. The movement's founders, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Franklin Rutherford, established beliefs that diverged significantly from mainstream Christianity, especially regarding the nature of Jesus Christ and the concept of the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the traditional Trinitarian doctrine, which can be confusing because numerous Old Testament references subtly support the understanding of God in a triune form. In contrast, Witnesses interpret these references with unique hermeneutical rules that often appear to contradict their own guidelines. In discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I noticed that they firmly hold that their teachings restore original Christian beliefs, yet they rely heavily on the Biblical canon that other Christian denominations regard as authoritative, even if they label those churches as apostate. This creates an interesting tension in their theology. Additionally, I have noticed teachings from Jehovah's Witnesses avoid clear acknowledgment of Jesus' original Hebrew name, "Yeshua," which could offer deeper insight into his role from a historical and cultural standpoint. Instead, linguistic choices can sometimes obscure rather than clarify scriptural meanings. For anyone investigating or debating Jehovah’s Witnesses' claims, it’s essential to consider these theological and translational nuances. Understanding these differences helps clarify why there is significant disagreement between Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Christian groups regarding scriptural interpretation and doctrine. This approach has enhanced my trust in exploring more diverse theological perspectives and questioning translations and interpretations to gain a fuller picture of Biblical texts.