LOL! Did you get that from Russellites and the NWT?
I want you to
focus. This thread is about the characteristics of false teachers. Nothing more. This is not a debate on the heresies of the Jehovah's Witness cult.
The
fact of scripture is that the Hebrew word,
ruah, used in Genesis 1:2 means "
wind," "
breath," or "
spirit," and it is used throughout the Tanakh to mean the spirit of God; never the "
force" of God. Replacing the word "spirit" with force in every mention of the word
ruah radically changes the meaning of scripture. The translators of the NWT did not translate
ruah uniformly, consistently. This is demonstrably provable by examining other examples of
ruah in the NWT.
Job 33:4 NWT
God’s own spirit made me, and the Almighty’s own breath brought me to life.
Ezekiel 11:24 NWT
A spirit then lifted me up—through a vision by the spirit of God — and brought me to the exiled people in Chaldea. Then the vision that I had seen left me.
There are more than a dozen inconsistencies like those two in the OT.
Furthermore, the word "
holy," literally means "
separate," or "
separated." That is the
denotative meaning of the word.
Connotatively speaking, the word carries with it the definition or meaning of something separated specifically for sacred purpose. Vessels in the tabernacle that are designated as "
holy" are, therefore, vessels that are separated for sacred purpose. A "
holy" nation is, likewise, a nation that has been separated for sacred purpose. The Holy Spirit is the Separate and Sacred Spirit of God. As to the "
living being" aspect of the Holy Spirit, scripture tells us the Spirit has thoughts of its own, emotions of its own, a will of its own, and actions of its own. It has a mind, and it knows the mind of others. I will happily go through the scriptures that prove these things. Logically, you are going to run into huge conflicts when asked how something that is not living can bestow life, and how something that is not a being can bestow being. All the many verses that state the Spirit gives life will necessarily mean life comes from non-life
. No logical ground on your part will be gained by appealing to God as the source, the agent of the non-living Spirit as a being.
The NWT is the altered translation that is to be avoided.
Lastly, I'm going to try to
help you, if you'll receive it. Many here have turned the discussion on you and made it about you. You brought it upon yourself, but the forum's rules do speak to the occasion. Russell was a false teacher, and he was recognized as such from the beginning of his departure from the Church, and...... when you post JW positions into the thread you then become a false teacher.
This op is about the characteristics of false teachers. It was not necessary for you to introduce your positions the way you have and
now you have become an object lesson proving the op correct (repeatedly! 
). I am, therefore, going to encourage you to take a moment and re-collect your thoughts, reconsider your approach, and take a different tack with your posts because making yourself the object of this discussion is going to lead to failure. Your defensiveness will also only increase. You'll spend the entire thread on the defensive with multiple sources presenting multiple critiques for you to field. I am, therefore, going to also ask my non-JW peers, to make a conscious effort not to keep the posts about the posts (and not the poster) and attend to the topic of the op: the characteristics of false teachers. I do not need to mention any poster to prove the NWT a flawed translation and..... thereby prove the mention of "
altered translations" a (self-indicting) red herring that meets the standard of the fourth characteristic of false teachers cited in this op. And since JWism is built on the teachings of a man who qualifies for every single one of the characteristics listed in the op, it's probably best not to make the thread about JWism if you expect to prove the veracity of the JW pov. Don't be a false teacher here. Do not rely on the false teacher, Charles Taze Russell here, either.
We can discuss the characteristics of false teachers without mentioning you (or Russell), but if you choose to take that course then be prepared.
You might consider a simple affirmation of the op's specifics. Are the characteristics cited correct and valid? There is no sense in anyone attempting to apply incorrect measures or discussing supposed metrics that have no validity. Are false teachers men-pleasers? Do false teachers disparage faithful messengers of Christ (ad hominem)? Do false teachers promote their own inventions? Do they neglect, misuse, and/or abuse God's word? Are they sophists? These are fairly simple questions, the answers to which should easily be observed with a readily offered, "
Amen!"
before furthering the discussion. Establish common ground.
Think about it.
.
