Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses

[KingdomRose]

Why did JW's change John 1:1 from was God to was a God?

Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:

 

[KingdomRose]

The Trinity is taught all the way through the entire Holy Bible.

This is confirmed as fact in the original languages....something that you, as a witness, are unfamiliar with...

It is not. It is even clearer that it is not taught in the Bible anywhere, when you read it in the original languages, which you obviously can't do.

 

[KingdomRose]

Answering Apple's post #200: Interesting perceptions by you, Apple. Quite unique I'd say. And they don't hold water.

 

[Bright Raven]

Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:

Thank you for your response. However, I believe the scriptures attest Jesus to be one with/coequal with the Father. I believe that scripture confirms this fact,

Philippians 2:6 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

John 5:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 10:30 New King James Version (NKJV)

30 I and My Father are one.”

1 John 5:7 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)


We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

 

[Bright Raven]

The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

You are blind to the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[Apple7]

Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:

What a complete and utter massacre of the understanding of Greek!

Of course, there would not be any references provided...

 

[Apple7]

It is not. It is even clearer that it is not taught in the Bible anywhere, when you read it in the original languages, which you obviously can't do.

Show us...:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

Answering Apple's post #200: Interesting perceptions by you, Apple. Quite unique I'd say. And they don't hold water.

What's the matter....subject matter outside of your training?

 

[Apple7]

The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

Your unreferenced opinion means................nothing....

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Your unreferenced opinion means................nothing....

So you agree with the RCC versions.

LA

 

[Apple7]

So you agree with the RCC versions.

LA

3 Persons: 1 Being

 

[Crucible]

Anti-Trinitarians could understand the Trinity, but they just don't want to. It's part of a rejection of the established, universal belief. Jews and Muslims will do the same thing.

 

[NWL]

Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…

Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…

As I've already stated I personally do not find Wallace's rule correct in Titus 2:13. Be it down due to its lack of support from the trinitarian community -a thing which wallace himself stated- or Paul's lack of contextual agreement.

If you disagree, then exegetically show us why you differ...after all, you keep claiming that the original languages are where its at....and I keep calling your bluff...each...and every time that you show up for a few terse days, then disappear for another year...

As I've also stated before the reason why the original languages are my reference is because that's where English translations are derived from. I'm not trained nor even a layman in the field of ancient greek linguistics, but its 2015 my friend, a time when there anyone can study the writings from the oldest apologist to the most recent, with references to hundreds of translations, exegesis and variations of texts.

You whine like a child when I don't bow to your demand to give an exegesis on just about every statement, when you yourself don't do what you expect of others.

As quick as I did i offered an explanation to why I personally don't believe the tsks rule to be correct in relation to the Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter. There's no obligation on my part to offer a full blown greek exegesis as to why, especially when you'll simply complain that I've quoted your trinitarian brethren.

 

[NWL]

The Righteous are not judged.

JW's willfully deny God as HE has chosen to reveal Himself in scripture, and they will be judged...therefore, you can forget about being one of the 144K.

JW's will suffer the Second Death.

And what does the second death incur? Again is it a literal place, is it a place of torment?

It is a continuous spiritual state existing outside of Heaven in which the person is eternally separated from The Creator, and is referred to as torture.

When you say "It is a continuous spiritual state" I presume you believe once you are in this state you're in it forever? Are people actually being tortured, as in do they feel pain as the word torture would imply?

 

[NWL]

Let’s review two verses from Revelation which will put your 'Jesus is not God/Christ is a created creature' assertion to rest...


λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν και παν κτισμα ο εν τω ουρανω και επι της γης και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης [εστιν] και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων

legontes phōnē megalē axion estin to arnion to esphagmenon labein tēn dynamin kai plouton kai sophian kai ischyn kai timēn kai doxan kai eulogian kai pan ktisma ho en tō ouranō kai epi tēs gēs kai hypokatō tēs gēs kai epi tēs thalassēs kai ta en autois panta ēkousa legontas tō kathēmenō epi tō thronō kai tō arniō hē eulogia kai hē timē kai hē doxa kai to kratos eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn

Saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb having been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing. And every created thing in Heaven, and upon the earth, and underneath the earth, and upon the sea, and the things in all of them, I heard saying: To Him sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the power forever and ever. Rev 5.12 - 13


These verses clearly show the separation between created things ‘ktisma’ and Jesus.

All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ in Heaven, on earth, under the earth, and upon the sea, and all things in them – thus, all created things in God’s creation, are shown to worship Jesus as God.

Jesus is not a created creature..

All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ relates to the things which were created in Heaven, on the Earth, under the earth, and upon the sea. The heaven is a creation itself (Gen 1:1) which -from the JW perspective- Jesus was created before, thus there in no contradiction. Your reasoning here presents no problems for the JW.

Col 1:15 also begs to differ. Jesus is clearly shown as part of creation regardless of the meaning of prōtotokos in that verse. As every instance of firstborn of the NT and LXX will show, to be firstborn of a group demands that subject to be in that group.

Show us an example of someone/something in the bible which is firstborn of a group and yet not part of the same group of the thing they are firstborn of.

He is worshipped as the creator.

Where does it show Jesus is worshiped in the verses you've given?

Look at the doxology in Rev 5.12…

λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

The TSKS rule applies directly to this verse and mandates that this doxology is devoted entirely to Jesus.

This doxology includes:

• Power
• Wealth
• Wisdom
• Strength
• Honor
• Glory
• Blessing

This, then, imputes deity to Jesus.

Another assumption.

Rev 5.13 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, as it once again uses the very same singular attributes and ascribes them to both Theos and Jesus at the same time, as thus:


• Singular eulogia (blessing)
• Singular timē (honor)
• Singular doxa (glory)
• Singular kratos (power)

Absolutely no distinction is made in deity between Theos and Jesus!

Both are listed, but are given singular praise.

This is even further born-out in Rev 5.14.

Doesn't scripture explain that everything Jesus receives isn't for his himself but is only given to him so as to glorify God the Father?

(Phil 2:10,11) "...Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father..."

So because Jesus is given blessing, honor, glory and power the same as the Theos in Rev 5:13 -which no doubt are given to Jesus so he can glorify the Father as Phil 2:11 states- this makes him part of the trinity how? Doesn't the trinity include three and not two? How then is this a loud and clear declaration of the trinity if one person is missing, makes no mention about them being one or even Jesus being Thoes with Phil 2:11 explaining the purpose of Jesus receiving blessings, honor, glory and power.

Jude 1:27 reconfirms what I've stated above, that Jesus receives attributes through himself, which intern are to the glory of the only true God the Father. (Phil 1:11 NIV, Romans 16:27, 1 Peter 4:11 also refer)

(Jude 1:27) "...Now to God who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen..."

 

[NWL]

And after these things, I heard a great voice of a large multitude in Heaven, saying, Hallelujah! The salvation and the glory and the honor and the power of the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He judged the great harlot who defiled the earth with her fornication. And He avenged the blood of His slaves out of her hand. And a second time they said, Hallelujah! Also her smoke goes up to the ages of the ages. And the twenty four elders, and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God sitting on the throne, saying, Amen! Hallelujah! And a voice came out from the throne, saying, Praise our God, all His slaves, and the ones fearing Him, the small and the great. And I heard as a sound of a numerous crowd, and as a sound of many waters, and as a sound of strong thunders, saying, Hallelujah! Because the Lord God Almighty reigned. (Rev 19.1 – 6)

A close reading of the text informs the reader that the term ‘Hallelujah’ (i.e. Praise Yahweh) is proclaimed by the large multitude (i.e. the Righteous in Heaven), not once (Rev 19.1), not twice (Rev 19.3), but three separate times (Rev 19.6).

This is in keeping with the Three Person; One Being Triune God formula already established in scripture.

Now that the Father, Son and Spirit have been established and are worshiped by The Righteous; a separate confirmation of this singular truth is proclaimed by the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures (Rev 19.4).

Yet another Biblical proof that the One God is Triune and His Righteous worship Him as Triune.

Further, Rev 19 is about The Son, of which, can only mean that His name is Yahweh, as the Hallelujah is towards Him.

The doxology contained in Rev 19.1 – 2 pertains to Jesus, and, as we already know, these epithets have already been applied to Jesus numerous times in scripture.

Show us where the Holy spirit is shown as sitting on Gods throne as you must suggest.

Show us where the Holy Spirit has the name YHWH.

Is it possible that these Hallelujahs were only in reference to the one "God who sits on the throne" at the end of v4?

 

[WeberHome]

-
On page 1129 of the Watchtower publication Aid To Bible Understanding; a
mediator is defined as one who interposes between two parties at variance
to reconcile them: an intercessor.

Here's a question that someone wrote in to the "Questions From Readers"
section of the April 01, 1976 issue of Watch Tower magazine, asking:

"Is Jesus the mediator only for anointed Christians? (a.k.a. the 144,000)

The answer given in the magazine is YES.

The magazine's answer is corroborated on page 1130 of Aid To Bible
Understanding where it says that the 144,000 are the only ones who have
the mediator; a.k.a. Jesus Christ. (1John 2:1)

Intercession for the earthly class-- the hewers of wood and the haulers of
water, a.k.a. the great crowd --is accomplished on the coattails of the
144,000 anointed Witnesses; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party
mediator for the rank and file via the kindly patronage of the Watchtower
Society.

It's sort of like buying insurance from Allstate. The company doesn't sell
direct; its business is conducted through brokers. In essence, that's what the
Society presumes itself: Jesus Christ's brokerage.

So then; when a member of the earthly class either defects or is dis
fellowshipped, it breaks the pipeline to the mediator that he enjoyed within
the Society's fold; and he right quick loses all contact with God; and finds
himself in grave danger of the Tribulation.

Bottom line: According to Watch Tower Society theology; it is impossible for
non-anointed people to be on peaceful terms with God apart from affiliation
with the Society's anointed class, a.k.a. the faithful and wise steward.

In other words: Christ's mediation as per 1Tim 2:5 is accomplished via a
hierarchy that begins with Christ's association with the anointed class; and
from thence to the rest of humanity. Removing the anointed class from the
chain of command; cuts humanity off from Christ.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Apple7]

Anti-Trinitarians could understand the Trinity, but they just don't want to. It's part of a rejection of the established, universal belief. Jews and Muslims will do the same thing.

Agreed...

 

[Apple7]

As I've already stated I personally do not find Wallace's rule correct in Titus 2:13. Be it down due to its lack of support from the trinitarian community -a thing which wallace himself stated- or Paul's lack of contextual agreement.

As quick as I did i offered an explanation to why I personally don't believe the tsks rule to be correct in relation to the Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter. There's no obligation on my part to offer a full blown greek exegesis as to why, especially when you'll simply complain that I've quoted your trinitarian brethren.

You can't even state the rule to begin with, much less show any disagreement.

Therefore, the rule stands.

As I've also stated before the reason why the original languages are my reference is because that's where English translations are derived from. I'm not trained nor even a layman in the field of ancient greek linguistics, but its 2015 my friend, a time when there anyone can study the writings from the oldest apologist to the most recent, with references to hundreds of translations, exegesis and variations of texts.

You never use the original languages.